2003-02-26
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Gallery of the Year 6/7 students from Howard Springs Primary School accompanied by their teachers, Geoff Nalder, Robby Dunbar, Tanya Ham and Alison Holmes. There are three groups of students from Howard Springs visiting Parliament House today and the students will alternate viewing the Assembly. On behalf of all members I offer you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Territory Construction Association and Northern Land Council – Memorandum of Understanding
Territory Construction Association and Northern Land Council – Memorandum of Understanding
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, in December 2002 the Territory Construction Association and the Northern Land Council signed a historic memorandum of understanding aimed at improving training and employment opportunities for indigenous Territorians in the Top End. The TCA is the peak body for the construction industry in the Northern Territory and the NLC is the largest indigenous organisation within the Top End.
The memorandum of understanding grew out of the relationship which was forged between the TCA and NLC during the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The TCA had been contracted to develop the training plan and to be the training coordinators for the project. The NLC at the same time was undertaking the selection and referral of indigenous candidates for training, as well as the mentoring and support role for trained indigenous persons once they commenced employment on the railway project. This proved a successful alliance with over 1100 people completing some form of rail-related training. Of this number, 750 received nationally accredited training and over 33% of the trainees were indigenous. To date, over 150 indigenous people have been placed in employment on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project by the NLC.
The TCA and the NLC will, under the memorandum of understanding, offer their services to major infrastructure projects such as the Wickham Point LNG developments, the Bradshaw Field Training Area Defence project, the Alcan refinery expansion at Nhulunbuy, and gas and pipeline construction. It is recognised that there are, at times, shortages in skilled labour in the Territory but this will be alleviated by the alliance as it develops a pool of trained, reliable and multiskilled workers. At the moment, by dint of the railway project, the NLC has over 600 indigenous people, both potential trainees and trained workers, in its database and this will be augmented as operations under the MOU are commissioned.
The TCA role is to develop the project training plan; to identify and design, in conjunction with the developer, the appropriate courses; and thereafter to coordinate the timing, design and delivery of training on the ground. The NLC maintains a database of training candidates; selects and refers candidates who are suitable for the job or training to the developer; and designs and delivers follow-up mentoring and support for referred indigenous persons and their families.
The delivery of services under the MOU comprise direct employment of indigenous workers; pre-employment training for predominantly indigenous workers; and training for existing employees. The TCA and NLC recognise that successful outcomes will rely upon the holistic approach of the model and good communication between all parties. The MOU will provide major benefits to developers in that training will be designed to fit the needs of the specific project; there will be a ‘one stop point of contact’ for all training and indigenous employment requirements; and the TCA and NLC will provide an independent and cost-effective service which has a demonstrated performance record. Training will not be undertaken for training’s sake and employment systems will be focussed on maximising the retention rate of employees.
It is exciting to see the development of a commercial relationship between an industry association and an indigenous organisation which, on the basis of mutual understanding and respect, will provide a quantum leap of opportunity for growth in the construction industry and for the involvement of indigenous Territorians in the economic development of the Northern Territory.
I was very proud to be at the signing ceremony for the MOU a couple of weeks ago at the TCA offices. It was a very exciting and very proud moment in the Territory’s development when we saw the TCA coming together with a peak indigenous body, and understanding that the future for the Northern Territory lies in cooperation. The future lies in us, as Territorians, working together to deliver jobs for Territorians on the back of the investment that is coming. This is a very significant and exciting development. I believe that this is a national role model that could well be adopted around Australia. My sincere congratulations to both the TCA and the NLC. It is a fantastic initiative. Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the MOU.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the initiative is also greeted warmly by the opposition. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that this is an initiative that could be exported to other places. We all know the social difficulties that affect Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, particularly issues that have as their root cause unemployment and under employment. Any initiative to increase employment for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory is warmly applauded by the opposition.
Obviously, training and a direct link with employment opportunities are critical issues to this. I note that his colleague, the member for Arnhem, in a previous life had a similar role with the Jawoyn Association and Mt Todd. I believe that the investment that is made - be it the railway, Wickham Point or whatever - lives on long past the actual project. It makes sure that this repository of skills and knowledge and experience stays in the Northern Territory. It also addresses in some way, often a major way, some of the social problems that occur in Aboriginal communities that stem from unemployment.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his very supportive comments. We can all be very proud today of this initiative. I would just like to recognise in the gallery the CEO of the TCA, Michael Kilgariff; congratulations on this initiative. We all agree that it is a magnificent step forward. It is a milestone in the Northern Territory’s development. The vision and the foresight that has gone into this initiative on the back of the railway, to see how we can develop a local skilled work force and for Aboriginal people to be part of that, is absolutely magnificent.
It is one of the highlights of the last six months in the Northern Territory. It is a fantastic initiative and congratulations to everybody who has been involved.
Integrated Offender Management System
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the Office of Crime Prevention is doing a fantastic job of putting together the framework and strategy that we are developing in the area of preventing crime. Despite the disparaging remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about both them and the community crime groups last week, we are now formulating a wide-ranging set of initiatives that not only look at the traditional areas of punishment and rehabilitation that occurs in the justice system, but also a whole range of early interventions that will cut off people from the crime cycle much earlier in the process, thereby saving the community a lot of harm and the government a lot of expense.
One of the most important areas of the overall crime prevention strategies was announced as part of my statement on indigenous people in the justice system. That is the move we are making towards an Integrated Offender Management System within Correctional Services. This is the first formal strategy to be used in the NT Correctional Services system to target re-offending. Clearly, if we can reduce the rates of re-offending in people who have come into the criminal justice system and then been subsequently passed on to our Correctional Services structures, we are going to have an impact on the crime rates within the community. As these often involve the more serious offenders, it is often serious crimes that we are talking about. We are very committed to introducing this as a new form of professional practice by prison officers and the community corrections personnel working within our government system.
Integrated Offender Management provides a comprehensive management of the offender from first contact with the correctional system, through the sentence period, to reintegration with family and community after the prison term has ended. It targets repeat offenders and those most at risk of re-offending when they are released. Programs address common problems such as literacy, numeracy, lack of job skills, drug and alcohol abuse, and anger management. One of the main aims is for the successful release to family and community, identified as a key factor in reducing re-offending throughout the world. In our case, it links very strongly to the development of community justice programs, such as the initial system under the Kurduju Committee in the Warlpiri communities, in the case of remote communities; and to the community justice programs such as the Juvenile Justice Program in Alice Springs that are operating now in our urban centres.
In both cases, we will be building bridges between the in-prison programs that the offenders receive, and the arrangements that are made as they are taken out of the prison system and back into the community. We no longer want to be pushing people through the front gate of our prisons and leave entirely to the fates what happens to them as regards any further antisocial behavior or re-offending
I travelled to New Zealand with the NT Correctional Services Commissioner to talk to the New Zealand Minister for Corrections, the previous minister who had overseen the introduction of Integrated Offender Management, the CEO of New Zealand Corrections, senior corrections staff who are responsible for policy operations and information technology aspects of the system, and the operational staff who use the system on a daily basis within New Zealand Correctional Services. I also visited Maori and youth focus groups at Rimatarka Prison and was briefed on the risk assessment system used for the range of offenders including those who committed sex offences and other violent crimes.
I place on the public record my thanks for the in-depth briefing and generous ongoing offers of cooperation I received from the New Zealand Correctional Services people and the ministers. We now enjoy open access to its operations and advice. I am sure that will be of great benefit as we introduce this valuable new approach into our own correctional services system and into our arrangements within justice programs as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to bringing further reports on this development to the House as it proceeds.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the minister has cast a very wide net in his report to parliament discussing several issues. Unfortunately, my time to reply is somewhat limited. The only thing that I urge the government to be mindful of is that, when considering indigenous law, there are certain fundamental basics which will not be breached regarding the operation of indigenous law. I know that indigenous law is a wide body of law and the vast majority of it would fit quite comfortably within the framework of existing law passed by this House. However, there are aspects which do breach certain minimum standards in some instances. I urge the government to reiterate its position that those minimums will not be breached at all.
Secondly, I congratulate Corrections on the excellent work that they have been doing in the past. The horticultural certificates that are coming through the Alice Springs Correctional Centre are certainly providing training for people. They come out with Certificate 1 or 2 level horticultural certificates. It would be nice to see further development in communities, however, to see those certificates actually earning a living for people in those communities. I would be well pleased to see it.
The CLP started off the Ali Curung crime initiative, which was referred to by the minister very briefly. It was so successful that Ali Curung is a community you would not recognise from five years ago. It is completely and utterly different. I congratulate the former government for starting the initiative. I am glad that the new government is continuing and expanding on the initiative. I congratulate the people of Ali Curung.
The other thing is that I was a little disappointed not to be able to go to New Zealand with the minister. I would have liked to have seen a lot more about what the minister is trying to achieve. Unfortunately, his budget did not extend to inviting me along. That is life in the big city. But, if this government thinks that, at the moment, they have crime under control, then they should revisit the newspaper today.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I will take that as an endorsement of the way we are proceeding with this initiative. If you claim that it is building on CLP approaches, then I will accept that. I am sure you are going to now support the approaches that we are taking in this matter.
Regarding the overseas trip, you certainly could have come on that if you were going to use your overseas entitlement. I was more than happy to accept that. It is important to make a commitment of your entitlements instead of using them on a junket at a later date.
AusLink: Towards the National Land Transport Plan
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I provide members with information regarding the Territory government’s response to the proposed AusLink road and rail transport green paper presented to the community by Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson in November 2002. Let me remind you that, in May 2002, the minister announced that he intended to change the way land transport infrastructure is planned, developed and funded in Australia.
The Northern Territory has now made a submission to the Commonwealth. This submission also addresses other issues that have arisen since the release of the green paper. Our government was pleased to see recognition of the importance of regional and remote area access through the provision of a network of national transport corridors, and also a network of regional links that provide access between the national network and local communities. We were also pleased to see that the green paper proposes that the three main interstate land transport links in the Territory - the Brisbane/Darwin road, the Adelaide/Darwin rail and road, and Perth/Darwin road - are included in the proposed AusLink National Network.
The Northern Territory submission supports the inclusion of these links, and also indicates that the Adelaide/Darwin link should extend to the new port at East Arm. However, the issue of greatest concern is the possibility that the Commonwealth will renege on its current arrangement for fully-funded maintenance of the national highway network. At present, these highways are fully funded by the Commonwealth under the terms of a 1991 agreement between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The Northern Territory will have to carefully consider its options if the Commonwealth ends its 100% funding of maintenance of the national highways. The potential implications for the Northern Territory budget are significant.
In releasing the green paper, the Commonwealth gave an undertaking that the current national highway project would not be affected. However, the Commonwealth has yet to clarify what projects are included in this, and we are still awaiting advice on this. The green paper proposes directing some of the current federal funds for local roads to developing regionally significant local road links. The green paper also raises the possibility of direct Commonwealth/local government links for the provision of these funds.
The Northern Territory submission rejects the idea of direct Commonwealth/local government links for regionally significant local roads. The submission says that the Northern Territory government must be involved in any discussion about future funding options for these roads because much of the Territory pastoral area is unincorporated and the roads in these areas, along with many of the most important roads in these areas administered by local government, and owned and managed by the Northern Territory. Our submission also raises the issue of the poor state of most local roads on Aboriginal land. The funding received for those roads is approximately $4m annually, while the government considers that the amount required is around $8m.
Most Territorians are aware of the importance of defence and border protection. The Territory is the location for a number of major military and security installations. It is somewhat surprising that the AusLink green paper does not consider defence or border protection issues when discussing priorities for upgrading the national transport network. The Northern Territory submission draws the Commonwealth’s attention to this omission. The Defence Forces make extensive use of the Northern Territory road network to access bases and facilities, and can be expected to also make use of the Darwin railway when it is completed.
The Northern Territory submission provides a list of priorities on the Territory sections of the national transport network which the Northern Territory government considers are of high priority for Commonwealth funding under AusLink. These priorities are: maintenance and rehabilitation of the national highways; enhanced flood immunity on the Stuart Highway north of Katherine and on the Victoria Highway; a new, more direct road link between the Stuart Highway and new port at East Arm; and improved overtaking opportunities on the Stuart Highway north of Katherine. In addition to these priorities, the government has also drawn attention to the need to address deficiencies in the railway between Adelaide and Melbourne, as these are preventing gains in rail productivity that would increase the competitiveness of the rail.
The Commonwealth is expected to release its AusLink white paper by mid-2003. It will provide information on how the Commonwealth intends to implement AusLink. Madam Speaker, I table the submission for the information of the members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, at the outset, this is a totally inappropriate way to debate this matter. I have received a brief on the green paper from the federal minister’s office. There are significant issues there. There is a major change on how the Commonwealth intends funding transport; whether it is a road, or a various category like local or national, to a more strategic transport and freight link. That would accord with the thinking of many jurisdictions, with the small caveat that if it affects us with matters relating to money, we are going to get pretty snaky about it.
I will read with interest the Northern Territory government’s submission. I note that the Northern Territory government, while it should be very robust in taking matters like this up to the Commonwealth, has some roads of its own it should start looking after. I suggest that it will not be very long before they can get rid of all the speed cameras up here, because the speed bumps they have put in the roads coming into this place are absolutely full of pot holes at the moment. Before anybody stands up parading as a transport minister and talks about federal responsibilities, he should look at least to his domestic responsibilities and the poor state of the Territory’s roads.
The arterial roads around this place that are the responsibility of this minister, are falling into disrepair. This is essential infrastructure. It would put work into the hands of many contractors who depend on civil works of this nature. I ask the minister to get on with his own portfolio responsibilities, to provide the paper for wider debate and to provide an opportunity for this House to look at the very complex issues that he has just dropped on the table in this mini-statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. The reality is that I have spoken about AusLink many times now and had interviews. When has the member sought a briefing? We have never had a request from the member seeking a briefing. He sought one from John Anderson but, obviously, the Territory is not good enough.
On the other hand, I am surprised that he actually now criticises the Territory. We would be very pleased to discuss these issues with him. However, he should bear in mind that every single minister of every state and territory in Australia is against AusLink. As for our own network, we know it has problems. We know we have extreme weather conditions. Every Wet, as you should be aware, our network suffers. However, we are trying to fix it up, and thanks to your help we are unable to fix all the network after what you left us with, or without, and we had to pour money in. Yes, we started.
Let me tell you, the Territory is the only territory that is still unincorporated, thanks to 27 years of CLP initiatives. Let me remind you also that the Territory is the only place where lack of local government does not draw the $20m it would be entitled to if we were incorporated by the Commonwealth. Also, we do not draw any rates from any pastoral industry, including the Sultan of Brunei.
Grapevine Leaf Rust Eradication
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of Commonwealth plans to eradicate grapevine leaf rust from the Darwin and Palmerston areas. Grapevine leaf rust is widely distributed in Asia, including Indonesia and East Timor. The presence of the disease was detected in the northern suburbs of Darwin in July 2001. I can assure members and the community that there are no health effects for humans or animals from this disease. Both the grapes and the leaves from infected vines are still safe for consumption.
Grapevine leaf rust is caused by the fungus Phakopsora euvitis. Its symptoms are that, during wet periods such as we are currently experiencing, the leaves turn a yellow colour and become covered in a rusty coloured film. Since the outbreak, my department of Primary Industries has carried out initial surveys and monitoring to assess the extent of the outbreak. This has been carried out throughout the Territory, particularly the Ti Tree region where the Territory’s grape industry is based. Departments in other states have carried out similar surveys. The disease has not been detected anywhere outside Darwin.
The Australian grape and wine industries have an annual value of $3.6bn and the disease could potentially affect most of Australia’s commercial growing areas. When heavily infected, vines could exhibit reduced vigour and productivity, and additional costs would be required to control this disease. You may well understand that the grape and wine industries, including our own, are very keen for this disease to be eradicated. As such, at the Primary Industries ministerial council meeting in October 2002, agreement was reached to attempt disease eradication with an initial cost in the first year in the order of $1m, and with funding provided under a cost sharing agreement between the states and the Commonwealth governments. This cost sharing agreement involves a 50/50 split between Commonwealth and the states. The relative cost for individual states is determined by the size of the grape and wine industries in each state.
Although our industry at Ti Tree is growing strongly, the size of the NT industry is very small compared to southern states, hence the size of our contribution is negligible. It is confined to the provision of an in-kind component of staff time and expertise. Darwin and the Territory is particularly susceptible to the disease with our proximity to Asia and tropical climate. It is very important that we support the Commonwealth and states in this agreement, because agreements such as this, with the next incursion of some other disease - whether it be in livestock or in horticulture - may threaten a major Territory industry, and we will want similar assistance from other states and the Commonwealth.
Extensive planning for a proposed community-based national grapevine leaf rust eradication program has occurred. A work plan has been drawn up for the program to commence in mid-March 2003 and continue until June 2006. The federal Agriculture minister, Mr Warren Truss, will be announcing further details of this shortly. All properties in the urban areas of Darwin and Palmerston region and some high risk properties identified in the rural area will be visited and inspected for the presence of grapevines during 2003. No properties will be inspected or entered without the owner’s or occupier’s permission.
I understand that many people do have cultural attachments to their grapevines. While wine making is not extensive in the Darwin region, the leaves are commonly used for cooking. Various ethnic communities of Darwin do grow a lot of grapevines. Grapevines also have an aesthetic appeal on several properties and are grown to form shady canopies. This government is aware of the attachment that many people have to their vines, but preventing the potential effects of the spread of this disease does have a priority. Where detected, diseased vines will be removed and destroyed. Permission to remove non-diseased vines will be sought. In some cases, an offer of incentives supplied by industry sources could facilitate this permission. Furthermore, monitoring of remaining healthy vines will be negotiated.
This is a very important program and, by the end of 2003 most, if not all properties in Darwin and Palmerston area will have been inspected. I invite any member who wishes to find out more on this issue on behalf of their constituents to contact my office to request a briefing. Explanatory literature will be sent to electorate offices.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister has finally addressed this important issue. Weeds and weed control, particularly in the rural area, is a big issue. The particular weed that the minister referred to, grapevine leaf rust, is not something with which I have had particular experience, but I know that weeds as an issue generally do cause a great deal of problem, not just in the contamination of pastures and potential costs.
Mr Stirling: It is an important issue, and you do not even know what it is.
Mr MALEY: It is a rush. Okay, I see what you are saying.
Ms Carter: Rust, rust.
Mr MALEY: Rust, yes. Okay, okay. I may as well take the minister up on the briefing he offered. But these type of diseases, along with weeds, have the potential of affecting the rural industry. I commend the minister and the government for at least addressing the issue and …
Mr Stirling: We will write to you.
Mr MALEY: Yes. Madam Speaker, just on one other point, it is good to see that the minister has taken the time to at least ensure that those people who are going to have their grapevines inspected for this rust on their properties, will be notified and there will be a fair bit of consultation and, hopefully, cooperation.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I welcome the reply from the member for Goyder. I also welcome the fact that he has decided to respond on an issue of primary industries. Yesterday, on the hay issue, the member for Daly responded. I suppose the reason for that is that it in his electorate, but I welcome the member for Goyder’s statement on it.
It is an important and sensitive issue. As I said, there are many ethnic groups in Darwin - Portuguese, Timorese, Greek people and others - who have a very close attachment to their vines. What is outlined in my statement is that we will move sensitively, but we need to move to ensure not only the viability of our industry in Ti Tree, but the viability of a $3.6bn industry Australia wide.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Public Assessment of Alternative Industrial Development Sites, Darwin Region
Public Assessment of Alternative Industrial Development Sites, Darwin Region
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
- That the government initiate a public assessment of the alternative industrial development sites in the
Darwin region including the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point and while that assessment
is occurring, the government place a monitorium on industrial development on the Ware Peninsula,
specifically land and sea covered by sections 1814, 1817, 1791 Hundred of Ayres, not including the
Phillips LNG site.
I brought along this small photograph for clarification at the beginning of this discussion. Many words are used about what we are talking about. The minister mentioned Wickham Point last night, the Ware Peninsula is mentioned and Middle Arm is mentioned. The area I am discussing today is basically this …
Mr Henderson: You finally found a use of John Elferink.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. The area we are discussing is the area that is all attached to the mainland. It has nothing to do with the two small islands. Wickham Point is where Phillips Petroleum is. It is nothing else. That is the only area that is called Wickham Point. The rest of the mainland is the Ware Peninsula or Middle Arm Peninsula. I will refer to that as Middle Arm Peninsula because all of government documents now have reverted to the description of Middle Arm Peninsula.
Last year, this House debated a motion which basically asked the government to stop, take a deep breath and think about: (1) the future of industrial development in the Darwin region; and (2) the future of the Middle Arm Peninsula. Perhaps for some, as long as we have a harbour full of ships, as long as it looks like the Territory is progressing and we can say to the business sector, ‘Look at all that development’, as long as it will help us get elected next time, and ‘Please do not bring into parliament any ideas which might upset our grand plan, we are not interested in any debate, regardless of whether there is an alternative’; if it is not in our plan, then forget it.
I make these conclusions from listening to the government’s response in parliament last year. I believe the government has no long-term vision for the whole of our harbour. The government is not thinking outside the square when it comes to Darwin Harbour. It accepts what the consultants or planners say, and no more, and it has little concern for the views that many people have for our harbour. After all, we have been told by the planners the 1990 Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan is simply a conceptual plan. But really it is not conceptual. The word ‘conceptual’ is a smoke screen for this plan which has avoided public scrutiny and debate, has allowed little alternative vision, and been blindly followed as if it was a bible. That is why it took so much effort to overturn the so-called concept of damming the estuaries of Darwin and Bynoe Harbours. Happily, the previous government, with the support of the opposition then, overturned that concept. It was willing not just to accept what the planners had proposed. It showed that this concept plan could at least be challenged; a most sensible decision. I applaud the opposition, and now government, which did give that support, but I ask: is that the end of it?
If you look at the last debate on the Middle Arm Peninsula and take out all the irrelevant matters, the red herrings, the things I was supposed to have said but did not, and the lack of understanding of what I was trying to explain to the government, then perhaps the government may see what this renewed motion is about and have the courage and wisdom to support it.
Recently, in the Lands and Planning Annual Report 2002, two documents were mentioned in relation to industrial development, which surprisingly were not mentioned in the previous debate. I thank the government for allowing me to have these documents. These two documents I show here are the ones they have given us, and I will explain what they are: The Development of Major Industrial Estates in Darwin by Brown and Root Services Asia Pacific Pty Ltd for the then Department of Transport and Works, 29 October 2001, and the Darwin Regional Industrial Estates Planning and Development Overview for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, March 2002.
These are very important documents if you want to see where governments have based their policies on the harbour. I must also query the use of Brown and Root as the author of one of these reports as they are also involved in the railway. There seems to be a perceived conflict of interest, especially when they make recommendations on the siting of container terminals and railway infrastructure.
Regardless, there are some glaring deficiencies in these reports. There is practically no mention of the environment in either of these documents. You would think that, if you wished to industrialise around 1000 hectares of native vegetation and mangroves, the environment may get a look-in. But no, there is no thought given to alternative industrial sites. You surely would expect that other sites would be investigated if you wanted to come up with a comprehensive report, showing all the possible sites for future industrialisation of our region. Only three sites are discussed: Middle Arm; East Arm and Glyde Point. It seems to be a case of a fait accompli. There is no discussion about alternative uses of some of this land and the possible economic benefits that may arise from alternative uses.
What do these reports say? What are the reasons for the government wanting to develop Middle Arm Peninsula as an industrial subdivision? I am concentrating primarily on Middle Arm rather than East Arm or Glyde Point to focus on the motion before us. From these reports, the ultimate vision is to develop Middle Arm, along with the East Arm Port, into part of Darwin’s Australian transport hub. The focus, according to the reports, would be on a railway marshalling yard, and fully developing the Middle Arm with so-called clean industry such as a container terminal that will not spoil Darwin Harbour. It could also be used as service corridors, as it presently is; that is power and gas.
In the previous debate, members of the government had various views on how to use the Middle Arm area. I quote some of these views from the Hansard of 9 October:
industry is required to support the LNG plant.
accommodating businesses established in the Middle Arm Peninsula industrial estate
to directly service the LNG plant.
the only thing that will go in Middle Arm will be the LNG plant.
the only development at Middle Arm will be the LNG development and any other industry
that will support the construction of the LNG plant and support the LNG in that place.
section 1814, along with section 1870 will be zoned ‘development’ to accommodate transport
related and general industry.
hypothetically, storing containers if there is a suggestion of storage for those in the Middle Arm
Peninsula will be complementary to the operations of East Arm and will help in reducing costs.
[I refer to the Chief Minister’s statement on Stateline last year] the development of Middle Arm will
be Winnellie-type industrial development.
Last night, the minister, when talking on the economic development statement, mentioned that light industry was to go in the middle of the harbour. It is obvious to me that the government is not sure what type of industry they intend to put in the harbour, but we do know they want to put industry there.
Why does the government push for the Middle Arm Peninsula to be used for industry? There are a number of reasons. The first is native title. In the words of the Minister for Lands and Planning, on page 2569 of the Parliamentary Record dated 9 October last year:
We can take all the industry and put it at Koolpinyah Station; it might be cheaper, but that cannot be
guaranteed because we have to acquire the station, the pastoral lease. The moment you start acquiring
large tracts of land for other purposes than pastoral leases, you immediately have problems with native
title, you immediately trigger demands for compensation. This place [Middle Arm] is already clear of
native title. It was freehold in 1884; that means the government does not have to pay a dollar.
A statement like this coming from a government which has put such an emphasis on its relationship with Aboriginal people and its support for Native Title, is simply unbelievable. Native title will cause us problems and will cost us money; that is what they are saying. I am astounded that this government can really say after all the rhetoric we have heard since this government came into office. Not only that, it is saying that land freeholded in 1884 is not subject to native title claim. As the Territory government owns this land, it seems extraordinary that it is using a technical argument to get around native title. If there were a real belief in native title then surely the government which prides itself on its Aboriginal policies would not let a technicality get in the road of a principle.
Is the argument that the government would not have to pay a dollar relevant? I believe not. If the government allowed the land which had native title to be developed by the traditional owners, then what cost would that be to government? We have now seen housing developments in Palmerston owned or partly owned by traditional owners. If it is okay for that to occur, and we have heard much praise for that agreement, then why could not traditional owners develop industrial estates in areas outside of the harbour?
The government says it will, therefore, be cheaper to use the land on Middle Arm. But the fact is that it will sell the industrial land to a developer who will subdivide it and then sell it off with the cost of the original purchase price built into the price of the block. To the purchaser of an industrial block, there will be no difference if he bought the land from a traditional owner, developer or a government selected developer. Maybe the government would make more money from selling off Middle Arm than if industrial land outside of the harbour was developed and sold by the traditional owners. I hope the government’s case for industrialising the centre of the harbour is not based on making a quid for its coffers, because other options would not give the same return. I hope the future of the harbour is not based on profit.
The second reason the government would like to move to Middle Arm is the cost of land at East Arm. The government is saying land is too valuable at East Arm, so we have to go to Middle Arm. Well, the truth of the matter is that the great plans to bury the mangroves are now too expensive. Oh dear, how sad! Brown and Root say the reclamation - which is a lovely word for covering up something that is not being reclaimed – of land from mangrove areas is technically difficult, has major environmental implications, and is very costly. Brown and Root quote $0.5m to $1m per hectare, depending on the depth of fill required and the silt that needs to be removed. Because the conceptual plans for filling in Hudson Creek are out the door, will we include Middle Arm as part of the new concept? What will happen is that about one third of the harbour will become industrial - if you include Middle Arm and the East Arm hub - and that is the map provided in the reports. That is approximately one-third of the harbour. The purple area is industrial.
The focus will be that our harbour will become mainly industrial, if this goes ahead. Simply, the centre of the harbour will become industrial. The government has looked at the cost of land at East Arm and compared that to developing Middle Arm, but left out any evaluation of Darwin Harbour as a beautiful natural harbour and its potential economic relationship, for instance, with tourism. I should also include that the government’s plans are to put it a bridge, from Blaydin Point to East Arm. I believe the cost of that bridge would be astronomical. It is a huge bridge and you could spend that money on putting infrastructure to an alternative site.
The third reason that the government wants to move to Middle Arm is because they are saying: ‘Well, we are only going to put benign industries in that area’. The government has put great emphasis on the idea that the industry they propose for Middle Arm will be non-polluting. Firstly, if they reckon that industry will not pollute the harbour, they are deluding themselves. See what comes out of Winnellie; check the water analysis of the main drain into the harbour from Winnellie. It has some of the highest readings of Dieldrin in the harbour. To say that industry will not pollute is silly. There may not be the risk that may happen with highly toxic waste industries, but there will be risks. With no buffer proposed along the proposed new conservation zone covering the mangroves, then the risk of pollution will be even greater.
The minister stated in parliament recently:
- What we are doing now is put the benign industry that is not going to have a negative effect upon
the environment ...
Not going to have an effect on the environment? Well, blow me down and bless my soul! The total area for development is recognised at about 900 hectares by Brown and Root. If you look at your new development zone map you will see that it is all high ground on the Middle Arm Peninsula. That means the centre of our harbour, that is 900 hectares of native vegetation - give or take a bit, the government continues to clear for gravel – will be wiped out. If that is not a negative effect on the harbour, I will eat my hat.
Here is the centre of our beautiful harbour, the piece that everyone sees as they fly in, turned into a waste land for benign industry. No effect on the environment? What a joke! No effect on the aesthetics of the harbour? Give us a break! The conservation zone will be just a joke. It will prove itself to be the kind it is meant to be, it will surrounded by industry, right up to the edge.
What are the alternatives, and why has the government not had a look at alternative sites? Surely, the residents of the Darwin region would expect the government to look at all possibilities before they took such a permanent and drastic step to industrialise the harbour. But they have not.
There are a number of alternatives. There is land to the north of Palmerston - I have brought another super map in - and that land is shown on the land use objectives the government has put out recently. And that is there, north of Palmerston. The government proposes a corridor to be built from East Arm Port to Glyde Point. Again, that is the corridor going right past that area. The corridor will contain water, power, possibly gas, rail and a road. It will pass south of Robertson Barracks and then continue to the north of Howard Park. Between Robertson Barracks and the Howard Springs Nature Park is land which is presently zoned ‘EX, extractive industry’, and shown as a possible site for the regional waste disposal site for local councils. The land is approximately the same area as that of Middle Arm and is only five to 10 minutes from Palmerston. There may be more land available if the Army does not really need all that neighbouring land that is presently also used for extractive industries, for training.
Another site is Berrimah. The government speaks about a container terminal. Brown and Root talk about the need to store 1.5 million containers. Whether that is a realistic figure, I am not sure. You would need around 75 hectares to house 1.5 million containers and to be close to the port to cut down on delivery time, meaning costs. One possible site may be where the Berrimah gas-fired power station is sited on Vanderlin Drive. The land is zoned ‘restricted development’ because of its alignment to the runway. There is adequate land there and it is six minutes from the port. It is next to an industrial area and is not affecting the environment as the land has been cleared for many years. It could also be landscaped to lessen the visual impact from Vanderlin Drive. No doubt, such development would have to have the approval from Air Services Australia, but surely must be an option.
Lloyd Creek is an area close to another corridor. Lloyd Creek is presently a mixture of pastoral and freehold land to the west of Elizabeth Valley. Why do I pick this site? Well, it is also on the proposed corridor from Middle Arm to Glyde Point. There will be a major arterial road along that route as well as carrying other services. It will be 10 to 15 minutes from the new township of Weddell, and closer to the rural area. It has the possibilities of a future site.
The fourth site is Koolpinyah Station. During the last debate the minister, for some reason, thought I wanted the government to buy all of Koolpinyah Station. This was not so, and again showed the government’s lack of understanding of the arguments or basic geography. There is land belonging to Koolpinyah along the proposed East Arm to Glyde Point corridor which could be used for industrial land - and I stress some land is suitable, not the whole lot - but it is another option. So there are four possible sites for industrial development not even mentioned in this report.
What are the alternative uses for Middle Arm? Tourism. What is clear from this debate is that the government does not value the harbour from a long-term perspective. To have a harbour in its natural state with development set judiciously back from it is to provide a unique opportunity for Darwin to have within its centre - within its heart - a tourist attraction that few other cities in the world could ever boast or dream about. Tourism is one of our major industries and will last longer than all the gas in the world. Tourism is an industry that does not require a lot of infrastructure in this case; the beauty is built in. Tourism in the harbour is the ocean, the birds, the fish, the coral, the sponges, the mangroves, the crabs, the longbums, the tides, the currents, the silence, the sunsets, the landscapes and just the escapes. Tourism is the closeness of all of this to those who come to our city. Where else can you find this beauty on your doorstep, from your balcony, from the shore? What we have here is something no one else has. Do we now join the others and lose such a wonderful opportunity?
Another use could be for a national conservation marine park in association with tourism. To preserve our harbour we will need vision and regulation. To say we will preserve our harbour by zoning mangroves will be seen by many as a decision based on a love for mangroves, not an understanding of mangroves, nor an understanding of the broader environment of the harbour, but based on a belief that we are doing something. I applaud the government for its move to zone the mangroves, but just on its own, it does not make sense. Yes, it is a good start, but why not do it right in the first place? Industry adjacent to the mangroves - and that is exactly what is designed here, industry straight up against mangroves - means the long-term health of the mangroves will always be threatened by pollution, filling and development.
Trying to zone Middle Arm ‘DV development’, will not fool people. Industry is what you are going to put in the middle of the harbour; industry that does not have to go there. The long-term future of the harbour can only be guaranteed if it is given a park status. To say, as the minister said previously, that this would stop fishing is ludicrous. Fishing is allowed in other parks, so what would be the difference here? Just because there is some development in or nearby the park and that there will be some pollution, does not mean you cannot have a park. After all, we already have Charles Darwin National Park. A park does not stop development; it makes sure development is in keeping with the ideals of the park. A park in the centre of our city would be something special, perhaps a vision splendid.
The last alternative reason for maintaining Middle Arm Peninsula as it is, is simply for people. It is clear from this debate that the government does not understand the importance of the harbour to the people of Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and the future city of Weddell. It does not understand the social, cultural and recreational values the centre of our harbour has now and will have in the future for Territorians.
Planning does not always take into account the human aspects of keeping some land like the centre of the harbour. To leave this land in its natural state will serve the larger community of the Darwin region. Here will be a place you can escape from the maddening crowd. Here will be a place you can go for a walk in the bush, ride a bike, relax, think, access the mangroves and the water. Here not everything is concrete. As our city grows, the need for these lungs of fresh air, these lungs of green, will become more vital for our community. Other cities have tried to do the same, but have been beaten by the developer, the big buck and a lazy, dreamless government marching to the tune of a vested interest.
The government has accepted what it has been told. It might claim to have set up the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, but what is the point of that committee when the government has announced its plans to have a conservation zone over the mangroves and turn Middle Arm into a development zone? Why bother with an advisory committee if, at the same time, the other hand is already making changes to the harbour? This government has vision, but it is of the tunnel variety, and very confusing. Somebody in planning says ‘Jump’, and the leaders say ‘Yes’, and the rest fall into line. I certainly do not believe the Labor Party is at one on this issue. I do not believe those Labor members of parliament have the true blue, Territory blood in their veins, who know and love this country, have cultural links with this country or know people who do, who might even lose their seats if they were known to have supported the destruction of the centre of our beautiful harbour. I do not believe that they want this to happen, but the shackles of party rules and regulations tie them to a policy few of them could defend in their hearts.
Some of the government may say: ‘I am sick of this debate. We had it before and it is finished. Go away, member for Nelson, put a sock in it’. Well, I will not. Why? Because, as I said on other occasions, we are the first people to make permanent decisions about the future of this land and the harbour. Aboriginal people forage on this land. A few pastoralists possibly raise a cow or two. We have some aquaculture, inappropriate extractive mining and a power station. But the land has generally stayed as it always was. We are now at the crossroads and the decisions we make will change this land and this harbour forever.
Perhaps you think the future is industrial, as we certainly need industry to achieve jobs and wealth in our community. I have no argument with that. But that is not what this argument is about. It is about making the right decisions. It is about looking at all the alternatives. It is about not being ruled by the almighty dollar. It is about the next 100 years; not the next 10 years or the next term of office. It is about a vision: a vision of a city unique in the world, where our Territory lifestyle is preserved, where we know who we are, and others know who we are, and where those who showed vision will be remembered for their foresight and not their blandness - a vision not driven by an election, but what is best for all, and a vision of an opportunity taken, not missed. That word ‘opportunity’ rings a bell. I can only hope that others in this parliament also have the same vision and support this motion.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Nelson when he was talking about the crossroads, but I disagree with him that the future is not industrial. The future has to be a sustainable future. The reality is we live in Darwin, we live around the harbour, and the harbour will hit us in the face every day, every morning, because we are not going anywhere, we are stuck here, we are living here. This is our future, this is our place, this is our Territory.
I heard the member for Nelson and other members of our community talking about the pristine harbour. It is a beautiful harbour; nobody else has a beautiful harbour like that. One of the most beautiful harbours in the world is the Sydney Harbour, a working harbour, and nobody can deny that it is a beautiful harbour. People still like to go there. They visit from all over the world. However, you find an active port, boats loading and unloading containers, fuel and oil; it is a working harbour. Our harbour is also a working harbour. It is not something that we put on a postcard to look at forever and ever without much happening around it. It is happening, and will continue to happen, and the working harbour of Darwin will get bigger and better.
This motion came before the House last October. We opposed it and I advise that we will be opposing it again. The government has no intention of putting a moratorium on development. Yesterday, we heard about the lack of confidence of the business community, and here we have the member for Nelson telling us: ‘Do not do anything about it, do not worry about the community and the businesses, just keep the harbour the way it is. Do not make any changes’. I repeat: the government has no intention of putting a moratorium on development. It is not only not practicable, but real economic vandalism and economic suicide in the climate of government working hard to attract and increase economic growth in the Territory. What is going to be very interesting is the CLP position on this motion. Given their crocodile tears about economic growth over the last few days, if they support this motion today, it will show them in a hypocritical light. It will show that the CLP has not learnt, has not changed, and is about the past not the future. Driving economic development because it means jobs for Territorians is our number one priority. It may not be the CLP’s but it is certainly ours.
There are two fundamental responsibilities that I have as a minister for Infrastructure and for Planning. The first is to ensure that the economy of the Northern Territory grows and expands to provide jobs for Territorians, especially young Territorians, and to enhance and improve our unique lifestyle. The second is to ensure the development of Territory is done in a balanced and sustainable way. There must be growth, but this growth must not destroy our environment or grow the Territory in a way that is not sustainable for us over the long term.
To achieve long-term growth the Territory needs to have effective planning laws, and planning in general, to ensure that land sites are available for urban growth, industrial growth and development. Building our future and protecting our lifestyle is our government’s priority. Land must also be identified for conservation and environmental purposes and for protection to ensure that our lifestyle is not damaged. If this can be properly achieved, then the Northern Territory will achieve real balanced and sustainable growth.
Protecting our environment is a priority for our government. Land for industrial sites must fulfil certain requirements. They must be in practical locations which are sensible for industry; for example, in some cases it must be close to the railway system and to our port. They must be sufficiently distant and buffered from areas of urban development so as not to impeach on the everyday living of Territorians.
When this government came to office in 2001 we completed the comprehensive public review of the Litchfield Shire’s broad land use police framework. The process of reviewing the land use policy plan included inviting input from key stakeholders, extensive statutory public exhibition, public meetings and formal submissions to the minister. This public planning review began in 1997. The public process has been completed twice since then, culminating in the recently endorsed Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. A starting point for the review, the Litchfield Land Use Strategy Plan 1990, was one component of the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1990. Documents were widely disseminated in the community for seven years prior to the planning review. The first exhibition was for three months, from May to June 1997, and included invitations for anyone willing to contribute to the review to make submissions.
The exhibited proposals were again reviewed and refined following a full evaluation of all submissions received by the minister in response to the extensive community consultations. The refined planning proposals were again exhibited publicly for a further three months, March to May 2001. Proposed industrial land use areas have been included in the plans exhibited and published. Proposed industrial development on the Middle Arm Peninsula has been part of this documentation and public discussion for more than a decade. The 1990 plans were preceded by the Darwin Regional Structure Plan 1984, so public exposure and input for proposed industrial land use on Middle Arm Peninsula has been an ongoing process for nearly 20 years.
I refer now to the member for Nelson’s alternative industrial development sites. The thrust of his proposal is that the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point offers alternative industrial land equally, or more, suitable than the Middle Arm Peninsula. The member for Nelson would like to see industrial development on land to the east of Robertson Barracks and/or between Kings Creek and Howard River, essentially because it is the closest area to East Arm along the corridor to Glyde Point. I should remind honourable members that the government, in consideration of the importance of protecting the fish nurseries and associated wetlands draining into Hope Inlet, curtailed proposed aquaculture development and created a conservation reserve. The reserve created and encloses some of the Howard River catchment, and all estuary creeks between Tree Point and the Howard River. The main river channel and Kings Creek are not within the reserve as these are the estuarine streams flowing north into Hope Inlet. It seems strange that the green warrior from Nelson should select their catchments as the preferred industrial site.
The member for Nelson is generally dismissive about the marriage of other existing and proposed land uses on the land he has selected. By linking his planning focus to industrial uses, he conveniently leaves to others the consequential replication of the dismissed uses.
In proposing his Kings Creek/Howard River alternative, the member for Nelson may be forgiven for ignoring the negotiation with the Commonwealth that began prior to the government coming to office and continues today. Broadly, the Commonwealth seeks ownership over much of this land to provide additional areas for the existing defence facilities, to be used as an extension or protective buffers around these facilities. Significant land areas adjacent to the wetlands are also subject to storm surge. With the exemption of a possible regional waste disposal facility site, and an area on Thorngate Road that is identified for industrial development in the endorsed Litchfield Land Use Concepts, this alternative site for industry is unavailable or severely constrained.
It seems that the member for Nelson is proposing industrial development further to the east, along the proposed Glyde Point corridor over the Howard River. It may be fairly assumed that the Howard River Park residents will assist the member for Nelson in ensuring a generous buffer remains between their houses and the new industrial development. Unfortunately, moving further east to achieve this buffer, the member will discover that he is in the Howard East Bore Field and its discrete recharge area. The member for Nelson may recall from the published and exhibited information that this is a major regional resource for rural and urban water supply. The groundwater recharge environment requires careful protection, and replacing this resource will require construction of the equivalent of two new Darwin River dams.
The corridor to Glyde Point continues northward but bore filler recharge areas dominate all land on its east for nearly 10 km. So industrial use is a no-no there too. All land west of the corridor for about 50 km is reserved to conserve the Shoal Bay fish nurseries and their catchment, and it is equally unsuitable for industrial development. To make things worse, much of his selected alternatives lie in land that is subject to flooding and seasonal waterlogging. Clearly, he has no option but to move further north along the corridor to Glyde Point. The member for Nelson now finds himself on Koolpinyah Station where the key features are the Limul Limul lagoons and the Korebum lagoons; another area that for environmental and economic reasons is unsuitable for industrial development.
