2003-10-09
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 93 petitioners relating to the Milikapiti Housing Association. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 86 petitioners relating to the Bathurst Island Housing Association. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that track laying for the AustralAsia Railway is now complete - 1420 km of standard gauge line now connects the Territory to Australia’s rail grid. This project has been 100 years in the making, and completion of track laying marks the start of a new era and transport for the Territory.
During this great infrastructure project, 146 000 tonnes of steel rail were produced and delivered; two million concrete sleepers were produced at the depots in Katherine and Tennant Creek; over 2.8 million tonnes of ballast was produced for the whole of the project from the Katherine and Tennant Creek quarries; 90 bridges of varying sizes have been built; over 103 000 Thermit welds make the standard gauge AustralAsia Railway a continuous rail weld; employment peaked in September 2002 at 1451, with 434 still employed during the last month; and $1.08bn in contracts have been awarded to the project, of which $681m were awarded to Territory companies. I congratulate ADrail, the construction contractors, on their dedication to this project and their early completion of track laying.
Two events were held recently to celebrate the historic completion of track laying milestones. On 18 September, I officiated at a ceremony in Alice Springs, where the Premier of South Australia and I lit the final Thermit weld to link the north with the south by rail for the first time in Australia’s history. This ceremony was an opportune time to acknowledge the hard work of governments, public servants, AustralAsia Pacific Transport, the construction contractors, ADrail, and all those who worked with ADrail.
A week later, on 25 September, we celebrated at the northern end of the line to mark the arrival and completion of track laying at the port of Darwin. First Lord Mayor of Darwin, Dr Ella Stack, and I placed the final rail clips into position. This ceremony was live to air on the Today Show, beaming the completion of track laying of the project to thousands of homes across Australia.
Completion of construction, signifying the handover from construction to operations will be in late November. FreightLink, the owner and operator, will then begin operational testing, including time trials and driver familiarisation, in anticipation for the arrival of the inaugural freight train departing Adelaide on Thursday, 15 January 2004, arriving in Darwin on Saturday, 17 January 2004, which will be an historic day for the people of Australia and the Territory. The inauguration of Australia’s largest infrastructure project will be a wonderful time to celebrate our future. Planning has begun in earnest for the arrival of the first train, which will feature community celebrations in Adelaide, Port Augusta, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Each regional centre will have community-focussed events to witness the arrival of the first train on the AustralAsia Railway.
I am extremely pleased to report that FreightLink has an agreement with the largest freight forwarder in the central corridor, NT Freight Services, known as NTFS. FreightLink anticipates moving 120 000 tonnes of goods to Darwin for NTFS in their first year of operation. FreightLink recently released freight rates to all freight forwarders and announced their new marketing and business plans for the ongoing development of the AustralAsia Railway.
The initial focus will be on securing domestic freight, with increasing opportunities for international freight over time. It is expected there will be five return freight services a week from Adelaide to Darwin, with the potential to increase freight to over 800 000 tonnes per annum within the first few years of operation. There is no doubt that these exciting freight developments are an integral part of the Territory’s future success.
In addition to the freight focus of this new railway, exciting opportunities now exist for passengers undertaking what will be one of the great transcontinental train journeys in the world. The inaugural Ghan passenger service will depart Adelaide on Sunday, 1 February 2004, arriving in to Darwin on Tuesday, 3 February 2004. Regular passenger services will begin as of 8 February 2004. Great Southern Rail, operators of the Ghan, have already sold over $6m in tickets - I believe it is $6.4m and growing - for this great train journey. The Territory looks forward to the tremendous tourism spin-off with the arrival of train passengers.
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has been undertaking design of rail passenger facilities to provide for the commencement of passenger services. My government has committed a cash injection of $7.5m to construct passenger terminals in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and I announced recently that local company, Sunbuild, was the successful tenderer for the construction of the $2.4m Darwin Rail Passenger Facility at Berrimah, and I am also pleased to be able to report that Territory company, Norbuilt, has been announced as the successful tenderer for the construction of the $2.2m passenger facility in Katherine.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a great day to look forward to in January of next year when the first freight train arrives in Darwin on a railway line that many thought would never be built. It is pleasing to anyone who has been involved in any way with this project to drive, as I did often in the last few weeks, from Darwin to Katherine and look at the majestic engineering that has occurred on that line.
One of the things that strikes me about the railway line through its entire construction process has been the concept of simplicity in engineering. It has been amazing, from my point of view, to see modern construction methods, not only in track laying but in the way that bridges have been constructed. The advances that have been made are amazing; advances in engineering resulting in the way it is presented at the end of the day being very simple in the concept. The bridges look very much like large Meccano pieces where they simply slot into each other.
The construction of the rail line has now been achieved. I was particularly pleased to hear that Northern Territory Freight Services have been secured in terms of 120 000 tonnes to come onto that line. I would like assurance that it is a contractual arrangement. I understand that it is an MOU, but if it is a contractual arrangement, well done because FreightLink are hard negotiators. It is good to see progress occurring regarding the transfer from road to rail. There will always be detractors of this railway line. Chris Corrigan was recently quoted in southern newspapers as saying that the return of public and private money on investment to profit would be as little as the ‘testicle on a tick’, as I recall. That sort of detraction will always be there from southern commentators.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I was just getting started.
Madam SPEAKER: I know. I know.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I mentioned the building of the Darwin rail passenger facility and the letting of the contract for the one in Katherine. Tenders for the Tennant Creek passenger facility are currently being received by DIPE.