Further north and to the east of the corridor are more lagoons and seasonally flood prone areas. The old prison farm area on the west side of Murrumujuk Creek is a highly valued coastal environment. If the member for Nelson’s alternative industrial land along the Glyde Point corridor is further north again, it is more than 40 km from the East Arm wharf. Another few kilometres along the nominated corridor and his search would certainly be over, as he would discover the land identified in the Litchfield Land Use Plan for the Glyde Point industrial estate.
Section 1791 Hundred of Ayres was included in the motion put before the Assembly last October. A clear explanation was provided then, so I will not repeat it in detail. I will simply remind honourable members that this section was created over 20 years ago when it was thought that the Channel Island power station would be coal-fired. If that option had been implemented, a site for fly-ash disposal would have been required. Thanks to Ian Tuxworth this did not happen. As I clearly informed the Assembly last October, this parcel has been acquired from PowerWater and, apart from road and service corridors connecting Channel Island, it is not proposed for any kind of development. With the exception of this corridor, this section is currently being rezoned to ensure its conservation.
The other parcels identified by the member for Nelson in his motion, sections 1814 and 1817 Hundred of Ayres, covers the greater part of the Middle Arm Peninsula higher ground. The motion refers to (c) has little relevance as fringing mangroves are also currently being rezoned to protect their environmental values. The land defined on the peninsula for industrial development is obviously based on higher ground to avoid environmental and economic costs associated with land reclamation and the hazard of storm surge. It is not only the cost of reclamation, but also the threat of storm surge.
Extractive mining has now been limited to a minimum of eight metres height to ensure that ground levels with respect to storm surge are not too low. Gas-based manufacture will not be permitted to expand beyond the Phillips site on Wickham Point and any other industry permitted would be of no more impact than the general industrial areas that we already have in Darwin. Having made this comment, I must point out to honourable members that I do not foresee a Winnellie or Berrimah-type development on the peninsula. We have moved away from that.
The proposal to create a development zone incorporating sections 1814 and 1817 is currently on public exhibition. The purpose of the development zone will be and I quote: to facilitate the development of major strategic industries including gas based, road, rail or port related industries. The zone provides land for major industrial development that is of strategic importance to the future economic development of the Territory. Development will be assessed having regards to among, other things, the environmental impact and the effects on the surroundings, development by reason of the process involved the method of manufacture or the nature of materials used, produced or stored.
As has already stated many times in this Assembly and in public, the development zone as intended to apply in the Middle Arm Peninsula will carry a rider preventing the processing of natural gas or liquid for export by sea, refineries using natural gas as the raw material, power generation for smelting and the production of metal smelting. Successive governments have invested substantial amounts of funds in the East Arm wharf and the AustralAsia railway. This government is determined to realise on this investment through the intense promotion of the port and the rail-related industries’ opportunities.
The member for Nelson made light of these matters and argues that all future needs can be accommodated on the East Arm Peninsula. Allow me to quote from an expert report and one that the member for Nelson sourced before, The Development of Major Industrial Estates in Darwin, Pre-feasibility Study by Brown and Root, and published in October 2001. I quote:
- The high levels of public and private investment that will be required to ensure the benefit of
development are maximised implies that the pay back period will be lengthy. Furthermore,
suitable land for industrial development that lies to close to East Arm Port does not exist
without expensive reclamation. With high rates of development, the land available on the
three sides, that is East, Middle Arm and Glyde Point, could be entirely taken up within this
period. This could effectively stifle further growth of port traffic and would probably result
in the necessity to provide additional container berths elsewhere.
The report goes on to say:
- Land near transport interchanges or hubs is always taken up quickly if the interchange accommodates
substantial volumes of traffic. This is virtually certain to occur at East Arm when the railway commences
operation.
The report reached the conclusion that:
- It is believed that the masterplan, that is the East Arm Masterplan, ought to include Middle Arm as well as
East Arm. The two sides can be both vital to the development of the East Arm Port in the near future and
hence the development planning ought to be integrated into one masterplan.
That is the report you have shown to the House. Read it.
In the evaluation of proposed development, we have legislative mechanisms backed up by professional staff. We have the means to set objectives and standards and see that they are met. Inherent in positions taken and statements made by some people is the view that the legislators and the professionals are not competent to do their jobs. Quite clearly, this implication reflects on the professional staff across the board in my department.
In summary, there is no justification for the Assembly to support the member for Nelson’s motion. As I have outlined before, there has been a public process over many years, empowered by statute and served with appropriate data. Several times during this time, opportunities for community submissions here have been provided and many have used these opportunities. Another public assessment of alternative industrial sites, whatever that may mean, undervalues that time and effort already given by the public who participated in the statutory process.
It is very good, Madam Speaker, for members of this Assembly to stand up and say: ‘Do not worry, do not do any development. It is a pristine harbour; go somewhere else’. It is very easy to say that. The reality between the decision to go somewhere else and a time to go somewhere else is that there has to be a lot of time, a lot of processes. Let us take again the proposal by the member for Nelson: Do not go to Middle Arm; go to Glyde Point. There are a lot of constraints in Glyde Point. There is land belonging to Department of Defence. There would be strict and severe objections by people living in the area, some of your own voters, that they would take offence at establishing industrial estate there, near an area that, until now, these people have argued they would like to have clean living, environmentally friendly living, establishing horticultural industry, organic agriculture industry.
There is not only the cost with the Koolpinyah area he proposed, because we have to compensate the traditional owners. The reality is to do that, we have to spend so much time with environmental impact statements, environmental impact assessments, and establishing the infrastructure that is not there. We are talking about five, six, seven, eight, nine years. The previous government started a planning process 10 years ago. Today, we made a decision to limit the type of industry that can go to Middle Arm. The reality is this is the only place close to the port that can actually complement the port and support the port development, the railway development, that intermodal system we developed for the Territory.
Taking the area, where you can do all these processes that relate to the port, about 40 km to 50 km away, nobody is going to actually accept that. Nobody is going to decide to move in the other side of the harbour …
Mr WOOD: No! A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is saying things that I have not said. He is saying that I am talking about areas 30 km or 40 km away from the harbour. Anyone who listened to my debate would know that I am talking about a piece of land five to 10 minutes from the East Arm Port. I believe I am being misquoted, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You will be able to have your say in reply when you close debate.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I have never alleged it was a proposal by the member for Nelson that it would be 40 km away. The reality is the land that he is proposing is geographically 40 km away, 30 km away. Industry would not develop there. Industry has to be close to where the action is and the action will be at the East Arm Port. As I indicated before, we are going to oppose this motion.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the opposition is going to support this motion, on a very …
Mr Kiely: Because you are against development?
Mr Wood: It is not about being against development.
Mr Kiely: It is.
Mr Wood: Rubbish!
Mr Kiely: It is about cheap, political point scoring.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: No, Madam Speaker, the CLP is not against development and is widely known to be very supportive of the development of Darwin, in particular, and the Northern Territory.
Mr Henderson: This is the biggest backflip of all times.
Mr BALDWIN: Who is speaking here? I will tell you the reason why we are going to support this motion, it is very simple: this is about having a fair and equitable process. The minister talked a lot about process, and there has been a lot of process in coming to the point of today’s present position in regards to planning around Darwin.
However, what the member for Nelson is asking here is quite simple, and we should not confuse it with whether you are pro-development, anti-development, you want to save the harbour, or what it is. What he is asking for, very simply, is that the government initiate a public assessment of the alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region and, while that is going on, to place a moratorium on industrial development at Ware Peninsula. He has outlined a number of reasons why that should occur. There has not been a substantial debate on industrial areas in and around Darwin. He has highlighted a number of areas, and one in particular, that he thinks should have more public assessment.
There is no doubt that there is a strong lobby group for no more development on the Ware Peninsula on Middle Arm, and that is the view that the member is reflecting. It is a view that is presented here in the motion - can we have some more debate on other alternatives. We are not against having further debate on that. It does not mean that you might not come back to the Ware Peninsula at the end of the day. You have given us many reasons why, in your view, these areas that have been highlighted by the member for Nelson are unsuitable, but what you have not told us is what the time lines are for development at East Arm. Do you need it tomorrow? That is the point here. He is saying: ‘Can we just put a hold on that while we look at this? And, in particular, can we look at this piece of land that is already zoned under the land use concept of Litchfield?’ That area of land is already zoned for rural living, if I am not mistaken. And if it is good for rural living, all of the arguments that you seem to have presented - although I was trying to pick them up and it was very hard to get a clear indication from you why specifically that area was not suitable - you would think could be suitable for the light industrial that we are talking about here.
That is all that has been asked for in here. I have to say that, in terms of the rail corridor, that has been planned for many years and the trunk route out to Glyde Point from the harbour, is ideally located to that piece of land.
The other point here is the development that may occur at Middle Arm, in the way you put it, for gas-based road and rail industries. Let us hope Darwin takes off. Let us hope we have that massive boom we are all waiting for. It is a very small piece of land that we are talking about there in useable land that is high, dry, buffer zones around the mangroves, the coast line and so forth.
There is going to be a need for further development and further consideration of other areas of land that can be used for those types of support industries. And why would you not look at a piece of land that has all the infrastructure for rail and road transport - the connector links already established and planned for - to Middle Arm? It may be at the end of the day that both get developed. You seem to have ruled it out entirely and said: ‘No we have been there. We are not going to go back to that because there has been this very long process of consultation’. But this is focussing particularly on consultation on industrial sites. I know the process very, very well as far as the Litchfield LUO’s go. They mainly concern things to do with rural living aspects that people have their say about. But this is particularly highlighting the industrial development.
I can agree with what you have said is contained within the Brown and Root reports, that there needs to be very strategically placed land for industrial development to support the East Arm wharf, but it should not rule out further development of those sorts of facilities. Whereas you seem to be ruling them out, the member for Nelson says let us have a good look at it.
You have spoken, but perhaps one of your other speakers on that side, if there are any, could give this House and Territorians an indication of the time lines that the government sees as the projected time lines for development of that particular area on Middle Arm. You are going through the zoning stages now, I understand. What are the time frames? What is in the can? We know there are long lead-up periods to this thing, we know how it works. We know the railway is finishing construction at the end of this year and that the trains will start running and, hopefully, if the government does finally get to go overseas and assist in any trade development in terms of that freight, there will be an ask on government and on Territorians for this sort of land to provide the facilities you are talking about.
You must know what the time frame is, and you should be telling Territorians. You certainly should, in this debate, be informing the likes of the member for Nelson and this side of the House as to what is planned to go there because it is in the pipeline already. It has to be, with the time frames we are talking about, and with the railway starting imminently. If you have the ideas and you know what they are, tell us. Perhaps that puts a different slant on the debate. But if you do not tell people, we are going to go along this same route that the member for Nelson is going along, and that is that if there is no need for it today, why can you not put it aside and look at the other alternatives? Why don’t we look anyway? If we get the boom we are all hoping for, you are going to need consideration of other facilities like this one.
The minister went on about alternative sites such as Koolpinyah, the processes that would need to be carried our there, why it is all too hard, and all the rest of it. I know that those areas have been looked at, and that the water table in that area is very, very important to Darwin’s water supply. There are good reasons perhaps for those ones further out not to be a consideration. The planning has been done for Glyde Point and, in relation to the heavier industries, there is land that has been earmarked for aquaculture and that is another issue that might come up another day. I do not know what the member for Nelson’s views are on that, but this particular piece of land that is being looked at by the member for Nelson could be given some further consideration. There is nothing to lose in doing a parallel consideration of that, just the industrial side of it. Perhaps it is a few meetings where the member can come along, be fully briefed and you can present it as an argument to the people.
You know and I know there is no problem in rezoning land. It is your discretion as the minister under the Planning Act to rezone. So, the rezoning is not an issue. The buffers and all those sorts of things you mentioned may be issues, but let us have a closer look at it. That is all the member for Nelson is asking for.
On that point I would just like to reiterate that is all he is asking for: that there is a more intense public assessment of alternative industrial. He is asking the government in this motion to initiate that public assessment. It is very focussed. Forget all the rest of the Litchfield LUOs and, whilst doing that, place a moratorium on the industrial development. You might have a good argument why not to place a moratorium. Okay, that is great, let us hear it. And if it is to do with time frames, put it out there, fine. It may be that you amend that piece of the motion and not place a moratorium but have a more intensive look at these other areas.
That might not fully satisfy the member for Nelson but you are then being seen to give every consideration to other means of accomplishing what could be necessary in the long term anyway, and that is the setting aside of reasonable space for industrial development as we move forward over the next decade. It may come to be that you end up with both, although I know the member for Nelson probably hopes that that is not the case. We support it on the basis that he is asking for you to look at it and to involve the public and certainly involve him.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, could I just say at the outset this debate has never been about being against the economy and could I also say, minister, as you are leaving, you must have a different map. The minister referred to areas of …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I realise he said that, so I would ask …
Mr WOOD: The minister is back.
Madam SPEAKER: You know you should not …
Dr BURNS: A point of order again, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, all you are doing by raising a point of order is drawing attention to that fact. Member for Nelson, continue but do not reflect on members’ absence or otherwise from the Chamber.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, thank you. I just thought the plus and the minus might have negated it all and they would have forgotten about it. Be as that important matter came up then I think there are far more important matters to debate.
I will say again, and there was laughter from the government side, that they did not believe this was against the economy. They laughed when the member for Daly said this was not against development, and it is not against development. I am bewildered. We are talking to grown people and you say: ‘What I want is to look at alternative sites for development’, and immediately they say: ‘You are opposed to development’. If you can tell me that is logic I will eat my hat. Does it mean that everything is black and everything is white? If you are not for you are against? Sounds like a Joh Bjelke Peterson-type logic - if you fly with crows or something, you are a crow or something. It just does not make sense.
This is not about being anti-development. This, as I have stressed many times, is about ensuring we make the right decisions, that we actually create sustainable development, that we do not stuff up the harbour, that we look at alternatives for the harbour and see, for instance, if they have a greater economic benefit to the harbour staying as it is. I know that the president of the Palmerston Regional Business Association is a strong supporter of the use of the harbour for tourism. He believes that this is just madness, putting industry in the middle of the harbour.
I do not think the government realises how much angst is out there. The reason the angst is out there now is because the public did not have a chance to debate this in 1984. They did not have a chance to debate this in 1990. The 1990 Darwin Regional Land Use Objectives were developed for the Kenbi Land Claim; they were developed quickly. Litchfield Shire Council had possibly one briefing on a huge document and most of us could not cope with the entire document. That is all the public discussion that has ever happened about the future of our harbour. I have raised this issue on council. I have raised this issue in the last seven years that the land use objectives were being developed. The land use objectives that the government talks about being put out for public comment, how many people said they support industry in the centre of the harbour? Nobody! People said they do not want industry in the middle of the harbour.
I understand what the member for Daly is talking about, maybe looking at alternatives and maybe that does not satisfy me. But I will tell you now, this is part of trying to get a sensible debate into this whole matter. Personally, I would like to see industry go somewhere else. I have accepted this motion as being a fair and reasonable motion. It is something the government could at least show the people of Darwin that it is not so rigid that it will not look at alternatives. You quote Brown and Root. You can quote that until the cows come home. It does not discuss any other site. How can you say that is a fair debate on industrial sites? Not one industrial site that I have mentioned is in this book. They have come up with three sites; the government has agreed with three sites; there are no alternatives in this book. How can you say we have had a fair debate?
Minister, you must also have another map. I have your map here, thank you very much, and I am very grateful that it is a big one because it saves me having to use my glasses. Some of the things the minister said about the land I pointed out, are absolute rubbish. This land is closer to East Arm than Middle Arm by road. You can measure it. If you want to put a bridge across between the two, maybe not. But you can go from that area to East Arm just as quick as you can go from Middle Arm. I have not changed that. This land is buffered from Howard River Park by about a kilometre of the Howard Springs Shooting Reserve. It is buffered. This land is not in the defence area. You said it was. The defence training area is marked yellow. It is not in there.
Mr Vatskalis: I never said that. It is negotiated to be acquired by Defence.
Mr WOOD: You certainly gave the presumption.
This area is not in a surge zone. It is about 10 km from the sea. I do not know how those things came up. This land is not near the water zone. It is not near the conservation zone of Shoal Bay. The water management zone is down here near Girraween and goes up to Gunn Point Road. I checked to make sure that those factors did not come into account. I know this area. I am not saying it is perfect, but you are talking about benign industries; we are not talking about heavy industry. You say yourself we are not talking about polluting industries. You are saying we want to put benign industries there. I am saying if that is the case, why would you ruin the middle of your harbour with benign industries that you can put somewhere else?
Mr Vatskalis: But if they are benign, how are they going to ruin the harbour?
Mr WOOD: Because you will get the same pollution that you get in Winnellie. You will get some pollution. You have them planned, on your map, right up against the mangroves, and they will destroy the aesthetics of the harbour. It is not just the physical pollution. You will fly over our city on your way in from Melbourne, up the guts of the harbour, and you will have beautiful Fred’s Mowing Service, Jack’s Tyre Service, Phil’s ice-cream factory right in the middle of your harbour.
Have I come to Darwin or to Sydney? One of the reasons I love this place is because I do not want to see Altona in the middle of my harbour.
Mr Kiely: My mother lives in Altona. Property values are going up in Altona. She is on a good superannuation roll there.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. Was that a help to the debate, or did you just have to get it off your chest?
I do not want to see the centre of the harbour destroyed for a reason that it does not have to be destroyed …
Mr Henderson: There is not going to be a refinery. You are scaremongering, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Not scaremongering. What will the centre of the harbour look like?
Mr Henderson: There is not going to be a refinery in there.
Mr WOOD: I did not say …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? And do not shout, thank you.
Mr BALDWIN: If members on the other side would like to contribute to this debate, they should have got up during the debate. Now, the member is wrapping up and he should be allowed to do so in quietness, please.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The issue of a refinery in the middle of our harbour has never been proposed by this government. It has been explicitly ruled out …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not speaking to the point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, order! Thank you. You all know the rules regarding interjections. The member for Nelson is summing up. You have all had your opportunity. It is his turn.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from regarding the refinery and it was not my intention to talk about refineries. Altona is an industrial area. I was more or less trying to say you will have a similar effect; that is, the look of the land will be industrial, it will not be a refinery. I understand that. But you will have destroyed the aesthetics of the harbour, and to me that is very important if you want to continue the lifestyle that Territorians want.
It is important that we preserve the centre of the harbour. You have said yourself that up to a million people will be living in this area, although the way the population is going at the moment it is going to take perhaps a bit longer than we projected. However, that will be an area that people have to enjoy. You will have what they call the lungs of the city, you will have a place where you can go. You will not. If you get rid of that, where do you go? Where do you go in Darwin? Very few places. And yet, here you would have right in the centre of the harbour a place that all could enjoy and yet we are so stuck on it, that this is the only alternative. We are stuck on it. We have not had one inch of movement from the government on this, not even saying: ‘All right, we might look at an alternative’. Not even a might, just a will not.
It is extremely disappointing. I do not want to go over what I have already said, but I just need to reiterate that I believe this is an important issue. At the last vote in parliament, this issue was voted 13 to 12. There is only one vote difference between this side and your side. I believe this is an issue that will come up at the next election. I believe it will swing people one way or the other, because the centre of the harbour is very important to many people. Development is important, for sure. I support development. Surely a government that says it is open and transparent, surely a government that says it is going to make good intelligent decisions, would be able to put a case to the people and say that it has looked at this site and here are the reasons why it can not go there; or, it has looked at that site.
None of that has come out in this debate. All that has come out is: we have read this book, and this book has said that there will be three sites, and they have accepted it. Well, as far as I am concerned, pre-feasibility studies and studies are just that. They are to have a look at. Governments lead and governments make decisions. I am afraid this government is not leading. It is just copying, and that is very sad. I will make sure that people in my electorate and in the Darwin region know that if that land becomes industrialised without at least a fair chance of alternative sites being looked at, I will publicise it. I will tell people why it happened. It is an important issue. I have said this before: this is the first time in the history of this region that anyone is making a permanent change to our harbour, and surely we owe it to the people of Darwin to look at the best choices.
Mr Henderson: How about Channel Island? How about the harbour development.?
Mr WOOD: You can mumble in your whiskers and I know how to do it now because I have some.
Mr Henderson: Channel Island.
Mr WOOD: Channel Island - I have not opposed it. I believe the government does not understand where I am coming from. When the petition went up about the damming of Elizabeth River, I was one who supported the essential industry being developed in the middle of the harbour. That is why I supported Phillips, and I would support Channel Island, because originally it needed a port to bring coal in, so naturally some industries need access. But benign industries do not need to be in the middle of the harbour. They do not need to be near the port. They can go on the corridor to Glyde Point. And until the government decides to at least give people an opportunity to look at alternatives, they are doing themselves a disservice and a disservice to Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
- The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mrs Braham Mr Ah Kit
Mr Burke Mr Bonson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Ms Carter Mr Henderson
Mr Dunham Mr Kiely
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Dr Lim Mr McAdam
Mr Maley Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Reed Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Question Time – Reference to Standing Orders Committee
Question Time – Reference to Standing Orders Committee
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
- That standing orders relating to Question Time be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, to review and make recommendations aimed at ensuring Question Time is more relevant, efficient, accountable and informative to members of parliament and constituents.
I also seek leave to add the following words to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We need to hear the words first.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I move that the following words be added: The committee report to the Assembly by the November 2003 sittings.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, standing orders relating to Question Time in the Territory have not been reviewed since they were adopted in the early 1980s. The federal parliament has looked at the matter several times over the past 20 years and I have drawn some of my comments from these reports. They come from the House of Representatives committee on procedure in 1986, 1992 and 1993.
Question Time developed as an occasion where the accountability of government was most clearly and publicly displayed. Question Times in parliament around Australia are well attended by members, the public and the media. The House of Representatives practice argues that the critical functions of questions are: criticism of the executive government; bringing to light abuses; ventilating grievances; exposing and preventing the government from exercising arbitrary power; and pressing the government to take remedial or other action. That accountability function seems to have been overtaken by other partisan political functions and on occasions is irrelevant.
What has happened to Question Time or what is wrong with Question Time now? My main complaint is that the answers given often do not answer the questions, and attacks on political opponents are claimed to be answers to questions. It is seen as clever and acceptable for ministers to evade answering, to attack the questioner and to deride opponents.
This information sheet on Question Time from the House of Representatives comments that over the past five decades the nature of Question Time has changed to focus less on seeking information and more on calling the government to account for its actions, and probing the political skills of ministers. This change has gone hand in hand with changes to the reporting of parliament, the broadcasting of Question Time and the increasing use of Question Time footage in TV news bulletins.
The focus may have changed but it is difficult in this parliament to get an answer to a question that simply seeks information that should be easy for ministers to supply. The government is still supposed to be accountable to parliament for its actions. I believe that means ministers should answer the questions as they are put and not waffle or fill the minutes with irrelevant material.
Question Time is now a time for political opportunism. Author, David Solomon came to a similar conclusion and I quote:
- Seeking information has ceased to be the real function of questions without notice. Almost all questions are
asked for overtly political reasons and almost all answers seek to score points rather than provide
information, unless the giving of information is in itself a political exercise. Question Time now provides
an opportunity for the government and the opposition to confront one another and for several dozen
backbenchers and ministers to expose their political skills on what are generally the most important or
politically sensitive subjects of the day.
Other commentators conclude that: ‘In reality, the focus of Question Time in politics is point scoring by both sides of the House’ Another argues that the opposition is not about improving the government’s administration or making it accountable but replacing it as the governing party. And so Question Time is an opportunity to present its credentials in that regard. The information sheet from the House of Representatives notes that:
- Question Time can be seen as the government and the alternative government both seeking to demonstrate
to the House and to the public that their ability to govern is better than that of their opponents.
It goes on to say that:
- Perhaps because questions on notice are a more suitable way of obtaining detailed information about
government administration, Question Time tends to focus more on issues of political significance than
on testing political skills and exposing weaknesses.
A complication arises because it has become an accepted convention and practice in Australia parliaments that ministers are not required to answer questions. In one of the first sittings of federal parliament, the Speaker ruled that:
- If a question is asked without notice and the minister to whom it addresses chooses to answer it, I do not
think I should object.
The House of Representatives practice says that, from the outset, it was held that ministers could not be compelled to answer questions without notice. The rules of Question Time are somewhat unofficial in nature and its features have always been heavily influenced by practice and convention.
As a parliament we have to decide if we want Question Time to be a session in which the government provides information to the parliament or whether it is an arena for strategic competition between the government and the alternative government. As a way of determining which party might make the best government, I suggest that Question Time should not be the measure. It is during the debate of legislation that ordinary people can determine which party is working hard to implement what the electorate wants and to do so fairly.
The House of Representatives Procedure Committee concluded in 1986 that the basic purpose of Question Time must be to enable members to seek information and press for action. It concluded Question Time should be the time when the accountability of government to parliament is demonstrated clearly and publicly. I believe Question Time should not just allow members to seek information; they must receive the information they seek otherwise Question Time is a waste of time.
The current situation with standing orders in the Northern Territory is that there is one standing order relating to answers. It says: ‘An answer shall be relevant to the question’. But we have four standing orders relating to questions and if you count the subsections there are 12 rules relating to how we frame questions and only one regulation for answers. Ministers on many occasions are not meeting their obligations under that one rule to be relevant. For example, 21 June last year, I asked the Planning minister what his government proposed to do about the fact that the federal court had found that several 1990 land use concept and structure plans, including the ones for Darwin and Litchfield, were invalid. He did not answer the question and still has not, instead choosing to talk about the Kenbi Land Claim.
As the House of Representatives Procedure Committee has observed, Speakers have had difficulty applying the rule that answers be relevant to the question. The practice states that the word ‘relevant’ has been frequently accepted by the Chair as meaning relevant in some way, or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant. What do other parliaments say about answers? The Senate’s only standing order on answers is: ‘In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it’. In Tasmania, the one rule is that, in answering a question, a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers and answers shall be relevant to the question. In Victoria, in answering any question, the member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers. In Western Australia, in the Legislative Council, there is a full page of rules relating to asking of questions, but not one relating to the answers. In that state’s Legislative Assembly, an answer must be relevant to the question.
In the ACT, answers to questions without notice shall be (a) concise and confined to the subject matter of the question, and (b) shall not debate the subject to which the question refers . The Speaker may direct a member to terminate an answer if of the opinion that these provisions are being contravened or that the member has had sufficient opportunity to answer the question. In Queensland, the following general rules apply to answers:
- A minister or member shall not debate the subject to which the question refers. The answer will be relevant
to the question and the answer shall not exceed three minutes.
I am not the first member of parliament who has been upset about aspects of Question Time, and I will not be the last. In 1982, the then federal Labor Leader, Bill Hayden, complained that Question Time had become debased to the stage of becoming pretty much meaningless and had become endless dissertations that produced very little. A former federal Speaker said that a rule stating simply that answers will be relevant was capable of such wide interpretation as to be almost incapable of enforcement.
The one time the parliament can get a relevant answer is in response to a dorothy dixer, but often they have taken the form ministerial statements and since the Labor Party has started the practice of presenting ministerial reports at the start of the day, we do not need to waste Question Time with such reports. Sometimes the same information is aired twice: once as a ministerial report or as a ministerial statement; and again in Question Time. This appears to me to be an abuse of parliamentary process. In other jurisdictions such duplication is not allowed under standing orders.
Some examples of duplication are:
on Tuesday, 18 June last year, the Chief Minister received a dorothy dixer in Question Time about the
new economic development strategy, Building a Better Territory. She gave a long answer, covering
major aspects of the strategy. Later that day, she delivered a ministerial statement on the same thing as
listed in the notice paper for that day;
and celebrations to mark it. She provided a long answer to the question. However, already on that day the
Chief Minister had made a much longer speech on the same topic in support of a motion she had proposed
on East Timor’s independence; and
response to the health needs of illicit drug users. In her answer, the minister flagged her major statement
on the Illicit Drugs Task Force later that day. It was already listed on the notice paper.
The possible solutions:
1. If ministers do not have the answer to questions, they should say so, seek the information and present it to
parliament as soon they get it or at the beginning of the next Question Time. No one expects ministers to
know every detail of their portfolio or department’s activities;
2. the oral question without notice can be provided on paper for the Speaker so the Speaker can better monitor
the relevance of the answer;
3. as a parliament, we could accept that short and concise questions and answers should be the norm and adopt
that as is practiced in Canada. As I outlined earlier, the dorothy dixers are sometimes used to have ministers
repeat information that they will give to parliament or other forums. The Territory Assembly could decide that,
as in Canada, Question Time should be dominated by the opposition, for instance, three questions to the opposition, one to the government;
4. adopt as a standing order one similar to the following to the Canadian parliament:
- Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal only with the matter raised and
should not provoke debate
Or:
- Answers to questions must be relevant, not introduce matter extraneous to the question and
should not contain arguments, imputations, epithets, ironical expression.
Or:
- The answer to a question without notice shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the
question and shall not debate the subject to which the question refers.
Madam Speaker, the role of parliament, in holding the government to account, no matter what party is in government, should be restored and respected. If parliament is to claim that Question Time is what it was meant for originally - an occasion to display the government’s accountability to parliament - then answers should be relevant. Ministers should be required to make them relevant through tougher standing orders.
Just a few other matters for consideration, Madam Speaker. Length of Question Time or answers. At the moment, the Assembly on average deals with 16 questions in an hour. That is one every four minutes. That is the equivalent of time limits imposed in Queensland and Victoria, one minute for questions, four minutes for answers. So, in fact the Territory deals with more questions already. However, in Canada, in 45 minutes, they answer between 38 and 42 questions, but all members accept the discipline for a short, sharp Question Time.
According to the standing orders in the Northern Territory, there is no mention of the supplementary questions, but an information sheet on questions on the parliament’s web site indicates they are allowed. This seems to indicate that there should be some formalisation of the informal process. After 1986, the House of Representatives Standing Orders were amended to allow supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker. They are restricted to the original questioner and have to arise out of the minister’s answer. They need no preambles, should not introduce new matter and should be put in precise and direct terms. They are counted as part of the question for the call. Victoria and the ACT have supplementary questions.
The time limit for answering questions on notice, that is written questions: around Australia there are time limits in place, and the average and most reasonable appear to be 30 calendar days. The answer is provided to the Clerk within that time, and the Clerk then provides a copy to the member who asked the question. The answers must be tabled on the next sitting day. If the minister does not answer the question in that time, the member can then ask for an explanation for the delay in the House, the embarrassment factor but, of course, the minister cannot be forced to answer the question. At the moment the questions with notice seem to sit on the Notice Paper throughout the life of the parliament without being answered, and then disappear when parliament is prorogued.
A comment on censure motions: censure motions can be called on during Question Time, reducing the amount of time available for questions. This should be changed so that Question Time is not affected.
I look forward to the Labor government’s support for this motion because it promised at the last Territory election to review all parliamentary procedures as part of its parliamentary reform process. I will quote from that policy:
- Parliament and its procedures are in desperate need of reform. Government by executive virtually rules
the Territory now and the CLP’s lack of commitment to effective parliamentary procedures reinforces this
approach.
The policy goes on to say this:
- Question Time has become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding, with answers taking up to half an hour
and deviating into unrelated topics. Labor believes that answers should be succinct and relevant. Labor
in government will review the above procedures to ensure a more effective and productive parliamentary
process is created.
It will be a great disappointment - in fact, a breach of an election promise if the government does not support this motion. Labor’s policy also said that some other jurisdictions have standing orders that restrict answers to a maximum length of five minutes. Labor promised to adopt a similar approach. As far as timing goes, the Labor government started well dealing with up to 24 questions in Question Time when it was first elected, compared with the average 15 to 16 under the CLP. This has since dropped to an average 16 questions in the past few sittings, so it would also be timely to look at timing.
I ask all members to support this motion. The previous Labor member for Barkly tried to introduce some changes to Question Time, but I believe that disappeared after an intervening election. I believe a review is long overdue and the public needs to be better serviced by Question Time. Or, Madam Speaker, will relevance continue to mean that if I ask the minister for primary industries a question about the cheese industry, I will get an answer about the moon?
MOTION
Question Time – Reference to Standing Orders Committee
Question Time – Reference to Standing Orders Committee
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in starting my comments in response to the motion from the member for Nelson, I totally accept, and this House accepts, the sentiments of what the member for Nelson is trying achieve here. We are, all of us, as members of parliament - whether we are in government, opposition or Independents - accountable to the people who elect us in many, many different ways. Parliament ultimately is the most accountable institution, and the accountability for this institution is mandated in the standing orders of the parliament.
We will not be supporting this motion, but I will certainly give reasons, at this particular point of time, where we believe that we will not be supporting the motions. The relevant standing order in relation to questions and answering questions, as the member for Nelson stated, is that the answer shall be relevant. At the end of the day we get down to a debate I suppose, and I am sure that there is legal argument out there regarding the definition of the word ‘relevant’. What is relevant in answer to the question that is purported to be made? I can certainly say that from the members on this side of the House - a new government and new ministers in the Territory, none of us have been ministers before - but certainly in Question Time, yes, there is a bit of theatre, there is a bit of jostling between the sides. But there is a genuine attempt, if the question is genuinely seeking information on behalf of a portfolio area, a constituent, or a policy initiative, I would say in the majority of instances, to get the answers back to the honourable member who asked the question.
However, many of the questions in Question Time are not about seeking information. They are about the politics of the day. That is the way that Question Time has evolved in our Westminster system of democracy and Westminster parliaments around the world. Question Time has moved on and has evolved over the hundred or so years of Australian parliaments. Certainly, in all parliaments around the world, whether they are of a Westminster style of government or some other style of government, there is normally an institution that is like Question Time. The fact is that, more and more, Question Time is being developed in the political context as opposed to genuinely seeking answers on specific questions.
In saying that, I have to say that the member for Nelson, I believe, is very rarely, hardly ever seeking to play politics with the questions that he asks as an Independent member of this parliament. In the vast majority, or 95%, of the questions that he asks, I am hard pressed to think of a political one quite honestly, Madam Speaker. I am sure there has been one or two because he is a developing politician as well, even though he is an Independent member. There have been genuine questions put to government seeking out information on behalf of constituents or in policy areas that he is interested in. In the vast majority of cases, if the minister has not had the response to hand, we have got back to him with the detail that he wants. Not only with the detail that he wants - and again it goes to all honourable members in this House, if members want detailed information on a policy area, or on behalf of a constituent, there is always the opportunity to seek a briefing from the ministers office. I am certainly not aware of any minister - I might stand to be corrected later on in debate - who has declined to provide a briefing to any member who may have sought information on a particular issue. Those briefings are normally provided by public servants and public servants provide those briefings without fear or favour.
In terms of Question Time being an institution for keeping the government accountable, it is part of the range of accountability measures that are in place not only in this parliament but also under the conventions of the Westminster system. Some of the initiatives we have brought in since we came to government in opening up accountability of this parliament to the people of the Northern Territory are quite significant. For the first time, the last parliament in Australia, we allowed the TV cameras in to broadcast Question Time. That is a very significant move regarding accountability. I can certainly say from our side of the House - and we have been caught out a few times - there is nothing more accountable than a minister getting up on his or her feet to answer a question and the thought of that television camera broadcasting an answer that is either filibustering, or the minister has been totally caught out and is ill prepared, or the minister is being hostile in his or her response.
We have been caught out a couple of times and it is not a very edifying experience to watch yourself on the news at night either losing it or being totally stumped by the question that has been asked. Regarding accountability, with the advent of bringing TV cameras into this Chamber to record Question Time and then, with the freedom of the media that we have here in the Territory and throughout Australia, we are not being in control at all of what is going to be broadcast around the Territory and into people’s lounge rooms at 6 pm and 7 pm each evening. In the contribution that the honourable member was making, I am not sure if he was arguing that the television cameras should not be in the House. I believe they are a marvelous accountability measure and really have opened up this parliament to intensive scrutiny that otherwise was not there in the past.
We also made a commitment when we came to government that we were going to get through a lot more questions than the previous government did. In response to this motion, the research that we have done is that, during the previous administrations under the previous Chief Minister and member for Port Darwin, Shane Stone, and the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, the average number of questions during Question Time was 10.6. Under us, the average has been 13.8. That is a 30% increase in number of questions that are being asked in this parliament. That is over an 18 month period. Yes, sometimes ministers get carried away and speak for too long, but that is often a response to interjections and the general climate of the House at the time.
We did think, in looking at parliamentary reforms, about going down the path of some of the other parliaments that the member for Nelson mentioned, like Queensland, for example, and whether we should restrict answers to three minutes as they do in the Queensland parliament. At the end of the day, you win on the swings and lose on the roundabouts. On many occasions, questions that will be asked of ministers are quite complicated, complex questions reaching into many policy areas. You just cannot do justice to an answer within a three minute time period. We believe that what you would end up with is a large increase in the number of questions that are being asked. However, in accountability and the capability of ministers to put detailed information on the line during a three minute answer, I am certainly not convinced that you would get what you are looking for, which is an increased level of accountability.
Other reforms that we have introduced to make our parliament system more open, accountable and transparent - tomorrow we will debate the new processes for the Estimates Committee. We have seen an Estimates Committee introduced into the Northern Territory parliament - again the last parliament in Australia to do so - whereby we have opened up the whole scrutiny of the budget to far more intensive questioning and far more detailed answers, given the capacity now for members of the Estimates Committee to ask questions of senior public servants who have direct carriage of the detail of budgets and program delivery.
Prior to the Estimates Committee, we had a process in the House and it served the parliament well for a while. However, in the two years that I had in opposition and in observing this parliament for many years prior to that, any objective analysis of the process that preceded the Estimates Committee was not delivering accountability on information. The process where the shadow spokesperson would get up and read a prepared question, the minister …
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: … a prepared question the minister would stand up and read verbatim a prepared answer that had been prepared by the public servant and no real capacity to engage and further deliberate that answer.
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: Certainly we think it did not get there in terms of accountability and getting to the bottom of the budget and service delivery issues.
I pick up on the interjections from the member for Macdonnell when he says, ‘Rubbish!’ The challenge for the member for Macdonnell when he gets to his feet, if he is going to debate this motion is: does he believe that the Estimates Committee process that has been introduced is a better process for seeking information, testing the accountability of government, and now the opportunity to ask questions directly of Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers of departments, and other senior bureaucrats? Is that a better process in accountability and seeking out information than the process that proceeded it? Without preempting debate on this tomorrow, but certainly other debates in this House when we debated the Estimates Committee process coming out from last year, I thought all the members of this House agreed that it certainly had problems in the first run through, but it was not a bad process. It really was not a bad process and it certainly was better than the process that proceeded it. I would be interested to hear the member for Macdonnell’s comments.
On this General Business Day today, there have certainly been no motions put to the House from members opposite saying that we should do away with the Estimates Committee and go back to what we had. We believe that it has been an improved accountability measure, and that is certainly what we set out to do. The new process that we will be debating tomorrow - and there has been a broad consensus around the majority of that - there are going to be some issues, but further refinement, and a commitment from government to work with the Independent members of this parliament and the opposition to further refine that process if we need to. There has been genuine goodwill on all sides of the House and with the independent members to try to make that Estimates Committee process even better.
The other significant initiative in terms of improved checks and balances on government and the executive arm of government, and decision making of government, is the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation. Again, in a series of lasts - we were not doing too well in terms of parliamentary accountability - the last parliament in Australia to introduce Freedom of Information legislation. That legislation will be available to Territorians from 1 July this year, and again is a significant improvement in the accountability of the people who are elected to serve the Northern Territory and the government institutions that implement public policy as mandated through the people through the election process.
We have gone a very long way in providing a more open, accountable and transparent government. We certainly do not believe that we need to refer Question Time to the Standing Orders Committee for review and recommendations to make Question Time more relevant, efficient, accountable and informative to members and parliament and their constituents. We are not saying that from a position of arrogance, but from a position of what will be the outcome of that.
To refer things to the committee takes a lot of time, resources, and costs to the taxpayer. Are we really going to come back with anything better than ‘The answer shall be relevant to the question’? At the end of the day, it all comes down to yourself, Madam Speaker, as the Chair of this of parliament, to basically ensure that debate is conducted in this House concise with the standing orders. Relevance is an interpretation that the Speaker makes and the issue of relevance throughout Westminster systems of parliament has evolved over the years. Various Speakers have various rulings on relevance and, as language evolves, we move on.
I applaud the member for Goyder in terms of - the member for Nelson, I am sorry. I am a bit obsessed with the member for Goyder and his appalling performance in Question Time this afternoon. I applaud the sentiment of what the member for Nelson is trying to get to here. However, I really do not believe that any process that would come out of that committee would be better than what we currently have. What we currently have is in line with most Westminster systems. The Speaker of the parliament is the ultimate adjudicator, I suppose, of standing orders and relevance. I certainly think that with Question Time, Estimates Committee process, the TV cameras, and freedom of information, the level of accountability of this government and this parliament is way ahead of where we were with the sittings of the last parliament.
I will give a specific example - and if questions do come through that are genuine in their search for specific information, and if we are not challenged politically in the question, nine times out of 10, or 99 times out of 100, if ministers do not have a specific answer, they will come back with a specific answer. One that came to the top of my head was a question that was asked in the member for Nelson’s absence last week. The question was asked on his behalf by the member for Blain. My colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, came back with the detail. It was about housing held by the land corporation in the member’s electorate, I think. Anyway, it was a very detailed answer that came back.
So, in terms of relevance, if questions are put to members and ministers, we do try and provide relevant answers and very specific answers if the question is very specific. For example, politics was played in this House in Question Time today. It always is. We played politics when we were on the opposition benches. This is a House of debate. But there were today, for example, a couple of questions - if we go to the other side of the argument – that were very non-specific. The member for Araluen had a very non-specific question, in the first instance, to the Chief Minister. There was a thread built from that in regard to ‘Do spokespeople speak on behalf of government, and do they tell the truth?’ Well, it is very hard to stand up and give a relevant and specific answer to a question that is very non-specific, so it is quid quo pro. Again, the member for Drysdale - and I will get back to the member for Drysdale - asked a very non-specific question about an issue. In my ability to give him a very specific answer about that, there was no capacity for me to do that, because there was no detail in the question.
Question Time is about questions and answers. This House is a House of debate, it is a House of accountability, but also it is a political institution and you would have to be very nave believe that politics does not get played in parliaments throughout the world. The commitment from this government is that we certainly do want to be an open, accountable and transparent government. We have put many innovations into this House that have lifted the accountability of this parliament, of this government, far in excess of where we were a couple of years ago. I laud the sentiments that the honourable member is trying to enact through this motion. For the reasons I have stated, we do not believe that this is going to get him there. We believe we are being as open and accountable and transparent as we can. We are not able to support this motion in the terms that have been put.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will condense the Leader of Government Business to three general comments that he has made.