Another aspect of this is rail safety. As the construction of the railway now involves passage of construction trains across roads, the travelling public needs to be increasingly aware of the fact that trains are operating at level crossings and need to obey signs and traffic control devices. The DIPE Road Safety Unit recently launched their rail safety campaign, which includes television, radio and advertising mediums and community visits.
Information signs have been installed at eight strategic locations along the Stuart Highway for the travelling public, and these signs provide constructions facts and inform travellers of the safety requirements for crossings. It is an issue. We will be monitoring it carefully so we can have the 100% safety at our rail crossings.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, in September my colleague, the Minister for Community Development, and I met with the members of the Katherine Region Harmony Group. Chaired by the Deputy Mayor, Anne Shepherd, its representatives are drawn from a diverse range of groups working across the Katherine area, including ATSIC, the Jawoyn Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Katherine Town Council, Northern Territory Police, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and the Katherine Regional Tourism Association.
In February 2003, the group agreed to undertake the role of the Regional Crime Prevention Council for the Katherine area, becoming the third council to be established in the Territory. It has now also agreed to take on the role of coordinating body for the implementation of the itinerant strategy in Katherine.
When the minister and I met with the Harmony Group, it had identified its four key priority areas as itinerants, substance abuse, youth, and crime prevention. At the meeting we attended, it was looking at the linkages between each of those areas. It was also to hear reports on the itinerant strategy work being carried out in Darwin and Palmerston, and to help it identify projects for the Katherine region.
In 2003-04, a total of $650 000 has been allocated to the itinerant strategy in Katherine, and that will cover an Elders Visitation Program, a Centrepay guarantee fund for Return to Home programs, capital works for basic shelter, specialist intervention programs for alcohol and mental health issues, expanding community foot patrols, a daytime diversionary facility, and a coordinator position.
The Itinerant Strategy Coordinator position will work with the Katherine Harmony Group on implementation of itinerant projects for the region. Interviews have recently been held for the position and an appointment is expected to be made this month.
Building on the success of the Kalano day foot patrols, we have allocated $50 000 to expanding the community foot patrols. The Harmony Group is also working on a Katherine Region Community Safety Plan. A $30 000 crime prevention grant will enable the group to engage a person to develop the plan, and advertising will commence shortly for this position.
By working on these four critical areas the Harmony Group can make a significant contribution to crime prevention and community safety in the Katherine region. The minister and I were impressed by the energy and drive of the members of the Harmony Group, who have determined to take on some difficult issues and committed to making a real difference in their community. Our government is also committed to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour across the Territory. I commend the Katherine Region Harmony Group for joining with the government in the push to make our community safer for Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. It is remarkable that it was so similar to the press release issued in September about the group in Katherine. What this minister does is issue press releases with great gusto. In all of those press releases about this thing called crime prevention, or so-called crime prevention initiatives, he refers to ‘his’ and ‘his government’ and other people’s commitment, their determination to do things, the development of strategies, how keen everyone is to address things like crime, antisocial behaviour and so on. He uses expressions, both in press releases and in parliament, about a new force in crime prevention. Yet what the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General constantly fails to do when he comes into this parliament is actually give us, and all Territorians, details and practical outcomes of what these groups are doing.
I know many of the people on some of the councils. I know there is a level of frustration around, and that this is driven by government. I call upon the Attorney-General, over the course of these sittings, to come into the parliament and put aside all of the political spin and political speak, and actually tell us what the crime prevention councils are doing – and what will they do. Are there time frames? What sort of performance indicators are there? What sort of criteria are there? Because minister, I have reviewed all of the speeches you have given in this parliament. There is very little detail there, and many of your speeches bear a striking similarity to your press releases.
So, let us get on with it, minister. You say you are fair dinkum. Well, give us some outcomes, give us some evidence.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the shadow minister for Justice has just revealed how little real contact she has with these community groups. If she was connected, was getting out and actually working with them, especially the ones in Alice Springs - you probably do not even know what is going on down there - the proof is in the pudding. It appears in the crime statistics and in the government grants to the community level initiatives that these crime prevention councils are putting out into the communities. It is in the plans, particularly the juvenile justice plans in Alice Springs, that have come directly out of these groups.
The community safety plan that I referred to just now in a statement that has been prepared under the Katherine Harmony Group is the work that the people are doing. What we will now have is a planned and strategic approach to crime issues in our community. That was totally lacking under the previous government. Go out and have a talk to these people in the communities, you will find out what they are doing, and do not disparage them in here.
Mr Dunham: Stop pointing. God, you are an arrogant thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are out of order.
Mr Dunham: Madam Speaker, I was merely interjecting about his finger pointing which is also out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Your interjections are out of order. I do not know if you think your interjections are acceptable, but they are not.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide this further report to the Assembly on progress with another important Martin Labor government initiative – to provide safe and secure housing for all Territorians. Security screens are now installed in over 3000 Territory Housing flats and units. All new social housing dwellings constructed now have security screens and doors. All dwellings constructed with disability access modifications and household safe rooms were fully screened during the 2002-03 financial year.
It is the government’s intention to screen all public housing dwellings within the next three years. The projected cost of the extended screening program is approximately $9m. An amount of $50 000 has been specifically set aside each year for additional screening for those cases that fall outside of the defined policy and which require security screening as a matter of urgency. A total of 585 houses categorised in the highest priority group have now received security screening. This includes 386 dwellings in Darwin and Palmerston and 199 in regional centres. Stage 2 of the security screening roll-out - which included 479 houses in the suburbs of Moulden and Karama - was completed earlier this year. An additional initiative of this program is to provide smoke alarms to all housing stock. The alarms will complement the security program, providing an additional safety precaution.