One, he agrees with the sentiments of the member for Nelson. Two, he expressed his irritation at the member for Goyder for his line of questioning. Three, he ends up saying that I do not believe anything would come of the review process. I find it curious that the Leader of Government Business would get to his feet in this Chamber and link those three points, because they are counter-pointed against each other. If the minister has a problem with a line of questioning coming from members opposite, if he does not feel the questions are framed in such a way they are relevant and therefore it is difficult to give an answer, and he agrees with the sentiment of the member for Nelson, then surely he must be saying to himself: ‘What a good idea, let us review this process. Let us review the process that I am busy complaining about’ But no, he does not. He says that he does not believe anything will come of this process. So this government of consultation, this government of dealing with things by committee and those sorts of things, is not prepared to form a committee about one of the fundamental issues that drives this House: how we use Question Time.
I find it extraordinary as well, that the member opposite can say well it is very difficult to answer some issues in three minutes, as is the problem they obviously have in Queensland. Well, Tony Blair can answer questions in 90 seconds. I have sat in the House of Commons on several occasions and listened to their Question Time. He is on his feet, answers the question, sits down. They get through an enormous amount of questions. The answers are clear, concise, correct, complete. And yet, the minister here seems to think that it is not possible to get some answers out in three minutes.
He is critical of the system, he agrees with the member for Nelson but, forget it, it is not going to happen in here. That is the problem; the minister here has just simply decided to make a few allegations, talk about stuff that has nothing to do with Question Time and fill up a bit of space with the clock running against him, and then do what this government has always been doing: trying its hardest to shut down the operation of this place. They have been shutting down the operation of this place.
I will remind the honourable members opposite of the promises that they made in relation to good governance. This is their policy statement, it goes back to a time prior to them entering government. Let us see what they have to say before they entered government. On page 6 of the Good Governance statement:
- Question Time has become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding, with answers taking up to half an hour
and deviating into unrelated topics. Labor believes that the answers should be succinct and relevant. In
some jurisdictions parliaments have standing orders that restrict answers to a time limit. Labor would adopt
a similar approach, setting answers to a maximum length of five minutes. Labor is also committed to the
electronic broadcast in Question Time …
He has mentioned that –
- … and to assist the wider dissemination of topical issues of concern.
Well, they have certainly achieved that with their vast amounts of media staffers on the 5th floor.
Let us return to the core promisees that these guys made regarding the operation of parliament. When they came to government I actually thought to myself: ‘Well at least there will be some upsides of them coming to government, because the way that this place operates will change’. I had read this document and I actually looked forward, seeing that they won the election, to the changes in the way this place operated. I do believe that the Treasurer also looked forward in the same way at the time. It is disappointing to see that this series of promises that they made have been breached and are being breached here today.
Mr Henderson: I saw the TV cameras in here today.
Mr ELFERINK: The minister injects: ‘Oh, we have the TV cameras in here’. Well, I listened to him talking about the TV cameras. I wonder what the public would think if the TV cameras could find the time to broadcast whole answers from ministers; not just a little grab that comes in the newspaper which embarrasses them. I heard the minister felt from time to time that they had been caught short. Absolutely. I agree with the broadcasting of Question Time. I do not think it has been a bad thing at all for the way this place operates.
But the fact is that Question Time still has major problems with it. One of the comments the Leader of Government Business made was that the problems that they have is that they get these difficult questions to answer and so that causes long rambling answers. I listened carefully to Question Time today because I knew this debate was coming up straight afterwards. A simple question like the procurement question from the member for Drysdale was dealt with in the minister’s debate very quickly and succinctly. He said: ‘I do not know the answer; I will get back to you’. That was the essence of the answer he gave in Question Time which took at least four minutes for him to get through.
In the interests of being succinct, if the government is not interested in looking at Question Time and not allowing Question Time to be reviewed by a committee - and that is all the member for Nelson is asking for, a review process - then they should just say so. They should not beat around the bush. They should not filibuster their way through the topic by bringing in extraneous issues.
The Leader of Government Business spent more time talking about freedom of information and the Estimates Committee than he actually spent talking about Question Time. The actual issue of Question Time was something that he could really say very little about. He was either going to say: ‘Yes, we should do it’, ‘No, we should not’, and add a few details to that. But, in form which is true for the way they answer questions, they start dragging in all these irrelevant issues. This is part of the member for Nelson’s problem. They like to drag in these issues, they like to stretch out Question Times because while they are on their feet, they feel like they are not being examined. It is certainly in the Leader of Government Business’s mind that the process of Question Time is a political process and it is a cross-examination of government. That is the purpose of parliament. That is what we do here. By having extra long answers, that process of reviewing government and checking the principles of government is being limited. The ability for Territorians to find out what is going on in the government is being limited when we have ministers who are asked questions about power and water generation talking about cane toads.
Mr Henderson: It was increased by 30%. Increased by 30%. Fact.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will pick up on that interjection because it is very important. Yes, trusting your figures, there are more questions being asked. What I am saying is that even more questions should be asked. What the member for Nelson is saying is that even more questions should be asked and that short and succinct answers should be given. What do we actually see? We see members with dorothy dixers coming into this place. I heard a dorothy dixer being fired to the Attorney-General today. He rose with his prepared answer, which is several pages long, and reads it out. That is a ministerial report.
The Labor government, in their Good Governance document stated:
- Labor in government will review the above procedures to ensure a more effective and productive
parliamentary process.
What they complain about - in fact, I will quote it:
- Much of parliaments time currently revolves around the use or misuse of ministerial statements. Many
provide little real information for the citizens of the Territory, are highly political in nature and are
followed with a multitude of speakers from government’s side of the House.
We have a government which now not only uses ministerial statements but uses ministerial reports, and then uses Question Time to double up on its ministerial reports, so much so that it became so predictable that the member for Drysdale read out an answer which he had been given in the Estimates Committee while the Health minister was answering a question. He was able recite, along with the Health minister, what was being said. That is an example of a misuse of Question Time because the Health minister at the time was answering a dorothy dixer.
This process of using the Question Time to filibuster their way through government policy must be reviewed in the interests of Territorians having a decent understanding of what is going on with their government. But, no, we have a government that says we agree with the sentiment of it, we have problems with the way that Question Time operates, but we are not going to change it. Well, the fact is that they need to change it. They need to live up to the promise that they made Territorians. They made an offer to Territorians with this Good Governance document. They made an offer to Territorians, and Territorians accepted this offer. They are morally, contractually bound to keep that promise and deliver.
This government is so proud of saying that it delivers to Territorians, well let us see them deliver, and let us see them live up to the principles that they have outlined in this good governance document. But they have walked away from it in the same way that they walked away from the promises in relation to their much lauded Freedom of Information Act. I do not think the Estimates Committee is a bad system but, to sit here and then suggest that the former system was profoundly flawed and was in some way furtive or secret or whatever …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member is going to mislead the House - I certainly never stated that the system was excessively flawed or secretive. He is certainly misleading the House. The Leader of the Opposition was caught out yesterday putting words in my mouth. I ask the member to withdraw and keep his statements factual to the statements that I made in the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: I hear your point of order and we have discussed this before. The member for Macdonnell knows that if he is inferring something, he should produce the evidence. Otherwise, he should not quote as such.
Mr ELFERINK: It is very difficult for me produce the evidence, Madam Speaker. However, I will withdraw for the sake of the consistency of the debate.
The fact is that this government has come into government and suddenly realised, without expecting to come into government, that it has had to fulfil certain promises. This government came to government with a whole raft of promises they had to fulfil. We heard the minister talk about freedom of information legislation. What they introduced was a powerless, meaningless piece of legislation. It introduces no powers. It has no system of legal review, other than in points of law. It has only a right of review on the part of the Information Commissioner. They can suggest that the government might do something but can enforce nothing. They loaded up with all sorts of expectations and, considering what the now Chief Minister said when she was sitting in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair, it is a far, far cry from what was promised to Territorians. And so it is with this.
As a former student of political science, I have looked at the parliamentary system very closely over the years while I was doing my studies in that field. I hoped that when the new government came into power, that they would live up to the promises in their Good Governance document. And yet, we do not see those promises being fulfilled. We certainly see them backing away at 100 miles an hour. They have certainly not fulfilled their promises in relation to what Question Time was intended to be. They have turned it into the very thing that they considered to have been abhorrent. They say Question Time had become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding, well I do not know what some of these dorothy dixers are, if it is not exactly that. And they complain that answers deviated into unrelevant topics.
Madam Speaker, all that the member for Nelson is asking for is a process of improving the system. I urge honourable members to support the member for Nelson in what he is attempting to achieve here today. Let us go back and have a look at Question Time. Let us have a look at some of the ways Question Time operates in other jurisdictions, and let us keep this government true to the promises it made to Territorians in this document. But they will not. They will not because they are scared of the consequences that flow from it.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I do not intend to be longwinded in this debate. It seems to me though that a contribution is warranted, particularly after one heard the contribution by the Leader of Government Business.
The first message we can draw from the Leader of Government Business’s reply was this - after a longwinded explanation: the government has no intention of taking on this particular motion from the member for Nelson.
I find that a bit strange, frankly. Let’s face it, it is a pretty inoffensive motion. The motion simply says that:
- The standing orders relating to Question Time be referred to the Standing Orders Committee to review and
make recommendations aimed at ensuring Question Time is more relevant, efficient, accountable and
informative to members of the parliament and constituents.
The message that I am sure has come through clearly to the member for Nelson - if it has not by now, I am sure it soon will – is the lot of the Independent in this parliament. The government can be nice to you, the government can cuddle up to you and the government might be able to answer you a few questions now and again and make you feel good. But, at the end of the day, you are irrelevant as far as the government is concerned, because even if you put up inoffensive motions the government has no intention of taking them onboard. This is a particular case in point. In coming to that debate it indicates two things.
Firstly, the total disregard that the government has for the efforts of an independent in this Chamber to try to improve the parliamentary system. It also says, loudly, the lack of interest at the end of the day that government has in the Standing Orders Committee which is a committee of this parliament, charged specifically with looking at these sorts of issues. I would not have thought the government would really be concerned about the efforts of the Standing Orders Committee or any other committee of this parliament. At the end of the day, they can defeat a committee recommendation on the numbers in this House. The Leader of Government Business gave a longwinded explanation as to why the government does not believe that any change is necessary by virtue of action of the Standing Orders Committee. That could have been a submission to the Standing Orders Committee, and if the Standing Orders Committee came down with something different, the government could have defeated it on the numbers and the status quo would still have remained.
The real issue here is that the intent of the government is that they will do what they want, when they want, and nothing will change that. In that regard, the CLP is not covered in glory. I would be the first to admit it: the CLP is not covered in glory regarding how Question Time in this House has been run in the past. But it does not mean that if the practices in the past were bad that somehow being less bad is good.
The real issue, I would have thought, is that a government that came to power on a mantra of good governance which was actually a compact with the electorate. If you read your own Good Governance paper with regards to Question Time you made a compact with the electorate that you would clean it up. You and I know clearly that it has not been cleaned up.
It started off with good intentions, started off with a few quick questions and answers and it has rapidly deteriorated to little different to the way it operated under the CLP. With the speed at which it has been deteriorating, I suggest to you it is going to get worse than the system under the CLP very rapidly. One of the reasons I say that is that, for all of our faults, we did not have ministerial reports prior to Question Time which were in fact mini-statements and almost repeated during Question Time. It is a tactic that has come in that is good for the government in them being able to get their message out as widely as possible using every mechanism they can. But, in terms of the relevance of Question Time, which is the issue that is being debated here, it really does not service the public at all. It could be done by press release, it could be done by any other method, but certainly not necessary in Question Time.
The Leader of Government Business said that the question of relevance is a hard thing to decide. It changes in various persons’ interpretation and you, Madam Speaker, are the ultimate arbiter. I would suggest that Madam Speaker is, in fact, heavily curtailed in being able to improve the Chamber by the lack of ability she has based on one standing order only that says questions should be relevant. If Madam Speaker had other mechanisms at her disposal that she could use, by reference to the standing orders of this House, you would very quickly clean this place up in terms of how questions were relevant, the time that was taken to ask them, the mischievousness or otherwise of the question, the relevance or otherwise of the answers, so that we would get some decent information out to the public.
If we talk about ‘What is the aim?’, surely the aim is to ensure that the public, at the end of the day, is better informed by Question Time. If that is not the aim, what the hell do we broadcast it for? Why do we have TV cameras in here and say that somehow they are good for the general public if it is not aiming to achieve that objective?
One thing we can be sure of: the attitude of the public to Question Time is as bad as it was before. The only time it ever improves is if the members of this House show a bit of maturity and shut up. When they do not - and I am at fault, I am trying very hard this year to be quiet during Question Time, because I think it is very important. I have feedback from the community enough to tell me that I have to improve my act, and I am trying to do that. But if we are looking at Question Time and asking: ‘What is the objective of Question Time?’, surely it is that the public can hear and see what is going on. Surely that is one of the objectives. That should ring warning bells to all of us to watch how you look in the Chamber, and watch what you say. It is recorded forever on the Hansard, and for many people who are listening, it may be the few times that they ever tune into parliament and they are left with a lasting impression. For most of them, they switch off.
I might add in that context, if we are looking - sadly, it is not going to be supported by the government - but if there was a reference to the Standing Orders Committee, it is way beyond time that an investment was made by government to improve the attenuation of these microphones. We are doing ourselves a grave disservice out there, politicians generally, and certainly in the Northern Territory, because we are being hampered by the poor quality of the attenuation of these microphones. We should have a system whereby there can be some banter across the Chamber, but like any other parliament in Australia, the attenuation is subdued to the extent that the public can still hear. We are all suffering badly from the fact that people say: ‘It was just a roar, and I just switched off’. I get it from my wife regularly who tunes in, and she says to me: ‘You people are just a disgrace. You cannot hear anything during Question Time and you need to clean up your act’. Well, part of it is that we need the technology cleaned up as well. The public should be able to certainly hear what is going on and see what is going on.
The information that comes from Question Time surely has to be relevant to the public that is listening. It is too much an antagonistic atmosphere. It is something we have grown up with by convention. We seem to think that this is the way it has always happened and that is the way is should happen in the future. Well, it is not the case at all. We have the ability to change and improve. I can only give the commitment that if the CLP was bad in the past, we will aim to get better in the future. But it has to be driven by government. It will never be assisted if government just sits there with blinkers on and on a most inoffensive motion such as this, does not even have the courage to take it to a Standing Orders Committee to get a different point of view, knowing full well that they can defeat any recommendation that came back by the numbers in the Chamber.
I was encouraged the other day. I was reading one of the CPA journals, and you may be surprised that I do take an interest in those journals. There was one article that talked about the South African parliament. The South African parliament, under their new constitution, wanted to show that they were inclusive in every respect. They had an opportunity to do up the Chamber and they decided that the Chamber was far too antagonistic; it did not represent the inclusiveness of South African society. They got rid of this two sides and made it far more inclusive, far more rounded, so that people sat closer together, there was far more camaraderie in terms of how decisions were made. I do not suggest for a moment that we would ever consider moving anyway in that regard, but the fact that they were prepared to sit down and do it, is the real message.
If this parliament does not even have the courage - and it is not this parliament, because we support the independent member in this motion - if the government does not have the courage to take on an inoffensive motion like this, to let the Standing Orders Committee look at it, well, really, all of this rhetoric, all of this waffle in Good Governance sounds good, might con a few people. But you are how you act, in reality, and how you act in reality is you do not have the gumption to take in such a simple motion.
I might add, member for Nelson, that whilst I support this reference entirely, it possibly does have some repercussions for you. If one looks at Question Time and the proportion of questions in this House today is one example, there were 17 questions asked; eight by the CLP, seven by the government and two by the Independent. If you looked at a ratio of fairness and equity in questions by members of this House, all other members in this House get 0.7 of a question yet the Independent consistently gets two. I just raise that as a warning. That is, if we flag as a motion that it needs to go to Standing Orders Committee to improve Question Time, you can be sure that the opposition will be saying that in being able to ask a question, the member for Nelson is favoured above all others in this House.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing the motion forward. It is a good motion for the Standing Orders Committee to look at. I am deeply disappointed that the government has no interest in it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I say in response to the Opposition Leader, that is one good reason for being independent - but saying that with tongue in cheek. You may have noticed that I mentioned the Canadian experience where the possibility that Question Time is dominated by opposition questions. I did raise the fact that one of those things that could be looked at is that you have a ratio of one government to three opposition. It is only from the opposition benches that you are going to get questions that will question the government. That is what Question Time is about. You rarely get a question from the government which will raise something that will put the government in bad light. I see that as being an issue that possibly should be looked at. Having listened to this whole debate, I believe we have just told one another that we need to look at the standing orders.
We have just had a debate which has raised a whole series of issues that should be what this motion is all about. We are evolving. I used to come to this parliament just as an ordinary citizen because I was interested in politics. I used to sit up there and, I tell you now, that towards the end of the last period of the last government I actually walked out several times because I thought the behaviour in parliament was atrocious. I felt that it was a real shame that our parliament had reached a point where people on both sides were just abusing one another. I always felt from then on that there needed to be something done about it. I have no doubts that to some extent it has improved but there are certainly times when it has not improved.
That is all this motion is doing; asking to look at the way Question Time is operating and to see if it can be improved. I do not think that is harmful at all. After all why do we have a Standing Orders Committee? I would have thought that is exactly why we have a Standing Orders Committee to look at these particular issues. One of the questions that Standing Orders Committee could just look at is why we have Question Time in the first place. What is it meant to do? We mentioned the role of the Speaker. I agree again with the Opposition Leader that the Speaker has her hands tied with Standing Order 113 which says an answer shall be relevant to the question. As I said before, ask the minister for primary industry about cheese and you get an answer about the moon, and you cannot do anything about it.
Mr Henderson: He talked about leaf rust.
Mr WOOD: Well, he can talk about weeds. The issue of relevance is important. You get longwinded answers and the Speaker cannot do anything about it. I am not taking the mickey out of the Minister for Local Government. He answered a question for me today about the Tiwi Islands and I thank the minister for that answer. But really, that answer was full of bumph. It went on about history and about problems before. I did not want to know about the history. I just wanted to know when the government was going to report on the review of the amalgamation of the Tiwi Islands. And the answer would be: ‘Well, the review is finished and we expect to bring it up at the next sittings of parliament’. That is that answer. And to the question: ‘Will you include a financial report etcetera in that review?’ ‘Yes/No, we will consider it.’ I could have received the answer and sat down.
We have questions that are filled up with waffle. I know my nickname is ‘Waffle’ so maybe I should not be speaking about that, but the Speaker would then have the power to pull you up and say: ‘You are drifting off the subject.’ We do not have that. Again, that is a good reason for why we should review the standing orders.
Behaviour is one area that possibly could be looked at in this. I am more interested in making sure Question Time is a forum where our constituents know that a question can be asked and will be answered. Many of the questions I have asked - for instance the one on the basketball court today - were raised by constituents This person came in to me and said that he believed there had been problems with the design of the basketball court. I have raised that issue today. That is exactly what Question Time should be about.
There is certainly too much emphasis at times on political grandstanding. There is no doubt, even when I ask a question, there is a certain element of politics, otherwise you would not be in the business. But sometimes it is more than just that; it is looking for cheap shots. There is a need to review. I am concerned about a few things. The Leader of Government Business did say a couple of things about the record that government has had in more open and accountable government. I agree. The FOI legislation is good. We have TV cameras and we have radio broadcasts. I would like to see radio broadcast the entire Assembly proceedings so people can …
Mr Henderson: No reason why it cannot.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I just think that is what should happen. I have some other ideas that I would like to present to parliament about using more electronic facilities similar to what you had at the round table - I might raise that another time - having some screens which say, ‘Member for Nelson speaking on such and such a subject’. ‘Question such and such is being asked, answered by such and such’, so members of the gallery when they walk in here know exactly what is going on. Instead of me holding up a map, I can put a map up there and type in here on my laptop, and tell the minister, with the map up the right way, where I would like industrial areas. So not only can people in this Chamber see that, the visitors can see it.
I would like to see us improve the system that we have in parliament, to make it better, not to just sit and go along because we have a nice, beautiful building. That is one of the reasons I would like the committee to look at the standing orders - simply because we are evolving. We should do things better.
I remind the government that, even though it has a good record on open and accountable government, there are still a few outstanding issues. Although this is not directly in relation to what has been proposed, it was mentioned by the minister: we are still waiting for an independent Electoral Commission, whistle blowers’ legislation, a Code of Conduct for members of boards which advise government, strengthening the powers of the Attorney-General, and the promise that Labor would furnish regular quarterly statements to the parliament’s Public Accounts Committee of all ministerial expenses. We have had one report. Yes, the government is going in the right direction, but there are a few things it has not done yet that it needs to look at.
In the end the most disappointing thing is - forget that I am an Independent, and I can probably harp on the issue that, independent or not, at least I can raise these issues and if I am defeated, well, so be it. If it is defeat by the government, I remind them it is a 13 to 12 difference in this parliament and I will keep reminding them. But I am also here to …
Dr Burns: Is that on every issue, is it?
Mr WOOD: No. But I remind people that …
Dr Burns: Sounds like it.
Mr WOOD: No, well it sounds like you do not care that I get up and put an important issue to parliament, and you dismiss it. Just dismiss it. And why should you dismiss it? There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, what is worse is that I have proposed your election promise. I am actually supporting your election promise. So I will vote 14 to 12 …
Dr Toyne: He is doing better than the opposition.
Mr WOOD: I just remind the government - and it has been said here before - that the policy of the Labor Party is that:
- Question Time has become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding with answers taking up to half an hour
and deviating on to unrelated topics. Labor believes that answers should be succinct and relevant.
Labor in government will review…
- Labor in government …
That is this side of parliament:
… will …
That is, will do it:
- … review the above procedures …
That is Question Time:
… to ensure a more effective …
- … efficient, relevant, accountable, informative, effective and productive parliamentary process it created.
I put a motion forward which is exactly what Labor said it would do. Now, surprise, surprise! They are not doing it, and they worry why I get up here and say 13 to 12. Well, what else can I do? I raised these issues …
Mr Kiely: Remember the last time you prophesised?
Mr WOOD: Waffle, waffle. I raised these issues, and I heard the member for Nhulunbuy, in a jocular manner, say to the Leader of Government Business: ‘Who wrote this?’, because they were embarrassed by it themselves.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that Labor is not sticking to this promise, because it is harmless. All it is doing is asking the Standing Orders Committee just to review it. As I believe the member for Macdonnell said, when it comes back to parliament, it can still get booted out. But surely asking the Standing Orders Committee to do this is no big deal, yet, it is all of a sudden turned into a big deal. It is very disappointing.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Compulsory Levy on Plastic Bags
Compulsory Levy on Plastic Bags
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Northern Territory government -
(a) support a compulsory levy on plastic bags, similar to that operating in Ireland and being proposed
for England; and
(b) lobby the federal government for a compulsory national levy on plastic bags at the next meeting of
environment ministers and of COAG.
Today, I ask both sides of parliament to support this particular motion. It would be fairly reasonable to ask why. There are a number of reasons; some environmental and some social. Once upon a time, we did not have plastic bags. We had reusable bags or baskets. Then we moved into a new era - the throwaway era - where many things are for one-off use: bottles, cans, packaging of all kinds and, of course, plastic bags. They are offered by some stores to consumers as a means of attracting them to the store, and for so-called convenience sake. Of course, once one store gave out free plastic bags, others naturally followed.
Australians now use approximately 6.9 billion plastic shopping bags per year, which is just under one bag per person per day. I would be one of those people. With the entry of free plastic bags came the side effect - visible litter. This is probably the most noticeable effect. Plastic bags, because of their light weight - and I am referring to shopping bags here - are found everywhere. Look at any landfill site and they are all over the place. Travel around the Territory and have a look at the white Christmas or dandruff you see covering the landscape. I remember travelling north out of Alice Springs and being farewelled by plastic in trees. It was certainly a very interesting art form. There are ecological impacts. One of the main effects of plastic bags has been in the marine and aquatic environment, where plastic bags have the capacity to injure wildlife. Dolphins and sea turtles have difficulty in distinguishing between plastic and jellyfish, with dire results.
There is an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. In a report by Craig Simmons, Director of The Future Centre in Oxford, England, a study was made of CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is an important contributor to climate change and one of the key greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto protocol. Mr Simmons said it was decided to compare the use of a plastic bag with a cotton alternative; the embodied energy of cotton and plastic is similar. The weight of a plastic bag is assumed to be about 10 gm compared with 150 gm for a sturdy cotton bag. The result for an average shopper in Ireland who uses 342 plastic bags per year, compared to a shopper who gets through a single cotton bag each year is as follows: the former is responsible for 25.14 kg of carbon monoxide; the latter, just 0.62 kg. He concludes that, even from a brief analysis, there is considerable saving in CO2 reduction in plastic bags. In the case of Ireland, the total of 31 000 tonnes of CO2 was attributed to plastic bag use. Even allowing for CO2 required to produce a cotton bag, savings of more 15 000 tonnes of CO2 are possible if 50% of shoppers make the switch.
There are other issues. We are throwing away a non-renewable resource for no other reason than it is free and it ends up in landfill where it will take from 20 years to 1000 years to break down. Whilst it may make up only 2% of what goes into landfill, it does not need to be there in the first place. It also continues to reinforce the throwaway mentality which has been the cause of massive increases in landfill and litter. Plastic bags have a very low recycling rate. In fact, they are not easily recyclable because there is already plenty of plastic around and it is better to use less plastic than to have to recycle it.
So what can be done? The issue of plastic bags has been tackled in a number of countries that are now seeing major impacts in their countries. In the capital of Bangladesh, plastic bags have been banned altogether. Before the ban in Dhaka, 9.3 million bags were thrown away each day causing major problems to infrastructure and the environment. There has now been an increase in the manufacture of jute bags. Canada recycles plastic bags via their kerbside recycling program. Thailand has banned the use of plastic bags in national parks and sells a replacement at park gates made of cassava - which lends itself to the belief that you can have your bag and eat it too!
In Denmark, there is a packaging tax which is designed to promote the use of reusable bags, textile bags. The tax is weight based and is levied on bags greater than 5 litres capacity. The tax on shopping bags introduced in 1994 reduced the consumption of plastic and paper bags by 66%. In Hong Kong in 2001, it was estimated that 27 million plastic shopping bags were disposed of each day – four bags per person per day. Hong Kong has introduced a ‘no plastic bag, please’ campaign and prohibited retailers over a certain size from providing bags to customers free of charge. In India, the manufacture and use of plastic shopping bags was banned in Bombay from August 2000. In Italy, a charge was introduced in 1998 on plastic bags. Because it was so small, 0.0051 Euro per bag, it has had little impact on consumer behaviour. In South Africa, the plastic bag has now become known as the ‘national flower’. A levy is being proposed under the threat of a ban on plastic bags, but industry is the proponent of the levy. When you look at what the industry wants, you will understand why the levy proposal is industry sidestepping.
The main focus of this debate is the Irish experience. In Ireland in 2001, the Waste Management Environmental Levy Plastic Bag Regulations were brought into effect. The ‘plastax’, as it is called, a levy of 27, applies to all single use plastic carry bags, including biodegradable polymer bags. The levy does not apply to those used to contain fresh produce and those designed for reuse and sold for more than $1.27. The levy is aimed at the consumer rather than the retailer, because the aim was to change consumer behaviour. The levy has resulted in a dramatic decrease of 90% to 95% in single use plastic bag consumption over the past year and a substantial increase in reusable bags. Although the levy does not apply to paper bags, these have not replaced plastic shopping bags in the supermarket sector. I do not believe that we should be trying to promote the use of paper bags because they also have issues regarding greenhouse gases.
The implementation and administration costs of the Irish plastax has been minimal since the levy is widely supported by both consumers and the retail industry. In the first four months since its introduction, the levy has raised 3.5m Euro for waste management and environmental projects. Naturally, of course, that figure decreases sharply the less bags that are bought.
In Australia, two reports - the first commissioned by the federal government and compiled by Nolan-ITU in association with RMIT Centre, and the second by a working group of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council - both deal with the issues of levies, voluntary and compulsory. The working group report sets out the success of several voluntary levies that have been imposed by individual businesses in Australia, and they have been successful. The fact is that, over the past 20 years to 30 years, any retailer could have imposed a voluntary levy on plastic bags, and very few have. So the overall impact has been negligible.
Australians are basically laid back. How many people do you think would vote if it was not compulsory? The levy has to be compulsory and has to be national to avoid any constitutional problems. The commission report compared five scenarios - two of them being a voluntary levy and a 25 legislative levy. It found that under the compulsory levy, plastic bag use would be reduced by 85%, compared with 54% for the voluntary levy. And this is important: that retails would save almost $60m extra with the compulsory levy. It was also found that although consumers would pay more with the compulsory levy, it only amounted to about $12 a year. So the important difference is that you get 30% fewer plastic bags – that is almost three billion with a compulsory levy.
The federal government’s position is best set out in the following media release from the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp:
- ‘Australia should attempt to halve its use of plastic bags by the end of 2004 and substantially increase its
rate of recycling the bags’, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, said today.
‘Ministers have challenged retailers to meet 50% recycling and reduction targets for light weight plastic bags
over the next two years. Ministers are also seeking a 90% participation rate of retail chains and 25%
participation rates of small retailers in a voluntary National Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic
Retail Carry Bags.
‘Ministers have also asked industry and the community to work together to cut plastic bag litter by 75% by the
end of 2004 which, on today’s number, would be a cut of at least 38 million bags,’ Dr Kemp said.
I should just include in there, we have 6.9 billion bags. He is talking about litter of 38 million bags.
- Dr Kemp congratulated the state and territory environment ministers for the national approach they have
agreed to take in tackling the problems plastic bags cause for the environment.
I will go on a little bit further:
- Over the next six months, governments will develop a range of legislative options for plastic bags including
what form a possible levy might take. In the meantime, we are calling on retailers to set and meet ambitious
targets for reducing and recycling plastic bags and to help change the culture of plastic bags used in
the supermarket.
Governments will review the progress we have made in meeting these targets to 2003 before considering
whether further steps such as a levy are needed.
Further on, the minister said:
- The plastic bags problem is first and foremost a problem of litter. The challenge for Australia is not the
6.9 billion plastic bags used each year, but the 50 million to 80 million that end up as litter.
Dr Kemp fails to understand the environmental down sides of plastic – and this is not against all plastic, but in this case the one used in plastic shopping bags - when he says the main challenge for Australia is not the 6.9 million plastic bags used each year, but the 60 million to 80 million that end up as litter. This ignores the wasted resources, the greenhouse impacts, the land fill – where most of it ends up – the litter and the energy used in producing the other six billion plastic bags.
The problem with this federal government approach is the same as with the opposition to container deposit legislation. That is the industry will avoid at all times responsibility for what it produces by using what I call the diversionary solution method. They ask everyone to do the right thing – now, haven’t I heard that before? – spend money on trying to change people’s habits – haven’t I heard that before? – set up a task force and convince the government to give them two years to reduce consumption of plastic bags by 50%. This is exactly the line taken in South Australia a number of years ago when the dairy industry was exempt from container deposit on their plastic milk bottles. They were given a number of years to achieve a recycling target by other means. It did not happen. Lo and behold! They now have a deposit.
We go down that path, but the Irish did not wait around for that nonsense. We might laugh about the Irish, but I reckon – minister, you would never laugh about the Irish – they took the bull by the horns and cut out all this toing-and-froing of looking at it; committees, encouraging people. They did not wait around for all that nonsense. They simply put a levy on the bags and within a year there was a huge drop in the number of bags. The answer was simple; the industry wants to make it complex. As an Irish government-commissioned report said:
- While efforts have been made over the years by retailers to encourage the use of alternatives to the free
shopping bag …
Which is exactly what we are trying to do now in Australia, but here we have a country that has been down that path:
- … these alternatives have been mostly unsuccessful, mainly because of consumer apathy.
As the Irish Minister for the Environment said:
- While many of the options considered presupposed the continued use of plastic bags, it is clear that if we
are to eradicate plastic bag pollution once and for all, we need firm and progressive measures with a real
capacity to reduce the use of these bags.
And that is exactly what the Irish did.
To sum up, why have a compulsory levy on plastic bags, and why not have a levy on other packaging material? This can be best summed from the Nolan-ITU report. They say:
- While plastic bags do not consume large amounts of resources and are a comparatively minor part of the
overall Australian litter stream, several reasons can be used to justify the targeting of plastic bags:
given away for free in large numbers …
And that is the key to one of the problems we have.
designed as a single use or disposable product …
They have never been designed for recycling, they have been designed to end up in landfill or litter.
often not essential for a product integrity …
You do not need them.
visual litter impacts …
Anyone, especially in Central Australia where there is less grass to hide them sometimes, would know that they are disastrous in some places:
ecological litter impacts …
We know the issues about marine animals and the effect on marine animals caused by plastic:
persistence of the material in the environment …
I know there is talk about biodegradable but they are only biodegradable if they can stay out in the sun. Well, they stay out in the sun and you will see them; if you bury them they do not biodegrade because they need oxygen and light to help biodegrade:
potential for replacement by other materials and methods …
Not paper or biodegradable plastic; you could use heavy reusable plastic as the Irish do. In fact, in Ireland you could buy for 70 a bag which is continually reused, and if it happens to wear out you can take it back to the supermarket and you will get a free one. They are still encouraging plastic if you want that, but it is reusable. There are also things like cotton and other fibres that can be used:
not currently widely accepted in the kerbside recycling system …
Well, how are you going to have kerbside recycling systems for plastic bags in the Northern Territory? I can imagine you putting your brick on your plastic bags in some parts of the Territory around Tennant Creek! You would see them for miles. They would just blow all over the place, and there is no kerbside recycling. There is a high level of community concern about the product because, by its very nature, it blows away. We have developed this throw-away mentality which we do not seem to want to attack. That is part of the reason the Speaker is looking at CDL, to try to get away also from the throw-away mentality. It reduces greenhouse emissions, we do not have to produce 6.9 billion plastic bags. If you took all the plastic bags in all the countries I have mentioned, there must be absolutely huge numbers of plastic bags made world wide, and we reduce visual pollution.
I ask the government to support the concept of a compulsory levy, and take our concerns to our national government. I believe the government is going to introduce an amendment, but I would ask them, at least before they do that, to consider what has been said and perhaps debate that first.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion from the member for Nelson. It is certainly a serious issue and it requires serious debate. I will say at the outset that I am unsure whether jumping down the road of a levy at this stage is the way to go because, as I will outline in my contribution to the debate on this particular motion, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments are aware of the problem. The Environment and Heritage Ministers have met, have targets and have strategies. Some of those strategies may well include the option of a levy, member for Nelson. There are things that we need to exhaust first before we start jumping down the road of a levy on plastic bags.
I will quote from the report that you mentioned, which was commissioned by National Packaging Covenant Council, the National Plastic Bags Working Group, and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council of state, territory and federal Environment Ministers. In the executive summary, they talk about the working group identified four main areas of concern that are considered should be addressed by a mix of solutions. The first one is consumer behaviour that results in littering and associated indiscriminate waste disposal. The second is resource efficiency issues, including reduction, re-use and recycling - and I know the member for Nelson addressed some of those issues. The third is plastic degradability issues relating to littering and resource use; and finally, social issues, including triple bottom line concerns, community education, awareness and consumer perception.
So, right up the top there is consumer behaviour that results in littering, and associated indiscriminate waste disposal. There is an important consideration about consumer behaviour that results in littering and, underlying that, indiscriminate waste disposal. The levy that you propose, member for Nelson, does address some of that. However, I do not think it addresses it all.
I will come back to my amendment. The amendment broadly supports the thrust of your concerns about litter abatement, particularly in relation to plastic bags. As you have outlined, there are billions upon billions of plastic bags that are dispensed every year: approximately one bag per person per day. Approximately 37 tonnes of plastic are used to make these bags every year, and about half of these bags are distributed from supermarket outlets; the remainder from fast food outlets, liquor stores and general merchandising. As you pointed out quite rightly, member for Nelson, although numerically plastic bags constitute about 2% of litter, their impact is far more significant than these numbers would suggest. The figures that I have been supplied with are that approximately 20 to 30 million plastic bags are inadvertently littered from rubbish dumps and bins at shopping centres. People litter about another 30 to 50 million bags away from the home, both deliberately and inadvertently. As you pointed out - and a concern as minister for fisheries - in the ocean, plastic bags can be even more damaging. Turtles, in particular, are prone to mistaking plastic bags for jelly fish, ingesting them and dying of intestinal blockage.
However, the impacts of plastic bags are not just confined to litter. Their overuse means that valuable energy and resources are wasted. You detailed that very well, member for Nelson. The overuse of plastic bags, as has been said, is exacerbated by the fact that most people see them as free. I suppose we do not realise that we are actually paying 1 to 2 per bag as we buy our supermarket groceries. I do not get that many take-aways, but a lot of people do, so I suppose there is money in take-aways if plastic bags are involved. The estimate of the per household consumption or cost of plastic bags is about $10 or $15 per year, which really, I suppose seems - I will not use the word minuscule - it seems quite small. However, for all the reasons that I have outlined before, the impact of plastic bags on our environment, both in a material and ecological sense, and also in an aesthetic sense, is quite large.
Generally, people try to make some effort to recycle bags in some way, rather than just chuck them away. I am told that about 75% of households do make an effort to recycle bags. I know, in our household, poor old mum made one of those sausage dispensers. She is no longer with us but the sausage dispenser is - you pull the plastic bags out the end. Unfortunately, the plastic bags, in their never-ending stream, are still with us also. But often, I have to confess to the member for Nelson, I am scrambling around looking for a plastic bag. However, that does not help the landfill. We must have a bit of litter at our place or not use many plastic bags. In fact, as members here are quite aware, I am a fan of these cotton bags, particularly when I was in the PAC and had lots of files, people would see me trundling up the hallway with about three of those in each arm. But our household does try to use them as much as we can. It is great that approximately 75% of people try to use them as bin liners and they do end up unfortunately in landfill, but they are relatively inert.
As the member for Nelson said, some people will advocate returns to paper bags but that too has environmental consequences, as we are aware. But I know in some Aboriginal communities that they have banned plastic bags and they use the paper bags …
Mr Wood: Reintroduce dilly bags.
Dr BURNS: Reintroduce dilly bags, that is right, I have seen a few of those. I know a few communities that I have travelled to certainly have improved the look of those communities by not having plastic bags blowing around everywhere. Generally, unless it is pouring down rain or you try to put the paper bags into the back of a ute that has heaps of water in it, they do work pretty well.
There is a place for plastic bags. This might not make you happy, member for Nelson, but I have been supplied with this information on plastic bags: the making of plastic bags uses up to 40% less energy, 80% less solid waste, 72% less atmospheric emissions and 90% less water borne wastes than a paper bag. I suppose we know about the paper bag but they do have their place.
We need to tackle the plastic problem in three ways. Firstly, by reducing the numbers used and inappropriately disposed of, and this can be achieved through education, and, perhaps as the member for Nelson has foreshadowed, incentives and penalties. Secondly, we need to be looking at alternatives which have less environmental impact from a life cycle perspective. For example, as I have said, cloth bags can be used over and over again, and considerable research is going into the development of degradable bags which hopefully addresses some of those landfill issues. The pressure is really on for the retailers and others involved in this industry to come up with some solutions, along with the community, to lift its game. Thirdly, we need to improve recycling of the plastic bags themselves and only 180 million of the 6.9 billion are currently recovered for recycling. We do need to improve this rate.
Most people try to do the right thing and campaigns that might lead people to putting plastic bags or increase plastic bags into the yellow top bins for some sort of re-use might be worthwhile investigating. Through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, environment ministers have set a national goal of reducing plastic bag litter by 75% by the end of 2004. I met by teleconference with the ministers from that ministerial council on 23 December, where a number of resolutions were made in relation to this. To assist in meeting this target, members at that meeting agreed to a number of critical short term actions - this is every state and territory and the Commonwealth. I know minister Kemp is very concerned about this issue and is taking a leadership role. There is a lot of support amongst ministers within the states and territories also. Ministers agreed to a number of critical short term actions such as considering legislative options, the development of a national code of practice for retailers, improved community awareness and research into degradable plastic bags.
As a government we share the concerns of the member for Nelson - and I assume members opposite and the public - about plastic bag issues. You will see from the amendment I am about to put forward that we are keen to see action on this particular issue. However, we believe it is best achieved by working within the national framework established through state, territory and Commonwealth environment ministers because the impact of a national approach is the way to go. Minister Kemp is very supportive. National education programs and strategies are the way to go.
With that in mind, I have an amendment to the motion, without trying to clip debate or minimise it in any way. I am led to believe that by moving this motion, both my amendment and the original motion proposed by the member for Nelson can be debated.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion: That all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
The Legislative Assembly commends the action by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) to
set a national target of reducing plastic bag litter by 75% by the end of 2004 and notes the following initiatives:
(2) requiring retailers to develop and implement a strong National Code of Practice by April 2003
which will include targets for recycling and reducing plastic bag use;
(3) developing a consumer and retailer awareness program; and
(4) undertaking a comprehensive study on the full impact of degradable plastic bags into the market place.
With that, Madam Speaker, I shall leave the debate to others.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, picking up on the minister’s amendment, I wish he had have given us some – he indicated at the outset that he was going to move an amendment, yet one is on one’s feet without having a chance to look at it. I wonder if the attendant – is that the amendment? I wonder if the member for Nelson has had time to digest this amendment and agrees with it?
The opposition believes the motion moved by the member for Nelson is premature in that it binds the Northern Territory to support a levy on plastic bags and, therefore, we were looking for some sort of amendment which embraced the intent of the motion but, at the same time, was not binding. In that regard, on the face of it – I will just have to have a look at this amendment more closely. I gather, from the minister’s statement, that the issue is well and truly on the agenda at the Environment and Heritage Council; that they are concerned about the issue of plastic bags and their proliferation in Australia. I understand from the minister’s comments that the information that has been provided by the member for Nelson is not disputed - I am no expert on these sorts of issues – and that the environment ministers themselves are looking at strategies to educate the public about how they can do more for the environment by reducing the use of plastic bags.
I was interested to hear from the minister that there is a great deal of work going on with the retailers, and probably by the retailers, to look at various other options including biodegradable bags that would deal with the issue before one has to move to a levy on each and every individual consumer.
I would imagine the member for Nelson’s concern would be that he has little faith in the ability of the Environment and Heritage Council to move rapidly enough on this issue in satisfying his motion. Whilst I understand that concern, I believe it needs to be seen in context, particularly in the Northern Territory. It is one thing to say that this has been introduced in Ireland and is being considered in England and is working wonderfully, and another to say, therefore, we should introduce it in Australia. I note from one of the press releases that was included in the provided documentation that retailers in Ireland, after a 27 levy was put on individual reusable plastic bags, said: ‘Once people understood that it was a government tax they were not angry at us’. To my mind, that begs the question politically: who were they angry with? If they were angry with the government, well then that is very serious concern for me, because what we want to do is make sure that if this sort of levy is introduced that consumers are not angry with anyone; they understand the need for the levy and they are fully supportive of it.
I believe that it is a big step to take. I understand the problem of the proliferation of plastic bags in the Northern Territory. Also, in all fairness - the minister raised it - there are a great deal of Territorians who have embraced this whole concept of recycling and are doing their utmost to ensure that where they can they are using whatever mechanisms they can to reduce that sort of litter, and other mechanisms right throughout the Northern Territory. The real issue for the Northern Territory is how we deal with the whole issue of litter. By looking at one particular litter stream, such as plastic bags in isolation, and moving to recommend a levy, and then to recommend to the Commonwealth that they should embrace such a levy, is premature. I am sure the member for Nelson would agree with that sentiment.
In this House, at a later time, we are going to have legislation introduced on the consideration of a container deposit levy in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that it may be in the consideration of those issues that the issue of plastic bags may also be considered.
In that respect, I would support the government’s amendment. It goes to the issue, essentially, that the problem is not only high on the agenda at a national level, it is also high on the agenda of the Northern Territory minister. The Commonwealth is looking at various options. Can I say at the outset that, from the CLP’s point of view, we would not support a levy on reusable plastic bags to the individual consumer. I do not believe a levy would be supported by the general public on that particular litter stream. It is an unduly blunt instrument to use. When considered in the light of other mechanisms, such as education of the public, probably better disposable mechanisms at the various points so that people can place those bags in appropriate areas so they can be recycled in some way and, most importantly, an emphasis on the industry themselves to come up with better biodegradable packaging. I hope that the ministers are looking at that before they move to a levy option at the national level.
That does not detract in any way from the importance of the issue; I understand that entirely. However, from the CLP’s point of view, the issue of container deposit legislation and how that is dealt with in the Northern Territory is foremost on our agenda. Whilst disposable plastic bags are a problem in the litter stream, undoubtedly we would support, in the first instance, greater education of the public of the harm they do to the environment, and greater education and effort by retailers in how they move with packaging methods.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support of the amendment, and I will give my reasons. I raise a couple of issues that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. I recently met with some Irish politicians in Melbourne at the Parliamentary Accounts Committee Biennial Conference. They told me that when this was introduced it had overwhelming support. The reason it had overwhelming support is that they just did not introduce it, bang! They had an advertising campaign to say what was going to happen, when it was going to happen and why it was going happen. There was no big sledgehammer about ‘tomorrow we will put a levy on plastic bags’. People understood what it was all about. Even when you read some of these reports, you will see that it was accepted by the Irish public. All politicians as far as I know – from talking to these politicians - supported the introduction of this levy.
I would not be advocating something where tomorrow we are putting a 25 levy on plastic bags. You certainly would - if it was a national levy - be expecting government to tell people why it was going to happen and introduce it many months ahead of when they announced it. I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. He did say he would oppose a levy on re-useable plastic bags. I am not sure whether he was actually meaning ‘one use’ shopping bag. However, there is no levy intended on re-useable shopping bags. In fact, in Ireland, you pay for the shopping bag and you can keep it as long as you want to. If it starts to deteriorate, you can take it back to the store, I gather, and get a new one. I am not talking about re-useable plastic.
In general, the problem I have with trying to debate this is that I probably had not realised when I started to look at this, that the minister - and this is not knocking the minister because the minister and I are basically both on the same side but coming from slightly different philosophical points of view – and the Territory government has already decided that this is their attitude. This amendment is no more than a regurgitation of their policy on plastic bags, because they have already been to a meeting of the environment ministers and decided to do it. It is very difficult to get up here and ask the government to change its mind about something that it has already decided to do. Maybe this is impractical, but it would have been nice, before our government decided it would agree with some national code of practice on plastic bags, that it was debated in this House. I would have thought that would have been a good way to do this. I would certainly have been part of that debate if it had occurred. We could also have put the debate out there for the public. The public may not have agreed with it, but at least we would have had a chance to hear what the public had to say.
So, lo and behold, when you read the documents from Environment Australia and the press releases from the federal Minister for Environment and Heritage, you realise that the amendment that the government is putting forward is more or less exactly the same as the federal government is trying to implement.
This is exactly what I was trying to say before: you see it with CDL. CDL is being attacked now by the beverage and packaging industry and all sort of people. What do they want to do? What did they come up to Darwin recently for? Well, litter is the main problem.
Mr Burke: You will not win CDL by introducing a new problem.
Mr WOOD: No, it is a different problem than CDL and it is a different philosophy. However, what I am trying to say is: the packaging and beverage industry are opposed. They use a tactic which is: ‘We will move some of the arguments sideways. So, we will forget about greenhouse gases, landfill, whether we should have a throwaway mentality in our society – it is all about litter. We can come up with some programs to fix litter’. Well, yes, yes, I know all about that; I can hear them saying that now. However, who said it works? Look at TALC – the Territory Anti-Litter Committee. It received $200 000 a year, year after year after year - does it really make any difference? It is a way of moving sideways from trying to find a solution, because the industry has a vested interest in making more of the product. They do not want to see plastic bags go. There is nothing here to say that plastic bags - that is the one-use plastic bags, I am not talking about plastic bags that can be re-used, I am talking about the one you get at the supermarket which is designed to be thrown away or just used for a bit of rubbish and ends up in landfill. They want that to continue and you have to ask: do we need to have that in our society? It is not just about litter.
As you will see in the heading of the amendment, it immediately says we are looking at a national target of reducing plastic bag litter by 75%. You will not have plastic bag litter if you do not have plastic bags. You also will have a reduction in greenhouse gases if you do not have plastic bags. You will not need recycling. We already know that only 3% of plastic bags are recycled. Why make a whole new industry, which is going to create more greenhouse gases, why don’t you just remove that section of it? You do not have recycling there because you just do not have them. There will be a certain amount of recycling and reusable bags but you will not have to have to have the 6.9 billion bags; this will be reduced to a very small amount if we bring this in.
Basically, these particular options are very similar to those that were tried to be introduced in South Africa. In that country, the government threatened to bring in a ban on all plastic bags and immediately the industry jumped in and said: ‘Well, we will put on a levy’. The levy actually is only 2, so I reckon it has Buckley’s chance of changing people’s attitude. It is proved in Italy where it is minuscule and it does not work. It has to be a levy that can really work. In fact, if you look into documents from Nolan-ITU, which looked at the various scenarios for levies versus voluntary levies, you will see that where there is a 25% legislative levy, you reduced the use of single use plastic shopping bags by 85% compared to the voluntary levy of about 54%.
You actually reduced the cost of plastic bags to retailers by $161m compared to $103m because there are spin-offs. Not just for the community, there are spin-offs for retailers. They do not have to provide the thousands of plastic bags they do at the moment. No retailer is going to be game enough to start charging people for plastic bags if they know that their main competitor is not doing the same. Woollies is not going to put 20 on every bag if Coles does not do it. That is the problem with the voluntary levy, and that is why it has to be legislated. It will not work. It is all lovely, fuzzy-wuzzy stuff, makes you feel good, it puts off the inevitable, and it tries to maintain an industry that we do not really need.
It is an industry that we have been given, we are used to it, but in the end it is an industry that is costing us far more money than we really need. We are paying, as they say. We pay for all those plastic bags. The retailers are paying for those plastic bags. We do not need them.
Madam Speaker, to sum up, I know that the government and I both have the same idea and I think the opposition has; that plastic bags are a nuisance. I have also detailed why plastic bags are singled out; I will not go over that. Litter is a problem, but plastic bags have some special issues which we can at least take part of that litter stream away by introducing a levy. So, whilst I support in the sense the government’s view about the difficulties with plastic bags, and I support what the opposition is saying, I do not believe that these amendments will do anything but create a new industry. That will be the recycling of plastic bags that we do not need to recycle because we do not need to have them in the first place.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is being introduced to allow both the police and the courts to impound vehicles as a penalty for certain traffic offences. Offences specifically are burnouts, speed trials, the race between vehicles, and the deliberate damaging of road surfaces. The object of this legislation is to reduce the danger to the public caused by people involved in such offences. People in the vehicles which are being used to commit the offence are also at risk from this type of behaviour. As well, it is hoped to reduce the disturbance to local neighbourhoods, especially from noise, and reduce damage to roads, especially gravel roads.
This bill is based on similar amendments to the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment Act 2002. This was introduced by the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Honourable T McGrady, member for Mt Isa. The Labor government in Queensland introduced this bill with a desire to make roads safer. They recognised that ‘hooning’, as it commonly called, is dangerous behaviour which is placing road users at risk. The National Party also supported the bill. The Independent member for Mildura in the Victorian government, Mr Russell Savage, has taken an interest in establishing similar legislation in his state.
I will now highlight some of the amendments. This bill allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for certain offences - burnouts, speed trials, racing and damaging roads – for 48 hours for the first offence, for up to three months for a second offence and up to six months for a third and subsequent offence. A structure of penalties applies if offences occur within three years. Impoundment does not exclude the addition of any other penalty that may be imposed for the offence.
The bill also includes a section which deals with severe financial or physical hardship caused by impoundment, as well as situations where the owner of a vehicle can prove the vehicle was used without the owner’s knowledge or consent. The court can make Community Orders under the Sentencing Act in these cases. I would expect this section of the bill to be applied in exceptional circumstances and not as a loophole to get around impoundment.
The bill states the powers and roles of the police in carrying out this new section of the act, including impoundment procedures, towing, storing and notice for first offences, as well as for second or subsequent offences. Other parts of the bill cover impoundment costs and the sale of impounded vehicles that are unclaimed. A new prescribed offence at clause 29A(c) Damaging Surface of a Public Street has been included for three reasons: (1) to cover damage caused to bitumen surfaces by either using a substance poured on the road to create a burnout, by a burnout or by a wheel rim where the tyre is separated from the rim, or any other part of the vehicle; (2) to cover damage to gravel roads - gravel roads are especially targeted just after grading. This has been a common occurrence in areas like the Litchfield Shire for a number of years - and (3) to cover damage to nature strips caused by vehicles. A public road or street is usually measured from fence line to fence line. Although this section does not deal with intentional damage to roads, the matter of intent is covered by section 31 of the Criminal Code. Amendments to section 16 of the principal act will allow the court to order the offender to pay the cost of repairing damage to a road surface.
I know that in the rural area that hooning is an activity which is regarded by many people as not only being a dangerous activity, especially for other road users, pedestrians, bike riders and horse riders, but – to put it bluntly – a bloody nuisance creating noise and smell in the neighbourhood. I highlight the fact that recently a person was injured at the Litchfield Pub when hit by a vehicle whose driver was doing a donut. It is not a pleasing sight to see a road covered in rubber from burnouts, or to see your gravel road which has just been graded ripped up by drivers who think it is fun to damage the surface of a road. Whilst gravel roads might not be common in the suburbs it is certainly a problem in the rural area.
Hooning is an activity which annoys the heck out of many people and is simply loutish behaviour. Although this bill is based on the Queensland model, I should note that I have not included all the features of the Queensland act. I have not included the forfeiture of vehicles. That is a fairly draconian punishment which I believe is not necessary to get the point across, which is: if you wish to hoon on public roads, then you will lose your car. While a car is off the road neighbourhoods may have a chance for some respite from the noise. It seems that in Queensland, no one has yet been charged with a second offence which could mean that losing a vehicle for 48 hours is a good deterrent, and the amendments I have developed will do the job.
I have also not included the other offence of lapping which is related to noisy stereo systems in cars. That is, cars driving around and around the suburb with the stereo belting out very bass music. I would be interested in hearing from our suburban politicians about lapping or noise to see if they believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed. That is not to say confiscation of vehicles for lapping should not be considered, but a more appropriate time may be to look at these matters and others, such as DUI or damage to road signs, when there is a review in two years time. The bill includes, under clause 29A(r), a review of the bill after two years. For the time being, the bill should stay focussed and straightforward.
This bill is about not allowing our roads to be turned into speedways or racetracks. There are places like Hidden Valley where such activities can legitimately be held, and if people like to go out into the bush and do the same thing off the roads, so be it.
The intention of this bill is to preserve the amenity of where we live, regardless of whether we live in town or country. The community has a right to live in safety, and in peace and quiet. This bill, I believe, will go some way to making that happen. As many of our politicians represent the more densely populated areas of the NT where much of this activity occurs, I would hope that they would not only see the benefit of this new legislation, but support it as well.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I present the Sentencing Amendment Bill to the House. The proposed amendment will remove customary law as a relevant or mitigating factor in sentencing in cases of sexual offences against minors. At the start I want to make some points very clear. I believe that a girl’s right before the Northern Territory law and her human rights have the same weight in court as those of a man. Therefore, matters of customary law involving a man asserting his traditional rights on a young girl should not be relevant in sentencing for a sexual offence.
My aim is to ensure that Aboriginal girls under the age of 16 have the same rights and protections in law as other Australian girls. I realise that this amendment may be contentious, but I believe it is important. I am not proposing the abolition of promised or traditional marriage, but I am proposing that a young girl be protected from carnal knowledge against her wishes.
This matter raises several difficult policy areas. Among them are, firstly, the clash of cultures and legal systems; secondly, the question of whether a minor’s consent to a promised marriage is informed consent; and, thirdly, whether my proposal is an attack on Aboriginal rights or a move to protect human rights. It is much easier to say that such a matter is too hard or too controversial – let us leave it alone. At the moment, the matter is left to the vaguely defined discretion of police officers, government officials and community members. Sometimes it appears to me that, in many cases involving Aboriginal women and girls, the prosecution is sometimes reluctant or finds it difficult to gather the strong evidence they would otherwise collect in similar cases. We all know that some girls of various backgrounds have sex before they are 16 years old and charges are rarely made against the males involved unless the sex is unwanted and without consent and reported.
An Australian Law Reform Commission report in 1982 observed that in practice prosecutions for carnal knowledge were rare in the general community and even rarer in Aboriginal communities. At that stage, the commission knew of no case in which a tribal husband had been prosecuted for the offence in respect of consensual intercourse with his under-age tribal wife, claiming the existence of the offence might therefore be regarded as a theoretical problem. But following a case in the Territory last year, it is no longer theory. The fact is that a case did reach the courts, and that many more such cases may be pursued in the future as the traditional system of arranged marriages breaks down, because inevitably it will and is. Young men and young women will resist the arrangements and young girls will seek the protection of Territory laws. This proposed amendment is aimed at ensuring that they get this protection.
As the Attorney-General has already acknowledged, Aboriginal law encompasses a wide range of unwritten rules that governs social relationships, economic rights, land ownership, land management and intellectual property rights. It is about people and land, and people and kinship. Group interests and rights shape customary law.
Promised marriages highlight the inherent difference between the value and belief of our two systems, our two cultures, in dealing with this very complex social and cultural issue. Several reports acknowledge that customary marriage practice is a long-standing and vexing issue. It is a powerful cultural practice that is still accepted in some Aboriginal communities but it clashes with established legislation and statutory responsibility.
There needs to be a balance struck between supporting Aboriginal law and culture, and enforcing the wider Australian law, and it is not an easy balance to strike, I admit that. At the heart of this argument is the standing of the individual in both systems of law. It is a debate that has been going on in similar terms in the United Nations for decades: individual human rights versus community rights.
On the one hand, the desires and rights of a young Aboriginal girl might be subjugated for the survival of her community, regarding its genetic integrity, its kinship systems, maintaining ceremony, and the custodianship of the land. On the other hand, in the broader Australian society, the young girl’s rights to protection from exploitation by an older man are paramount. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to condone or take lightly acts of violence or sexual expectation but, on the other hand, it is desirable to recognise and uphold Aboriginal laws and perceptions where possible. The Attorney-General has also observed that Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent that is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
My argument is that, if courts acknowledge traditional marriage as a mitigating or relevant sentencing factor in sexual cases involving minors, they then - the courts - run the risk of breaching several international human rights conventions, and of ignoring the human rights of the victim, while upholding those of the offender. I believe there are several arguments in support of the change. They include: the flexibility of traditional law; the breakdown of promised marriage systems; the need for equal protection under the law; and the necessity to uphold human rights.
One of the strengths of Aboriginal law is its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. The rules of marriage in the past have been flexible and subject to negotiation. For example, a promise might lapse or be re-negotiated between the parties concerned. The Australian Law Reform Commission, in 1982, acknowledged that although the system of promised marriage still operated in many traditional Aboriginal communities in Australia, generally it existed in a variety of modified forms. In an article called Black Responses to White Law, the authors claim that one important means of survival for Aboriginal law has been its capacity to accommodate European values. So, the accommodation that I am suggesting with this amendment can be possible.
Promised marriages remain a social practice that Australian law does not preclude, but the law should protect a promised bride, under 16 years, from exploitation. In the Territory, there is evidence that promised marriages were on the decline, even in Arnhem Land, by the mid-1960s. One study found that, of 12 adult females at Maningrida, only three had married the men to whom they had been promised, and seven had been stolen by other men. In the early 1980s, two incidents highlighting the breakdown of a traditional marriage received national publicity. You may remember them, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker: a 15-year-old girl ran away from Yuendumu because she did not want to be part of a promised marriage; and a 19-year-old girl sought refuge from the then member for Nightcliff, Dawn Lawrie, after the girl had been beaten regularly by her promised husband. The 19-year-old alleged, back then, 20 years ago, that many young women were running away from unhappy promised marriages. She said they were often beaten, and pack raped in an effort to make them accept their marriages. In relation to the 15-year-old girl, Dawn Lawrie put out a press release stating:
- I am sick and tired of what I see as a conspiracy of silence on this issue, and call on Territory politicians
to make their views known to us all. For too long, too many have pretended that the slavery of child brides
just does not happen.
As The Australian newspaper observed last October, the Territory case was dominated by the man’s interests, the man’s rights, the man’s cultural sensitivities and the man’s feelings. Let me remind members that Australia is a signatory to several UN conventions that would support the rights of an Aboriginal girl under the age of 16 to the full protection of the statutory law. I am not going to quote them all but I do want to include a couple. Article 23, section 2, of the Civil and Political Rights Covenant of 1966 states that marriage should be entered into with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. Underlying Australia’s current marriage act, the Family Law Act, is the presumption that girls under the age of 18, and of 16 at the very least, should be free to be educated and free from the responsibility of childbirth. The preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection. Article 34 of the same convention says that countries should protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
I will quote from one of the many letters I have received. The writer states:
- I know the current sensitivity of the issue of customary law versus our contemporary law. However, it seems to
me that there is no question of the precedence of human rights, given Australia’s ratification of the UN
Human Rights Convention, and that we must undertake to enforce a standard of care within government, and
which entails a proactive, social responsibility consistent with that declaration and with the simple trust that
we must honour to those in need.
I have circulated my amendment to approximately 40 groups or individuals including legal, community and women’s groups. I expect this proposal to be opposed in some quarters, perhaps amongst legal groups. Such controversy arises when someone moves to implement regulations in an area where the law and the community have turned a blind eye. It is what happened actually with voluntary euthanasia, if you recall, in this parliament. We all know that it happens quietly and illegally with the cooperation of doctors, nurses, patients and their families. But when the former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, moved to create some legal certainty for those participants and for the community, and the matter was raised for public debate, many people who had always ignored it, or pretended that it was not happening, felt they had to oppose the legislation.
It is a similar case with promised marriages and under-age girls. In the Northern Territory, the police, the legal profession and the Aboriginal community have known it has been a continuing practice and have worked out their own informal ways of dealing with it. But it is no longer good enough because last year’s case has given the issue a high, public profile and community reaction to the case demands that we, as legislators, do something more to protect young Aboriginal girls.
I expect some to claim that the proposed law is discriminatory because, in an unlawful carnal knowledge case, a judge will not be able to consider all the possible relevant factors when the alleged offender is a male Aborigine. I will argue that without this amendment, the law will continue to discriminate against young Aboriginal girls who are not being given the same protection as other Australian girls. Others will claim that it breaches international conventions that encourage the protection of indigenous cultural practices. I will argue, as I already have, that without this amendment, we are in breach of other international conventions for the protection of children. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, who has the greater rights?
A more difficult argument lies in the claim that the amendment challenges the principle well accepted by the courts, that aspects of Aboriginality can be taken into account in sentencing. In fact, Justice Toohey has said that Aboriginality may, in some cases, mean little more than the conditions under which the offender lives. In other cases, it may be the very reason why the offence was committed. And here is the gist of the issue: if an Aboriginal man knew about carnal knowledge in our law, the Australian law, but he also had a young promised wife and strongly believed in his authority to assert his cultural rights under his law, he would not be committing an offence. Therefore, his Aboriginality contributes to an offence under our NT law. Surely any court has an obligation to consider the Aboriginality of the victim as well, and to consider in the case of unlawful carnal knowledge in a promised marriage setting, that if she was not Aboriginal, she would have been given the full protection of the law.
Although I expect some objections to this amendment, I also expect some support and that support will come from the people whom I believe are most affected in this debate: Aboriginal women and girls. I will quote from a letter I received from an Aboriginal women’s group in Central Australia:
- The Executive discussed this at their recent meeting …
And the Executive consists of senior women, and they do mention the communities they represent:
- … the women felt very strongly the court should not have any regard to Aboriginal Customary Law where
the victim is under 16 years of age.
They are all too aware of the abuse that is inflicted on children and young girls in their communities. The letter goes on to say:
- One of the main objectives has been to ensure that the Australian legal system protects Aboriginal
women and children from violence.
I am also hoping for support from the Minister for Community Development who has already told this parliament that the Territory’s legal system in relation to the case last year had failed in its humanitarian responsibility for the protection of children. The Attorney-General has also told parliament that customary law would not override existing laws. If that is to be so, then greater care must be taken before acknowledging customary law as a mitigating factor in sentencing and, in the case of sex charges against minors, the law should make it clear that the mitigating factor is not available. Simply put, it cannot be used as an excuse.
What I am suggesting with this simple amendment to the Sentencing Act is a mixture of old and new: that we accept that there may be promised wives under traditional law, but that those young girls will not be legally subjected to fulfilling their sexual obligations until they are aged 16 in line with our law, especially if they do not consent.
No matter where you stand in this argument, you would have to agree that, year by year, the old systems are breaking down, that incrementally Australian law, in relation to criminal matters at least, will have to prevail. The government has suggested that I have jumped the gun here, and that instead I should have submitted my views to the Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law that the Territory’s Law Reform Committee is conducting. I considered that, and then I looked at the time frame for that committee’s work. It is taking submissions until the end of June – that is more than eight months after the inquiry was announced – then we will have to wait for the committee to compile its report, say another six months, and then we have to wait for the government to respond, possibly up to another six months. That takes us well into the middle of next year.
This amendment will send a message to all Aboriginal girls and women. With the support of this parliament, we can have stronger protection for Aboriginal girls in place this August, a good year before the government might otherwise consider doing so.
I want to thank my research officer, Lorraine Davies, for the assistance she has given me in researching this topic, and to those groups which have already responded to my amendment. I encourage those groups that have not done so and would like to do so, please, to get in touch with me.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It is with great pleasure that I table this bill for introduction It creates a scheme that is constitutional and that will work. The results of the surveys that we have had show that there is more than 90% support for container deposits in the Territory. I flagged, in August last year, my intention of tabling container deposit legislation. I had planned to table that legislation in October but ran into problems, as most of you know, as I tried to come up with a scheme that would receive community support but would not create a tax or excise.
I have to say that this legislation does not create the same scheme that is preferred by many in the community, but that scheme, the preferred scheme, is unworkable under the Constitution. That scheme, which is supported by the Local Government Association, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council, environmental groups and community government councils would see the beverage industry paying, up-front, a deposit and handling fee for every container delivered into the Territory market. The money would go into a community fund that would reimburse the consumer for the deposit and the collection depots for handling the containers. The fund would retain money relating to unredeemed containers and money from the sale of containers for recycling, minus administration costs, and the surplus would be spent on other waste management projects. This is the attractive part of that scheme: that the community would benefit from the unredeemed deposits. Unfortunately, that scheme is unconstitutional.
My original draft legislation for that scheme was submitted to the Solicitor-General for his opinion, after Parliamentary Counsel advised that it created a tax. The Solicitor-General agreed and so, reluctantly, I have had to abandon that scheme.
From my experience, apart from determining whether a scheme is viable, constitutional and cross-border issues are most important after the 1996 High Court decision that prevents states and territories from introducing taxes. Once I received the Solicitor-General’s advice, it was obvious that I had to find a scheme that does not impose a tax or excise. I have waited to see if the government is going to make a commitment to implementing CDL by introducing their own version.
My main aim has always been to see the litter problem in the Territory addressed. The draft I have tabled today creates a scheme that may not please everyone, because there is no community fund, but in my view it is a scheme that will work. It will not create a tax and it is simple. Local government, and groups like the Scouts, can still be involved in running collection depots, and remote Aboriginal communities will still be able to take part. It will reduce litter, produce a cleaner environment, save our valuable resources by ensuring recycling occurs, and that has been always my main objective.
I have tabled this bill and trust it will stimulate debate and discussion and over the next six months. It will lay on the table until the next General Business Day in August. If groups can see where it might be improved, they should let me know so that I can consider their ideas. However, it must be kept in mind that any proposed changes have to be considered in this context: will the scheme create a tax? If it does, it is unconstitutional.
I now turn to the detail of the scheme that I am proposing. The size of the deposit and the containers covered would be declared in regulations, but they would be in line with South Australia. At the moment, there would be a 5 deposit on containers for beer, cider, soft drinks, wine and spirit mixes, water, juice, and flavoured milk. For several reasons, including cross-border trade and the ease of labelling, it is important that the Territory stays in line with South Australia and the size of the deposit and the containers it covers.
Under this proposed scheme, the beverage manufacturer or distributor who wants to sell a beverage in the Territory will have to seek approval to sell the container. The container would have to be made of a recyclable material, and it would have to have an appropriate label detailing the container deposit, its size and how it can be redeemed. The container can then be sold in the Territory. The consumer buys the drink and can take the container to a collection depot to redeem the deposit. The collection depot would be licensed to operate by a materials coordinator established by this legislation. The depot may then bill the manufacturer for the deposit and the handling fee.
So, under this legislation, the manufacturer is responsible for making sure the returned containers are recycled. This means the manufacturer might pick up the containers for the depots, deliver them to interstate recyclers, or arrange for someone else to pick them up, or pay the depots to arrange. This legislation is also very much in line with the policy of extended producer responsibility. It ensures that the beverage manufacturer has stewardship of his product from beginning to end.
The scheme will also give remote communities the opportunity to participate. Shipping and trucking companies have indicated that they will back load the containers for a minimum charge.
The intent of the legislation is to produce a workable system of container deposits without infringing upon federal government laws or the Constitution. The aim is to reduce litter, to increase recycling and to encourage manufacturers to use packaging that is easily recyclable. The spirit of the legislation is to encourage manufacturers to work in a cooperative way with community groups and local government to reduce landfill, clean up the environment, and save our resources. Basically, the idea is that, when the products are approved under legislation, they are sold in the Territory, they are collected at collections depots where whoever takes them to the depot receives their 5 deposit, but that deposit and a handling fee is then charged back to the manufacturer. So, it is not the government imposing a deposit on a can or container; it is government legislating to say the manufacturer is responsible for the litter that he has caused and he must purchase back his litter from a collection depot.
I look forward to a spirited debate, but I also look forward to support for container deposit legislation. As we are all aware, the beverage industry has been to visit many members over the last month, arguing the scheme is expensive and unworkable. The fact is the industry has had decades to do something about the litter problem and it has accomplished little. Their assertions that the cost of living will rise considerably because of this deposit is scaremongering. Last night on television, for instance, the industry was claiming that a slab of beer would cost an additional $4. Well, my maths show me that 5 times 24 equals $1.20. I remind them that that deposit is also refundable if the containers are returned to a collection depot. Therefore, we have to bear that in mind: that the deposit that you may pay on your container is redeemable.
If there are individuals or community groups who will not support this bill because it does not have a community fund, then I challenge them to question their motives in wanting container deposit legislation. Is it only about funding? If you want a cleaner environment, if you want to reduce litter, if you want to increase recycling and to make manufacturers more responsible for their products, then this bill will do it. The government, I hope, will look closely at this bill. I believe it is constitutional. It does not impose a tax or excise because it is not the government imposing the deposit, it is the collection agencies gathering that deposit from the manufacturer. Of course, we must always remember that CDL is supported by a large number of people in the Territory.
If the Territory goes ahead with this scheme, I believe you will find that the rest of Australia will follow, after the individual state agreements on the national packaging covenant expire. I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Loss of Population in the Territory
Loss of Population in the Territory
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly, noting:
year, and the halving of the Territory’s representation in the House of Representatives;
substantial increase in the nett loss in interstate migration in the year to June 2002;
14 779 in May 2001 to 14 321 in September last year;
noted by the government’s Business Round Table; and
therefore calls upon the government to immediately act to -
as the HIH levy and the car tax;
departure;
9. abandon its plan to further cut the public service by up to 1500 jobs, thereby adding to the loss of
population, when those 1500 and their families go elsewhere for work;
10. help those businesses which are employing Territorians today, as well as attract major projects for the
future, rather than concentrating on one objective to the exclusion of the other; and
11. address the increasing costs of living being forced on Territorians by increased government taxes,
charges, and levies.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we are assured by this government that the Territory’s future is rosy, that all manner of great things are about to happen that will make the Territory the boom state of the Australian economy. Unfortunately, that is the future, and Territorians have to live in the here and now. They cannot survive on hope alone. Even if all these great projects the Chief Minister spoke about yesterday were certainties, it does not alter the problems we face today. The basic problem is this government. It procrastinates, delays, studies, engages consultants, reviews, and inquires, but what it does not do, is make decisions. We are drowning in strategies, discussion papers, discussion papers to develop strategies, and strategies to develop discussion papers. Territorians need some lifeline from this government before they go down for the third time.
Territory businesses need some action from this government now, and another announcement that the good times will return in several years’ time does nothing to address their immediate problems. The government seems to believe that businesses are being churlish in not welcoming all these announcements about the future. They hold the belief that it is just a matter of time before things will turn around. It may well be, and we certainly all hope that is the case, but what do Territorians do in the meantime?
The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development dismisses the despondent views of the business sector as reported by the Yellow Pages Business Index with the comment: ‘The survey was done before the announcements about expansions at McArthur River and Gove’. He does not understand that the problem is now, and nor does his government. The opposition brings forward this motion about government: inertia and inaction amid circumstances that speak volumes. Only yesterday the Yellow Pages Business Index showed what small and medium businesses think of their situation. Their confidence has declined noticeably, their sales have declined substantially, employment dropped significantly, profits weakened further in the quarterly survey and support for the Northern Territory government, this government, has declined substantially.
The survey contains the incredible figure that 38% of small and medium businesses believe that this government’s policies work against them. Only 18% think this government’s policies are supportive of their business. No credible government can ignore that and that is why we have brought forward this motion - a motion that puts forward some areas where the government can change tack and can begin to be supportive of business and Territorians and not work against them.
Unfortunately, the Yellow Pages Business Index is not some shock out of left field; it was to be expected. It was the continuation of a trend that has been developing throughout most of this government’s period in office. It comes amid other indicators that this government is trying to ignore. Population is declining in the Territory for the first time since Cyclone Tracy. The Chief Minister has tried to argue that it is not her government’s fault, but look at the facts. We go to the minutes of the Chief Minister’s Round Table, in Darwin, last September. The Chief Minister was told, and I quote:
- While many business owners have left, there is some optimism among those remaining, that the economic
climate is improving.
Again, in parliament yesterday, she claimed that the business index indicated significant growth in the work force, for small and medium businesses. It showed that only 10% of businesses expected an increase in the work force, the lowest figure in the past five surveys, and the Chief Minister thinks that shows increasing optimism on behalf of business.
The Chief Minister makes much of the assertion that hers is a listening, consultative government, but she is refusing to hear what businesses are saying. Not only is the Chief Minister failing to hear the real message; she and her government appear determined to believe everything is okay and that we have turned the corner, as the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development believes. We have turned the corner, but we are on the low road, not the high road. The sad thing for the Territory is that there are fewer and fewer of us on the journey and even fewer joining us from either interstate or overseas.
The ABS reports that the nett loss in overseas migration in the year to June 2002 was the first loss since 1976. The ABS reports that the nett loss in interstate migration increased by 65% between 2000-01 and 2001-02. The ABS reports that the population of the Territory has declined for the first time since Cyclone Tracy and it has happened under this government’s watch. They are the facts, and the Treasurer predicts that it will cost the Territory $20m to $25m a year in foregone revenue, although his mid-year report comes up with different figures and we have yet to digest and analyse the figures that he announced in parliament today.
This government has to take the blame. Their own policies have contributed substantially to this population loss. They have cut the size of the public service since they became the government, and it is interesting to note that since we raised this issue in Question Time yesterday and gave notice of this motion, new public service figures suddenly materialise on the government Internet.
You will note the motion says that there has been a cut in public service numbers, since the change of government, from 14 779 to 14 321 in September this year. I am happy to correct those numbers in light of the fact the government has finally released some later figures. The public service, according to these figures, has been cut from 14 779 to 14 378, a drop of 401 jobs. How many of those who have lost their positions in the public service have left the Territory with their families? How much of the population loss, which will cost us money and will cost us representation in the House of Representatives, is directly related to this government’s policy to cut back the public service? How many people have not come to the Territory because this government is not filling vacancies? How many will leave because of the rise in unemployment?
The Chief Minister tabled a graph in this parliament last week which she said showed unemployment was trending down. The facts are that, for the past six months, for every month, unemployment has risen at the same time as the work force is beginning to trend downwards as well. Certainly, since the Chief Minister found it was terrific that we had more than 101 600 people employed, both the total work force and the number of employed people has dropped by more than 3000 on trend figures. The original statistics for January reveal a grimmer picture, a loss of more than 7000 jobs.
That is the reality of the Territory today. Unless this government faces the truth instead of believing their own spinning of the facts and figures, it will get worse. However, this motion offers some suggestions.
The first is to have a real hard look at the increasing burden you have placed on Territory businesses and Territorians with your taxes and levies and charges. The HIH levy has a direct impact on business and is an added burden that they could well do without in these hard times. The car tax is impacting on both business and ordinary Territorians, and it is a petty tax. It is a tax that was brought in not to raise revenue, but rather for political reasons. It was imposed on all Territorians because this government believed it would constantly remind people of the myth of the ‘black hole’. Now all it does is remind Territorians that this government is taxing them more than any previous government, at a time when they can least afford it. It should be dumped because Territorians cannot afford it, business cannot afford it and the government no longer needs it.
The government should also review its other charges. It has only presented one-and-a-half budgets but it has already increased water and sewerage charges twice. I am no economist, but it seems to me that in a declining economy, adding more to the burden of industry in the way of taxes and charges does not increase revenue but actually can lead to a decline in revenues as businesses go out of business or downsize. The government has flagged an intent to reduce payroll tax; so far, all it has done is increase it for some businesses. But that reduction will be welcome relief and the sooner it is implemented, the better.
We spoke yesterday about fast-tracking the Darwin Wharf Precinct. The government is pushing the myth that we put it on the shelf, which is totally incredulous, as it was one of the key points of our election promises. It was also a key point at the economic summit held in November 2001, and the government then was urged to fast-track the redevelopment of the Darwin Wharf Precinct. Of course, the summit has disappeared into history. As I noted yesterday, the government, after failing to produce the quarterly reports on summit progress that it promised, has now removed any mention of the summit from its web sites. Now, we are supposedly fast-tracking it again. I wonder how many times you can fast-track something before anything happens. I hope that this time the government is serious. This is the sort of stimulus that will help the local economy.
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure said yesterday he was putting ideas and models for the redevelopment to Cabinet. I hope that does not mean that it is all back to square one. The minister also said that Cabinet will soon make a decision. Unfortunately, that decision was only going to show how the government is going to proceed. The decision soon is not whether the wharf precinct goes ahead, but rather, what do we do next before we decide whether it will go ahead or not. Similarly, with the convention centre for Darwin, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure spoke of a decision being very, very soon. He also said that the convention centre will be owned by the government. Both suggestions by the minister seem to contradict what the Chief Minister said later in the same debate. She talked about picking proponents and how the world had changed since the previous government studied the issue. The Chief Minister spoke about the need to reconsider the whole idea of a convention centre, and we know the government has only recently contracted to pay PricewaterhouseCoopers $250 000 to look again. It does not sound like a decision is very, very soon, as far as the Chief Minister is concerned.
Even if the government is reconsidering the whole issue, they must know the reality is that whether to go ahead with a convention centre or not is a political decision, and such a political decision is needed now to stimulate the economy. In the same way, it is time for the government to decide and implement plans to release land in Alice Springs for the further development of our second major urban area. Coupled with this are plans for Owen Springs and the need to finally make a decision as to what is going to happen there. It is a great asset and it needs to be developed further to add to the tourism industry and further the amenities in the Centre.
I spoke earlier about the population drift the Territory is suffering for the first time since 1975. Although this fall is only small at this stage, there is nothing to suggest, in the present economic situation, that it will not increase as more people find they have to leave and others decide not to come. Having a discussion paper on a population strategy is not enough. We have to sell the Territory and the work was done by the previous government in the Difference is Opportunity research. I notice this government is using that slogan, even though it criticised the research, the methods and the work done by the previous government to develop a marketing campaign. That marketing campaign was ready to go and is well overdue for its implementation. The government constantly tells us that there are enormous opportunities coming. Well, let us tell the rest of Australia before all the Territorians who are leaving demonstrate a different message.
As well as attracting permanent residents, we must increase our efforts to attract temporary visitors - tourists. Of course, we recognise the world has changed with 11 September, and Bali, and the collapse of Ansett. But it is in such circumstances that you have to double your efforts to get people to come. Getting competitive air services in the Centre is a must, but all we hear from the Minister for Tourism is that he is putting a business plan to Virgin Blue Airlines. How many business plans has he put so far, and why will he not commit money to get air services to the Centre, when the government was proud of its $2m contribution to get Virgin Blue to the Top End? It is also disturbing that instead of upping its tourism marketing campaigns, the reality is that in the first six months of this financial year, only 34% of the tourism budget has been spent, and the Treasurer’s mid-year report flags the fact that the tourism budget is going to be cut by $2bn next year.
And talking about cuts, is it really a time, with rising unemployment, to be ridding the public service of some 1500 jobs? The Chief Minister has made it plain that that is part of the government’s intention across its first year term. The Chief Minister said this will be achieved by natural attrition and voluntary redundancies. The Chief Minister spoke about a 10% attrition rate, which adds to about 1500 jobs. Now, we can debate on another day whether being told your job no longer exists, or you need to reconsider your career prospects, or you are not liked by the 5th floor and have no future, could be classed as voluntary redundancies. We do know that towards the end of 2000-01, the reported strength of the public service was 14 779, and on the latest figures hurriedly rushed onto the government’s web site after we raised the issue in Question Time yesterday, the strength is now 14 378; a loss of 401 positions.
The point is that, with the government proclaiming that jobs, jobs, jobs is the first priority, what sort of example is it setting for the rest of the employers when it has a target to cut jobs, jobs, jobs? At a time when jobs are becoming scarcer in the private sector and people are having to leave the Territory to find work, shouldn’t the government be hiring, not firing? Only this weekend, we saw the advertisements for the new executive structure for Health and Community Services. How many present public servants in that department are now facing the reality that their position has been abolished or amalgamated with some other position? Downsizing the public service is sending the wrong message both to employees and employers. We know that the government’s main message is that the situation is going to get better, it is going to be great. However, that message is being lost in the reality of today. Territorians are too busy concentrating on the here and now, trying to survive in a period of economic downturn with rising costs and taxes, to be able to see that bright future.
No one on this side of the House is in any way suggesting that the government should not do all in its power to attract the major projects the Chief Minister spoke about yesterday. They are vital to the future of the Territory and Territorians and, I believe, we are all optimistic that many, if not all, will eventually come to pass. We know the Territory is a great place and has enormous potential. That is why we are here: we have either chosen to come to this place of opportunity or resolved not to leave it. Our criticism is not that the government is doing something but, rather, that it seems to be taking a long time to get its act together on pursuing these projects and, in trying to work out how to do so, it is ignoring the plight of Territorians today. It is not listening to small and medium businesses, that they are hurting. It appears to be blind to the growing number of empty shops and offices and the growing number of empty or under-used buildings in the Winnellie light industrial area. It is blind to the number of businesses that have reduced staff to essentially ‘mum and dad’ operations. If you go through the Winnellie area you see them. Go in there; it is essentially mum and dad who are trying to keep the doors open so that they can keep themselves in business.
That is what this motion is about: it is a plea to the government to take notice of how tough Territorians are having it right now and urging them to do something about it. It offers reasonable suggestions as to what the government should or could pursue to help Territorians get through these hard times. We share the government’s optimism that the Territory has a great future. All we are saying is that the government needs to do something in the present to ensure that Territorians will be around to enjoy and benefit from that future. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you would have to say, overall, about this motion that it is a deceitful one. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk to his motion over the last 20 minutes or so, there is this constant double message. One is that all we are talking about, as government, is a certain list of projects. That is fine, but it is really a waste of time because we are not addressing the key issues for Territorians.
It is extraordinary to hear the double line that is being run by the Opposition Leader, because it simply does not make sense. It simply again reflects the CLP collective amnesia about the last two to three to four years and what has been happening in the Territory economy.
Mr Dunham: I am looking forward, as well.
Ms MARTIN: I look forward to other contributions from members to this debate, and perhaps they will wait until that time to contribute.
This motion shows that the Country Liberal Party has not learned, this opposition has not learned, and they simply have not changed. It is the same old rhetoric. They have no new ideas, no new ideas at all, despite the $50 a policy that they have waved around - $50 a policy.
Let us start with 18 months ago, because that is where all this is predicated. Eighteen months ago when the deceitful budget was presented to Territorians – the deceitful budget …
Mr Dunham: This is the deceitful budget. Here is the deceit.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting; the idle comments from the member for Drysdale which make no sense anyway.
It was a deceitful budget that was presented to Territorians about what was the state of our economy. The immediate action that this new government had to take to bring into control the deficit that was just simply out of control and that the real numbers were not presented to Territorians. To have a motion like this, to pretend that a government did not have to take action, and even to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the Budget Improvement Levy that commenced in November 2001 was only about revenue raising and not about dealing with the deceit that was presented to Territorians in the May 2001 budget, simply shows - and I think the collective amnesia word is fair - the deceit that the Country Liberal Party is still trying to perpetrate - that there was not a problem; that the budget was not artificially skewed. Because simply, it was.