Approximately 1200 houses will be screened in the current financial year. Locations to be screened in 2003-04 include the suburbs of Driver and Gray in Palmerston, and the suburbs of Millner, Rapid Creek, Ludmilla, the Narrows, Parap, Fannie Bay, Stuart Park, Larrakeyah, Leanyer, Wanguri, Tiwi, Nakara and Alawa in Darwin. In the regions, locations to be screened will include Larapinta, Gillen and Morris Soak, and all of the remaining houses in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Alyangula.
While the government’s initiatives in crime prevention are demonstrating positive results in reducing crime, it is important that public housing tenants have the additional personal security that is provided by household security screens. This initiative is another election commitment of the Martin Labor government. Many public housing tenants I have met over the last 12 months have commented to me that it is a program they very much welcome. As has been amply demonstrated, this government honours its commitments to Territorians while simultaneously working to address the unsustainable budget deficit left by the CLP.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on his last line first. I always find it curious that these folk have now been in government for two years and, in spite of that, still everything that is horrible in the world is the former CLP government’s fault. When are these people actually going to take over governance of the Northern Territory? That is the question I have. The minister walks in here and says: ‘It is all the CLP’s fault’. Well, if it all the CLP’s fault, why is he so happy to announce a CLP program coming to a point of successful completion? All he is doing is saying: ‘We have a program approaching conclusion, and it is the CLP’s fault that this is all that was wrong’. Well, that is a little cute, and he should point out to the people of the Northern Territory that it is a CLP program that started. So, if he going to blame the CLP government, he should also cheer the CLP government. However, of course, this minister has no intention of being so much as fair in this House, and would quite happily rewrite history for his own intent.
The policy is a very good one; it works well. I congratulate the minister on the idea of smoke alarms; they are a good idea. It is a shame that we live in a community where we need these security screens. The minister identified stocks all over Darwin that had to be completed, as well as in the Alice Springs area. It is a shame that we live in a community which needs these security screens. We have a government which says: ‘Crime is on the way down; property crime is not happening. It is all under control folks, relax. All we have to do now is finish putting security screens up so you can be secure in your homes’.
The government has also moved to secure Wirrina flats with fences and security equipment. The only one problem in that area is that, although the government has spent money on the gates, it appears that the gate is continually being left open.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am confused. The member for Macdonnell …
Mr Elferink: It is not difficult, Jack. It comes easy to you.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, hang on. Hear me out because, on the list provided on Tuesday, it has here the ‘shadow minister for Housing, Peter Maley, member for Goyder’. Now we have the member for Macdonnell, the great orator from the other side, confused once again. I do not know who the shadow person is, if this is incorrect.
Mr Dunham: Go and get a briefing, Jack. What is wrong with you?
Mr AH KIT: You are disorganised. You continue to be disorganised. The fact of the matter is the truth hurts with the opposition. We are getting on with providing safe and secure housing for our public housing tenants. The opposition is still disorganised and in disarray. They do not know who is shadow for whatever. We just got handed on Tuesday a paper and yet we have the member for Macdonnell doing the member for Goyder’s dirty work in respect of the responses he is providing.
We will get on with continuing to do what we need to do.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired. I might remind the minister that that extra minute is to sum up the comments you have made about your report. I would remind the minister also there was someone else in this House who was minister for Housing and recalls very clearly what programs she put in place.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I inform the House about the situation at the Tiwi Health Board. As members are no doubt aware the Tiwi Health Board, an Aboriginal community controlled primary health care organisation, decided to go into voluntary administration on 25 September. Under the Corporations Act the administrator – who is now in place – will shortly report on the accounting and financial position of the organisation.
I also note that the board is an independent body incorporated under corporations law. As such, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is empowered to investigate any irregularities. Whilst I understand the great health needs of the Aboriginal community, at the end of the day, any independent organisation has to operate within its budget and be accountable for the funds that it receives. The investigating accountants, Ernst & Young, have already highlighted some issues relating to the financial management of the board’s affairs, including inaccuracies in the recording of financial transactions; inaccuracies in the posting of income and expenses with respect to specific grants; and problems with the accuracy of financial reports to both the board and to the board’s funding agencies, namely the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing.
A great deal of work was done by my department, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and Ernst & Young to avoid the collapse of the Tiwi Health Board. This included engaging an interstate firm of public accountants to assess the financial status and financial management practices of the Tiwi Health Board. As a result of that report, which provided recommendations for steps to remedy a budget deficit, the board was asked to achieve certain milestones which included reducing expenditure to match the level of income. Frankly, I have to say that I am disappointed that it has reached to this point.
The CEO of my department has appointed an external auditor to examine our own processes. However, at the most fundamental level, it seems that despite ongoing financial and administrative assistance from the Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Health and Community Services and Ernst & Young, the organisation could not operate within the budget provided. In June 2003, Tiwi Health Board requested an early release of both Commonwealth and Northern Territory government funding for 2003-04 to address current liabilities. Unfortunately, we were unable to accede to this request.
None of this detracts from the successes of the health service delivery staff and the commitment of the Tiwi people themselves, which I acknowledge and applaud.
The process of involving the community in its own health services to the maximum extent practical is the best practice model, recognised nationally and internationally. This government will not walk away from the process of community control. We are committed to a partnership approach with other governments and the community, and that means being committed to overcoming problems when they arise.
I assure the Tiwi community that the organisation will continue to provide primary health care services while the company is under administration. Under the provisions of the voluntary administration, expressions of interest are required to be sought from parties interested in taking over services currently provided by the board. Accordingly, the administrator will be placing advertisements in paper later this week to this effect.
My department will be putting in a formal expression of interest for the ongoing delivery of those services. I understand the Commonwealth will take similar action in relation to the aged care services. Through this process I can guarantee that the Territory government will maintain current funding levels to health services on the Tiwi Islands. We have also received assurances from the Commonwealth that they will maintain their funding. We will ensure that the Tiwi community is consulted and involved in the process of redesigning the service within the budget allocated.
Creditors can be assured that the company is now under administration and the provisions of the Corporations Act will govern the treatment of creditors. I understand that the administrator called a meeting of creditors on Thursday, 2 October 2003. That meeting confirmed the administration arrangement and considered whether to appoint a creditor committee to advise the administrator. The creditors elected not to appoint a creditor committee.
This is a complex and very disappointing situation, but the Tiwi people and their health are now the focus of government.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report, although I agree with her that it is a very disappointing situation that has arisen on Tiwi. I know that there will be many members of this House who will be likewise disappointed with what has happened.
My view is that a statement is needed on this issue; it is a very important issue. Tiwi was chosen because it was arguably the easiest of the Aboriginal community areas to be moved into the zone roll out and to have community control of their health services because of the homogenous nature of the people there - the language groups are very similar - as opposed to other areas like Katherine West or Sunrise. It had certain advantages going for it. It was implemented with a great deal of care over a number years. I know many people worked very hard on the project.
It flags a concern about the other roll outs that are occurring at the moment. If Tiwi has fallen over, what does that indicate with regard to the other ones that are happening? As the minister said, this is a model that has been applauded nationally and internationally, and it was certainly something that many of us hoped would be substantial and sustained.
There have been comments made in the press, arguments that funding was not adequate for the area in that instead of being funded for 2000 people, they should have been funded for 2700. I am sure that that is coming from members of the board, the concern of inadequate funding. I wondered if the minister would comment on that.
To conclude, the opposition was very supportive, when we were in government, of this initiative. We certainly hope it will not be long before we see it back on its feet again.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, my first comment would be that what I was talking about was that the community control of health services was in fact was the best practice model nationally and internationally.
The PHCAP model is slightly different from the Tiwi model. What we are putting in place is a system which has many more checks and balances than this one. One of the issues with the Tiwi situation is because it is an incorporated body under the Corporations Act, it is much harder for either the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory to intervene when there are difficulties. This is being looked at very closely in the roll out of PHCAP. For example, the Katherine West Health Board, which is very successful, does not have this particular kind of structure and is working very successfully.
I can assure you that the Territory government is taking this very seriously. It is looking at how we can support the Tiwi people and how we can involve them still in services on the islands. If there are particular issues that the member for Port Darwin is interested in, I am happy to provide a briefing.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have had a request from the member for Sanderson to make a personal explanation. I have agreed because I have seen what the member for Sanderson intends to say, but I just remind him that he cannot introduce new matter or depart from what we have agreed upon.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, last night, the member for Macdonnell in this Chamber and, by way of media release, accused me of being, in his words: ‘an intellectual parasite prepared to leach off the cerebral efforts of others.’
The honourable member referred to the contributions I have made to debates in this Chamber and the way I have used materials from external sources in my contributions. In those contributions, I have expressed my views and used materials from books, articles and other sources pertinent to the topic under consideration.
I do not claim to be an expert on every topic that comes before this Chamber. It is part of my job to research material and find out more about the topics we are asked to consider. To this end, I often utilise the Parliamentary Library, journals and the Internet for research purposes. It is because I am not ‘an intellectual parasite prepared to leach off the cerebral efforts of others’ that I undertake this research off my own bat.
I was taken aback by the allegations levelled at me by the member for Macdonnell last night. Overnight, I have taken the opportunity to re-examine some of the contributions I have made. I had expected that all members would see that in those speeches, I have utilised material from other sources. I have never made a secret of the fact that I have used them. Often, I have brought the article or the book into the Chamber and read directly from it; but if this has not been the case, I apologise.
I reassure all members that I will continue to research material. I will continue to use this material and will make it very, very clear when the materials are being referred to and that they are being utilised. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make this statement.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act, to enshrine in legislation current licence conditions prohibiting the practice of book-up, and make it illegal for licensees authorised to only sell takeaway liquor, such as store licensees and liquor merchants, to provide book-up for the sale of liquor. The proposed amendment will also make it illegal for licensees to retain credit cards or debit cards as security for payment by an individual in relation to the sale of liquor.
Book-up is the practice of running up a tab or book with a merchant. Informal, short-term credit is provided, whereby security in the form of an individual’s social security cheque or key card, debit or credit cards and pin number is retained by the merchant. Payment of account usually occurs at the next pension day and is usually controlled by the merchant. In many cases the goods consist of liquor.
It should be noted that not all forms of book-up are unacceptable or inappropriate. There are acceptable forms of book-up that offer benefits to those involved. The government recognises this and has no desire to stop all book-up. However, there are problems when the book-up relates to liquor. It is widely recognised that in an uncontrolled environment, book-up practices can exacerbate problem drinking and problems associated with alcohol consumption, as it is a means of increasing access to the purchase of alcohol by those who can least afford it. The person with the drinking problem is caught in an endless cycle, which reinforces drinking and all of its associated problems. The person is also often captured by the particular outlet to make most of their purchases where their key card is retained by the outlet.
The concern about the book-up of alcohol and its potential impact on problem drinking was previously highlighted by the Legislative Assembly’s Sessional Committee on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol in 1991, when it recommended that conditions be put in place to prohibit licensees from giving book-up for alcohol. The Liquor Commission introduced licence conditions prohibiting the book-up of liquor in 1993. However, not all licensees embraced the spirit of the licence condition. Pernicious licensees often utilise the ambiguity of the provision to skirt the boundary. For instance, the licensee would provide a cash advance to the customer who would, in turn, use the cash to purchase alcohol. Compliance with the licence conditions have been difficult to police. Anecdotal evidence suggests that liquor book-up by licensees is still widespread.