They are the facts of it, and no matter how many times the opposition comes in here and tries to re-write what they presented to Territorians back in May 2001, it will not wash. It will not wash. The fact is that your budget papers said that it was going to be a $12m deficit for the coming financial year, the 2001-02 year. The fact is that I was told in the first week as Treasurer that that was an absolute load of rubbish, and I can just multiply it by 12. We saw the artificial figures that were put in the budget papers. You can pretend there was not a problem, but there was and you tried to disguise it. You are still trying to pretend that this new government did not have to take some serious action to make sure that we were managing the economy responsibly and with a view to the future.
Nobody likes to impose levies. Nobody likes to do that. I have stood in here and said to Territorians: ‘I am sorry I had to do it’. However, you know perfectly well where the blame is – with the previous government. We heard the Opposition Leader say: ‘I have never been a treasurer, I have never been an economist’. Talk about the absolute obvious! We hear the Leader of the Opposition say: ‘Spend, spend, spend’. I mean, the sum is up to what? Something like – we have calculated it a bit – isn’t it a couple of hundred million dollars? Just spend! Where do you think the money comes from? Where do you think the cash comes from? You cannot keep running up debt. You cannot keep misleading Territorians about what the size of the deficit is, or pretending that it is a fraction of what it is. You actually have to be responsible managers of the economy.
The CLP left both the state of the budget and the economy in a very poor state. To try to pretend that the Territory economy has been doing it tough is somehow something of the 18 months that we have been in power, again is a deceit that you are trying to perpetrate on Territorians, because it is not true. It is not true.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: And we hear the mumblings from the member for Katherine, the former Treasurer, who is, in the Territory’s history, the only Treasurer who delivered us of an annual growth of 0.01%. You had to go back and beat up on the statisticians trying to get that 0.01% because they said it was zero. You went back, argued the case and you got to 0.01%. Now, what kind of impact does that have on the Territory economy back in 1999-2000 when no growth happens? And that was against a very bold and optimistic figure of about 12% for that financial year. About 12%. So, again, to stand in here and say that we did not have to take some strong economic measures as a new government, one that we took because it is a way a responsible government acts, is a deceit on Territorians.
That slow growth, the high unemployment under the Country Liberal Party - again, trying to pretend that an unemployment level that we have experienced under Labor is something never experienced by the CLP - is flying in the face of the facts. It has come down - and I say again - at just under 6%. It is not good enough. It is not good enough to have an unemployment level of that and we would like to see it much lower, but it is certainly significantly lower than we were left with under the CLP - significantly lower.
What were your strategies? You would not even say that it was a problem! I am happy to stand in here and say I do not accept when the unemployment level is high. We have an unemployment level now that I would like to see lower. That is why we look to those projects for the future. Yet, you hear the Opposition Leader say things like the overall job market is collapsing, yet it is higher than when you were in government. The work force is higher. At this stage in the Territory, we have a growing work force and yet we just heard the Opposition Leader say if you walk through Winnellie, there are people who are out of the work force - yet the numbers have grown.
He has a line that we want to get rid of 1500 public servants. What a load of rubbish! The labour force has grown. The current numbers are that we have increased to 98 200. We are growing our work force, yet you stand in here in this motion and say we are targeting getting rid of public servants. In your words of your motion, you say that people are leaving work in the Territory in droves. It is not the fact. Then you verbal the business minister by saying he dismisses the concerns of small businesses. Absolute, utter rubbish! You twist the words, you verbal the minister and think that is telling the truth to the parliament. It is deceit! It again shows that this opposition will not learn. It is a deceit.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The words ‘verballing’, ‘deceit’ and ‘truth’ have been used a fair bit in this debate in some sort of an allegation that the Leader of the Opposition has lied. I seek your ruling on whether words like ‘deceit’ and ‘verballing’ are acceptable.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members of the Assembly will be aware that in previous debates on motions that words like ‘deceit’ and ‘verballing’ have been used. You are correct, I would dismiss any accusation of lying, but I have not heard that accusation. ‘Deceit’ has been used in debate on motions in this Chamber before and my ruling is based on previous use. There is no point of order.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I have just been reminded about the use of the word ‘deceit.’ I sat over there in the Opposition Leader’s chair with the then Treasurer using the word ‘deceit’ about me in every breath he took. Did you stand up and object, member for Drysdale? I did not hear a word at the time. Not a word did I hear. I did not appreciate being called the ‘queen of deceit’ because it was not based on any facts. However, I use the word ‘deceit’ very carefully because that is what this motion is about and that is what the words from the Opposition Leader were about. It is not telling the truth. Go to the figures and look at truth of it. Look at the facts that labour force has grown.
That does not mean that we are not saying very clearly on this side of the House that we are concerned about our small business and we are concerned that many of them are not doing well. To listen to the opposition say that we have no care about that is simply not the truth. It is not the truth for myself as Chief Minister, and it is not the truth for the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. It is not. So I say that when you come in here and debate, tell the truth about it. Do not verbal us. Do not get into the CLP rhetoric. Try to deal with the facts - that this economy needs to grow.
This economy needs to grow. Government is spending more than in previous CLP budgets. We are spending more on capital works. Capital works expenditure, over this financial year, has been at its highest record level ever. We are proud of that, because it goes to the heart of small business in the Territory. It goes to the heart of small business. What we have to see is the private sector investment in our economy. That is where the shrinkage has been. That is why, even though we have the opposition dismiss what is happening in terms of projected big projects, that is the key to this. To be able to say: ‘Yes, we have these projects that are either starting to happen, or are on time lines to happen’, is very important for our economy. It is the jobs growth, it is the opportunities for business and it is the real sea change for our economy, because we will see this private investment and it will make a difference, not just in Darwin but right across the Territory in our regional areas.
I listened, last night, to the member for Greatorex say: ‘This government is ignoring Alice Springs’,. Yet, one of the most significant events happened for Alice Springs at the end of last year: the announcement of the CRC for Desert Knowledge, a fantastic event that means $94m into the Central Australian area over seven years. A wonderful event to build the opportunities for small business in Central Australia. On this side of the House we know how much work that took, and how much dedication that took over the last 12 months. I rang those involved, individually, to say: ‘Well done, it was great’. But that took significant commitment and drive, and we are proud of that.
If we look at the motion here, parts 1 to 11, they really are a list of projects that the CLP, under the Leader of the Opposition as Chief Minister, failed to deliver - simply failed to deliver. Spelling them all out there, I would have thought that you would have been reluctant to do that because they are some projects that the CLP talked about, but it did not happen. It was interesting in the debate here last night, because the fact that we are pursuing the Darwin convention centre was dismissed, and we on this side of the House were trying to work out had we missed where it was in Darwin? Could we not see it? Because there we have the CLP, the opposition, dismissing the fact that we are pursuing it, and simply, again, this deceit for Territorians, saying, ‘Well it was done, we did it’, like with the wharf precinct redevelopment. Did you do that as well? Maybe you did. Maybe we missed it. We just cannot see it.
I am not going to go through the details of the motion, in detail. But I will reap up the obvious ridiculous ones. The Opposition Leader claims that the government plans to cut the public sector by 1500. That is simply wrong, and to perpetrate it, you start saying that it was actually a deliberate misleading. To come in here and say we are cutting the public service by 1500 is wrong, wrong, wrong. There are no such plans in place. You come from the razor gang mentality, the ERC, the pruning for growth; we are not doing that. Also, the hurt that was incurred across our public sector by the poorly executed Planning for Growth. I still remember the young woman I met who said to me, just around the Planning for Growth time: ‘I got one letter saying “You are moving from this department to another”, then I got another letter saying “You are going back again”. Now I have another one saying I am going back again’. And she said: ‘I do not know what I am doing. I think my job is still there, but Lord knows, Lord knows where I am actually to be’. That was the way that the Planning for Growth policy was put in place. We will not do that, we are not doing that.
I accept that the restructure of November 2001 of the public sector was a major event, but it was handled very well. It was communicated to public servants what was going to happen, we had committees to talk about how it was going to be implemented, and it worked very well. It worked very well compared with the Planning for Growth and the ERC exercise of the early 1990s.
The Opposition Leader also claims the government is planning to cut funding for tourism. Cut funding for tourism?
Mr Dunham: Yes, $2m.
Ms MARTIN: You have the member for Drysdale say, ‘$2m’. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have maintained funding for the Regional Tourism Associations and, last year, we injected an extra $1m for international marketing. It is a record budget for the Tourist Commission marketing. Yet, we have the Opposition Leader stand in here and say we are going to cut the funds for tourism.
Mr Reed: Why would we say that?
Ms MARTIN: Well, that is what makes us say: ‘Why would you say it?’, except you are trying to mislead and deceive. It is the Opposition Leader and the opposition up to their old tricks.
We have also provided $2m a year for Virgin Blue to come to the Territory. The Country Liberal Party has never supported Virgin Blue. The member for Drysdale defamed them by saying they had a shoddy fleet. Lucky he said it with parliamentary privilege - very lucky he said it with parliamentary privilege. Only last week, we had the CLP Lord Mayor of Darwin calling on the government to stop funding Virgin Blue. We are supporting Virgin Blue coming to the Territory; the Tourism Minister has outlined the business plans. We are working with Virgin Blue and we are doing all that is possible to get Virgin Blue to look at coming to the Centre. We are doing all that is possible. Yet, we have the slightly hysterical words of the member for Araluen, and the slightly hysterical complaint she has. The detailed work is being done. I am being kind. The detailed work has been done.
I would also like to refer to some of the points that the Leader of the Opposition made in the speech on economic development last night. On employment, the Opposition Leader said there 1400 jobs created by the railway. It is true; there were at the peak of construction. We supported the railway and we continue to do so. However, it was always the case that those jobs would tend to tail away as the construction work is finalised, flowing through into our employment numbers. That is why we are making new projects happen: the Wickham Point LNG Plant - up to 1500 jobs in construction; Alcan - 1000 jobs; MIM - 1000 jobs. These major projects will come on-line over the next few years, picking up the slack as the railway winds down.
I refer further to the Opposition Leader’s comments about the railway. This has always been a bipartisan project - always a bipartisan project – yet, every time it is mentioned, and every time that we are doing the work to make sure that the railway comes to fruition ...
Mr Burke: You tried to kill it just while we were just about to sign it. You and your federal mates will never be forgiven for that. You tried to kill it.
Ms MARTIN: Again, the Opposition Leader does not tell the truth about these things.
Mr Burke: I know what you did. I know what you did, so do not try and cover it up.
Ms MARTIN: He does not tell the truth about these things. Every time it is mentioned, the Opposition Leader says: ‘This is our project. It has nothing to do with you’. Again, the arrogance of the Country Liberal Party - the rear view mirror process that they go through.
I have stood in here and congratulated the work that was done. I have said: ‘Well done. It was a tremendous effort’. However, the challenge now - and it is a whole new time for the railway - is to build the freight. To build the freight, my Office of Territory Development is working with FreightLink. There are immense challenges about building the freight in and out of Darwin, attracting the freight forwarders, attracting new businesses to the $9m business park at the East Arm Port. This is serious work and serious commitment that this takes.
I am not going lightly to Asia the week after next. This is a very important trip. Certainly, the whole business of building freight is a very complex one and one that is the new challenge of the rail. The construction has gone well, the construction will continue, but building the freight is a whole new ballgame. That is what will make this project work. It is a great engineering project to put a railway 1420 km between Alice and Darwin – it is terrific, lots of challenges there, build 100 bridges and you know, amazing numbers of rail needed and 2.25 million sleepers needed – all the figures are fantastic. But the real benefit of the railway is freight, and it is growing the freight load, looking at how we can bring back freight that is now coming from the east coast, get it sourced through South Australia. It is looking at how we can get greater mineral usage, and it is great to have the Harts Range garnet mine announced. That is a project that is likely to happen.
Also, that very important international component – import/export hub for Darwin. It is an easy phrase to say, ‘import/export hub’, but the detail of doing it is the immense challenge. And we are happy to do it. It is an immense challenge but it will make the railway work, it will make it the steel spine. This is the challenge for this government, and we are happy to do that in a bipartisan way. But not when we have churlish, negative comments coming from the opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition was also very disappointingly, extremely patronising and disparaging of the work of our local business community in getting gas onshore, referring last night to some ‘group called Team NT’ – business people who have put their own time into fighting for gas onshore in the Territory. He says, ‘some group called Team NT’ – and is disparaging. I cannot understand this. We invited the Opposition Leader on to Team NT so this could be truly bipartisan, that we could as a parliament be working with our business community. I am not going to go into the details of how negative at times the Opposition Leader was, but we kept him in there. Yet, the best he can do is say, ‘some group called Team NT.’ I was under the misapprehension that the Opposition Leader had agreed to work in a bipartisan way with our business community who put so much of their time in. The Bruce Fadellis and the Steve Margetics who put so much time in to arguing the case against floating away an immense resource of Australia’s into a floating LNG facility and sending it into export when what we wanted was that to come onshore. The last 12 months, the hard work paid off because we got the joint venturers to say there was not a domestic case at the time of the end of last year and they were going to look at all options. The options are there to be pursued. I believe that they will be successful for the Territory but not with the curmudgeonly approach from the Opposition Leader - not with that. To hear him belittle the work that was done is very disappointing.
The Leader of the Opposition also made some extraordinary comments about the convention centre. The fact is, the County Liberal Party when in government tried to deliver a convention centre for Darwin and they failed. The deal at the time was not a good one, so very sensibly you did not proceed. Certainly nobody is not giving you marks for trying, but that is what you did – you tried and it did not happen. For the Opposition Leader to say that we should not look carefully at the changed world circumstances now, that we should not carefully consider the best model, we should not make the best use of taxpayers’ funds, and just spend, spend, spend and go ahead is simply absurd.
Since the previous failure to get a convention centre in the Darwin market, the world has changed. There is no doubt about it – the world has changed. A convention centre is a major expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars. We have to make sure that, with the convention centre that we are going to build - and I am confident we are going to build it - we look at those changed world circumstances, what is the best model for Darwin, how we can best position it in the market so that when we do build it, it is going to work. These are expensive items. The convention centre market is very competitive. The testing of how much exhibition space you need, what size convention facilities you need, how many seats - we need to make sure that fits into the market of 2003 because it is a different world. It is a very different world. We are committed to seeing it go ahead, but we have to make sure the right model in place.
I make no apology, because when we spend, spend, spend on a convention centre it will be well targeted and it will work. Going back to what the Opposition Leader said: ‘Just spend, because the world has not changed’ - the world has changed. Let us look at some of these figures. Since 11 September, the world aviation market has lost a total of $10m. They have lost $10m in market capitalisation since 11 September. Major airlines have been going bankrupt. Ansett collapsed. The entire international tourism market has been fundamentally changed and, very sadly, we have seen that reflected in the numbers coming here. There has been the tragedy of the Bali bombing on our doorstep. Yet, in the face of these factors of our international market being changed, the Opposition Leader says: ‘Do not even look at it. Do not even look at them. Just go ahead, spend the money’. We are not pretending here that this is going to be $10m or $15m. This is going to be tens of millions of dollars of investment. The Opposition Leader is showing that he is simply out of touch.
Let us look at land release in Alice Springs. This government is very aware of the need to release land in Alice Springs. That is why we have been engaged in very strenuous negotiation with the native title owners of the land and their representative body. Those negotiations are proceeding at a pace, and I am very hopeful of an outcome in the near future, but they do take time. These negotiations, though, stand in stark contrast to the legislate-and-litigate approach of when the Opposition Leader was the Chief Minister. And that ended how? In no outcomes at all - no outcomes at all. The problem of land release in Alice Springs did not just happen in the last 18 months. It has been a problem for many years. No progress at all was made by the previous government. None. Since taking office, this has been a priority of my government; to sort out these sometimes very difficult issues and our approach is bearing fruit.
The Opposition Leader should take a long and close look at his own failings in office to locate exactly where the blame for these delays in land truly lie. I had more to say, but sadly, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am out of time.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister had plenty of time to say something that would give some comfort to the business community of the Northern Territory. I want to thank her for what she has said because it is going to make very interesting and, indeed, concerning reading to the small business community in the Northern Territory because they rated not one mention.
The Chief Minister can be in denial. She can believe her own rhetoric and that of her ministers. She can get up and wax lyrical about the last 18 months and all of the problems that she has or perceives to inherit. However, the salient fact is that she is at the helm of the Northern Territory ship of state and she cannot deny that her part of the Titanic is not sinking.
The situation is this: notwithstanding all of the big projects which we do support and, again, notwithstanding that we have been verballed by the Chief Minister in saying that we do not support them, the fact is that the great majority of business - small, medium and even many large businesses in the Northern Territory – need help today. They will not survive for the next 18 months. They do not want to hear about the last 18 months because their big problem is surviving for the next 18 months. They would very much like to be able to think that they can survive for the next few years so that they will still be viable businesses when the new projects and the big projects start to come into play. That is the dilemma that business faces, and that is the denial that the Chief Minister is living with. She is denying that it is a problem.
Yesterday, in a contribution to a similar debate, I suggested that the Chief Minister and ministers should drive to Alice Springs and talk to small business people on the way, rather than jump on a plane and go as they do, comfortably thousands of feet overhead. Well, if they do not have the time to do that, perhaps tomorrow, or if they are motivated, this evening, they could simply walk across Mitchell Street and slip over to the mall, and walk through the mall and count the empty shops. That will give them an immediate barometer as to the state of the business community in the Northern Territory. If she does happen to drive down, or ministers drive to Alice Springs, they can do the same in Katherine. They can do the same in Tennant Creek. They can have a look around Alice Springs and look at the vacant business establishments in those centres. That might bring some reality to the situation that they face. That might get them to realise that living in the past is not going to help them. That might get them to realise that the business community is concerned about the future.
The Chief Minister mentioned that the CLP had not learned and that we had no new ideas. Well, she is living off - and she has just mentioned a number of them - our ideas, and if she did not have them she would be bereft of any economic activity. Not just seeing people leaving in reasonable numbers, but it would be a case of, ‘would the last one out please turn out the lights’, as regards corporate Northern Territory, because that is the circumstance that many people are facing. So, do not worry about the last 18 months. Start focussing on today, tomorrow and the future, because people are leaving the Territory, and it is a very great concern. We highlight the fact that they are leaving with great concern, and we want the government to do something about it. We do not want to hear a lot of rhetoric about what the Chief Minister thinks about the Leader of the Opposition, or me, or anyone else on this side of the House. We want to hear what they are doing to correct the circumstances that are causing great ills in the economy.
The Chief Minister stands here and tells us in relation to the loss of employees in the public service that there is not going to be 1500; I seem to think that it was a number that was mentioned by the Chief Minister.
Mr Burke: By the unions.
Mr REED: Certainly it was by the unions, and the Chief Minister in fact said that it may well be in the order of 10%. Well, 10% of 15 000 is 1500, so she cannot stand here and now try to verbal us in that we are wrong. In any event, we know that over 400 have got the flick, so it is going to be a minimum of 400 and perhaps a maximum of 1500. She can quickly overcome the problem about concern regarding the loss of employment in the public service by saying what the target is and what the circumstances are going to be.
Can I say to her in relation to the public service and her comments about the implementation of the ERC and Planning for Growth, when she has the gall to say that the restructure of her 2001 exercise for the public service was a major event. Chief Minister, I have to say to you that it is not a fact of it was a major event – it is still a major event. I do not know if ministers get around their departments and talk to employees, but there are many employees, in too many departments, who say: ‘We have done nothing for the last 18 months except conduct reviews or find our way through another cut to our budget’. That is all they have done. They are very despondent. Their morale is shattered. They have gone from a situation where they were keen, professional and enthusiastic public servants. They are now in a position where they have, one after the other, gone through review after review after review, and their real job, their real reason for being, is going unattended. That is a great sadness and it is having a big impact on both the public service and, in turn, the Northern Territory.
We have heard denials that there is a cut to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission budget, a cut of $2m at a time …
Dr Burns: That is a fabrication! Be careful what you say there.
Mr REED: … when the tourism industry is experiencing its toughest time in history. We have just heard an interjection from the erstwhile Minister for Tourism, that there has been no cut to the tourism budget. Minister, you had better have a read of the mid-year report of the Treasurer, 2002-03, tabled under duress last week in this House. If you have a look at your budget - and if you do not understand it I will explain it to you - your budget at the commencement of this financial year was $28.164m. In the last seven months, you have lost $250 000 in one pass, because it is now $27.886m. In fact, that is a bit over $250 000 …
Dr Burns: Well, if you sought a briefing, you might find out a bit about it. You might find out about the airline development committee. You might find out about the DBIRD maybe.
Mr REED: I do not have to find any more about it, and the tourism industry do not have to find out anything about too because …
Dr Burns: You are not interested. All you are interested in is weaving stories. I will not let you get away with it.
Mr REED: … they understand what a cut is.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston!
Mr REED: They understand that $28.164m is over $250 000 less than they have now. That is what their problem is. When they then look at the allocations that this government is going to extend to the Tourist Commission over the next three years, they find that it is going to be cut by $2m, and they are very, very worried.
Dr Burns: Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mr REED: Well, you had better go and explain that to the industry, because that is what the Treasurer has done to you. Have a talk to him first so you at least understand what your budget is, that you at least get across a job, and that you at least understand that the Tourist Commission means more than going on holidays once or twice a year - because that is as much as you understand about the tourism industry. You are not across your job.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, please direct your comments to the Chair, as you well know.
Mr REED: From that point of view, that adds further concern to the tourism industry and the hard working members in it. It is understood by them what a $2m cut is; they can read the figures. They know that they are in hard times now, and they know that they are going to get even less support in the future from the Tourist Commission because they have received a $2m cut.
Dr Burns: Mischief!
Mr REED: Well, I will leave it to the minister with his interjection to demonstrate to the industry that the $2m cut is mischief, because it is not. It is true. It is a fact. It is such a fact that it is printed in the Treasurer’s document.
We heard much tonight. The Chief Minister told us about the transport hub and all the things that she has been doing. The transport hub has been in place - I do not know. I remember that it was put together with the Department of Transport and Works and the then Transport and Works minister, one Barry Coulter. The process has been at large and at work for many, many years. Yet, the Chief Minister tries to give it a rebirth tonight, in the guise that it is a wonderful announcement by her, and something new that she is going to sell. Well, she is not doing anything new at all. She is building on - shock horror! - some of the former work of CLP governments. Good luck to her, and I hope she does it well.
However, she has to understand that, when she stands in here and says what she did tonight - not just on this issue but on a number of other issues - that people get to know about what she says. People do read the things that she says. They will read, in fact - the small business community especially - what she said tonight because it will be faxed far and wide to them, I can guarantee her. They will be horrified to find that small and medium businesses did not rate a single mention in her response tonight and indeed, much the same in her statement yesterday - did not rate a mention. They are the ones that are struggling to survive. The ones looking to the Northern Territory government to be able to get some sustenance and to have some economic activity generated for them so that they can survive. They do not care a about what happened 12 months ago, 18 months ago, two years ago. They are concerned about survival into the future, they are concerned about how they are going to pay their staff salaries for the next pay period.
They are concerned about the fact that they have to reduce the size of their business, as many businesses are doing, especially family businesses, not replace those staff who leave, and take on the extra workload between mum and dad in the family business, because things are so tough that they cannot afford to employ anyone. If they maybe can afford to employ someone, they do not have the confidence, as in demonstrated in the Yellow Pages Business Index, in the future to do so because they are concerned that things are not good, that they are going to get worse, and that if they do employ someone, and things do not improve, they will find themselves in very definite, if not, fatal financial circumstances.
It is no good for the Chief Minister to be in here, in denial, believing her own rhetoric and making just astounding statements like, ‘the economy needs to grow’. That was the gem of wisdom that we got from the Chief Minister here tonight. Well, what is the solution? What has to be done? ‘The economy needs to grow’. For heaven’s sakes! If that is the depth of wisdom, if that is the extent of the ability of this government to extend itself, by saying to the business community, who have already just voted to the extent that their degree of confidence in this government is minus 20%, and the Chief Minister says the economy has to grow. Heavens above! If that is the extent of her ability to be able to generate some confidence in the business community, we are in trouble.
The Chief Minister again raised gas and as much as we all look forward to it, and the hard work that has been put into to achieve a gas industry in the Northern Territory, it is a long way away in helping people. Even when the Wickham Point project starts, there are going to be many businesses which will not benefit from it. They are the ones that have to be assisted. The fact is, that the Northern Territory economy is made up largely of small business. It has been the practice of governments past to be able to direct the purchasing power and the ability for economic activity to be generated across the Northern Territory, and past governments have recognised that and made sure that the small contractors have a job. Made sure that the electricians, the plumbers, the plasterers and like trades, have the ability to be maintained.
I do not know who ministers are talking to at the moment. But it does not matter where you go, in fact, sometimes often daily, you don’t have to leave your office, they phone you and say, ‘Listen, do you know about this? Do you appreciate that in the metal trades industry there is a massive loss of trained personnel or tradesmen interstate, they are leaving, they are going?’ The Chief Minister cannot deny it, and if she does want to deny it, can’t she just see that the 2800 person loss in the population - that is 2800 people more have left the Territory than have come to the Northern Territory - now the 2800 going has been a figure that has existed over time.
The Territory is a very transient place. We do lose something in the order of that number each year. The great problem at the moment is, not more than 2800 are coming here. The number of people coming to the Territory has dropped. The reason that they are not coming here is because there are no jobs. The reason that people have come here in the past is because they have seen it as a land of opportunity. They have seen it as a place where they can get a job. They see it as a place where they can make some progress. But, at the moment, that is not happening.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: For the first time, I think it is since the late 1980s - and the Treasurer …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: … and the Treasurer might not like these facts and truisms, and he might like to talk over them, but the fact is they are true. For the first time since the late 1980s, overseas immigration into the Northern Territory has gone into the negative, or it has stopped. These are worrying trends. These are issues that should be of great concern to the government. These are issues that we should be hearing about from the Chief Minister in her response in this debate as to how she is going to turn it around. Talking about the last 18 months or hurling personal criticism at the Leader of the Opposition, me or other opposition members is not going to fix the problem, I am very sorry. It is not going to give the business community any confidence, I am sorry. It is not going to cause another person to get a job in the Northern Territory, I am sorry.
Chief Minister, the business community is waiting to hear from you as to what you are going to do. Even if you are bereft of ideas, do not be too proud to take up the issues, the 11 points that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed in his motion today. Do not be too proud to work for Territorians, recognise the problems that are being faced by small and medium businesses, and to direct towards them at least some understanding of their problem and some opportunity for them to be able to survive so that they can still be in business and still be viable when the large projects that we all look forward to are in fact realities and are generating employment activity across the Northern Territory. But they have to survive to be able to appreciate it. And they will not on denial and rhetoric, and that is all we heard from the Chief Minister in her response to this debate tonight.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it was not my intention originally to contribute to this debate, but I just cannot let the comments of the former Treasurer, now shadow Treasurer, go unanswered. I will come to his allegations and the allegations of the member for Drysdale about this mythical $2m cut to the activities of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. But I just want to say that through my experiences in the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen what conjurors these people are with their words, almost a Mandrake. All the member for Katherine would need is a cape and a stick to conjure up. They conjure up things with words and concepts; they take figures out of context; they turn them into press releases to try to alarm industry; and they are not really interested in what the true state of affairs are.
The member for Katherine - and I think possibly even the Opposition Leader - talked about the under expenditure this year to date within the Northern Territory Tourist Commission budget; somewhere just less than 40%. I think the figure that was quoted was somewhere around 37%. That is true. The year to date expenditure is 37% of the total expenditure for the whole year. But what we are talking about here is variations of expenditure that normally occur with the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, and I am advised as follows: The Northern Territory Tourist Commission typically spends more in January to July than in July to December, hence 37% rather than 50% expenditure in the year to date figures. This is an annual trend. This is because the bulk of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission domestic marketing activity is undertaken in the lead up to the Territory’s peak tourism season. Additionally, the apparent - and I emphasise the word ‘apparent’ - underspend has been impacted by the change to accrual accounting in the whole of government.
In the next few months, the Tourism Commission’s major …
Mr Dunham: Give it up. We already have accrual accounting this year.
Dr BURNS: Member for Drysdale, just relax. Just relax. Just try to chill out. We know the last 18 months have been very difficult for you personally, but just sit down, just take it easy.
So, in the next few months, the tourism …
Mr Dunham: You conjurer!
Ms Scrymgour: Give him a chill pill.
Dr BURNS: A chill pill – better than a salty plum.
In the next few months, the Tourist Commission’s major domestic advertising campaign will be launched, including associated public relations activity and, therefore, expenditure will also rise. The new reservations system at the NT Holiday Centre in Alice Springs will be installed in the second half of this financial year. The Northern Territory has budgeted its activity for the rest of the year and there are no surplus funds. So it is a furphy for the Opposition Leader, the shadow Treasurer or indeed the shadow Tourism minister, as she did yesterday in Question Time, to suggest there is all the surplus funds slurping around, washing around in the Tourist Commission, and suddenly we can pull all these dollars out and put them here and put them there.
It is the same thing we have been talking about, that the CLP just has not learned their lesson. It is spend, spend, spend money that they do not have. I am terribly glad they do not have my credit card, because in their hot little hands it does not take any time at all to run up substantial debts. We saw that in successive blow-outs; real blow-outs in terms of total consumption and expenditure, under their government where they budgeted for deficits and it blew out by $100m. That is the fact of the matter. We are a government with a plan for our fiscal discipline, and we aim to bring the budgets in the Northern Territory into surplus in 2005. That is because the weight of debt that we have been left with is $0.5m a day. Now, it has been painted by members opposite here ..
Members: You have increased it. You are increasing it. You increased the debt.
Dr BURNS: It has been painted by members opposite that a lot of that expenditure – I think the member for Macdonnell detailed all the great projects in the Territory over the years and the building of infrastructure. I am not going to go into the nitty-gritty of all those projects, but we know that some of those projects like the casino project in Darwin was dogged by controversy and all sorts of allegations.
However, leaving that aside, yes, infrastructure and investment in infrastructure is important. It is important for the business of government, and it is important for the business of the Territory. But what we found and what we know about the last years of the CLP government – it was not an investment in infrastructure – they were increasing borrowing to shore up recurrent funding. That is what Percy Allan, and the Auditor-General said, that is what we saw, and that is what it is all about.
It is not about investing in infrastructure. It is about trying to cover up the fact that they had started the year with their budget estimates which would successively blow out during the year, leaving them with a deficit, and it was all about recurrent funding. That is what it was about. So let us not pretend about infrastructure, not at least in the last three to six years of the Northern Territory. Ex-Senator Grant Tambling said as much. I forget the exact date, but from recollection it was around 1996 to 1998. He said there was money in reserves there, and basically this crowd here plundered it and substantially increased the debt. I do not really take a lot of credence in what the shadow Treasurer says about this issue, particularly in relation to this $2m gouge out, or whatever he wants to call it, of the Tourist Commission. He sends out newsflash – I will read out what the member for Katherine said in his News for You on Issues that Affect You:
- Tourism – this industry is the biggest employer in the Territory. It is highly dependent on the activities
and support of the Tourist Commission.
Full stop. No problems with the first sentence.
- At the most competitive time in the history of the industry, the Territory government has cut the Tourist
Commission’s budget again. The Commission is to lose a further $2m over the next three years, with a
further cut of more than $250 000 this financial year, done very quietly and without public announcement.
I would like to go through the advice that I have on this particular issue.
Mr Dunham: Should be good! This will be good.
Dr BURNS: Just wait up, member for Drysdale, here it comes. It is labelled ‘The Facts’. I always like ‘The Facts’ because ‘The Facts’ are the facts.
- The mid-year report for 2002-03 shows the revised Northern Territory Tourist Commission budget
of $27.8m …
I am rounding it up, it is actually $27.886m, if you are interested in the three decimal points.
- The original Northern Territory Tourist Commission budget for 2002-03 of $28.16m included an additional
$1m for international marketing, which should have been split over two financial years. It also did not include
the contributions from DIPE and DBIRD towards the aviation development director partnership with NT
Airports. These administrative variations have now been addressed during the budget review process. There
has been no mid-year budget cut. Furthermore, the 2003-04 budget of $26.31m shows a $1.575m variation to
the 2002-03 budget. This relates to the government’s commitment to Virgin Blue, which has not yet been loaded
into the Tourist Commission’s 2003-04 budget. The Northern Territory government liability in 2003-04 is
$1.5m. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s recurrent expenditure has not been cut …
Mr Burke: It has had a cut! It has had a cut, all right.
Dr BURNS: I will repeat that again for the Leader of the Opposition. This is the advice I have received:
- The Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s recurrent expenditure has not been cut. Furthermore, the
2004-05 budget of $26.04m shows a $271 000 variation to the 2003-04 budget. This relates to the
one-off additional $0.5m for international marketing which ceases in 2003-04 …
That is the international marketing that I mentioned previously.
- Once this is taken into account, the Tourist Commission budget actually increases by $229 000.
Lastly:
- The 2005-06 budget of $26.262m shows a positive variation of $222 000.
I wanted to put that on the record. The variation that the member for Katherine is talking about, essentially and mainly refers to the Virgin Blue commitments of this government. Coming back to what the member for Katherine, and the Opposition Leader were talking about with putting a business case to Virgin Blue. Essentially, this is the key to expanding air services in the Northern Territory. The monies that were laid on the table or put forward to Virgin Blue is all about encouraging Virgin Blue to come into the Territory and establish in the Territory. Our discussions with Virgin Blue continue on that basis.
The opposition, on the other hand, continually calls for more money to be put into the pot and for Virgin Blue to come to Alice Springs. It is a business case that is going to encourage Virgin Blue; they are looking for sustainable routes. The airline development director, and that partnership with NT Airports, is absolutely crucial, not only to encouraging Virgin Blue to come into and increase their routes into the Territory, but also to increase international tourism capacity into the Territory. That is what this government is committed to.
We have heard talk also of the convention centre. That is also pivotal to increasing business tourism into the Territory and the Top End in particular. For the opposition to stand there and say that this government has no ideas about tourism and the development of tourism and business, and that we completely lack interest in small business in the Territory, is completely untrue. I am acutely aware of the needs out there, and this government is working hard to grow more business in the Northern Territory.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say from the outset I do not believe that the Chief Minister is lying; I believe she is poorly advised. Indeed, we saw that today. We saw the Chief Minister tell us that her advisor had apologised to the business community over what we consider to be a fairly serious issue, and then had to come back red-faced to parliament and say: ‘Well, I did say that, and it was not the truth but it was because I was misinformed, I was ill-advised’.
That is probably what is happening with the economy. It happens that she comes down here fully believing the rhetoric she has been primed up for. I believe that members like the last member can stand up and say: ‘Look, when it says on here that the operating expenses by agency in the Northern Territory budget sector …’ - which is a Treasury document, the mid-year report which is brand new, straight off the press – ‘… has a reduction of $2m, that is not actually the case. In fact, I can give you a very convoluted reason why that is not the case and it is a little to do with accrual accounting, conjuring and a variety of other devices’. The fact is, this is advice coming to the Chief Minister, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Tourism saying: ‘The world is flat, the world is flat; whatever they tell you, the world is flat’.
I have to hear some other advice, and there is a fair bit of it floating around. You could, for instance, go to the survey that was talked about this morning, where a business group which represents some hundreds of local businesses, the Palmerston Regional Business Association, did a survey of its members and that was seen as 80 businesses which was, ‘minuscule,’ - was that the word? ‘Insignificant’? Whatever. There were not many of them. ‘Trivial’ was the word that was used. It was found that half of those had a difficulty with matters relating to break-ins. The Attorney-General would have us believe that that is an insignificant matter. A mere 40 or so businesses in the Territory had some break-ins: ‘Oh, that is not something that I should be concerning myself about’. He went on later in answer to a dorothy dixer to talk about some 20 break-ins - so we are talking less than those that have been established by the Palmerston Regional Business Association - and the sum of $700 000 worth of product that was pinched from these organisations, and how the police had valiantly recovered $100 000 worth.
I would have thought that there is some advice for this minister here, and there is some advice for the Chief Minister and others; and that is that if 40 businesses are telling you something, you should listen. You should really listen. It is not insignificant. It could, in the Attorney-General’s own words, amount to some hundreds of thousands of dollars of illicitly gained property at the expense of somebody - somebody having to put people off or increase prices on the shelf or do more overtime unpaid themselves. It comes at a cost. So, there is one thing they could take some interest in. Instead of being so dismissive about it, they could, for instance, go to BIS Shrapnel – often quoted. They talk in quite glowing terms about our future and when you look at their forecast surveys they are in fact wrong. So you would have to say: ‘Well, maybe some of these things are a little like our advisors. I have to temper their advice with other advice from other areas’.
You could go to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They have certainly put out some press on this. This is fairly recent. They did a survey of their members and found that it reflected the declining economy for the December quarter. They had some difficulties with issues relating to the government and they showed that they had a clinging faith to the future of this place. Now, the Chief Minister parades that as a clinging faith in her government. It is not. It is an optimism that is innate in business here in the Territory. They have struggled with a variety of external factors over the years and have survived many of them. When she tries to parade that as something that she can bask in the reflected glory of, she is totally misunderstanding what they are saying. If you look at the general business conditions for the quarter, they were down a nett minus 20 on expectations. So let us go back a while, and they thought that they were travelling about a certain level, X, and they were minus 20 on that. They continue to have some confidence in the future but that also might be a confidence that is dashed.
We are asking the government to be cognisant of these pleas for help because there is a theme that is developing here. If you go to the Yellow Pages survey, it gives you some other advice. If you ask some anecdotal questions that you could put out next time you have a barbecue – you could do the tour up the mall like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, or the trip down the track. So here are some ways you can get past your advisors. You can get past your advisors and say: ‘Is business doing well?’ Are they …
Dr Burns: But you used to be an advisor yourself.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, that is right. That is a good interjection. I used to be an advisor myself, and there is some advice I could give to those people up there who are probably listening to this, and that is: ‘Please be truthful with these people’ because for them to come in here and parade things that we know are not true puts them at great risk. There could be commentators who believe they are lying to parliament. I do not believe that. I believe they are misinformed and ignorant, and that what we have here are some babes in the wood. We have some people here who are venturing out into these various portfolio areas, they are getting significant briefs from many people saying: ‘Do not worry, keep your mettle; everything is going okay, and by the way the CLP were nasty people as well’.
We may well have been nasty and you may well have had difficulties with the budget and all that, but things were not so bad. If you want to do the rear vision thing, we can look at all sorts of stuff in history, but I do not think that is the purpose of the motion that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is definitely a forward looking motion. He is saying: ‘Please do not squander this time that you have because, in the time when you are contemplating your navel and the whole business of government is in hiatus, it can cause calamity for some of these businesses that are out there’. He would ask you to look at some of the things that you can do quickly, to be not dismissive of some of the calls you are receiving from the sector, and to take some advice other than that which is paraded by your advisors as good advice.
When we asked the Chief Minister to tell us how things were travelling and tell us what she would do, she stood up and said: ‘What you have said is all wrong, and I will tell you the facts. The facts are these: the economy needs to grow’. Well, blow me down! ‘The economy needs to grow’. That is true. I will give you a fact: there is a pact between this government and the people. When you go to an election, you have a mandate and you come back as a government and say: ‘Okay, this is our mandate and we will enforce it’. The Chief Minister stood in this House and said, as the preface to her budget speech, and I quote from Budget Paper No 1 of 2002-03:
- One year and two days ago, Territorians voted for change. They wanted a new government committed to
the core issues of job creation, better education and health care, and building safer communities. They
wanted a fresh team with energy and enthusiasm and the ability to listen. Above all, they wanted a strong
economy, but an economy that would lift up everyone’s fortunes from Nakara to Ngukurr to Nyirripi. This
is the mandate I proudly assumed along with my Labor team a year ago.
If you go to those core issues, put the energy in, work on your ability, start listening to people and you will start to come to grips with some of the problems you face. If you look at the debate about these truisms, the facts that the Chief Minister said: ‘The economy needs to grow’ - well, we know that. We need private sector investment and the big projects are the key. She forgets that she has a lot of capacity within these budget papers to do things with her own cash, and if you look at that, it is called the public sector. I quote here from Budget Paper No 5, 2002-03, The Public Sector, there is a little chapter on it:
- The public sector, which includes Commonwealth, Northern Territory and local governments, continues to be
a major contributor to the Northern Territory economy. Government administration, defence and
other predominantly public sector industries, health and education, together accounted for nearly 20%
of the Territory economy total GSP. Over 40% of Territory state final demand was attributable to
public expenditure and the public sector made up around 30% of total employment in the Northern
Territory calender year 2000.
It goes on to say:
- Public sector employment in the Territory is expected to grow modestly.
Well, it has not grown. It has dropped, and that is despite increases to some of the Commonwealth agencies, particularly Defence.
The government has a big cheque book, it has a powerful capacity to involve itself in matters economic, and it cannot just sit back and say: ‘Well we are going to wait for MIM to make a decision, we will wait for Alcan. Defence is going to build up, and there will probably be some new mineral finds’. None of these have anything to do with the government. In fact, if you go to the Chief Minister’s statement where she proudly proclaimed economic development last night, and we go through the dot points, the LNG Project at Wickham Point, not only has had very little to do with the government, it has had very little to do with the Labor government. The proposed Alcan expansion at Gove is to do with the commodity that they mine and its worth. MIM’s proposed McArthur River zinc project, likewise. The AustralAsia trade route, building on the Adelaide to Darwin rail link, has had very little to do with the Chief Minister. The two main constructions projects in our defence industries, very little to do with the Chief Minister. Stokes Hill Wharf redevelopment also. Well, there is one she could go for, and the Darwin convention centre.
If you look at some of those other things, even though I have said, dismissively, they have had very little to do with the Chief Minister, that need not be the case. She could involve herself, she could be talking to the people at Alcan about how she might facilitate that project. Certainly, matters relating to energy should be at the forefront. Matters relating to the railway and the freight route, and the trade route, are things that she could involve herself in, and she has chosen to, by a trip to Asia. One wonders what she is going to say to people because we know that she does not know what the freight rates are, and that would certainly have to be among the first three or four questions one would get if one was to engage in trade at this place.
So, she can get involved, she can listen more, she can use some of this largesse that sits within the government budget sector, and she can start to make a bit of an imprint on the Northern Territory. I was interested in what the Financial Review wrote about this lady. I thought this was a pretty good quote, actually, and may account for some of our problem. It says: ‘Clare Martin no longer sleeps through the night’, and it is a quote from the Financial Review, page 45 of the Features on Monday, 3 January:
- Clare Martin no longer sleeps through the night. Since she became the Chief Minister of the Northern
Territory 15 months ago, she’s been buzzing with so many ideas, that her brain has been downloading
at night.
My colleague pointed out that small business drove this economy. It is worth pulling out – and I shall not read it into the Hansard - but it is worth pulling out the annual report of Business, Industry and Resource Development, and just see how big this sector is. The public sector in this place, and small business and Defence, can drive a lot of these local expectations about product and services.
I hope that some of that comes easy to the Chief Minister. I would ask that she desist from listening to people who tell her lies, and start to get some alternative advice. I hope that some of these ideas that are keeping her awake late into the night, come to fruition. Tell us about it, run them past us, they might be good ideas. We have had ministers come in here and give us these grand and lofty visions, this, ‘I have a dream’ stuff, and people have rolled around chortling, but many of them have come true.
I can remember Labor criticising us about the small ship facility down there that is full of prawning boats today. They called it our ‘failed policy of picking winners’. Well, it was not a bad winner to pick. I can recall minister Everingham going to Japan to try to sell Ayers Rock as a tourist destination. He was asked by the Japanese: ‘Well, what do you have there? Do you have a hotel?’ ‘No, no’. ‘Do you have a town?’ ‘No, no’. ‘An airstrip?’ ‘No, no, not really’. ‘Rots of ruck, [sic] Mr Everingham, because we ain’t going to help’. It happened because of our involvement as a government, criticised again: ‘Oh, the Sheratons’. These guys went to elections on it. We built a town - we built the town of Yulara …
Mr Ah Kit: You sold it for a song!
Mr DUNHAM: And we sold it …
Mr Ah Kit: Yes, but how much for? You sold it for a song.
Mr DUNHAM: … and the money went into the railway. Two great projects, rolling out of that same money.
Mr Ah Kit: How much for?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, okay. If you want to use the profit and loss statement on Yulara, I will go with you any day, because we did not do that to make some speculative profit on the property. We did it for development of the Territory, for jobs, for the tourism industry and things like that.
These were ideas. If you read Hansard and read what you mob said, we did the thing called the NT University, which was criticised by then Opposition Leader, Bob Collins, the man who is now an education expert, I understand. He was saying things like: ‘Why would you build a uni when you only have 20 or 30 kids going off to tertiary institutions? It is crazy’. Well, we have dispensed many thousands of degrees and diplomas from that place. These are good ideas – radical, crazy ideas at the time. A private hospital? Ian Tuxworth was saying: ‘Look, why don’t we build a private hospital?’ We did it, before its time. A gas pipeline from middle Australia, across the desert all the way to the sea - we did it. We did it. We have been adventurous in our day. We have taken some risks and we have done it with one underlying motivation all the way through it: we have looked after the best interests of Territorians.
That is what we implore you to do. We implore the Chief Minister that, when she does things like put budgets into place, that she looks after the best interests of Territorians. Tell us some of these ideas downloading in the night. They might be crazy and we might roll around, but they might come to fruition; they might work. They might be some quaint notion that nobody else has thought about. Try them out; let us have a go. All she is doing at the moment is continuing to trade off the goodwill that the Northern Territory CLP government left, the ideas that are left and the sound financial state that it left.
Even though there are others who are dismissive of it, I ask that they go to the business community and just run out there this same little argument they are running with us tonight. That is: ‘You remember how bad things were when the CLP was here? Well, we are here to help. I am here from the government, I am here to help’. I am sure the private sector would have them strung up in no time flat. All the help they have given them is to do with putting their hand in their pocket and pinching their money, bringing more regulation and scrutiny on their activities.
There are things you can do: you have lots of impact on the budget through the public sector. You can make laws which make things easier; and you can also get involved with some of these big projects instead of saying: ‘Well, Alcan is happening. Good. Well, we do not have to do anything’. MIM is happening, get involved with it. Go and sit in their board room and have a talk with them: ‘What is it we can help you with boys and girls?’ I ask that the Chief Minister please take this advice seriously. It is better advice than she is getting from her advisors because, in the first place, it is devoid of lies - and that seems to be what she is getting from her advisors. It is one of those things where, if she takes some soundings from elsewhere - from normal people, from people who try to make money in the main street of Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or even Elliott or Ti Tree for that matter. If she does a little walk and has a look at some of the shops that are empty here, I am sure she will find that it is cause for concern, and immediate action on behalf of Territorians.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that the Country Liberal Party really have not changed their spots at all from the time they lost the election in August 2001. I say that, because in 11 years in opposition in this Chamber, I became increasingly tired - particularly towards the end of their term - with the increasing, I guess, patronising attitude that the Country Liberal Party used to display towards us in opposition. It spread beyond the realms of this Chamber, out into the Territory as a whole, where they undertook this patronising attitude to everyone.
The common thread of advice coming through here tonight from each of the speakers, was that we should get out in the streets and talk to business. We should get down to Alice Springs - if not Alice Springs, then Katherine; if not Katherine, down to the mall. I am reminded - this would have been about my 13th year - this would be six or seven years ago at least, and I was in town and, as I most often do when I am in town and certainly when I was in opposition, wander down the street and have lunch downtown. I would see the shops and see the people. I never used to see Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister or any of the ministers. I was with one of the staffers from the Leader of the Opposition’s office one day, and I said: ‘Where do you reckon the Chief Minister gets his smokes or gets his lunch, or gets anything that they need on a daily basis? You just never see them around’. And that was always the impression I had.
Even now, as a minister, on most days, I will get down the street, if only to get out of the confines of the building and into the fresh, open air. I am a minister, I get down there and I wander over to the Cavanagh Street TAB and have a bit of a punt. I very rarely see members of the opposition anywhere in and around the streets in those lunchtime breaks or, indeed, at any time of the day. So, it is that sort of patronising attitude of what we should do. They never did it themselves, of course, and would have it that we should.
I can be patronising myself. I suppose from the point of view of this motion - and I went through quite a lot of general business days in 11 years, one every 12 sitting days. We learned that the shorter the motion the better; the stronger the message that it carried. If you try to put too much in the motion it loses its impetus and its impact. My little effort at patronising the opposition is that they should perhaps refocus, in these motions, two or three points and you get your message across a lot more simply. Nonetheless, that is the business of the opposition.
I want to get some facts on the table about the population numbers because, as we have seen in the ABS outline last week, they revised the population count for the Territory as at June 2001 when they did the census, down by 2300 people. That revision was due to a change in the methodology after the event, not a loss of population. The only loss of population is this estimated loss of 261 persons over the last 12 months which, of course, would have a much smaller effect. But the potential impact, of course, on Commonwealth grants to the Territory, as I said at the first notice we had, is that $20m to $25m in 2002-03 ongoing. But there are two key determinants that affect funding levels and population is one, and the second is the relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
While the recommended relativities released today for the Territory will more than offset that reduction in funding due to the revision of population, that increase is likely to be only around $13.6m in 2003-04, compared to the projections that were contained in the mid-year report. It is well short of the approximately $34m, $35m, $40m that would have been received if there had been no revision to that population estimate. That does not mean that we walk away from this. We cannot walk away from the impact of that revision and there remains considerable concerns with at least two aspects of the estimates, as we noted last week. That is the adjustment associated with dwellings, where a census form has not been returned - and we know of many, many examples of that - and the question of revised migration data. We are taking these matters up, of course, with the ABS as a matter of urgency.
The estimated loss of population over the past year has reflected the loss of overseas migration and an increase in nett loss of interstate migration. The estimated loss from overseas migration is thought in part to have been caused by East Timorese people returning home after the gaining of independence. Negative nett interstate migration has been a common feature of the Territory economy over the last 15 years and is cyclical depending on major project activity in the Northern Territory. The only positive nett interstate migration in the last 15 years of the Country Liberal Party government related to the Commonwealth’s Defence expansion in the north. Recent nett interstate outflows reflect the lagged impact of the downturn in the Territory economy amplified by the relative attractiveness of other jurisdictions driven by, at least in part, increased opportunities in the construction sector.
It is at least a big part due to the CLP’s mismanagement in that they did not see it coming because they had nothing in place to take up the slack in the economy, so people moved interstate where there are more opportunities. As I will outline shortly, there is no shortage of projects in which this government is actively involved and working that will have a positive impact on population growth.
With respect to the public service number quoted by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday for May 2001, that figure of 14 779 was taken from the 2001-02 budget papers and represented the estimated average staffing across the service for the 2001-02 year. It is more useful if you look at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment figures. They show that the total staffing in May 2001 was 14 619. In 2001, public service numbers did decline, mainly as a result of outsourcing of computer systems management, an initiative of the previous government. In fact, public servant numbers published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment show an increase over the six months to December 2002 of 75, to a total of 14 378.
There are no plans to cut the public service and this question of 1500 jobs - we need to know where it came from. Someone said that the Chief Minister may have used that figure at some time. Not to my knowledge. I will certainly be checking with her. Not to my knowledge, that there was anything like that ever suggested.
Business confidence is difficult to measure accurately, concisely and consistently over time. It can vary considerably from one survey period to the next. While there has been a disappointing decline in business confidence in the past few months, it has been slowly improving since the end of about 2001 after a sharp fall in the confidence that occurred during the last two years of the Country Liberal Party when the economy did hit rock bottom. I remember the Country Liberal Party, as a government, being pretty shocked with the result of the particular survey that came at a time when everything was turning down, and it was showing up in the form of the survey. So shocked and so rocked were they that, when a graph was produced by the staff of the then Leader of the Opposition and tabled in here by her, she was sent up on a motion to the Privileges Committee on the basis that the graph had been drawn in a misleading fashion. It was a bit of a ‘shoot the messenger’ approach from the Country Liberal Party because they were shocked by the fact that the business community was losing confidence so rapidly.
You would have to ask yourself why they would be shocked when the construction industry was on its knees, there was nothing going on, no projects in sight, and that was towards the end of a pretty rough two years. We do not shoot the messenger. We accept the survey and say: ‘Yes, it has been tough’. Some are doing it tougher than others and that will always be the case. However, we accept the sentiments of the survey as we accept the fact that it is a much brighter picture pitching forward for the next three months, rather than the retrospective.
Along with the relativities, the Commonwealth Grants Commission today released the figures which compare the Territory’s tax take with other jurisdictions. This is important information because it is a comparison that confirms that the Territory has a taxation take well below the average of other jurisdictions; a low taxing government by Australian standards. Our tax per capita is the second lowest in Australia, based on information in the states’ 2002-03 budget papers. In particular, for those small businesses not liable for payroll tax - and that is a threshold figure of $600 000 per annum in wages and salaries - the Territory’s tax regime is less onerous in comparison to the national average. This arises as a result of the payroll tax exemption threshold and the fact that certain taxes, such as land taxes and fire and emergency services levies, are not imposed in the Territory at all. We simply do not have those forms of taxes, but they are applied by other states on all business, irrespective of size, with no threshold cut-offs at all.
I outlined yesterday - but it is worth making clear again - the 2002-03 budget commenced a process of improving and simplifying the tax arrangements that we have in the Territory. A significant number of legislative changes were made to simplify and reduce taxes on business, particularly small business. Taxes were cut on franchises, stamp duty was removed on corporate reconstructions, allowing more efficient business structuring, and hiring duty was reduced. Concessional stamp duty arrangements for principal place of residence, improved concessions for first home owners provided that boost for the housing market, drew forward those plans people had in order to take advantage of these concessions while they were in place. So we drew forward into the market construction that probably would have occurred, but would have occurred over a longer time frame. We got that back up to provide the boost to the housing market and the construction industry by bringing a greater inducement as well to settle in the Territory or to upgrade dwellings.
Payroll tax arrangements have been brought closer to those in the states, with base broadening measures providing capacity to reduce the payroll tax rate. That is something that we are on the record for in our policy commitment, and it is clearly something we continue to work towards. Further changes to improve the competitiveness of the Territory’s taxation arrangements will be forthcoming in the 2003-04 budget when we hand that down in May. The Tax Administration Act itself is currently under review. The consultation draft of the new Tax Administration Bill has been released for public comment. The new act will result in greater comparability between different Territory taxes and simplify our current administration practices.
The government is actively working on a range of major economic projects across the Territory. The Chief Minister announced yesterday the seven task forces for major projects. The projects are as follows: Wickham Point, Alcan Gove, MIM’s McArthur River zinc project, the Darwin convention centre, the AustralAsia Trade Group, the Darwin Wharf Precinct redevelopment, and Defence support industries.
The Leader of the Opposition has called on government to, among other things, immediately act to implement plans to develop the Darwin Wharf Precinct, establish a convention centre rather than, as he claims, continue to delay it by so-called fast-tracking. Consultancy into the feasibility of a convention centre is under way, and that final report will be back to government by April. The consultants have been engaged by the Office of Territory Development within the Department of the Chief Minister, and that is being guided by a steering committee comprising senior officers from that office, Treasury, the Tourist Commission, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and Department of Justice assisted by a local engineering consultant.
It involves a comprehensive review of all the costs, all the benefits and all the risks associated with a costly convention centre in Darwin, because the previous consultancy work carried out in relation to Darwin was relatively limited in scope, providing some encouragement to continue to consider such a project, but nowhere near giving enough basis for what elsewhere in Australia is required, and be seen to be required to be a major government commitment. The previous consultancy recommended a detailed stage 2 financial and economic assessment that was not then undertaken. I suppose that was the time that the Country Liberal Party walked away from this. I remember the announcement by the then Treasurer, the member for Katherine, and it struck me as odd that they were in the countdown – certainly in the lead-up to the election, I am not sure of the exact timing, but certainly within the last six to nine months to the election – and why they would be walking away from a major project such as a convention centre could be, in the run-down to the election. If they had information that it simply was not going to work, you simply could not make it work – okay, fine, explain your story, tell your story. But they did not follow through with the detailed stage 2 financial and economic assessment such as they would have been in the position to make that claim unequivocally. So we saw them walk away, leave this process half done.
The consultants are to advise government about the feasibility of a convention centre and make recommendations as to an optimum size and configuration for the share of the national and international conventions and exhibitions market that Darwin could realistically be expected to draw. The consultants will also make recommendations as to an appropriate site, and they will be expected to support their recommendations with a detailed and robust demand analysis, as well as model the expected economic and commercial spinoffs that the convention centre may bring to the Top End.
Considering that the Darwin convention centre, if it proceeds, will be a multimillion dollar project, prudent financial and economic management would dictate that comprehensive research is carried out with appropriate advice sought from experts in the field, prior to any decisions being made regarding the construction of the convention centre. That is the work that should have been done. When the CLP put that on the table, it should have been followed through to that extent. However, it simply was not; it was dropped half way. For whatever reason, we will never know.
The research currently under way will inform government of the extent of any likely government contribution, identify and quantify the potential economic benefits of such a project, and provide realistic expectations of any continuing operating risks that government may be expected to bear throughout its life. Knowledge of those facts will place government in a much stronger negotiating position, and would reduce any likelihood of a repeat of the previous government’s process, with the project being abandoned midway, wasting a significant investment of time and resources by the private sector in developing proposals.
If you go out to the private sector and ask them to put together proposals on projects of this nature, they would expect that the government is serious and they would put serious dollars into putting their proposals together. To just have it cut off, without that follow through work of genuine assessment of what the picture was and what government may be required to do, really put the whole process on the shelf. It did waste the time and resources of those companies that took the effort to develop those proposals.
With the benefit of the consultancy, the government will be able to clearly articulate its requirements for a convention centre and that will, of course, provide far more certainty to private sector proponents, and should make for a more open and transparent process overall.
In Alice Springs, the government is actively working with indigenous land-holders to ensure release of land for residential development. Development of a business case to assist in attracting Virgin Blue to the Centre is also under way. It is a business case that has to be built and, from Virgin Blue’s point of view, it has to be sustainable. And really, from government’s point of view as well, because you do not want fly-by-night operators that are there today and gone tomorrow. The government is also implementing a strategy to position and differentiate Alice Springs as a destination for work, through Desert Knowledge.
The government has a commitment to reversing the outflow of population from the Territory. We will launch our population strategy in the coming months, and part of the strategy will be to attract and retain people in the Territory by better understanding why they come and go.
There are no plans to cut budgets for development and assistance to the tourism industry. The apparent reduction in the Tourist Commission’s 2003-03 budget in the mid-year report is a result of transfer of marketing expenses through to 2003-04. There is also the one-off funding of $2m in 2002-03 for assistance to Virgin Blue which, if not used this year, is carried forward to 2003-04.
The Leader of the Opposition also raised the cost of living. This was something raised by the member for Greatorex on a couple of occasions, both in the media and during these parliamentary sittings. He was particularly caught out by my colleague over whether this government had, in fact, increased power prices or not. Clearly we had not, although it seems that the member for Greatorex has been saying that we have. In September 2001, just after the end of the Country Liberal Party government, a basket of grocery items in Darwin cost $6.31 more than in Cairns. In December 2002, a little more than a year of the Labor government, that difference was down to $1.64. One wonders where the member for Greatorex gets his ideas and motivation for jumping into this exercise. It was $6.31 difference between Darwin and Cairns when the CLP went out of office …
Ms CARTER: A point or order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister’s time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the minister to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you. I will move on, I was not aware of the time.
The cost of living then faced by Territorians is likely to fall discernibly again once the railway is finished and freight switches from the road to this cheaper transport mode. This Labor government has a clear commitment to business in the Territory through its expenditure on capital works, minor works, and repairs and maintenance since it came to government. In comparison, the last Country Liberal Party budget for 2001-02 provided $264m in cash for capital works and repairs and maintenance. We boosted that significantly with $277m in cash spent in 2001-02 and a budget of $327m of cash in 2002-03. Those figures exclude the power and water and the Aboriginal essential services community service obligation.
To the future, I do not need to repeat the buoyant forecast of Access Economics and BIS Shrapnel, but I will. Access Economics predicts Northern Territory average annual growth gross state product to 2006-07, 5.1% compared to the Australian average of 3.1%. BIS Shrapnel predict average annual gross state product growth to 2004-05, of 5.8% compared to the Australian average of 4.1%.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the last few points. We need to look at the difference between the dying days, really, of what was a tired, patronising and arrogant, old CLP and contrast those with the fresh optimism of the Martin Labor government. If we look at the main economic indicators: state final demand - under the CLP, $8.8bn, under the Martin Labor government, $10.2bn. State final demand growth - under the CLP, 5.6%, under Labor, 15.9%. Gross state product - under the Country Liberal Party, $8.6bn, under Labor, climbing over the $9bn mark. Gross state product growth - under the Country Liberal Party, 4.1%, under Labor, 4.8%. The Darwin to Cairns grocery basket price differential - $6.31 September 2001; December 2002 down to $1.64. Employment - 97 100 under the Country Liberal Party; under Labor, currently climbing past 98 200 - an important number. Under the last days of the Country Liberal Party, unemployment was 7.8%, under Labor, currently 5.9%. Almost two percentage points. New company registrations in a comparable 16-month period - 481 under a Country Liberal Party government, 499 under the Martin Labor government. For the same period, there were more bankruptcies under the CLP at 83, compared to 68 in the first 16 months of the Martin government.
And all we have heard for two weeks of these sittings from the opposition is doom and gloom, in stark contrast to the figures and the facts when they are put on the table. Enough of the list of the CLP failures; we want to look to the future. That is what the economic forecasters are saying. They predict stronger growth and more jobs for Territorians. Access Economics predicts the Territory’s average annual growth in gross state product to 2006-07 will be 5.1%. The Australian average prediction is 3.1%. Average annual employment growth in the Territory to 2006-07 is 1.9%. The Australian average is 1.3%. They are strong numbers. BIS Shrapnel predicts average annual gross state product to be 5.8% against an Australian average of 4.1%. BIS Shrapnel also has the Territory’s employment growth outstripping the Australian average.
That is the positive scenario that the Northern Territory has to look forward to. The real question and challenge for the Leader of the Opposition and his team is this: they can concentrate and continue to wallow in the gloom and doom of the past. Really, it was their failings that brought the construction industry to its knees. There were people walking around when they put those cranes up wondering what they were. They had not seen them. Little kids: ‘Woo! Big crane!’ For many, many years, your predecessors had cranes on the skyline and it was something that Country Liberal Party governments prided themselves on over the years - cranes on the skyline.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You know when it all went bad? When you became Chief Minister.
Now if you go out, they are still working in the night, getting all this work done. That is the positive scenario we are looking forward to. Gloom and doom from the opposition, created by them; we are working hard to get out of it and Territorians, in the main, are pretty keen with where we are going. It remains my firm belief that Territorians - and I include business and particularly small business - want to look towards a brighter future and it will be a brighter future under this government.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, it is with a certain level of sadness that I join in this debate regarding the Northern Territory’s economy this evening. Up until recent years the Territory has enjoyed a positive economic outlook and reality. People were keen to come here. People were keen to invest. People were keen to stay. Now, in a short period of time, all that has changed. Despite the predictions from those opposite, the reality of our gloomy economy is hitting many Territorians in the face. During the past 18 months, I have heard few stories of business success. Most of what I hear is negative. Let me tell you some of the things I have been told this month.
I started the month off inquiring of people how their holidays went. I was surprised at the number who told me that they had spent them down south checking out where they will retire. This has come as a shock to me for many of these people were salt of the earth Territorians, people who have lived here all their lives, but they were thinking of selling up and getting out. The cost of living here and the problems being caused by itinerants were the things they told me were the cause of this thought.
More specifically, I have spoken to a number of business people in the past few weeks asking them how business is going. Universally, the response has been negative except for yesterday when I asked a woman who owned a video shop and she told me that because of the rain, things have been booming.
One man I spoke to, who works in the tourism industry, said: ‘The government keeps talking things up. I do not believe it. They are just trying to give us hope. Does minister Henderson think that when I open my door there will be a queue of 20 backpackers out there? I do not think so.’ Another, who has a large company, part of which operates IT services, said: ‘I am now locating staff offshore. I save heaps of things like payroll tax by getting people in Hong Kong to do the work which I used to do here. But now things are so tight that if I can save $50 000 a year on payroll tax, then it is worth it’.
When I rang a friend who is a property developer and asked him what people in business were saying to him, it was all bad news. He advised that people are now past the point of being cautious. They are now asking themselves and their families: ‘Do we close and leave the Territory?’ Apparently, increasing government costs and regulations are making it tougher to do business and, coupling this with the difficult national and international times, the effect is that people are leaving the Territory in significant numbers.
There was a report done late last year that claimed that thousands had left and not returned in the previous year. I am told that there is a lack of confidence in the business community that things will improve in the years 2003-04, and that people are feeling very, very low. One man who has a fish and chip shop in the northern suburbs is suffering because his customers no longer buy whatever they feel like for their families on a Sunday night. Instead, they are coming in and asking: ‘What can I get for $10?’ People once comfortably off are tightening the belt and, as a result, there is a flow-on to the service industries.
Last week, I counted the number of shops which are closed in the Smith Street Mall. There were 21. That is 16% of the total shop fronts. Many other shops and offices in town are empty. To me, this is another indication of our gloomy economic times. Our CBD is struggling to survive, and one of the reasons the CBD struggles is because it is competing with areas that perhaps look a little more cheerful and are less intimidating for some people to go. The issue of itinerants in the CBD does have an economic impact. I will read from a report from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Top End News which I received today. They did a survey, apparently, of their members over the last few months. I quote:
The survey identified many types of antisocial behaviour adversely affecting business. The primary ones
identified were: theft, break and enter, and vandalism, particularly shop front window breakage, verbal
abuse and threats of violence, primarily by intoxicated people, slingshot attacks …
And I have had one myself:
- … arson and loitering.
Whilst many of the immediate impacts upon business are obvious, the survey certainly revealed a need to raise the profile of longer term effects, such as:
- … increased staff turnover and its consequent impact, such as loss of intellectual property, loss of productivity
and additional costs of hiring and training, increased costs of upgrading security, often with limited effect, the
area the business is located becoming less desirable to customers and affected customers not returning,
and increased costs of insurance.
I just wonder whether some of the reasons why we do have empty shops in the mall might be caused by itinerants. I know the government has introduced a program with regard to itinerants, but it certainly does not appear to be having any significant impact. However, as I have always said, I wish it all the best and I hope that it does have a good impact.
Here in the CBD, in particular, we do have a lot of problems with regards to increasing business confidence and getting things off the ground. We have mentioned the convention centre and the redevelopment of the wharf precinct. I certainly hope that those projects do get off the ground quick smart. I am a little cynical about the timing. We are now 18 months into this new government’s term. Arguably, it has roughly two years left. We have a study being done on the wharf, as we have learnt just now, and that is going to be concluded in April this year. You could imagine that it might take another five or six months before anything is decided with regards to that. At what point are we going to see some activity? I would argue that if we are going to see activity, it will be towards the end of the government’s term, and that that may be organised so as to look good for the government in the media and marketing campaigns in the lead up to the election. My concern is that there will be an element of deliberately stalling that project until the timing is right for the election. I hope that will not be the case, because there are many people in the Northern Territory waiting for projects like that to get off the ground. I certainly would not want to see them as having been pawns in a re-election program.
We have many problems, and this government must get its head out of the sand rather than giving us rhetoric. Do something big, do something tangible and kick-start the Territory economy during this gloomy time. I know the Territory will boom again one day, but our people are suffering and leaving while the current government does nothing but blow out hot air. Chief Minister, do something.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. The issue is a population loss, the causes of such a population loss, and what should be the response. This is identified and brought to the attention of government in a number of different ways: ABS figures; student enrolments, the number of students in our schools, indigenous and non-indigenous, have decreased; the size of the public sector has decreased. We find the response from government is an explanation for each one of those, ranging from: there are often a lot of children not in the school at the time that these figures are taken, to census forms were not collected, and we know a few that were not collected, and there has been a strange approach that the ABS has taken to this particular set of figures. You can run whatever arguments you wish, but when the evidence mounts up, we simply need to accept the fact that the population has decreased.
The next question then comes: who should accept responsibility for this population loss? The answer is obvious. Nonetheless, I find it poor quality of leadership that would identify the former government as being the culprit here. There are a number of other reasons which can easily be constructed to deflect responsibility from the government, which simply has to respond to this. I have to say, in the midst of all the words that have been uttered from the government side, if you weigh them all up, there has probably been that message in there: that very mild acknowledgement of responsibility.
However, I believe that the Territory deserves better. In fact, we do simply need, for the sake of the Territory, to cop it and let us walk forward and respond to this in a very proactive way. Forget the word game. We know that things are on the turn and, in a way, that is of serious concern to the average Territorian; those who have children – with young families and older families - who have spent their time in the Territory and are asking questions about the future. Anyone with ears and the mind to understand, and who makes the inquiry as we walk around the Territory, can pick the signs themselves. We know that there is something going on. So, if we get that all established, then comes the issue of what we do. The responsibility has to then be taken, and then we have a resulting action.
I need to go back to a debate that occurred in this parliament. Many words have been spoken and I will not reiterate every aspect of this. I printed a section of the debate from 19 June 2002 - I guess when the first warnings were beginning to come from this side of the House. I believe they were genuinely articulated and, today, we can see the effect of not heeding the warning of that time. It may be a hard concept to understand, why someone in business would actually choose to reduce the price of the product that they are selling, when a smart move could be that discounting can actually increase the trade. The argument put at the time was related to the HIH levy. There were sound reasons why we presented the case to government that they should genuinely consider not passing this onto small business at that time. The case was strongly and, I believe, comprehensively put. We had small business operators sitting in the gallery during the course of that debate. You can read the words now. You will see that, at that time, government was intent, in spite of any logic, reasoning, or evidence, to impose that levy when the argument presented at that time was: ‘For goodness sake, you know that small business is suffering at this present moment’. The case was put that if you were to relieve this burden and it was able to be relieved, small business would perform for you and would put more back into the economy than you would lose by absorbing this HIH levy. All sorts of arguments were presented. Read the words yourself and, I am sure, if you read with an open mind you will see that there was a very good case put.
When you read the accounts of small business operators today faced with difficult times - which is now a part of their daily reality – they have decided not to take on the extra apprentice. They talk about times when they had two or three apprentices. The question of taking on an apprentice today? Forget it! When it comes time to make the decision if a staff member leaves, they are not replaced. The number of employees is simply decreasing.
Lifestyle is a tremendous lure here in the Northern Territory, but you must live. I hear the tragic stories from those who are struggling to make it from day to day. When they have less hope of getting meaningful employment, it becomes just too hard, even with the wonderful lifestyle in the Northern Territory. With the diminishing hope of getting employment from an employer who is feeling the weight of operating here in the Northern Territory, we have a departure from the Northern Territory. We have young Territorians who were going to go into the work force looking for an apprenticeship, who are passed by. They start to think differently about their future and perhaps they then emerge as an expenditure on another part of our economy and that being the law and order system where they may be on the streets because there is no career path that may suit them. There is no fat in the system.
There is no small business reaching out and trying to draw in young talent, knowing that it may not benefit them but it would certainly benefit the Northern Territory through their investment in young people. They cannot even afford to think those thoughts. They cannot afford to extend their hand and bring a young Territorian on to their payroll to train them, to show them how small business works, to teach them and to prepare them for a future where they can be positive contributors to the Northern Territory.
The warning was squarely placed when we argued that it was well justified not to pass on the HIH levy to business; not a political reason, but for a very good reason: take the weight off small business and they would perform for you. They would give it back. They would take the young Territorian leaving school, the one who perhaps cannot quite fit in at Year 10 and wonders: ‘What can I do?’ Well, take an apprenticeship, young fellow – ‘I tried, I cannot find one.’ The young couple, single income, living in Moulden or Karama, who depend upon their work at the local business place at Winnellie: ‘Sorry, mate, we cannot take you, we do not need you any more.’ That is the actual effect. You talk to small business, they will tell you that.
I know that small business is accustomed to creating the impression that it is always hard. I grew up in the primary industry sector and there was either too much rain or not enough, or the commodity prices were very good but we did not get any rain that year, or the commodity prices were atrocious and we had a bumper season – it was never right. Small business is the same. Do you know why they speak like that? Because they try darn hard. They try very, very hard to make progress. I simply draw attention to the HIH levy when this government chose to pass it on to business – it did not have to be, and the cost, which was somewhere between $28m and $40m at the topmost level, has now returned at a loss of perhaps $51m by the population reduction from the federal coffers. It just is not right.
As I mentioned, by taking up and lightening the load, you can find that you actually get a better return. By giving you can actually receive much more and here was an opportunity passed. I would have to say the responsibility has to fall fairly and squarely upon the government for the decision that they made at that particular time. That is just one aspect and I believe it has come to fruition; that which we warned the government of at that particular time.
With those words, many words have been uttered on both sides of the House. I urge members to support this motion and to ensure that this government gets past the rhetoric and simply accepts the responsibility - as has faintly been uttered on the other side - enlarge upon that articulation and that responsibility, and proactively move forward for the sake of those who are struggling in our community and those who are perhaps deciding to leave.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, hopefully I will be painlessly short. I listened to the member for Johnston, the Minister for Tourism. During his debate tonight; he used two words repeatedly and they are worth revisiting. The two words I am going to refer to are the words ‘debt’ and ‘deficit.’ The member for Johnston was at pains to point out that the CLP had abused the Bankcard and those sorts of things and ‘I am glad they are not hanging on to my Bankcard and I am so grateful that we are in power now’. I have gone through the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and I point out the Foreword of that report to the member for Johnston and read out to him a section from the report:
- November 2001 Mini-Budget.
The November mini-budget paper provided comprehensive details of policy changes that were introduced
at that time. In summary, the main changes to the budget were: the removal of NT Fleet as an asset sale …
That was $50m. That was a Labor Party decision that blew out the budget by $50m. Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Nett increase of capital works and repairs and maintenance - $11m.
Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Additional funding for: Health - $32m.
Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Education - $7m.
Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Law & Order - $9m.
Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Government Initiatives - $13m.
Their debt, their Bankcard:
- Cuts - they call it ‘Budget Improvement and Savings Measures’ - $23m savings.
So, they have cut into the Public Service or cut expenditure in some areas, but expended a lot more in other areas.
- Additional Revenue Measures - [Taxes] - $4m.
So, they have cut and they have taxed, but that does lower the effect of their debt and their spending by $27m. At the end of the day - oh, the final heading was:
- Carry Over of the Budget.
Our debt, our Bankcard, of $17m. If you calculate that out, it is $100m to their debt, their Bankcard versus $17m carry over from our debt, our Bankcard. That is as simple as that: $17m versus $100m. So it was their decision to spend $100m. They are in charge of the Bankcard. If our $17m was so reprehensible that it causes the member for Johnston to screech: ‘Oh my God, how dreadful, the expenditure of that mob opposite’, they have increased debt five times more than the budget prior to it, managed by the former government. One of the biggest fears about the election of a Labor government in the Northern Territory was their ability to manage the economy.
He also used the term ‘deficit’ and said how dreadful deficits were. I point the member for Johnston to a report he quoted from, the Mid-Year Report 2002-03 and I will quote to him a line from page 3 of that report:
- General Government Sector: Since the Budget is an increase of deficit by $23.1m to $51.6m.
Almost double the deficit that they anticipated at the mid-year path of the budget. So if the member for Johnston is feeling so concerned about the issues of debt and deficit, then why on earth is he allowing this to occur? He has the Bankcard. I will tell you why. It is because, at the end of the day, this government has made one very unrealistic assumption, and that unrealistic assumption is this: the NT will grow by 5% annually for the next five years. It means that over five years a rate of 5% per annum.
They must - have to, absolutely need to - revise those figures in light of the motion that we are speaking to before the House now because we are not growing; we are shrinking. We are getting smaller. Their projections of 5% per annum over that period are just unreal. This is one of the reasons that Territorians were so careful about not electing them in the years prior because there was this profound doubt of their ability to manage the economy. If they manage 5% this year, especially between now and the end of the financial year, I will be astonished and amazed. The fact of the matter is that they will not. As a consequence of that, their deficit, their debt, will become greater.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank those who have contributed to this debate. Certainly, members of the opposition took the debate with the intent that it was mentioned and, notwithstanding the comments of the Chief Minister, in particular, I thought the contributions generally were informative to me. I found out, for example, from the Tourism Minister, that he is more than pleased. He is perfectly happy at a time in the Northern Territory Australia and the world, where tourism marketing would have to be a number one priority, and where there has been some lack of effort in the Tourist Commission in spending their allocated funding. A lot of that was because they were tied up with dealing with accrual accounting. That was when these budget projections from 2002-03 out to 2005-06 looked at a reduction of $2m at least over that term, in your figures, at a time when the Tourist Commission, I would have thought, would have a high priority of funding.
We had a comment from the Deputy Chief Minister, which is fairly common in the way he starts most of these debates. That is firstly, a bit of a bidding war, I suppose, as to who is more in touch with the community, Labor or the CLP. Because he walks down the mall regularly and does not see CLP members when he goes and gets his cigarettes, that should be proof enough for anyone that he and the Labor Party are more in touch with Territorians than the opposition. Well, that may be for him to decide. The other normal effort you get from him is some patronising advice - and he admitted himself it was patronising - in the wording of the motion for greater effect in this Chamber.
The effect of the motion in this Chamber, we know at the outset, falls on deaf ears in government. Some of the newer members in government, in particular, pride themselves on the ability and strength of their developing rhetoric and how they perform well in this Chamber. That is not the intent of the motion. The intent was to bring forward to the government what we believe to be deep concerns of Territorians regarding the state of the economy at the moment and, in particular, the imposts that are being suffered by individual families and also small business.
The Deputy Chief Minister said that business confidence was difficult to measure, precisely, and that is true. I do not step back from that. We can look to the indicators that help us to measure business confidence, indicators such as the Yellow Pages, an indicator such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey, and an indicator such as the Palmerston Regional Business surveys. Of course, anyone can argue with statistics and roll them and come up with better numbers. I remember when the Yellow Pages survey first came out, and the minister for business came on the Fred McCue show in the morning. He said, as part of his commentary to Fred McCue that: ‘We are doing it tough out there’. I received a fax in my office within about 60 minutes, and it said: ‘He is not doing it tough. We are doing it tough. He has never had it better, he is earning more money than he has ever earned in his life. He has more allowances than he has ever had in his life, and he has the gall to say: “We are doing it tough”’. That is only one example.
I simply say, we can all go with anecdotal information, but the reality out there, which I do not believe anyone can dispute. Frankly it came through in the debate tonight, particularly with the roll-off of figures from the Deputy Chief Minister, that it seems to clearly dispute the fact that the Northern Territory economy is certainly not doing well, and the government is misleading Territorians if it tries to promote the fact that they should be happy, they should not be complaining, they should not be concerned because, not only are things rosier, based on the figures that the Deputy Chief Minister rolled out, but they are going to get rosier.
The Deputy Chief Minister said, proudly, that the Territory tax take is lower than other jurisdictions. What he conveniently forgets to mention is that by his own strategy he intends to ensure that the Northern Territory comes as close as possible and as soon as possible within the all states average. That is the strategy of the Labor government. You cannot, on the one hand, pride yourself on being competitive - competitive to the point of being a lower taxing Territory than other states in Australia - and at the same time have a strategy to ensure that you come up to the all states average. What that means to anyone who can read and think is that your intention is that where your taxes are lower, you intend to raise those taxes until you reach a point of being able to move them to the all states average.
He made some interesting comments on the convention centre which was a criticism of whether or not the CLP government had actually conducted a proper review of that convention centre. I will have a look at those comments. He seemed to make some indication that we did not move to stage 2 of a review. In the way it was explained, the only way I could understand the fact that we have not moved to a stage 2 review and you were intending to move to a stage 2 review, would be that you intend to build the convention centre yourself - a comment made by one of the ministers yesterday, which seems to be confirmed by the Deputy Chief Minister. Of course, if you were going to be the owner, builder and operator and maybe use some subcontractor to actually build it for you, obviously you are going to have to go through the detailed scenario that you intend to go through. If you are in the situation where you are going to expressions of interest and calling the best developer, obviously you need to see what the developer himself brings forward, and interrogate those figures based on that particular development proposal.
The essence of the debate this evening, as I said, was that the government dwelled, as usual, on the record of the CLP in the past. That is fine; they will do that at every opportunity. I believe that Territorians are not interested in that anymore. As I said in my initial statement in this motion, this motion was brought forward to alert the government of the growing concern - a situation that is out there amongst Territorians and, in particular, small business. I believe if you answer that concern by simply pointing to the big projects that are coming on, you miss the point entirely. The Chief Minister was a classic in her commentary, because she did not even mention the words ‘small business’ right throughout. She simply dwelled on the difficult situation the CLP have left the government in, pointed to the big projects that will come in the future, and left out entirely the real issue that the motion raised.
The real issue the motion raised is that there are businesses out there that need assistance now. Those businesses, many of them, surely are supportive of gas. However, as one businessman said to me only a week ago - within a week:
- If someone says gas once more I will throttle them, because I am not interested in gas. I have no benefit
from the railway and I do not think I will get any benefit from gas. In fact, when someone says the
Wickham Point LNG plant is going to built, what it means to me is that my workmen, who I can only pay
$20-odd an hour, are going to work at that LNG plant for $47 an hour. What that means to me is that I
had a work force of 15 persons. Because of the economic situation that work force is now down to six or
seven persons, and I cannot afford to pay them the wages that Bechtel will be able to pay at the LNG
plant at Wickham Point. Where am I going to compete in the future? Not only have I lost my capacity to
compete for contracts now because of the diminishing work force - I have lost my capacity to be competitive -
but that capacity is going to be further diminished. And all the government can tell me is that that is good news.
It is that sort of situation, as one example that we are pointing to, these people are not impressed by the big projects. These people have no particular advantage from the railway, sadly, and these people need help now.
We put forward initiatives as to how the government can assist them in some way to ease their business costs, to give them some hope that the government is sympathetic to their situations, to understand that the government has the capacity to help them and intends to, quickly. All we get from the government is: ‘Look to the big projects, look to the future. We have your security in hand. In any cases, if there is anyone to blame, blame the CLP’. Well, sadly, it might be good for politicians to run around saying that. It might even be effective enough to impress enough to win the next election. Who knows? But I do not stand back from the fact that, whilst I have any ability in this Chamber to raise the interests of small Territorians - Territorians who do not have a voice to speak for themselves - and to at least put forward an argument of theirs against the whole weight of government - and if the ALP government can stand here, as the Deputy Chief Minister has, and rattle off all of those figures as to how great the economy is, knowing full well - as he should when he talks about things like gross state product and how much it has increased - zip of that will come to Territorians. Most of it is offshore investment in Top End structures on the gas fields out there. If it is so much, how much of it is directly impacting on the Northern Territory and, if so, how? What has your government actually done to achieve any of it?
You cannot point to any of that. You can point to statistics that are given to you by bureaucrats. You can run a line that might make you feel good but, sadly, in doing so, Territorians who do not have that knowledge, do not have that understanding. All they know is that their government should be achieving the big projects and also should be concerned and listening and reacting to the issues that concern them today. From their point of view, you are not listening, and you are certainly not moved by anything that is brought forward in this motion.
I do not expect support, Madam Speaker, but I thank the members of my side for their contribution.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry into the Department of Health and Community Services –
Allegations Raised in the Review
Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry into the Department of Health and Community Services –
Allegations Raised in the Review
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the Public Accounts Committee inquire into and report upon –
- (1) the allegations contained in the report of the Review of the Northern Territory Department of Health
and Community Services with respect to the 2001-02 and 2002-03 departmental budget with particular
reference, but not limited, to:
(a) the lack of control in employing 150 extra staff without ongoing budget provision;
(b) the lack of control in that 46% of the department’s work force is not nominally attached
to a position number;
(c) the lack of control in that 20% of the department’s staff are in supernumerary positions;
- (d) the lack of control in that part of the actual expenditure of the department incurred in 2001-02
was deferred until 2002-03 and whether this was a breach of either the Financial Management
Act or the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act;
(e) the lack of control in that a failure to implement strategies to achieve medium to long term
efficiencies resulted in additional recurrent funding not being used for the purpose for which
it was appropriated;
(f) the lack of control of expenditure in 2001-02 has resulted in enormous pressures on the
2002-03 budget with the resultant overspend by the department of between $20m and $30m
on that allocated for the year 2002-03;
(g) whether monthly financial reports within the department have been unclear, inaccurate, subject
to factual disputes, and have failed to address significant divergence from budget;
assets;
forms with the department; and
(2) how the allegations made in the review report, if substantiated, affect what is contained in the 2001-02 annual
report of the Department of Health and Community Services tabled in this Assembly, with particular reference,
but not limited to, the accounting practices revealed in the Review Report and the validity of the annual report
and the accounts it contains;
(3) whether the report’s recommendation for staff changes will result in any savings by cutting staff numbers or
instead, be a switching of positions between the department’s areas of responsibility;
2001-02 and 2002-03 budgets; and
down for June.
Madam Speaker, when the Martin Labor government came to power, they spoke passionately about how they would champion open and accountable government. Several weeks ago, the Minister for Health and Community Services made public the report of a review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services. Since the release of this report, we have all learned of its serious findings with regards to the management, particularly the financial management, of the department. On page 39 of the review, we are told:
- Funding pressure has also been driven significantly by a breakdown in management systems and control.
It is for this reason that I call on government members to remember their pledge to provide a more open and accountable government, and to vote to support this motion calling for the Public Accounts Committee to be allowed to examine a number of concerns highlighted by the review. I am sure members opposite recall, when they gained power, their fervour to introduce what they called in the election campaign their ‘new directions for good government in the Territory.’ For those who may have forgotten some of the detail, it included statements like: ‘Labor will bring new openness to Territory government,’ and ‘The CLP is allergic to scrutiny.’ Will Labor now be allergic to scrutiny? Let us hope that the Labor MLAs will keep their promise to Territorians and vote to support this motion.