The need for legislation has arisen from growing concern in recent time over antisocial behaviour associated with excessive alcohol consumption, and the findings from a recent hearing by the Licensing Commission into antisocial behaviour resulting from unscrupulous book-up practices. A legislative base is needed to establish the framework for a more effective system. This is achieved by making the current book-up restrictions on liquor a legislative requirement.
The legislative amendment reflects current licence conditions by stipulating that the payment for the sale of liquor must be made by one of the following methods: by legal tender; by credit card or debit card payment; by cheque; by debiting an approved deposit-taking institution; or by charging the business account in the case of a business customer. The bill also proposes to prohibit licensees from retaining credit cards and debit cards as security for payment by an individual for the sale of liquor.
Due to the difficulties experienced by the Licensing Commission in obtaining evidence of wrongdoing by licensees, the bill seeks to enhance the current regulatory regime by putting greater responsibility on licensees to maintain records of relevant transactions to substantiate that they are not in relation to the book-up of alcohol. Provision is made to enable the licensee to be prosecuted in a court of law if found to be in possession of another person’s key card, and the licensee is unable to produce evidence to show a legitimate purpose for keeping a person’s card. The onus of proof is with the licensee. However, if the director deems that prosecution is not warranted, the Licensing Commission may conduct its own hearing, in which case the onus of proof is with the director and the commission to prove any wrongdoing. Generally, prosecution actions would be the exception rather than the rule. Prosecution actions are only taken in particularly serious cases; for example, due to the gravity of the problem, or repetitive breaches by a licensee.
To ensure licensees know what they have to do regarding the minimum record-keeping requirement, a provision is made to enable the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing to issue guidelines in this regard. In a recent hearing by the Licensing Commission, it was found that consumers were booking up food and other necessities while their available cash was being used to buy liquor. The proposed amendment will enable those types of transactions to be more easily identified and, if necessary, action to be taken. Industry was consulted in May based on a proposal to outlaw all book-up - liquor and non-liquor - by stores with a liquor licence, unless the licensee was otherwise authorised by the commission. In response to industry concern, the proposal has been modified to outlaw book-up of liquor only, but with appropriate record-keeping requirements. There has not been an opportunity to consult with the industry on the revised proposal, but the commission’s proposed record-keeping guidelines will be raised with industry before the amendment takes effect.
The application of the amendment has been kept as narrow as possible by restricting it to store licensees. Unfortunately, the system is not adequately equipped to enable the Licensing Commission or the government to address only pernicious operators without sufficient proof of wrongdoing. Thus, all stores with liquor licences will need to maintain adequate records where they do retain cards or book-up items other than liquor, to demonstrate they are not in breach of the amendment. The amendment is necessary to enable the Licensing Commission and the Director of Licensing to take action on suspicion of wrongdoing. The proposed amendment makes the government’s intentions very clear and also establishes a more effective mechanism to ensure that licensees providing book-up practices are accountable.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 2003 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 10), which is item No 13 in the Orders of the Day on the Notice Paper, be discharged from the Notice Paper. The Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) that is being introduced today incorporates the amendments proposed by the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 10) that was introduced in October 2001.
The purpose of the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 10) introduced in October 2001 was, firstly, to allow for the new names of local government councils in the future and, secondly, for the avoidance of any doubt to confirm retrospectively the title chosen by the Tiwi people for their new local government body when it was established on 12 July 2001. Amendments that will achieve these objectives are incorporated in the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) that is being introduced today.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, we are dealing with as a separate motion, I take it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, this is just discharging it from the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I would just like to place on the record that I am surprised that the minister is going down this path. It is obviously a piece of foreplanning on his part, but we will accept the motion and we will not resist it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Local Government Amendment Bill 2003 is an important bill which will ensure that we continue to provide an effective legislative framework for the third tier of government in the Northern Territory. While the bill contains a variety of amendments, the overall aim and intent of the current Local Government Act is not changed. The major proposals are designed to reduce or minimise the legal differences between municipal councils and community government councils, and to more clearly define the roles of presiding members, elected members and the CEO of the councils.
The current Local Government Act came into operation on 1 June 1994 and was based on the groundbreaking act of 1985. A number of amendments were made in 1995 and in 2000. The bill before the House results from a further review which commenced in 1999. The proposed amendments were considered by the former government on more than one occasion but for various reasons were never finalised.
Also, there have been extensive consultations with councils in the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, LGANT, concerning the proposed amendments. The process of consultation with LGANT was undertaken over a considerable period during the development of the proposed amendments. In addition to the major proposals that I have mentioned, the bill also introduces a number of innovations such as allowing a member to attend a meeting of council by telephone, tele-conferencing or other technological means; a change of title from ‘clerk’ to ‘CEO’ for the person who leads and manages a council’s administration; and clarification of a number of issues that have been found to be unclear.
I will now turn to the major provisions of the bill and provide members with the reasoning behind some of the more important proposed amendments. I should note at the outset that the bill contains amendments in relation to penalties under the Local Government Act and regulations, resulting from a review of all current penalties for Territory legislation to ensure that they remain contemporary. In addition, there are a number of amendments which simply changes the name ‘community government scheme’ to ‘community government constitution’. The term ‘constitution’ is considered to be more readily understood by communities and the people it affects and is technically more correct.