As we know, according to Standing Order 21A, the duties of the Public Accounts Committee include inquiring into and reporting to the Assembly on any question in connection with the public accounts of the Northern Territory which is referred to it by resolution of the Assembly. This report raises many questions. One was the lack of control by the health minister’s department when it employed 150 extra staff without ensuring there was any money available to pay for them. The review comments on page 136:
- The department had an unplanned increase of 150 staff in 2001-02 many of which were appointed late in
the financial year. The additional impact in 2002-03 of these appointments is $10.1m. This reflects a
serious breakdown in management processes and a disregard for budget.
A disregard for the budget, Madam Speaker. Surely, a damning comment from the reviewer and an indicator that this is the sort of thing the PAC should be able to freely inquire into.
A concern I have on this issue is that nowhere in the Department of Health and Community Services’ Annual Report for the year 2001-02 do we find any mention of the extra 150 staff or the $10m. This means that the annual report tabled by our current minister for Health was wrong. Is this the only instance in last year’s annual report where a serious omission was made, or are there more? How will we know without the PAC being able to inquire?
Another concern I have is the fact that, according to the minister’s review, 46% of the department’s work force are not nominally attached to a position number. This must make organisational structures at the coalface very confusing. This issue needs to be investigated. Related to this concern is another: apparently, as detailed on page 151 of the review, 20% of all staff working in the minister’s department are defined as supernumeraries working in contracted positions either as an executive, a temp, or a casual employee. The review comments:
- This high use of supernumerary positions suggests both a lack of workplace planning, in terms of
required personnel, to achieve outcomes and a lack of rigour around, due to human resource
management processes.
This issue requires further investigation.
Another concern is that there appears to have been a lack of control by the department in that part of the actual expenditure of the department incurred during the year 2001-02 was deferred until 2002-03. My concern is that this could be a breach of the Financial Management Act or the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. For example, section 14(2) of the Financial Management Act says:
- The Accountable Officer of an Agency must not commit money for expenditure unless satisfied that, when payment
in respect of the transaction falls due, there will be sufficient funds available in the relevant Operating Account
to make the payment.
How long was payment held over, and did such an activity breach the act? This should be investigated by the PAC.
Another concern is that the department’s failure to implement strategies to achieve medium to long-term efficiencies resulted in additional, recurrent funding not being used for the purpose for which it was appropriated. According to page 39 of the review, budget areas, including aeromedical retrieval, hospital services, cross-border payments, and foster care payments, all suffered budgetary pressure as a result of poor budget action. This should be investigated.
A further concern is the apparent lack of control, by the minister, of her expenditure in 2001-02 which has resulted in enormous pressures on the current 2002-03 budget, with a resultant predicted overspend by the department of between $20m and $30m, on that which was originally allocated for the year 2002-03. On page 39 of the review, we are advised that:
Deferred grants payments from 2001-02 of over $7m, and the full year effect of 2001-02 staff increases - 150 in
the last six months of 2001-02 - has created a flow-on effect in 2002-03 of $17m to $18m, in addition to
2001-02 expenditure levels. Even with continued tight budget management, it is projected that the department
will overspend its current 2002-03 budget by $20m in the absence of significant cuts to service delivery.
A straight line projection would suggest that the department could be over budget by as much as $30m at
30 June 2003. Given the present state of the accounting processes, little confidence can be had at such an
estimate.
So, according to the review’s author, it is hard to predict how much the department will go over budget this year - a serious concern for all Territorians, I am sure. Our new Health department CEO, Mr Robert Griew, in two documents - a memo dated 18 February and an e-mail dated 21 February - refers to the problem as a blow-out. Surely, an issue the PAC should investigate.
Another concern is where the monthly financial reports within the department have been unclear, inaccurate, subject to factual disputes, and have failed to address significant divergence from the budget. This is a serious finding which the review infers in section 730. No wonder it was hard for the reviewer to make forward projections about the budget if these key action areas were falling by the way. It is vital that the PAC assess this shortfall in the department’s function.
Another concern is the department’s apparent failure to provide adequate recording, auditing, and disposal of its assets. This issue is detailed in the report on page 141, and advises that assets worth less than $5000 were not being kept on a register as they should be, and so were hard to track. This should be investigated by the PAC. Another concern is the finding of the review that accountable forms such as those used for vehicle fuel or maintenance orders, and cab charge or taxi vouchers, are - and I quote from page 142 of the review:
- … often inadequately registered, controlled and monitored, and discrepancies are not being notified.
Another serious problem which the PAC should consider.
Another concern is the review’s allegation that there are inadequate processes for the purchase of goods for the department. This is covered in section 743 which states:
- There are no adequate policies in place governing the purchase by staff and cost centre managers of items such
as mobile phones, leather-bound diaries, stationery, software and other equipment, the functionality and cost
of which far outweigh any legitimate requirements.
This is certainly an accusation which the PAC should look into, as it considers how taxpayers’ money is spent.
I would also like to see the PAC inquire into and report on how the allegations made in the review report, if substantiated, affect what is contained in the minister’s 2001-02 Annual Report of the Department of Health and Community Services, tabled in this Assembly, with particular reference, but not limited to, the accounting practices revealed in the review report and the validity of the 2001-02 annual report and the accounts it contains. The review makes numerous comments on how poorly the minister’s department was apparently monitoring its budget actions. In fact, the whole section on financial accountability, commencing on page 135, is nothing short of scathing, with comments like:
- There are significant shortcomings in the department’s accounting processes that do not allow
expenditure forecasts with high levels of confidence …
And:
- The basic processes lack integrity in the application of accounting principles …
And:
- There are many breakdowns of budgetary discipline within the department.
As you can imagine, such comments must throw doubt upon the validity and accuracy of the minister’s last annual report, the report for the financial year 2001-02. How confident can we be in the annual report’s purpose statement, which is printed on its inside cover, which states:
It …
Meaning the report:
- … is principally a document of accountability and the basis upon which the department’s performance can
be evaluated. It is designed to provide information to the general public, staff, clients, government
and non-government organisations. The report highlights not only the financial situation of our organisation,
but also the achievements of our programs and people.
In addition, surely the findings of the review must question the validity of the statements made in that annual report’s covering letter to the current Minister for Health and Community Services. I will not quote all of that letter, as it is printed in the annual report, but a few of the assurances included:
- Proper records of all transactions affecting the agency were kept, and procedures within the Department of
Health and Community Services afforded proper internal control, and no indication of fraud, malpractice,
major breach of legislation or delegation, major error in, or omission from, the accounts and records, existed.
And:
- The internal audit capacity available to the agency was adequate, and the result of the internal audits were
reported to the Chief Executive Officer.
Given that the annual report was apparently presented to the minister on 30 September 2002 - and that is the date on the letter in the annual report, months into the review process being conducted by Mr Alan Bansemer and his team - surely the minister would have been advised earlier of the problems which were appearing and ensured that her first annual report reflected accurately the problems which were appearing. I ask, how much confidence can Territorians have in last year’s annual report from the minister given the findings of the review? I ask that the PAC investigate this matter.
We on this side of the House are also concerned about whether the review’s recommendation for staff changes will result in any savings by cutting staff numbers or, instead, will there be a switching of positions between the department’s area of responsibility? The review calls for a re-structuring of the department. Although the minister has said there will be no job losses, the current freeze on general recruitment evidenced by the dramatic reduction of vacancy advertisements in the NT News, shows that my earlier prediction that vacancies will not be filled, all of that will result in the same thing - a reduction of staff numbers. Of course, some management positions are now no longer on the new organisational chart appendixed in the review. As page 21 details:
- Staffing levels in the funder/purchasing areas should be reduced with an equivalent increase in staffing
for provider areas.
But in other areas job losses are indicated. For example, section 814 highlights the fact that nurses are filling Aboriginal health worker positions. The PAC should establish whether or not staff will be moved around or sacked.
As we know, the minister has the ultimate responsibility for what happens in her department. This review paints a pretty sorry story about how the department has functioned under her leadership. It particularly highlights the fiscal controls in the last 18 months. Section 116 details the problems which have occurred since the mini-budget of November 2001 - specifically all the extra payments; payments which were not enough to help the minister meet her costs. We therefore seek clarification through the work of the PAC on when the department told its minister of the problems with both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 budget. The review makes it very clear that trouble had been brewing for some time, but when did the CEO tell the minister?
Finally, we request that the Public Accounts Committee report to the Assembly on or before the sittings of the Assembly set down for June this year. I know that this motion, coming as it does from the opposition bench, may well be voted down by the Martin Labor government members for, as we know, they have the numbers. In fact, if it is anything like our health censure motion last week, the motion will be gagged early. However, I do remind those opposite of the values that they espoused when they first gained government. The member for Johnston will recall that, on 29 November 2001, he told this House of when he was out doorknocking in preparation for the last election how often constituents wanted to see integrity and transparency promoted in this Assembly by the government. On the same day, in the same speech, he concluded: ‘This Labor government welcomes such transparency’. Now is his chance to promote just that, by voting for this motion.
I believe it is a valid for the Public Accounts Committee to examine how the Department of Health and Community Services spends the money of the public account. It would be a severe dereliction of their public duty if all members of this House did not support this motion calling for scrutiny, based on the serious comments made in the Report of a Review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services by the Public Accounts Committee. As Labor’s current Good Governance policy says - and it is on your web site - what gets sent to the PAC should ‘not be subject to the party that holds the majority of numbers in the House’. Prove to me that you hold that statement to be true and vote for this motion. If you no longer belong in that ideal, then cull it from the web site.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker. what an absolute joke. This report is a review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services. The member opposite sounded as if somehow she had just read this and discovered all these terrible things.
We are the ones who commissioned the report; we are the ones who have made it public; we are the ones who are fixing the problems of at least a decade. This is one of the most trivial and ridiculous motions that has come before this House during the time that I have been a minister in this government. It is farcical, to be quite honest.
Last week, we had questioning, we had a statement, we had a failed censure motion – we have had so many things about this. We have already talked about all the things in here. There is nothing that the member opposite has raised which is not already in the report and which is not being dealt with by the government. We are already doing these things. We are the ones who revealed the problems in the first place, not the member for Port Darwin. She was over there thinking: ‘Oh, I wonder what happened in the CLP days’. I might add there is no mention of any of the things that happened in the days of the CLP, which is how this all happened; a decade of pathetic management and ruled over by the CLP. Yet here we are with this farcical motion on the Table tonight.
The government will not be supporting this motion. Why would we? We have already revealed all these things in the report. It is a very open report. It is transparent. We have told the people of the Northern Territory what the issues are, and we have also told them about the problems with the financial situation. We have told them how we are going to fix it. We have been totally open and accountable with this.
There is no reason whatsoever to establish a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. It would simply be a waste of valuable time, especially as the proposed scope of work covers issues already exposed by the Bansemer Review into the Department of Health and Community Services. It was this government that commissioned this review.
Where was the CLP’s review? Where was their open and accountable government? Where was this? Did they ever come out and say: ‘Whoops, there are issues in the department’? They never said anything of the sort. It was this government and this minister who commissioned this report, and I am very proud that we have done this. We have told the people of the Northern Territory about the situation in Health and Community Services. They are very aware of the situation and what we are going to be doing.
It should be noted the proposed inquiry does not have as its terms of reference any reference to the decade of poor ministerial leadership that the NT News recognised and which I have ended with this very open and critical review by Bansemer. We do not need a Public Accounts Committee to tell us that monthly reports from the department can be substantially improved. We already know all these things; there is absolutely nothing new ...
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, just wait for a moment. Member for Drysdale, are you going to speak to this debate?
Mr Dunham: I shall, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, would you wait until then?
Mrs AAGAARD: There has been nothing raised tonight that has not already been identified by the review and announced by me. We have discussed at length exactly what we are going to do to sort out the department. Let me remind members of the Assembly that health is a priority for this government. It is very clear that it was never a priority prior to us coming to government, with the bust and boom that we saw over years and years. The poor financial management which is outlined in this report is a disgrace. It amazes me that the CLP continues to keep asking questions about this. I am walking around the streets and people are saying to me: ‘I cannot believe that they keep doing this. They know it is their fault.’ But they just want to keep raising these issues.
It is an embarrassment for them, it is a significant embarrassment. They are trying this smokescreen, this transfer of their bad management to this government. We have revealed the problems through the commissioning of this report. We have said how we are going to deal with the problems, and we are doing it. I have a CEO who is working day and night sorting out the issues in the department. We have a significant restructure happening. We have already outlined everything that we are going to be doing in relation to the review. The issues that are being raised here tonight are nothing short, as I said before, of completely ludicrous.
It is almost not worth me going on. But I will just say that it is astonishing that the opposition should move a censure motion, as they did last week, when the Bansemer review found that the Territory Department of Health and Community Services suffered from historical under-funding by governments over a decade: the previous government’s constant failure to match resources to clear priorities, wide gaps between budget and expenditure, an average of almost $12m a year from 1995.
We have tonight a very tired and unimaginative opposition which sees that the PAC is another possible avenue for trying to find things wrong with this government. The review indicates that the problems are what we have inherited and we are sorting them out. It is just amazing. The member for Port Darwin has presented a shopping list of allegations she wants referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Never mind that they have absolutely no substance.
Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: this government has absolutely nothing to hide. In fact, it is those opposite who should be hanging their heads in shame over the neglectful and absolutely disgraceful way in which they oversaw the provision of health and community services in the Northern Territory. I cannot help but think that they are trying to create a smokescreen in a very poor attempt to hide their own mismanagement and incompetence.
As this House would be very well aware, it was this government that instigated the review. As time progressed, I became convinced that a comprehensive and transparent review was the only way to take the Department of Health and Community Services forward. As I said before, this government’s first priority has been to put the Health and Community Services portfolio on a sustainable footing. Year after year, under the previous government, the department has overspent its budget. There have been major shortcomings in management structures and financial structures and financial accountability. This government is determined to put this mess right.
As I have said on previous occasions, I have instructed my CEO to immediately implement sustainable financial and structural reforms, to enable the department to manage within its budget. The department is adopting a new, simpler executive and organisational structure. It is appointing, for the first time - I know this amazing, Madam Speaker - a chief financial officer. Can you believe the largest department in the Northern Territory government public service does not have a chief financial officer? It just beggars belief. Other measures are to abolish the fancy political theory of funder/purchaser/provider; improve business planning, resource allocation and budget monitoring processes; implement tighter departmental accounting standards and process, including clear business rules for the department; establish a single appropriation for hospitals; strengthen the audit function with the Director of Audit Services; strengthen human resource management, including improved performance management, recruitment and retention.
These measures will definitely prevent the faults of the past recurring - faults like wild fluctuations in outlays; huge gaps between estimates and expenditure; failure to match scarce resources to the Territory’s priorities; politically driven reforms that were a disaster for Health. I wish I could stop there, but I am sad to say there is more. In 1997-98, their Planning for Growth, far from driving growth, slashed it from 11% to less than 2%. When the next ideological theory came along from the member for Drysdale, funder/purchaser/provider, it was supposed to slash growth. Instead it exploded from 3.1% to 9.5%. During their years in government, outlays never matched estimates. They balanced the books by transferring …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale is interrupting again. I am having trouble listening.
Dr Lim: That is not a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS: It is a point of order. It is Standing Order 51, for your information.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysale, I have already spoken to you and said that you will get your chance to speak in due time.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, but speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The only thing that brought the minister’s speech to a halt was, in fact, the member for Johnston. She has spoken right through any interjection I may have spoken. The reason she is now not speaking is because this man here pulled her up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, refrain from your comments until you get on your feet to speak.
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a hard job you have there.
During their years in government, outlays never matched estimates. They balanced the books by transferring money from community services to hospitals. As hospitals and health blew out, family services, children’s services, and disability were starved of funds. This is not a way to run a Health and Community Services Department in the Northern Territory. But, perhaps, that is why it was called Territory Health Services; they were not actually interested in anything except for one particular area of the department. It was the members opposite who presided over short-term incumbents in the position of CEO. It was they who lacked budget discipline. It was the members opposite who had no plan for Health and Community Services.
This is a review that was contributed to by many staff in the department. The staff wanted to finally be able to discuss the issues they had been facing - not for 18 months, as the opposition would suggest – but for many years. Some of them talked about it being up to 10 years that they had been trying to get things changed. This government is committed to not letting their good faith and willingness to contribute to the Territory go wanting. This is a responsible government with a commitment to face problems directly and deal with staff and the people of the Territory openly. This government will do better at the long-term challenges needed to have a system that is more goal focussed, sustainable, transparent, and accountable. Once again, health and community services is a priority for us.
This government makes no apologies for commissioning a report that exposes the lack of direction, vision and responsible management by the previous government, on health and community services.
Finally, this government is committed to facing the challenges frankly and truthfully. Therefore, I commit to report on the progress of the implementation of the review. This motion is absolutely ludicrous and is simply designed to try to transfer problems from the past to this government. Well, I am afraid it does not work and the government will not be supporting this motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the minister’s comments have reinforced the need for this to be referred to the PAC. There are certainly some great divergences from this document - the annual report - the Bansemer report, and what the minister has just told us. It is all very well saying: ‘Look, we have a report. We commissioned a report and we are implementing the report; trust us’. But we do not.
For instance, one of the things that the minister has said - and she has now said it twice - was that books were balanced by transferring money from community services to the acute sector. I draw her attention to page 29 of her annual report – that is the report of 2001-02 - which has the relativities there. They are evident for everybody to see that, although the acute sector has grown - and it has certainly grown more and at a faster rate under this minister than it did under previous ministers – there was a constant, conscious strategy of the previous CLP government to make sure that the money went into preventable and primary health care initiatives. That can be done by accounts. You can now go to the books and find out if what the minister has told this House is, indeed, true - if the words she has just spoken are true, or whether they might be false. That is why we have to go to the Public Accounts Committee.
I can understand why the minister is a bit jumpy about it. I was in the room on her last appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, and it was the most sorry demonstration that any Westminster parliament has ever seen. In fact, so bad was it, that one part of the motion is she would probably expunge that from any record anywhere because, not only did the minister fail to answer most of the questions that were put to her; not only were they answered by other members of the PAC, but sometimes the answer posed was parroted by the minister in much the same way as she is parroting someone else’s words here tonight.
Unfortunately, it appears that her press officer, Dennis Driver, has written this speech. As I said in a previous debate, I do not think the minister necessarily has lied. I do not think this woman is a liar, but some of the things that she is saying are untrue. They have been fed to her by people who are giving her advice, on the basis they do not know what they are talking about. That is a big problem for Territory Health Services. What we have in front of us is a minister who is being fed various things that she relies upon, she takes great confidence and faith in, and when they were subjected to the scrutiny of various other documents including her own documents, they were found to be at variance. That is why the Public Accounts Committee has to look at this.
She is saying that she has walked the streets of somewhere - perhaps Nightcliff, I do not know. I know people there she has not doorknocked, well, forever. However, let us assume it is Nightcliff. There are many Territory Health Services people there, and perhaps they were saying to her: ‘This motion of the CLP is a terrible motion, because you are very, very right and they are very, very wrong’. Why would you worry then about going to PAC? The PAC not only has a preponderance of government members on it - which is another breached promise, I might add - but it has a defensive mechanism for this minister if ever she gets in trouble. They can put the floaties on her arms so that she can paddle around the pool of the PAC and not look like she is drowning.
This is a very serious motion. If you look at some of the issues that referred the previous health administration to the PAC, they pale into insignificance. We have asked in estimates whether the estimates reflect the best estimates of the department at that time. We have been told, yes they do. Now, that has either been a falsehood presented to the Estimates Committee or the estimates are so badly out that they have bigger problems than Bansemer has ever reported. We have a minister who is attacking the staff of Territory Health Services. I feel it is my duty, my obligation - not only do I have a very powerful connection to this portfolio area, and I make no apologies, I am quite happy to be B2, Madam Speaker, if that is the minister’s faint attempt at a joke - I am quite happy to speak in any debate relating to health because it is a very powerful passion of mine. But I am also prepared to speak loud and long on behalf of the staff of Territory Health Services. I find it disgusting in the extreme that this minister would be so brutal in her treatment of Territory Health Services staff, that she would be so dismissive of their efforts and their credentials and qualifications in presenting their best endeavours to government.
Maybe some things have gone wrong and, maybe from time to time, you can take a public servant out and crucify them, but this is a mass killing that we are witnessing here. I was disgusted to pick up last Saturday’s paper and see a full page advertisement with a plagiarised, ‘the difference is opportunity,’ which was found to be offensive to the ALP when they were in opposition but which they now love in government. The advertisement appeared in national media too. I do not know what an advertisement like that in The Australian would cost, that is a very big ad. But I know some of these people who hold these jobs. For instance, I would have thought that one of those people was Dr Didi Devanesen; I might be wrong, because my knowledge of who is attached to which position is aged. I have now been out of the area for some time. But he was also going to be on this review committee. This minister has so far told us that it was going to be a quick review and she would implement the whole lot. She has told us it is going to be extended, she told us it was going to be reported on before the end of the calendar year, she has listed the names of various people who are on it. Certainly, I remember Dr Devanesen’s name being in there, along with Jennifer Prince, Peter Plummer and Jenny Cleary - I think one of those jobs is Jenny Cleary’s too.
So, you are sitting in the department, 4000 of you, and you see the top echelon. You already have a new dude on the top and I am not making any comment on his goodness or badness, although the minister did make some attempt last time we talked about this to stamp her little, indignant foot and say: ‘How dare you say nasty things about the CEO.’ Well, we did not, but he will be judged on his actions. I know very little about the bloke but I know a lot about these people and I know a lot about the people who are underneath them. I think that one of those jobs is Dr Shirley Hendy’s. I know Shirley Hendy. My wife worked with Shirley Hendy in 1976 at the old Darwin Hospital. I know the lady’s talents, I know her capacities, I know her repertoire of skills and knowledge. I suspect I know some of the other people there. I think Sue Corner’s job might be there and that perhaps David Ashbridge’s job might be there.
What we are talking about here is a night of the long knives. This is a ministerial assassination of a whole level in the department and it is disgusting in the extreme. She is telling us she knows what is going on, she has all the credentials and qualifications that come with it. I do not know if she is getting it from these people, but some of them I would like to bring before the PAC. Some of them might have a story to tell. I am not asking them to divulge things other than the truth, and that is what you do when you go to the PAC. You have to swear that you will tell the whole truth.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: That might be a matter of some hilarity for members opposite. It is indeed a salient point that they treat the PAC with such contempt that the government benches believe that the PAC is such a contemptuous organ of this parliament that it is something you would treat with hilarity. Well, I do not. It is very serious. There are some serious issues before us, and the divergence of data between various documents that are reported on by the minister - some of the things that she said in her statement - lead one to wonder whether she is even in control of it, having speeches written by a press officer who tells her to stamp her little foot and thump your hand up into the air and do that little snarly thing and call them some names. Well, it has not worked.
We want to see the truth of it. If all of us, as members of parliament, believe that the PAC is a worthwhile, investigative tool for this department to look at issues where there is some divergence, let us do it. If the minister is being told that she is walking the streets of Darwin and people are coming up to her and slapping her on the back and saying: ‘Go for it because we think the CLP are going to be covered in embarrassment if they want to talk about these issues, so let them go for it!’. I implore her: let us go for it. If she is so confident on her numbers, on the fact that the numbers in these documents differ, on the fact that the evidence given to estimates is vastly different now to some of these documents, let her go and do it.
We are quite happy to take the risk that we will be embarrassed. We are quite happy, for the benefit of Territorians, to – dare I say – openly and transparently investigate this stuff. When the minister says things like in her recent statement to parliament, from which I quote page 3 of 17 of her report, A Health and Community Services Strategy for the Northern Territory: Building the Foundations - and I would urge Hansard to check the speech against that delivered because sometimes these speeches differ, as we have found with this minister. The quote is:
- When that same government describes health administration as enjoying acknowledged support for the
strong leadership of THS and of the very positive relationship between the minister and the top management
of THS, did this strong leadership think of the consequences of the subsequent budget blow-out of $24m over
the next two years?
Two points: the CEO, Paul Bartholomew, has given evidence to the PAC that the budget has never blown out. That is a reasonable thing to pursue; whether Paul Bartholomew has indeed lied to the PAC is a significant issue. If he has been truthful and the minister has been erroneously advised, as is the case from time to time, as the Chief Minister pointed out today, that is worthy of investigation by the PAC.
Let us talk about this strong leadership. There are people in the community out there who are pretty upset at the moment with the way the minister is trying to back-pass this report into the last decade and, indeed, one or two members of the media have been seduced by this spin on the Bansemer Report. The fact is it does not. The fact is the Bansemer report talks largely about the circumstances that this minister has made herself – not inherited; made. Some of those people who were strong leaders in THS are icons in the Territory. They are people who are well respected by both sides of this House. I caution the minister to discontinue this campaign of saying that all of these people were useless – gosh! they never even had a finance officer. What rubbish!
For Michael Martin to peruse this Hansard debate and hear those words from the minister, and hear her back-pass to a time way before and during his time – well, I will not speak on behalf of Michael Martin. But, if I were in his position, I would be livid, absolutely livid that she would presume to disqualify the ample of credentials of this man …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought you gave a ruling earlier on in the session about the use of public servants’ names in this House, that you thought it was going on far too often.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. There is not a standing order, but I have advised in the past that we should be careful when we talk of public servants and name them. I think they find it somewhat offensive.
Mr DUNHAM: I agree, Madam Speaker, and in adjournment debate every night people stand up and talk about public servants.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but often in a good way. Just be careful.
Mr DUNHAM: I will be very careful, Madam Speaker. The difference is often us speaking about them in a complimentary way. They say: ‘Good old so and so has resigned and she served the Territory well’. I can tell you that I am quite happy to talk about Michael Martin in a complimentary way. I know the way this paranoid bunch here work, that they will think that somehow he is in cahoots with the CLP – he ain’t. He is not. This is a very, very professional bureaucrat who will give the best advice he can to the government of the day. I put that on the record in case anybody has some idea that they should pursue this man merely because we like him, ie, your friend is our enemy.
This man has ample financial qualifications, and he has done a massive job, both as the deputy secretary of the department, and in an immensely troublesome area, which the minister is now finding out about, which is the acute sector. I know that he cannot endorse the comments I am making, neither can he even give some acknowledgment to the fact that he may agree or disagree – such is the professionalism of it – but I can go there, I can venture there, and I will.
Michael Martin, Peter Plummer, Shirley Hendy - these people have provided meritorious service to this place. The time they spent in Territory Health Services should be acknowledged with applause. It should be acknowledged with great applause and acclamation. For their names to be - well, they are unnamed, but it does not take Einstein to work out when you talk about previous leaders and previous CEOs to work out that two of them were Peter Plummer and Michael Martin. Another one was Paul Bartholomew, also well known to me and also a person whom I have given evidence to the PAC, the very place the minister does not want to go, whom I would count as a friend.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, this is not a debate about public servants or their performances. It is a debate about a motion that has been brought on. I would suggest that perhaps you get on with the substance of the debate rather than talk about people in the public service. I am just a little uncomfortable about that.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you for your advice, Madam Speaker, but it is really not relevant to my …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no one named in the motion. There are no names in the motion.
Mr DUNHAM: But I have included them, Madam Speaker, I have chosen to include them. These people, by virtue of what the minister has said, by virtue of the fact that some of them have their jobs paraded in advertisements around the nation, are part of this. This is not an anonymous process. This is not somebody going into the dark with a great big sword and slashing around and leaving various bloody corpses behind and not putting names to them. I am telling you that these people have decades; some of the people whose jobs are in here - if you added them up, there is a century of service in there. You just cannot abandon them like that. You just cannot say: ‘Oh well, the previous bloke Dunham was useless. We had problems with him shifting money out of the community service area and moving it to the acute sector. The budgets were blown out once or twice, and there was a gap between services and the money available’. Well, blow me down. I can debate that. I am a politician and I do not care how much you defame me in this place, I do not care how much you say on the public records inside and outside this place about me.
I am very proud of the services that Territory Health Services provided when I was the minister, and I do not claim credit for that. The credit largely goes to the 4000 people who beavered away in that department, providing what they thought was within their training, competence, disposition and belief systems. Many of those belief systems, it might surprise you, are probably more social than conservative. Many of those 4000 people who are sitting in there and slapping the minister on the back as she walks up and down the street are people who, if you worked off raw politics and demographics, would probably vote Labor more than they would vote CLP.
I do not care. They have provided good and meritorious service to this community. They have provided service which should not be defamed in this way. They have provided service where it is obscene for the minister to stand up here and parrot a speech written by a press officer upstairs who knows nothing about the operational sector that he is talking about; run a series of trite throwaway lines; and then say: ‘Sorry, we are not going to be open; we are not going to be transparent. Everything is tickety-boo; do not look. Trust me and everything will be okay in the end and, anyway, you are nasty people’. I am happy to debate the nasty people thing anytime. I am happy to take all the labels and odium that these people want to throw at me. But do not be precious when your documents are in such discord; when you have documents here that are arguing against each other, and ministers making statements that are obviously untrue. As I said, I do not call her a liar. It is not my place to call her a liar, and I know that this parliament would admonish me if I did so. However, I will say that she is poorly advised in the extreme and …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is trailing a bit close to the bone. It is the minister’s speech. He does not know who has written it. It is the minister’s speech …
Mr Dunham: She is not a liar, mate.
Mr KIELY: … and by inference he is calling her a liar. He can stand there and say: ‘I am not calling her a liar’, but he is. It is by inference, and he should be made to withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: I only have a short time left, Madam Speaker, and I would like to put it on record that I do not believe the minister is a liar. I believe she is an incompetent person who believes that some of the lies told to her are the truth, and she genuinely brings it into this House on the basis that she thinks she is telling the truth. They are lies and should be taken to the Public Accounts Committee and discovered for all and sundry to see as the falsehoods they are.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do have concern when you come in to debate a topic and debate the reputations of public servants. I wonder whether you have done that with their consent, because …
Mr Dunham: I have not, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … they are the ones out there who know that this broadcast is going right through the public service. I have concern for them and I sometimes feel uncomfortable, but …
Mr DUNHAM: May I speak to that point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order. I am just telling you.
Mr DUNHAM: Can I seek your advice, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Can I say for the Parliamentary Record, I have not sought their authorisation to mention it. I can understand that you are worried about their futures, given that this government had …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, resume your chair and do not be so rude! I did not infer that at all. I said that I feel that the public servants’ reputations - this is not the place for it to be debated, particularly without their knowledge. I am quite sure that those public servants would have concern that their names are being bandied around this House in such a way. Be very careful.
Mr Dunham: I was complimenting them, Madam Speaker.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate.
The minister made the comment that she felt that the motion was ridiculous and a farce and, quite frankly, me thinks she doth protest too much. Labor wonders why we will not look back at CLP time. The reason we do not have to look back at the time of the CLP with regards to health is that the PAC has already done that last year and come down with its findings. I have to ask minister: what is it that you are afraid of? Why not let the PAC, which is arguably a reasonably independent body, have a look at the findings of this review and inquire into some of the issues which we have raised tonight.
To my mind, this report looks fairly light on. When you go to many of the areas in it, there is not much detail. I will give you an example. It is that example of 150 extra staff at the cost of $10.1m. We get very, very little detail on that particular issue and, yet, it is a substantial amount of money. I really feel that that is the sort of thing that the PAC should have a look at, because the PAC is charged with the duty of inquiring into how taxpayers’ money is spent. I do not think we have had enough information through this report on that issue, and that issue did arise in the last 18 months. If the minister feels it ridiculous and a farce, well, why not let it go? Why not let it go through to the PAC and have that group have a good look at that particular issue and find out what went on?
One of the other things that the minister has said a number of times in the last couple of weeks, is the business of the fact that this report, according to her, reflects heavily on the previous government’s role within Health. I cannot find a substantial quote in here anywhere that talks about the CLP government with any weight to it at all. I would really like the minister, at some point, to be able to point to the page number, and point to the issue specific in here to the previous government. To my mind, from reading this document, it concentrates very heavily on the last 18 months.
I will also raise, for example, when the minister talks about why we should not send things to the PAC, the issue of whether or not it was a breach of the Financial Management Act to defer expenditure from one year to another, substantial expenditure, and possibly for a substantial period of time. I will reiterate that section of the act which talks about it:
The Accountable Officer of an Agency must not commit money for expenditure unless satisfied that, when
payment in respect of the transaction falls due, there will be sufficient funds available in the relevant
Operating Account to make the payment.
That is what that section says. Now, what are you afraid of? Why not let the PAC have a look at that particular issue? The fact that payments were deferred obviously as a cost cutting measure to hope that the next financial year will have enough in the kitty to be able to cover costs.
Another point that I raised was how valid was the annual report from last year, in the light of what we have learnt in this review. I do not see why you are afraid to send it to the PAC. If everything was as bad as this review says, with regard to the financial accountability of the department over the last years and years and years - although I suspect it is only the last couple of years - then logically you would have to question how valid are the findings. How valid are all the financial figures at the back of the annual report? Arguably, they are not valid at all. Arguably, this document now is worthless. Send it to the PAC and show us that this is still valid, that it is still a document which can be respected. I do not know, as I say, what the minister is afraid of. She spoke tonight, at a fairly high decibel rate. She spoke tonight as she was cornered, and was desperately fighting to get out of the corner, and to avoid having scrutiny which the PAC would afford the findings of that review.
I believe that Territorians deserve to be able to have these issues reviewed at the PAC. I know that you are going to vote down this motion. The members of the Labor Party should look very carefully at that particular fact. You promised Territorians when you came to power that you would introduce what you call good governance, that you felt that it was important that issues could go to the PAC without necessarily the strength of the government behind them, that you would let the other side have a go as well. You are obviously not going to do that tonight. I suspect this is yet again another example of the growing arrogance of the government. Finally, I just cannot understand what it is that the minister needs such protection from.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled the Bushfires Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 129) and Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 130):
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
BUSHFIRES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 130)
(Serial 129)
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 130)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
These bills are introduced to send a message to people who deliberately light fires or who otherwise recklessly light fires. The bills are straightforward because they simply substitute higher penalties than those that are currently prescribed, so it is unnecessary for me to go through the proposed amendments at length or in detail.
The Criminal Code amendment proposes that the penalty of deliberately lighting fires is increased from 14 years to 20 years. That sends a strong message to firebugs. It also demonstrates to those administering the law how seriously this parliament - or certainly those who sit on this side of the House – regard this sort of conduct.
The amendment to the Bushfires Act, although referring to penalty units rather than financial penalties as is required with the drafting of legislation these days, in essence proposes that fines be increased from $1000 or six months gaol to $20 000 or five years gaol for various offences specified in sections 35, 38, 39, 41 and 44 of the principal act, which are generally regarded as provisions that deal with recklessness or inattention when lighting fires.
I introduce these bills for a number of reasons. First, they are introduced as a member of this parliament representing people in Alice Springs. Last year, there were horrific bush fires around Alice Springs, and they were regarded by many as the worst in 30 years. Approximately 1million hectares of land was lost and it included parks, pastoral leases and private property. Fortunately, no lives were lost, but that was lucky. Certainly, people put their lives at risk when fighting those fires and fires came dangerously close to some homesteads.
It is important for members to know that there were significant stock losses. There was also a significant loss of land worked by the Territory’s fine pastoralists, many of whom also lost plant and equipment. Many pastoralists are out of pocket as a result of these fires. One pastoralist recently told of his frustration at the ridiculously low fine imposed on three people convicted of starting fires. His frustration was made worse when the damage it caused to his property was in the region of $20 000. Another pastoralist I know worked with his family and others around the clock to protect his property. He spent days and days fighting the fires and surveying the damage, and assessing the fires by air, using hundreds of dollars in fuel. As the fires were coming in from a number of directions, the family thought, at one point, that their home may be lost.
I suggest that we all pause to consider what that means to people’s lives in a year that has seen, and continues to see, one of the worst droughts in memory. Many of those fires in Central Australia were deliberately lit, and many pastoralists want higher penalties and rightly so.
Secondly, I introduce these bills because part of my electorate takes in an area with large rural blocks, namely the area of Ilparpa. There have been fires in recent times in Ilparpa, many of which have been deliberately lit. My constituents and their families living in Ilparpa are sick and tired of fighting fires. They are sick and tired of their homes and properties being put at risk. Clearly, I have a real interest, as their local member, in doing what I can to send a strong message to fire bugs, by increasing penalties for deliberately lighting fires.
Thirdly, in my capacity as shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife, I not only have a interest, but also a responsibility to do all that I can to ensure that our parks are protected. The fact is that the fires in Central Australia last year caused damage to our parks, a wonderful resource that people from all around the world come to see. However, the deliberate or reckless lighting of fires does not just affect people in Central Australia. In the Top End, in the Dry Season, the region faces obvious dangers.
Fourthly, these bills are introduced because it is timely to do so. As Australians, we should not forget that, earlier this summer, we saw the fires that destroyed suburbs in Canberra, as well as the other fires in New South Wales and Victoria. I, like so many other people, wept at the human suffering and physical decimation those fires caused. Some of those fires in those jurisdictions were deliberately or recklessly lit.
Finally, I have something of a personal interest in deterring fire bugs. My older brother is a volunteer firefighter in the CFA in Victoria, and has been for many years. He is part of an aircraft unit that air bombs highly intense fires when it is too dangerous for ground crews to go in. It is a highly skilled and dangerous job. But my brother, like thousands of others, puts his life at risk to save people’s lives and properties and, indeed, is no different from all of the Territorians who put their lives on the line to fight fires that have been deliberately or recklessly lit.
I introduce these bills for all of those reasons, and having regard to what I have said, I hope members on the other side of the House can appreciate how offensive it is for me to read the comments of a nameless government spokesman in the Sunday Territorian which, apart from anything else, were simply wrong. I hope that members on the other side appreciate how deeply offensive it is to me, when a member of my family, with a wife and young children, regularly and without question, voluntarily puts his life at risk to save others as a result of fires that have been deliberately or recklessly lit. I hope members on the other side realise how deeply offensive it is to those people who lost much of their property and livelihoods, and who almost lost their homes, as a result of fires that were deliberately or recklessly lit in Central Australia last year.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I hope they appreciate how deeply offensive it is to read the whingeing, whining, carping comments of a nameless, gutless individual, who speaks for a government that has been caught out and embarrassed because it has failed to act. And certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, this government has failed to act. The fact is that the minister, on 26 November, in this House last year, called for harsher penalties. He called for, and I quote:
- Harsher penalties for people who light fires.
The fact is that he guessed what the present financial penalty was at that time, and he got it wrong. The fact is this government has not introduced any legislation, and there is nothing before this parliament. The fact is that the community does want higher penalties, and there is broad support for the proposed higher penalties. The fact is also that it will be utterly shameful, and nothing short of disgraceful for the government to oppose these bills. I therefore commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time. As I have signalled clearly and publicly so far, I wish to have the Bail Act amended to correct what I consider to be an anomaly on how the Bail Act is used. In my second reading speech here today, I will touch on three major themes which, in some degrees, intersect in relation to how the operation of how the Bail Act is being used by the courts at the moment.
The first part of my themes is the fundamental breach of the simple principle of law. That simple principle of law, under our legal system, is that a magistrate or judge would even be prepared to allow a person to be sent for punishment before that person had been convicted under the criminal justice system. The second theme which underlines my comments is the lawfulness of the bail in the first place. Finally, and to a lesser degree, but still a theme that has to be touched upon, is a possible defence which is created under section 26 of the Criminal Code, which deals with authorisation.
I am a little surprised, frankly, that I have to bring this amendment here into this Chamber at all. I am always mindful of the principles that separate us and our law-making cousins in the judiciary in the Northern Territory. Those principles that separate us are very important. However, there are times that it is necessary to step over those boundaries and this is one of those occasions where it is acceptable to do so. The reason I do so is because I have a concern that a fundamental principle of law has been breached. That fundamental principle of law is simply this: where a person is charged with an offence, they have not been convicted of that offence; where they stand unconvicted, they are innocent and, to that end, should not be sentenced to any form of punishment, logically.
I draw members’ attention to Division 2, Part 1 of the Criminal Code, section 5, which deals with innocence. It is very eloquently and simply expressed in the Criminal Code: every accused person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Of course, that burden of proof is reasonable doubt. Before we even get to that stage, when a person is arrested for an offence, they are often taken into custody and, when taken into custody, they are still innocent people. It is a fundamental principle of bail that a person has the right to be at liberty rather than in custody. It is an established concept within the terms of the Bail Act. The reason that liberty exists is, quite simply, because a person who has been arrested is not guilty and, therefore at that point, is still an innocent person and, therefore, has a right to be at liberty.
That presumption of bail is reversed in certain circumstances. The circumstance that brought about my comments late last year in this House, was that one of the offences for which the presumption of bail to be reversed is actually murder. It is my understanding that, in the situation that brought about my comments here tonight and late last year, that person was charged with murder. The reports in the newspaper of the day certainly indicated that that person was charged with murder, and that bail had deliberately been set by the court of the day so that that person would be released for one purpose only - and that purpose was to suffer a punishment.
I am surprised that a court would allow that to occur. Nevertheless, it has occurred in that instance, and so consequently, we found ourselves in a situation where an innocent person was sent to be punished, and the innocent person ultimately was punished. As a consequence of that punishment, that person suffered fractures to the legs, multiple head lacerations, blows about the body and stab wounds. I have some problems that still, at that point, the person had not been convicted inside a court. If the purpose of bail was to undergo punishment alone, then that fundamental principle of law is confronted.
I draw members’ attention to the bill, and particularly subsection 2 of the proposed section 24A. This endeavours to create a new section, but this subsection 2 refers to section 24(1)(b)(iii). Now, section 24(1)(b)(iii) is the section, as I understand it, relied upon by the magistrate in the instance that I am referring to as the process by which that person received bail. Inside the Bail Act, there are certain criteria as to how bail may be arrived at by court and that is section 24 - which is the section that my proposed section refers to. Criteria to be considered in bail applications include, in subsection (1)(b):
- The interests of the person, having regard only to …
- the needs of the person to be free for any lawful purpose not mentioned in subparagraph (ii);
- the needs of the person to be free to prepare for his appearance in court or to obtain legal advice or both …
So any lawful purpose. I would suggest that the purpose for which the person was bailed was actually not lawful. Where I derived that from is in section 26 of the Criminal Code. I urge honourable members to remember that everything is unlawful in the Northern Territory unless it is authorised, justified or excused and, in section 26, that is where we draw our authorisations from. It is interesting to note that in section 26 (3):
- A person cannot authorise or permit another to kill him or, except in the case of medical treatment,
to cause him grievous harm.
This is a long-established principle of law. You cannot allow a person, or give consent for a person, to cause you bodily harm. This goes back to an English case when this was first explored called R v Donovan (1934) 2 KB 498. In this particular case it was established that bodily harm could not be given consent to.