Clause 5 of the bill contains the same amendments proposed in the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001. This amendment is still required for the same reasons as outlined in the second reading speech of 24 October 2001. In the second reading on 24 October 2001 the amendment provides a capacity for titles other than those currently specified in section 5 of the act to be used as part of the title of a council established under the Local Government Act. While the amendment is required to protect the title of the existing Tiwi Islands Local Government it will also assist in establishing sensible titles for other re-forming councils.
Proposed clause 9A will clarify the circumstances where an employee may be a member of a council. Under the current provisions of the act, an employee of a community government council may also be an elected member. There is a clear capacity for the existence of a conflict of interest to present in such situations. In the past it has been considered that with very small community governments it was not feasible to restrict the pool of those who could be elected or employed. Whilst there are still many small councils it is considered that it is time that, at least for key positions, it is no longer appropriate to allow the CEO, Chief Financial Manager or Chief Works Manager to also be a member of a council. Where other employees are members of council or vice versa, the council will now be required to obtain the minister’s approval for each situation.
A number of amendments are proposed in clauses 10, 11 and 12 to clarify matters related to the term of office of a member; allow a declaration by a member to be provided to a nominated person as well as the CEO; to allow the minister to intervene where an elected member has failed to provide a declaration within the specified time; and to ensure that it is clear that a member’s office may only be declared vacant where the member misses three meetings of the council without apology.
As you aware, section 13 of the act provided for ‘reversible’ resignations by council members who wish to stand for election to the Territory parliament. Section 13 of the act was repealed in 1995 and was reinserted by the Local Government Amendment Bill 2002, (Serial 44), introduced by the member for Nelson on 27 February 2002 and commenced on 16 July 2002. Legal advice has now been received that indicates that it is possible to extend the application of this provision to also allow council members to stand as candidates for federal elections after submission of a reversible resignation. The proposed amendment will allow this to occur. The Australian Services Union has raised concerns in relation to the ability of council staff to stand for elections. The concern is that currently, staff members are not able to submit revocable resignations as is the case for aldermen and public servants in the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Public Service. I have requested that my department investigate this matter and provide recommendations that would provide equity.
As the modifications to section 13 of the act involved quite a number of textual changes, it was found that it would be simpler to repeal section 13 and substitute new provisions to modernise the style to make it easier to read and understand. Clause 14 of the bill seeks to repeal Part 2, Division 3 of the act, and two new divisions are inserted into the act following section 14; that is, Division 2A and Division 3. Division 2A will define the role of members under the act. There are no specific provisions in the act at present that describe the role of members of council. This division will apply to both municipal councils and community government councils. Division 3 of the act is repealed and a new Division 3 is inserted which relates to council meetings.
In addition, Part 3, Division 4 of the act, which relates to the meetings of municipal councils, is also repealed by clause 21 of the bill. The new Division 3, which is a combination of former sections 15 to 19 and sections 51 to 57 of the act relating to meeting procedures, will now apply to meetings of all councils, that is, both municipal councils and community government councils. This is simply a means of clarifying current requirements of the act. Clause 15 seeks amendment of section 20(1) of the act to make it clear and for consistency that a member must declare an interest in a matter if the member has an interest in that matter or a possible interest in a matter that could or may arise in the future.
Section 20(2) of the act currently sets out four situations where a member is deemed to have an interest in a matter before a council. This subsection is proposed to be amended to clarify that the four situations are not exclusive. That is, these matters are not the only situations that could amount to an interest.
In addition, a new section 20(4) is provided to allow a member to declare a potential interest in a matter before the council or a committee meeting and for the meeting to decide, by resolution, whether the potential, but as yet undeclared interest, needs to be declared by the member. As proposed under section 21 of the act, the member with the potential interest is not permitted to vote on the resolution.
Clause 16 of the bill seeks to repeal and reinsert section 21 of the act with minor amendments in a modernised style to make it easier to read and understand. One substantive amendment permits a member who has declared an interest or possible interest in a matter to remain at the meeting and take part in the discussion, however, the member may not vote on a motion as to whether the council should request the minister’s approval for the member to take part in consideration of the substantive matter. A member can only remain at a subsequent meeting during consideration of the substantive matter or to vote on the substantive matter if the minister has given approval.
The amendment to section 21(3) of the act allows the minister, if he or she is of the opinion that it is in the interests of council or the residents of a council area, to approve that a member take part in a discussion and allow the member to vote on the substantive matter.
These changes to sections 20 and 21 of the act are intended to clarify and improve the procedures for declaring an interest. They do not lessen the duty imposed upon members to declare an interest, or possible interest, in a matter under discussion.
As you are aware, municipal elections are held on the last Saturday of May of each leap year. Section 38 of the act is being amended to change this date to the last Saturday in March of each leap year. The proposed amendment will allow newly-elected councils to finalise their next budget and their management plans, rather than inherit them from the outgoing council.
The amended provisions will also allow the Chief Electoral Officer to change the date of the election if the last Saturday in March of a leap year is Easter Saturday. The date may be adjusted two weeks either side to allow for Easter. The Chief Electoral Officer will be required to give at least six months notice of such a change. Following discussions with LGANT, it has been agreed that there is now insufficient time for the date of the municipal elections to be brought forward and held in March 2004. Therefore, the 2004 municipal elections will still be held on the last Saturday of May for the year 2004. The amendment to change the date of municipal elections to the last Saturday in March will commence from the 2008 municipal elections.
Section 58(2) of the act provides that certain land may not be rated by council under the act, which includes Crown land, roads, parks, cemeteries, museums, hospitals, schools, charities and including public benevolent institutions, etcetera. There are an increasing number of organisations seeking exemptions from rates as public benevolent institutions even though the activity on the land, or a portion of the activity on the land, is clearly of a commercial nature. A new subsection is being added to section 58 to make it clear that such commercial business operations, or the portion of the activity that is clearly of a commercial business nature, are statutorily excluded from qualifying as PBIs, and thereby claiming exemption from rates.
Section 64 of the act is amended by adding a new provision requiring the declaration of rates to specify the dates on which rate instalments are due, if the council chooses to permit the payment of rates by instalments. A new subsection is also proposed to be inserted to permit a council to declare more than one minimum rate where land within the specified category includes land divided under the Unit Titles Act.
Councils will be able to declare a second minimum rate where, in the opinion of the council, the imposition of the first minimum amount would be inequitable having regard to the value of the parcels in the category. The amendment is intended to allow council to mitigate the effects of a minimum rate which might apply to industrial blocks where the zone also contains strata-titled self-storage sheds.
It is proposed to insert a new section 74A into the act to allow the minister to correct an irregularity in a council’s annual declaration of its rates and charges. It is proposed to amend section 75 of the act to include a requirement for a council to specify certain details in the public notices to inform ratepayers of the declaration of rates and charges. The public notice must include details of the amount intended to be raised by the rates, the total assessed value of land, details of rate instalments, dates and discounts for early payment.
It is proposed to insert a new section 88A into the act to allow a council to adjust a previous minimum rate. It will permit a council to rectify an anomaly or to redress an inequity between the minimum rate actually imposed for the previous year or years and the minimum rate that the council is proposing to impose for the subsequent year under new section 64(1A), whether this relates to either a property or class of properties or a ratepayer or a class of ratepayers.
Section 90 of the principal act is proposed to be amended to make it quite clear that general rates and charges made for a service provided by a council become an overriding statutory charge on the land.
Section 115 of the act will be amended to clarify that the general competence powers of councils to specifically include the power for councils to levy charges, dues, fares, fees and rents, and to also grant permits, licences, authorities and registrations. Whilst it was considered that there is a general power to do these things in section 115, a more specific description will avoid any doubt.
The proposed amendment to section 122 of the act relates to the functions of a community government council. A community government constitution sets out the permissible functions that may be performed by the council. As these functions have become virtually standardised, all council functions will now be included in schedule 2 of the act. This will enable less complex constitutions to be prepared for community government councils in the future. Schedule 2 presently lists the functions of municipal councils only, but is amended by clause 68 of this bill. The declaration of functions given to a community government council can be only those functions listed in the instrument of approval or all the functions of local government specified in schedule 2 of the act, other than those that may be excluded in the instrument of approval, as the case may be.
The proposed new section 122A of the act will allow the minister to declare a function of a council as a core function. In declaring a core function, the minister will have the power to specify the standard of performance a council must achieve. Where a council fails to achieve the standard of performance required, it will be possible for the minister to issue a direction to a council that it achieves that standard. This capacity is proposed as a method of ensuring that constituents receive at least a minimal level of service from their council.
Section 128 of the act has enabled a body other than a council – namely, the Nhulunbuy Corporation – to make by-laws for the purposes of dog control. The Nhulunbuy Corporation has requested further power to make by-laws for the control of public places. The amendment to section 128 of the act will enable the minister to approve the exercise of additional local government powers to a body such as the Nhulunbuy Corporation.
Section 142 of the act is amended to change the title of a ‘clerk’ of a council to CEO; that is, chief executive officer. This is a significant change, but is considered necessary given the higher profile being placed on local government in the Northern Territory. Most states now refer to the clerk as the chief executive officer or general manager. In the Territory, town clerk or council clerk is currently used flexibly and inconsistently. Many councils also use CEO. While some councils would prefer to adopt their own nomenclature, the title of CEO has been adopted for consistency.
It is proposed to insert a new section 142A into the act, which will define the role of the CEO, to clearly spell out the duties of a CEO for the benefit of elected members, council, and the public at large. This new provision expands on the basic set of functions specified for the CEO in section 142(2) of the act.
The proposed new section 143A at clause 40 sets out the employment principles to be observed by councils. While councils are expected to generally follow reasonable human resource management principles as practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelt out for councils in the current act. This new provision will cure this deficiency.
Under section 144 of the act, a council may delegate many of its powers and functions to an officer or employee but not the power of delegation. It is proposed to amend section 144 of the act to enable the CEO to delegate the powers or functions that have been delegated to the CEO by council where an expressed condition is attached to enable the further delegation. In addition, the CEO may also delegate any his powers and functions under this act.
Section 148 of the act is amended to provide a requirement that a resolution of a council to dismiss their CEO cannot take effect under 14 days after the minister has received written advice of the resolution. It is not intended that the minister assumes any responsibility for dismissals. It is only proposed that council advise the minister. However, it may allow the minister or the department to offer intervention in the form of mediation and negotiation where this is deemed desirable. Also, an investigation could be instigated. The provision is not intended to frustrate a council in the exercise of its responsibilities. Experience indicates that some protection is warranted from impetuous and unfair dismissals particularly as these can involve substantial claims before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Section 149 of the act is amended by inserting a new section 149(6) to the act which states that details of rates and charges paid to a council by a ratepayer are not to be included in the publicly available rate book. The ratepayer’s credit worthiness or payment history should not be publicly available from this source. These details are not necessary for determining whether rates are outstanding on a parcel of land. A council is already able to give a certificate to this effect pursuant to section 223 of the act.
It is proposed to insert a new section 149A into the act which permits a person, upon application in writing to the CEO, to exclude from publicly available documents and records the personal details including telephone numbers of a person that may lead to his or her identification or location. The person’s application should demonstrate reasonable grounds for the request.