There is a clear distinction, and it is important to make a distinction in the Northern Territory, between grievous harm and bodily harm. Bodily harm is actually quite a low level of physical harm whereas grievous harm in the Criminal Code means:
- … any physical or mental injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life or to cause
or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.
It is a principle of English law that you cannot give consent for even bodily harm. However, I will talk about grievous harm a little later on. The privilege of not being able to give consent to bodily harm was again confirmed in R v Brown & Ors (1993) All ER at page 75. Once again, the Law Lords of England looked at this particular issue of whether or not a person could consent to allow bodily harm to be done to them. Although there were dissenting lords, at the end of the day the court upheld the principle that you could not give consent for bodily harm.
In Australia, and much more to the point, McPherson J in R v Watson (1987) 1 Queensland Reports at page 440 talks about the consent aspect of grievous harm, and although it is an obiter it is worth pointing out his comments in the case. In the case of R v Watson a woman, with whom the offender was charged with killing, had died of the effects of a stab wound in her abdomen. The accused had stated that he had not intended to kill her or cause grievous bodily harm, but he had wanted to simply cut her on the arms and ribs as a form of domestic discipline, a practice that was apparently accepted as widespread. McPherson J said that a cut of that order can constitute bodily harm as involving an injury which interferes with health or comfort. As such, the law does not recognise the consent of the victim as a circumstance capable of depriving the act and producing such harm of its criminal character as an offence under section 339 of the code. He then goes on to talk about R v Rudd which was a similar case and supported R v Donovan, which I referred to earlier.
Bodily harm in different jurisdictions means slightly different things. In the Northern Territory, bodily harm is quite a mild piece of damage to the person and, as I have already described, grievous harm is a much more serious injury. If we are to believe the cases that I have outlined, and if we are guided by section 26 authorisation under the Criminal Code, then a person cannot authorise or permit another to kill him or, except in the case of medical treatment, cause him grievous harm. Bearing in mind that the Bail Act allows a person to be bailed for a lawful purpose, I would suggest that the receiving of the injuries described to the person who was affected by this form of punishment was, in fact, an unlawful reason to be at liberty. Consequently, I feel that the magistrate – and I am not a lawyer; I stress that – seems to have relied on an act on the face of it which he was not empowered to rely upon. If the reports of the injuries that this individual suffered are to be believed, I suggest that it does satisfy the term ‘grievous harm’ and that this creates then a difficult situation for the court, especially if that person had passed away as a result of the punishment that was inflicted upon them.
I have experience that stab wounds to the thighs can kill people. I have seen it when I was a policeman. I know that those sorts of wounds can kill people. It is a very difficult moral situation that a court finds itself in. It also raises another scenario: should the person in this instance have passed away, does it raise then a defence or should the person have made a complaint, for whatever reason, that they were assaulted, or if that complaint was made on that person’s behalf by a third party, would that then allow the person who is charged with the offence to rely on section 26 of the Criminal Code and say: ‘I committed an act which induced grievous harm, authorised by a court to do so because obviously it was in the mind of the magistrate that I should be able to do this, spear the person or whatever else, with the authority of the court’?
It is a difficult legal quandary. It is something I hope the Attorney-General’s department looks at when they have to assess the material which will come out of the second reading speech. It places the court in an invidious situation of being the authorising body to what may ultimately become, in its own right, a criminal act under criminal law. It is an intriguing situation. I have no answers for it, but I do know that if there is any risk of this predicament rearing its head in the courts, they should not be entertaining these concepts.
There are other side effects, of course, although the person in this case was ultimately found guilty. What would have happened if he had been found not guilty after being punished for the crime? That also places the court in a very difficult situation, because it would be a strange thing, indeed, for an innocent man to have been punished before he was tried. That is one the fundamental principles of our criminal legal system.
Madam Speaker, this is not just targeted at Aboriginal traditional law. This is targeted at any customary practice that falls outside of the criminal justice system. I have had some cause during my research to bring this bill before the House, to look at the Sharia, which is the Islamic code of law stipulated in the Koran. There are some suggested punishments in the Sharia which we would not commonly accept as reasonable punishments, and we certainly would not have placed ourselves in a position where we would bail a person to suffer those punishments. Indeed, in the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, just about everything is punishable by death. Of course, we are still a predominantly Christian community but, nevertheless, we do not rely solely on our traditional punishments under the Christian structures.
What I am trying to do here - and I am certain that the honourable members will agree with me - is simply seeking to bring an amendment which upholds the first principles of justice within our criminal justice system. It seeks to uphold common sense and seeks to protect the innocent under our criminal justice system. I hope honourable members will understand what I am trying to do. I certainly hope that honourable members will turn an open-minded eye to this particular matter, and I certainly expect that the government will see the intent of the bill before the government. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, tonight I will be brief in my comments. Firstly, I would like to pay a testimonial to a constituent of mine who passed away last year - a fine gentleman, a fine man and well-known throughout Leanyer, Mr Paul Lomas. Paul was born in England on 19 August 1944. He came to the Northern Territory, as many people did, during the 1980s, but came to Australia in the 1960s as a young man and joined the Northern Territory Fire Brigade, as it was known then, on 19 August 1974.
He performed to the high level expected of a fire fighter after Cyclone Tracy, and he worked as hard and as long as any other fire fighter and rose to the rank of Senior Fire Fighter Qualified. As a Senior Fire Fighter Qualified, he performed relief duties as the station OIC at Katherine, Tennant Creek, Jabiru and Yulara on many occasions. For the majority of his time in the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service he was a union official. He was the Secretary of the Fire Fighters Association for many years, and in this capacity was instrumental in many of the negotiations with the fire service regarding conditions of employment for fire fighters. Paul was a fighter in all regards and served the union well for many, many years.
Paul was also heavily involved in the welfare of fire fighters and was always one of the first to offer support and/or assistance to those fire fighters or members of their families who may have been ill or needed help. He was very well regarded and respected by his friends, colleagues and work mates. Paul was a great Manchester United soccer fan, absolutely idolised that team, and had the colours proudly displayed in his home. He was also a member, and a stalwart member, of the Tracy Village Sports and Social Club for many, many years. He has left behind him many friends and, certainly, his colleagues turned out en masse at the funeral at the Holy Parish Church in Wanguri just after Christmas.
Paul passed away on 28 December after a long battle with cancer. He is survived by his wife of 17 years, Jovena, and left two children, Gemmalyn and Kellie. My sympathy goes out to his family.
I had the pleasure on Friday of last week of being involved in a farewell for the Northern Territory’s longest serving police officer, Detective Sergeant Barry Ian Frew, APM - service history 21 August 1967 to 10 March 2003, 36 years, a huge amount of service to the people of the Northern Territory. There is a personal anecdote here as well, that Barry was in the same recruit squad as my father-in-law back in 1967. They both came from Newcastle, and it was an interesting anecdote at his farewell.
On retirement from the Northern Territory Police Force on 10 March, he is the longest serving member of the Northern Territory Police Force. Barry served and held relieving positions in a number of locations in bush sections including Darwin, Katherine, Alice, Tennant Creek, Haarts Range, Groote Eylandt, Elliott and Borroloola. He had worked in various units and commands throughout his career including general duties, prosecutions, Criminal Investigation Branch, Major Crime Unit and the Northern Crime Division. Barry’s main contribution has been in the area of criminal investigation, where he worked as a Detective Sergeant in the Darwin CIB, where he won the respect and admiration of his peers and subordinates who have recognised his investigative expertise, commitment and loyalty to the organisation.
It was a great night on Friday, with many very amusing anecdotes about Barry’s career. He has been commended by his peers for his unusual zeal, energy and perseverance in the performance of his duty over a long period, and a significant number of prosecutions of persons who have committed criminal offences. His workload and apprehension rate was exemplary throughout his long-standing career with the police force. Barry was awarded two Commissioner’s Commendations in 1978 and 1980 for his commitment to the investigation of crime and apprehension of offenders. As an example, in one two year period, Detective Senior Constable Frew was instrumental in apprehending some 215 offenders for a total of some 459 offences - figures which indicate his energetic and wholehearted approach to his duty, and an output which, at the time, far exceeded that of any other member of the CIB.
Barry’s ongoing dedication to the job has provided an excellent example and incentive to other members. He has been commended for his investigative skill in break and enter and larceny type offences, legendary in bailing up and arresting many thieves - or ‘feeves’ as his colleagues would rib him - in his career over 36 years. His apprehension of offenders has resulted in the recovery and accounting of many thousands of dollars of stolen property.
Barry was awarded the Australian Police Medal in 1996 in recognition of his distinguished police service, especially in the investigation of crime. It was great to be there on Friday night to say farewell and thank Barry for an enormous service to the people of the Northern Territory. Thirty-six years is a very significant contribution. I was pleased to be able to provide Barry with a letter of thanks from the Chief Minister. It was obvious that night that he is going to be very much missed by his colleagues in the service and I wish Barry and his family all the best for the future in whatever they choose to do.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, unfortunately, I have to pay tribute to two of my constituents who died recently. First of all, it was with great sorrow that I saw in the newspaper on 3 February 2003 that Andy Chapman had died. Andy Chapman was one of my constituents. The first time I met Mr Chapman was before the elections at one of my sausage sizzles. I have to admit I was immediately impressed by Mr Chapman because, despite the fact that he was softly spoken and he was in his 70s, he was very intelligent and he could discuss politics with gusto. He asked intelligent questions, he challenged some of my positions and, at the end we both we had a base for agreement, and that was the development of northern Australian. The reason for that is because Mr Chapman was considered to be one of the great pioneers of northern Australian agriculture.
He worked for the CSIRO for 37 years. He focussed his research on rice and gained notoriety in the 1970s for being the sole protestor at the opening of the Ord River Dam. He was a passionate advocate for sustainable development in northern Australia. He was highly regarded and respected by all his professional colleagues and he had a distinguished career with the CSIRO in cropping research in northern Australia. This was recognised by being awarded a Fellowship with the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology. He had a tremendously sharp, analytical brain - and I witnessed that myself - and was valued for his capacity to question the work of himself and his colleagues. His colleagues held him in high respect and if Andy had said something, that was a dogma. CSIRO’s Mark Whiting paid tribute and he said: ‘He was a gentleman and a scholar, and always had the time to listen and give advice’.
He died at his home in Nakara, at Macredie Street, on 28 January 2003 at the age of 71 years. He is survived by his daughter, Lisa, and son, Alan. He is one of those people you meet once and you never forget them. The reality is I met him more than once and every time I met him, either on a social occasion or doorknocking his house, I had time for Andy. He had time for me. He would listen, always with a smile on his face, and quietly sum up the oppositions. He would always provide a solution or he would accept my solution. He will be greatly missed.
I also want to speak about another of my constituents. I unfortunately attended her funeral last Sunday, 23 February. I want to speak in memory of Mrs Vicki Lay, the late wife of Kivi Lay and daughter of the great Jape family. Vicki was born on 5 July 1952 in East Timor when it was a Portuguese colony. At a very early age she helped her father and her family in their business. After she married Kivi Lay she helped her husband with his import/export business in East Timor. After the riots of 1975 and civil war with Indonesia, the family emigrated to Darwin, Australia. They still run their business of imports/exports. You are probably well aware that Kivi Lay runs the Asian Emporium in Coconut Grove where most of the Lay family is employed and they are running a very successful business.
She served as a general manager for 27 years in the NT Oriental Emporium. That is where I met her in my previous life as an environmental health officer, and where I met Kivi Lay. She was a very successful businesswoman. She had time for everybody and she was a very good mother. One thing that impressed me, was in one of the death notices in the newspaper, which stated that in our patriarchal society sometimes you do forget the power and the respect of the mothers. Certainly, her children felt she was very strong in the home and ran the household with an iron fist in a velvet glove. I was very moved by the eulogy that her son, Pedro, gave during the funeral. It was very emotional. He was speaking with great fondness of his mother and he gave some examples and told some stories of how his mother treated him like anybody else in the business when he went there to work for the holidays. But, at the same time, he was given a great lesson – to be humble and not to be blinded by wealth or richness and to consider himself one of the people who worked in the business because everybody contributed to this business.
Unfortunately, in 2001, Vicki was diagnosed with cancer and, despite the attempts by the specialists and her determination to conquer the cancer, she died on 15 February 2003 at the age of only 51 years old. The funeral was a large, with about 500 to 600 people attending - members of the Chinese community, members of other communities, politicians, other people of status in our community. It was an emotionally charged occasion with the Lay family and the Jape family attending the funeral. It was tragic and unfortunate that such a strong woman died at such an early age. She is survived by her children, Pedro, Christopher and Yolanda, and her husband, Kivi. She was a great constituent of mine and I am very sorry to have to deliver this eulogy though at the end of the day, they are worth it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight in some sadness, I speak on the passing of one of the Territory’s notable citizens. John Jordan was born in Constantinople on 13 January 1912, the eldest of six children of Greek parents from the island of Andros. After the Turkish uprising, he was evacuated with his siblings to Athens where he completed his schooling at the French School, Leondios, run by the Marist Brothers.
Due to the turbulent times, the family had little money for John to continue his education. His only avenue was to enter the Naval Academy where he obtained his captaincy and later joined the Greek Merchant Navy. One of his many talents was that he spoke four languages fluently and understood several others. He entered the American Merchant Navy during World War II. He often related stories to family about those turbulent war years: memories of the continuous bombing raids in Liverpool and how the skies would be lit; his near misses in New Guinea; and the good friends he lost in the war.
After World War II, John settled in Australia. He gave up his naval career to be with his wife Mary, two sons, and their daughter Lilliane. John was always an independent and enterprising man. He bought a taxi plate and worked with Yellow Cabs in Melbourne for a number of years. He later went on to buy run-down cafes in the Gippsland area, built them up and resold them at a good profit.
John semi-retired in the mid-1960s but was enticed by his wife’s cousin, George Manolas, to come to Darwin. Being the enterprising man he was, he saw the potential and stayed. With his wife, he entered into small business ventures in property development which proved quite successful. John loved Darwin and, as a true Territorian, had no wish to leave.
John Jordan’s life can be characterised by the love he had for his family and by the love and respect his family and friends had for him. Over the years, people were drawn to John because of his sense of humour, compassion and wisdom. He stood loyally beside his friends. As one of the family’s young friends pointed out, he was Papou - Grandfather in Greek – to everyone. Each and every individual who knew him had a special bond with him. His greatest advice to them was to look after their health, to seek to fill their life with happiness and that materialistic things did not bring fulfilment and happiness in life.
He considered his wealth was family. He always said his seven grandchildren were his millions because they gave him great love and happiness. John was a man who loved life, a man who did everything with a full heart. His zest for life touched all whom he met, and he was never short of words of advice and colourful anecdotes. John used his past experiences of his world travels and adventures as an example for himself and others. He was 90 years of age when he died late last year. John Jordan will be sadly missed.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about some of the anomalies I have found with the pool fencing legislation that was introduced this year. We debated the legislation at great length last year. I raised issues about not having a requirement to fence swimming pools on two hectare blocks or larger according to ASA standards. I also mentioned that there are quite a few two hectare or larger blocks within the municipality of Darwin, at least. It makes no sense to me that because you have a larger block, your pool appears to be drown-proof.
The act has been in operation now for two months. It is time that it is urgently reviewed so that these anomalies can be corrected. It is bad enough that people have to pay this new pool tax and, despite that, pool fencing has not really brought about much of a safety factor. You will recall that within days of the act being enacted there was a near drowning in Alice Springs involving a child at a motel. In the legislation, motel swimming pools and pools within commercial premises need not have pool fencing according to ASA standards. Again, that is an anomaly and I believe it is important for the government to fix this, too.
Towns and municipalities that did not have by-laws governing pool fencing prior to the enactment of this legislation are still exempt today. I see that as a major anomaly in the legislation. If you live in Tennant Creek, essentially, the legislation does not affect you in that you do not have to register your pool. If you do not have to register your pool, it does not have to be inspected. If it does not have to be inspected, it does not require any certificate of compliance. That is quite an anomalous situation that I consider important for the government to correct.
While there are eight inspectors in Darwin, and only two in Alice Springs, they are not enough to be …
Mr Kiely: No, no, there are 12.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, may I call a point of order! The member for Sanderson is not in his place, and he should not continue to interject while I am speaking, please.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order
Dr LIM: That is in your standing orders. He should return to his seat, also. You can ask the Clerk for advice if you like.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if you wish to interject, you have to return to your seat.
Dr LIM: Coming to my adjournment speech, I also drew an anomaly to the minister’s attention, last year in debate, about the K Mart special. The K Mart special, essentially, is a vinyl blow-up wading pool that can hold water at least 300 mm in depth. That being the case, it was subject to this legislation. I spoke at length about how a ludicrous situation can arise where the K Mart special could be emptied by the parent, leant against a wall of a house, get blown over in the middle of the night, and over the last fortnight in Darwin, that little wading pool would have filled up overnight very easily. Apparently, you can then easily be trapped in having an illegal pool in the backyard without an appropriate ASA standard fence.
All those anomalies are vexatious - perhaps minor in all things, when you look at the calamity of a child drowning in 300 mm of water - but they impact on the lifestyle of Territorians and that needs to be addressed carefully. If the minister and the government wants to bring it in properly, then it should do it properly, across the board, not half-heartedly, with huge loopholes that a truck could drive through.
The biggest problem with the pool legislation is about conveyancing - the sale of homes, or transfer of homes from one person to another - and also when renting homes that have swimming pools. I have spoken to several conveyancers around the Territory and sought their advice. They have quite a few points to make, and I will address them one at a time.
I understand there are approximately 30 conveyancing projects on foot that have been held up because of this matter. This approximate 30, it is approximate as I said - it is hard for the conveyancers to come to a firm figure, because they are all having different numbers of properties being dealt with at the moment. But even if it is 30, and on an approximate $200 000 per property, you are looking at a $6m hold-up in commercial dealings in the Territory. That is substantial when you are considering the amount of fees that will be charged per house that is being transacted and real estate agent’s commissions that are hanging on those transactions.
This is the sort of thing that this government obviously did not think through properly prior to bringing in this legislation. It was done very hurriedly, based on a political promise, and it is entirely in the authority of the government to do whatever it likes. I thought they could have done it a lot better.
With eight inspectors in Darwin and two in Alice Springs, obviously inspections of pool fences are not going to be done as quickly as many people would like. If a person has a pool, wants to sell the property, the vendor would either go to the real estate agent or just himself or herself request an inspection by the authority. When the inspector gets there and checks out the pool fence - assuming that the pool fence complies totally with the ASA - the inspector in Alice Springs would then have to write a report, send that report to Darwin where it is processed by the authority. Then it gets turned around and gets back to Alice Springs where it is issued to the vendor or property owner, at which time the property owner can attach the certificate of compliance to whatever documents he or she has to then on-sell the property. That takes a lot of time.
Initially, when this whole program started, it took some six weeks to get a turnaround. I understand it is a lot quicker now; it is several days. Even so, I would have thought that in the inspectorial unit, each inspector could take with him or her a booklet of interim compliance certificates, or temporary compliance certificates, which would be replaced by a definitive one sent by the authority through the mail a few days later. That interim certificate could be in triplicate, where the inspector, once he inspected the fence and found it to be compliant, could sign off on it. A copy of that could be issued to the pool fence owner, and that would suffice for transactions to take place while waiting for the definitive certificate of compliance to be issued by the authority. That would make a lot more sense: that you can have on-the-spot issuing of a certificate of compliance. Right now, you have to wait for the forms to be sent up to Darwin. I do not know whether it gets blessed up here or whatever, but something happens and then it goes back down to Alice Springs. It is a waste of time.
I am sure the same thing applies to swimming pool fences that are inspected in Darwin. There is no need for that and, if we can do that, it will facilitate sales of properties. I believe you would make the conveyancers, the real estate industry, vendors and home buyers all very happy that things can happen quickly. I am trying to make this suggestion in the most constructive way possible. I believe it is worthy of serious consideration by the government.
If a pool fence is not compliant, then there might be a few issues. You can say: ‘Okay, the pool fence is not compliant and, therefore, the property cannot be transacted. Too bad, Mr Vendor, you have to fix the pool fence up and, once it is fixed up and it is compliant, after a second inspection and further hold-up before the compliance certificate is issued - and only after that is issued can things happen. And there is a fairly large delay’. If I were a vendor of that property, I would put up a fence that complies - it does not matter what it looks like. More than likely, if I do that, I might devalue my property. So what do I do? I am in a real fix. I want to get rid of the property and I cannot. A vendor might come along and say: ‘Okay, I will buy the property off you if you reduce the price and I will put up the fence myself. I will put up the fence appropriate to how I like to see my backyard designed, and put up an aesthetic looking fence that would suit my needs’.
However, having said that, I cannot buy the house. The vendor cannot sell, the real estate agent cannot do anything about it, the conveyancer cannot do anything about it. So we are betwixt and between. I believe the industry spoke to the Pool Fencing Authority, and received a letter of advice by the authority. I read this out because I think it is important:
- However, if circumstances arise where the work cannot be completed prior to the signing of a contract,
the following action will be required:
The contract to sell the property must contain the condition that the sale is not to be completed
until there is a suitable registration and a compliance certificate in relation to the premises.
Furthermore, the work cannot be completed prior to the settlement. The following action will be
required to enable the authority to issue a certificate of registration and a compliance certificate.
The purchaser must provide a signed letter to the authority containing the following.
1. that the purchaser has read and understands the work required to upgrade a pool barrier to
comply with Australian Standards as detailed in attachment A of this letter; and
(a) the swimming pool is enclosed in accordance with appropriate ASA; and
(b) the swimming pool is registered as being enclosed in accordance with the appropriate ASA.
3. that the purchaser is aware that the authority may revoke the registration compliance certificate in
relation to the premises if the conditions on which the swimming pool is registered is not complied with.
Upon receipt of the letter the authority may issue a registration compliance certificate containing the
conditions on which the swimming pool is registered.
This is not in the legislation. Nowhere in the legislation is this written in. The authority has issued something that is outside the legislation. What authority does authority have to issue this sort of thing? It is outside the legislation. The minister, or somebody in the government, needs to explain this. The authority is now acting outside the legislation. That poses a huge problem. I wonder if the real estate industry, the conveyancing industry, vendors and home purchasers, will be happy to operate out of that letter. If they are, potentially, somebody could object and who is going to be sued? I leave the case for the government to answer.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the passing of an outstanding ceremonial leader and artist of north-east Arnhem Land, Wunungmurra, and convey my respects to his family. Wunungmurra was born around 1932 in his mother’s country at Bayapula known famously as Caledon Bay, and close to where Donald Thompson centred his operations during the period known as the ‘Black War’. After the arrival of missionaries at Yirrkala in 1935, his family spent time at the mission where he attended the mission school for a short time. During the 1950s, he worked in the mission gardens and helped build the mission hospital, now the world-renowned Buku-Larrngay Mulka Art Centre at Yirrkala. All through this period Wunungmurra’s ceremonial education continued and in 1962, along with 16 other Yolngu elders, he contributed to the painting of the two monumental church panels, which were an effort to harmonise the different laws of Yolngu and Christian beliefs.
Wunungmurra returned to his land at Gan Gan, as part of the homeland movement. There he taught his children to paint. He broke from Yolngu tradition by teaching his daughters to paint. He emphasised the difference between sacred art and art produced for the market. He stopped painting for 10 years when he learned sacred images from one of his paintings had been copied without his permission and reproduced on tea towels and clothes. In 1997, Wunungmurra won the Telstra Art Award for one of his huge 3 m barks. Every major institution in Australia holds work from this artist, but his main activity throughout his life was as a participant in and leader of the constant ceremonies of north-east Arnhem Land.
In finishing, I quote the words of Howard Morphy from the Australian National University, who has a long standing relationship with the Yolngu of north-east Arnhem Land. Morphy says of Wunungmurra:
- I would also note his modesty and sense of humour. The fact that the copyright case followed on from his
long term interest in getting a fair return for artists’ work, the fact that he was a diligent teacher of his own
children but also held the law on behalf of his mother’s clan and made sure that he passed his knowledge on
before he died exemplified to me the Yolngu conception of a fulfilled and completed life.
My thanks to Will Stubbs of Yirrkala for his research and words on this great man’s life and for Will’s ongoing commitment in his own right in support of the artists of north-east Arnhem Land.
I want also to congratulate Hartley Dentith, the Manager of the East Arnhem Region Centre for Disease Control. Hartley received a lifetime achievement award late last year for his dedication to the delivery of vaccination programs. The award, presented by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, emphasises the value of people like Hartley in the east Arnhem region who has made and continues to make such a valuable contribution to improving health standards in remote area. I congratulate Hartley on his award and I echo his sentiments in acknowledging all of the people who have worked with him in the delivery of the East Arnhem Immunisation Program.
I had the pleasure of attending the Group Training/Alcan Gove apprentice and trainee awards for 2002 in Gove. I congratulate all of the winners of various award categories, particularly Tim Wagg, who was announced Apprentice of the Year for his outstanding skills and dedication to his work. Tim was commended by mentors and co-workers as being very capable in all aspects of his trade, he worked well under pressure and displayed a good work ethic throughout his apprenticeship.
Other award winners included Katie Clarke, who received the Clerical, Laboratory and IT Trainee of the Year; Bradley Postans was awarded with the Refinery Operations, Engineering Services and Plant Services Trainee of the Year Award; Simon Bourman, Apprenticeship Encouragement Award; Leighton Price, Clerical, Laboratory and IT Recognition Award; Ryan Hobbs, Refinery Operations, Engineering Services and Plant Services Recognition Award; Tom Niven, Apprentice Workgroup Mentor of the Year; Kylie Moses, Clerical, Laboratory and IT Mentor of the Year; George Postans, Refinery Operations, Engineering Services and Plant Services Mentor of the Year; Robert Poyner, Stage 1 Apprentice of the Year; Grant Bevington, Stage 1 Apprentice Encouragement Award; Ben Coffey, Stage 2 Apprentice of the Year; Terry Bilton, Stage 2 Apprentice Encouragement Award; Damon Bishop, Stage 3 Apprentice of the Year; and Alex Brown, Stage 3 Apprentice Encouragement Award.
I congratulate Chris Putland on his recent appointment as Manager of Qantas Travel Nhulunbuy Office. It is great to have a local selected for this position, particularly someone who brings such enthusiasm and dedication to the role. Chris was chosen from applicants from around Australia, and is understandably excited about the challenges that come with such a demanding position. The Qantas Nhulunbuy office employs 10 permanent and permanent part-time staff in Nhulunbuy, with another five porter/loaders at the airport. Gove Airport is serviced by 14 jets a week. The policies are the same for all Qantas offices, regardless of location, ensuring the same standards in smaller offices as in the larger cities. Chris says:
- We are a team and I am part of that team here. We provide a good comprehensive service. We are not just
Qantas, but a travel agent as well. We are agents for Singapore Airlines, Garuda, Royal Brunei and
AirNorth. Nhulunbuy is unique because you sell the holiday, you are there when they go and when they return,
and clients will tell you all about their holiday. It is hands-on with everything.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, very quickly I correct one small mistake on my part. During the second reading speech, I did quote two sentences from an article in the Australian Law Journal, Issue 68, No 5 of May 1994. Before I quoted McPherson J out of R v Watson, I want to state on the record that the article was written by David Kell. I did read two sentences out of his article which were his original work. I wanted to place that on the record for the sake of being completely tidy regarding the work and the research that I had done.
I wish to talk about the trips that I often take into the bush, and into the communities in the bush in Central Australia. Of course, you go into some of these communities and are utterly disheartened by some of the things that you see there - the social outcomes. An the issue that is becoming closer and closer to my heart is the violence against Aboriginal women in many of these communities - a violence which is often profound, gross and far exceeds any custom which is traditional to those people. The reason I know this is because that is what I have been told. I ask the question and I am told quite regularly that there is nothing in the customs of the people who live in any of these communities that I have in my mind, which allows for the violence you see. It is usually just the actions of drunken brutes who abuse women in the most horrible way. I find it extraordinary that anybody, including people who live in remote places in the Northern Territory, would be subjected to that sort of violence. Unfortunately, it happens all too often.
Of course, it is a consequence of the profound drug abuse that we are starting to see. It is not only alcohol nowadays. Unfortunately, in the Top End it is kava. In Central Australia it is grog and also ganja. You start to hear little whispers from time to time about intravenous drugs finding their way into these communities - the list of drugs is piling up. Then you can add other chemicals – cleaning agents, paints, solvents, petrol - to the list of things that are abused in these communities.
We all know about the malaise that we so often see. It frustrates and angers me and, from time to time, I think to myself: what on earth can be done? What on earth can be done? All the programs and all the tax dollars in the world - and all the goodwill, I might add - in the world seems to be achieving so very little. I get so angry and frustrated at the fact that so much is being spent by the federal government, councils, local government associations, Northern Territory government – both past and present. I am fully aware that the Northern Territory government currently spends large amounts of money on public safety, public health, those sorts of things, as former governments have done, and yet it seems to be regressing. It is not even staying the same; it is getting worse. It seems to be getting worse. I get a sense that the traditional bonds in some of these places are starting to deteriorate - the last vestiges of resistance seems to be going. I look at some of the old men, whom I have known to be proud, starting to fall into the same trap.
I drove from Darwin to Alice Springs recently, in January, and I had cause to stop in Katherine and Tennant Creek along the way, and I am starting to see old people sitting on the streets. These are the people who have the law, have the culture. These are the people who have the threads of their communities in their hands. They seem to giving up too, and I am getting very, very frustrated. Of course, one of the worst things, one of the most insidious things that is eating into people in these communities is boredom. I go into these communities quite regularly, and the thing that strikes me about what is going on there is that there seems to be a profound boredom going on. This is not particular just to indigenous communities. I go into other places, where I have been interstate or overseas, you go to the lower economic areas, and once again one of the profound things that seems to be permeating all these areas is boredom. But what to do about it? What to do about it?
In the past, I have had cause to stand up in this place, and in other places, and say that we have to start creating a compulsory work for the dole system. I do not do that because I believe that these people are lazy and need to be forced into work. I say that because I believe that work and the dignity that comes with work - the dignity that comes with labour, the ability to stand back at the end of the day and say: ‘That is my product of the day. I am proud of that’ - is a fundamental part of the human condition. Unfortunately, we are not seeing it here.
We are not seeing it in these communities. Yes, you see pockets of it when the communities are well managed. You go into some communities - Wallace Rockhole is a classic example. You go into Wallace Rockhole and it is spotlessly clean. People are constantly putting effort into the community and really concentrating on outcomes for the community. Instantly, you get a sense that you are safe, that you are comfortable, that the people who live there are comfortable. Even the dogs are relaxed. You do not walk within 10 yards of one and they slink away nervously from you. The whole ambience of the place conveys a sense of safety and security and pride and all those sorts of things. But unfortunately, it is so rarely replicated.
I would really hope that the Northern Territory government says to the federal government - I certainly say it on every opportunity – let us get ourselves a system where there is a work for the dole system. Not CDEP. If you want to call it CDEP, that is fine. You want to call it a bed of roses, that is fine. If you want to call it work for the dole – there are other euphemisms you hear, mutual obligation, those sorts of things - I do not care what you call it. But at least get things happening in those communities, which gives people a sense of pride in those communities, a sense of dignity in those communities and a desire to work. Work is not just an economic construct. It is a moral construct as well, and people feel better, act better and are better because of the fact that they are putting in a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
One other thing I embraced previously during the Learning Lessons debate, but I think needs to be re-visited again, is that there should be a direct link between child endowment and school attendance, so that there is pressure on the parents as well as the students to get those kids to school. What I would like to see is a system where there are old people who are capable of making decisions and identifying people in their own communities who are causing problems, put back in charge. But put them back in charge in a meaningful way so that they can decide: ‘That kid has not gone to school, that person over there does not get the child endowment payment’. Is it hard? Yes, it is. However, if it occurs a few times, I believe that it will get kids back into the classroom. Once the kid gets to the classroom, of course, there are all the health problems - ears have to be cleaned out and they have to have food in their stomach. I appreciate all of that. But, let us at least get those kids there in the first place, and put some pressure on in that method.
Also, give the leaders of the community the control or an ability to direct those dole payments so they can identify the people in the community who have not been putting in the effort for their community. It is all well and good for somebody to sit in Centrelink in, say, Alice Springs, and send out instructions to a council clerk who does a bit of the Centrelink work in a remote community. However, if somebody in that community gets up and goes and does their thing, and actually makes an effort on behalf of the community, then surely that effort should be, in some way, rewarded with an acknowledgement of the fact that they are working. But it is not, because he or she will be paid exactly the same amount as anybody else on a welfare system.
What I would like to see is that some of the older people - some of the people who have the law, who have the cultural authority - have bound up in that the ability to say: ‘You have done your bit. You have not. Consequently, the rewards will flow to you’. It would have to audited, policed, and managed. I do not have all the answers but, considering what I see so regularly in these communities, for God’s sake, let us try something because, literally, we are talking about issues of life and death. We all know it in this Chamber, we have all seen the consequences of people coming out of the communities, on the streets of Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs. I get a sense that the situation is becoming endemic in the Northern Territory. I would like to see greater controls over the way this money finds it way into the community. Let us get rid of the concept, once and for all, of ‘sit down’ money. Never, prior to the arrival of Europeans, was there sit down money, or some type of sit down provision for traditional people. Everybody had, in one way or another, to produce something for the community.
The principle is exactly the same as I am talking about here. I am afraid that we have lost sight of it. We are too scared to make a few tough decisions to bring about some very practical, very useful and, hopefully, some lifesaving outcomes.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak to the House about Norma Smith’s 50th birthday party.
Before I do, I would like to draw the House’s attention to a statement made by the member for Greatorex in his adjournment debate about pools and pool legislation. He kept on insisting that there were only 10 pool inspectors, whereas he was here in the House with me the other day when the Chief Minister clearly stated that an additional two have been employed, bringing it up to 12. Once again, the member for Greatorex was called to order by the member for Johnston for doing this sort of misquoting, and misrepresenting information to the House. He still has not learned his lesson; he is still out there banging away, providing falsehoods so that he can flash them around for whatever onerous reasons he believes in - which is a pretty typical bully boy attitude of the CIP at the moment. They just keep on hammering away; they have not learned. They have not gone anywhere; they are still living in the past. Anyway, I thought I would just get that one out.
Tonight. I talk about an event I had the pleasure of attending. That event was Norma Smith’s 50th birthday celebration. It was celebrated last Saturday night, 22 February, at the Northern Territory Chinese Timorese Social Club. I have known Norma for quite a number of years before entering this place. I knew her when I was working for Territory Health Services. Norma lives in my electorate. She has been married to a wonderful and loving man, Norman Smith, for 20-odd years. They have a 16-year-old daughter, Stephanie.
Norma originally came from the Philippines, where she grew up with 10 brothers and sisters in the city of Tacloban on the island of Leyte. She shares some pretty good neighbours over there. The island of Leyte produced some incredible people; that is where Imelda Marcos came from. I was having a look how Norma was dressed on the night and she has a bit of that fashion sense herself. She cut a dashing figure, along with her husband, Norman.
Norma arrived in Darwin from the Philippines in 1983 with three of her sisters who now live in the suburbs around the place. They had a family photo with Norma and her sisters – what a handsome group of girls; their mother must be very proud of them. They were all decked out in their finest because this was a special family occasion. They were all dancing around. It is a great family, it is a great looking family. A bevy of beauties would be the words I would use for them.
It was a fabulous night. Not only was I invited but so was my good friend, Dr Chris Burns, the member for Johnston. He is a great friend to the Filipino community but he also is a great friend of many people who were at the party. He walked in and everyone lit up. Judith Ventic was there. ‘Oh, Dr Burns,’ she said, ‘come here, Chris’ and she even got him on the dance card, which I will talk about a little later. It is pretty hard vying for attention when you are at a great party like that with a great range of Filipino people and Dr Burns walks in. He is one of the most popular people that I have ever come across. I do not think I will go along with him to any more of these dos because I do not get a look in. I just get ignored; they all go over to him.
Ms Scrymgour: Can you blame them?
Mr KIELY: That is true. Chris and I were amongst the 300 or more invited guests on that special night. The atmosphere was pleasant and there was an abundance of food. Tessie Muscat lives in Sanderson and owns Pizza King. I will put an advertisement in here for Pizza King; they make the best pizza in town. They are the best value and a family of four is hard pressed to get through one of the Pizza King pizzas. They make them quick, they deliver them, and they are beautiful. Tessie is also famous for her speciality, lechon, that is the pig on the spit. When a pig on a spit comes out at one of these parties, you have to get in line quick. Actually, the member for Karama, Delia Lawrie, and I were at a function once and there was beautiful lechon there and Delia looked across, she was served the first plate – it was quite a moving moment.
Ms Scrymgour: How did she wrangle that?
Mr KIELY: She is popular! Judith Ventic, a lovely lady who is also noted for her Filipino community broadcasting on Top FM 104, was given the task of Master of Ceremonies. Judith is a resident of the Sanderson electorate, and did a fantastic job that night. She was critical of me, however, in that I did a greeting, a farewell and a birthday wish in Tagalog, and Judith offered me free lessons at the Casuarina Senior College where she gives linguistic lessons in Tagalog. I will have to go along because it is a beautiful language and beautiful people speak it.
A local DJ named Lando Macaranas entertained the crowd. There was also this great Indonesian lady – her name slips my mind at the moment – but she was performing a number of old time favourites on karaoke. I believe Chris met her – she was great, and I had a dance or two with her. She is a fabulous person, a great friend of Norma’s, she is a good singer and it was a pleasure to meet her.
Dr Burns: What about Mr Norm Smith?
Mr KIELY: I will get to Mr Norm Smith in a moment. This lady also had everyone singing when Norma was cutting the cake. Everybody was singing Happy Birthday. A significant highlight of the evening was when Norma’s husband, Norman, dedicated a couple of songs to her – one was an old Eric Bogle song When you were Sweet Sixteen. Would you like me to sing a little of it? I had better not. I could not do justice like he did. It was beautiful. It was just a wonderful moving moment. Norman is somewhere up in those high 70s - if it was a temperature you would be taking your shirt off – I think he said about 78. He was singing Sweet Sixteen,kept it in tune, and it was beaut. Later on he came back and he sang that famous Al Jolson song, Mammy. He had it all down pat. He was great, and everyone was just chuffed about that. Through it all, Norman’s devotion to his wife was beautifully displayed, the feeling of love he put into performing the songs; it was indeed a very touching moment.
I should also say that at the table Chris and I were sitting at, was my electorate officer, Therla Fowlestone and her husband, Tony - great entertainers, fantastic people. Therla is Filipino and gives me all my bad language lessons in Filipino. There was also a chap who lives in my electorate whom I have come to know, and is a good friend of Tony and Therla’s. That is John Killen, and he was there with his wife, Marryana.
Before, in the House, we had the member for Drysdale going on and mentioning a lot of public servants by name, and speaking in CLP code. You could hear it. You could see it coming through - speaking in code and implied threats and innuendo was riddled throughout it; the old intimidatory styles that they have. If you think I am making it up, you only have to go back to the Hansard of today, and have a look at the comments Madam Speaker made to the member for Drysdale. She was right on to him. Do not ever be fooled by the codes that man speaks in - he twists and distorts all manner of things. The member for Drysdale said I get up in adjournments and mention NT public servants by name. Well, I do, but I mention them because they have something to do with it …
Dr Burns: In a social sense.
Mr KIELY: Yes, only in the social sense. I do not speak in code. That is very, very important.
John is a bloke who typifies the people the member for Drysdale was speaking in code about. John has been in the public sector for a long, long time. Of course, he has worked under the CLP and now under the Labor government. He is a true professional. He gives good advice to government, he works hard, and his heart is in the right place. He is an asset to the people of the Territory with the devotion he puts into his duties. He was there. He has a lovely family. He has two girls and two boys, and they were off and about, mingling everywhere.
Also on the table was Fonnie and Alex Lay. Fonnie is great; she has the Golden Starr Takeaway in the Northlakes Shopping Centre. She looks after us when we go there to get our lunch. If we have visitors to the office we get great cappuccinos from Fonnie. Fonnie attended the Chinese New Year celebrations we had. I have a good time with Fonnie. She looks after Therla and I wonderfully. They have good food over there, good service and are great people. I count them there in the shopping centre amongst my friends.
There were so many more people there. John Rivas from the community was there. I did not go over and talk to him because there were just so many people. I had a chat with Malou Finnis. I have known Malou through the office; she is great fun. There were so many more that I could mention.
I would like to wrap it up by saying it was a great night. Norma was a little bit nervous at the start but she was pretty relaxed afterwards. Champagne was out, the food was flowing, the people were happy, it was a fantastic time and it was a great way to spend your 50th birthday. Happy birthday, Norma!
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on the late Vicki Lay, wife of Kivi Lay. Over the last few days, we have heard members of this House speak on behalf of the Lay family and give their condolences. We heard quite moving speeches from the Chief Minister, the Minister for Ethnic Affairs and the Opposition Leader. Unfortunately, I must give my apologies to the Lay family. I was unable to attend the funeral but I understand that many of the Darwin community turned up - many hundreds - and showed their support and sympathy towards the family.
I did not know Mrs Vicki Lay, but I have met Mr Kivi Lay. He is a business operator in the Millner area and also has interests in Palmerston. I remember going to an opening of a new store that he has in Palmerston. He put on a fantastic show with firecrackers. He knows how to bring the community out; there would have been 150 to 200 people from the community there. I am not just talking dignitaries. I am talking people with children on their hips, and fathers and mothers. They came with their kids who running around there - we are talking 10, 11, 13-year-old kids obviously from the neighbourhood. Everyone was offered food, drinks, and there was a fantastic show put on. I am very proud to say that I have met Mr Kivi Lay.
I understand Mrs Lay was born on 5 July 1952, and she was called by Our Lord to rest in peace on 15 February 2003 at the age of 51. Mrs Vicki Lay was born in East Timor, a Portuguese colony at the time. In 1973, she married Mr Kivi Lay and had two sons and one daughter. During her teenage years, she helped her father, Mr Jape Kong Su in his business. After her marriage she helped her husband in his import and export business in East Timor. I understand that the Lay family moved to Darwin in 1975 after civil riots, and they immigrated to Darwin. That is a wonderful asset that the Darwin community has been able to gain. They still ran an export and import business in Australia. She served as general manager for 27 years in the NT Oriental Emporium. She was in charge of retail sales and was also one of the founders of the company. She was greatly respected and received good commendations from her clients and customers. Her family has fond memories of her business acumen and skill. That was just reading briefly from her bibliography, ‘In Memory of Sister Vicki Lay’.
I also understand that a number of her family members spoke about their relationship with their mother and family member. I understand that the Jape family attended the funeral as well. I understand that everyone spoke from their heart and it was a deeply moving moment. All my sympathies go out to the Lay family. I hope, in their own terms, as a family, they grieve in peace and find joy in her memory.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016