Section 149 of the act prescribes that a number of council documents and records must be available for public inspection. An example of these is the rate book pursuant to section 149(1)(d). It is desirable for the name and telephone number of certain persons in these documents and records be silent. Examples are persons who may be subject to harassment, domestic violence or witness protection programs. Silent entries are permitted in telephone directories and Commonwealth, state and territory electoral rolls. The proposed amendment will permit silent records to be provided in council documents and records where appropriate.
An amendment to section 150 of the act will permit surveys of residents, not just electors, when a council conducts a survey. At present, section 150 of the act provides that a council may only conduct referendums or surveys of electors. The amendment is required to permit a resident or members of the public to participate in a council survey. That is the wider populace. Referendums should be restricted to electors only.
Section 155 of the act is amended by inserting new section 155(2) which provides that a council should not give, grant, advance, or loan money, services, or goods of any kind to a person other than in accordance with its adopted estimates unless there is a resolution by the council for the specific purpose. There continues to be demands placed upon some CEOs of councils for allowances and wages to be paid in advance to members and employees. These are often not repaid. The proposed prescription offers support to council CEOs in the lawful administration of their council.
It is proposed to insert new section 161A into the act to prescribe that a business plan must be prepared by councils. With a need for improved accountability by councils and for effective planning, the new section is proposed to require that business plans must be prepared by all councils. These plans will consist of an annual business plan that is an integral part of the ongoing strategic plan which covers the ensuing three years. Both plans will be reviewed and updated annually and prescribed contents of the two business plans are contained in the Accounting Code, which was adopted under the Local Government Accounting Regulations in August 2002.
In addition, section 165 of the act, which provided for the preparation of an annual financial statement and annual report, have been repealed and two new sections substituted. It is necessary for councils to be more open and accountable with their financial affairs and to report on their operations and activities on a regular basis. There is a new stand alone provision which requires a council to prepare annual financial statements which relate to the income, expenditure, assets and liabilities of the council for the period. The financial statements will be prepared as general purpose reports, as currently prescribed in the Local Government Accounting Code. A separate provision is provided which requires a council to report on its operations and activities for the past financial year. There are expanded reporting requirements for the preparation of annual reports prescribed in the Local Government Accounting Code.
Section 170 of the act relates to borrowings by councils, which currently require ministerial approval. There is some confusion as to what constitutes ‘borrowings’ and when an approval may be required. It is proposed to amend section 170 of the act to extend the meaning of ‘borrowings’ to include several forms of leases, particularly operating leases and finance leases except those with a value of less than $10 000. However, if the maximum total value of all leases exceeds $35 000 at any one time, then the minister’s approval must be sought for all subsequent leases.
Section 243 of the act is amended to confirm that failure to obey a lawful direction of an inspector under this provision is an offence. This amendment will correct a drafting ambiguity.
Section 264 of the act has been re-drafted to provide clarity and certainty for the suspension of members of council. The list of circumstances wherein a council may be suspended has been amended to include failure to carry out a function that has been prescribed as a core function. That is, such as road maintenance and garbage removal and disposal.
In addition, it is proposed to include a provision to allow the minister, following the initial suspension of council, to appoint a person to be the manager of the council. The manager is appointed as an Inspector of Local Government under proposed amendments to section 241(2) of the act, and I refer members to clause 61 of this bill. This will provide the manager with the same powers and functions as an inspector of local government in which to complete the investigation of council affairs. The manager will restore council services and conduct an investigation of the business affairs and financial circumstances of the council and take any action necessary. In addition, the manager is to provide a report to the minister within an agreed time frame. These proposals will allow the processes to correct the failure by council to be remedied in a quicker and easier way than under the current act.
The rules of natural justice will, of course, prevail, with the minister advising the suspended members of council the findings of the inspector’s report, and seeking further submissions from those members. This will enable the minister to take into consideration any special or extenuating circumstances in his final deliberations on the matter, which may need to be taken into account when making a recommendation to the Administrator that the suspended members of council be either reinstated or dismissed.
Under proposed new section 264A and, after considering the manager’s report and any submissions by the suspended members, the minister must recommend to the Administrator the members of council be reinstated or that they are dismissed from office. If the members of council are dismissed, then the minister must advise the Legislative Assembly within five sitting days of the dismissal. Should it be found that there are issues of fraudulent or criminal behaviour, the minister can still appoint a commissioner under proposed section 264B to inquire into and investigate the matters referred by the minister to the commissioner for consideration.
New section 264C follows similar provisions contained in former section 264, concerning the holding of elections following the dismissal of a council. These provisions are now provided in a separate section to make it easier to read and understand. As mentioned, it is proposed to amend schedule 2 of the act to include functions currently included in community government constitutions, that is, formerly called community government schemes. As schedule 2 will now be applicable to all councils, not just municipal councils as at present, the heading of schedule 2 will also be amended to ‘Functions of Councils’.
The further amendments listed in schedules 1 and 2 of this bill make minor amendments to the act and the various local government regulations as listed. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 8 October 2003.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services on the statement he delivered to the House on 12 August on the O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources.
Providing $75m towards building our police force indicates very strongly to the community that this government is not only serious about the safety of the community, it is actually doing something about it. The Department of Health and Community Services worked closely with the Police Department for many years. An additional 200 police officers will not only lead to a safer community, but also contribute to the health of Territorians. There are many areas of my portfolio where Health and Community Services staff work closely with police officers and Aboriginal community police officers. I will be looking at some of these areas in this statement.
Staff safety is a prominent area of concern, especially in rural and remote communities. The additional police numbers, in conjunction with the extra 28 community police officers, will allow for an increased presence in rural and remote communities. My department has initiated a number of strategies to develop a coordinated approach to staff safety, particularly in remote communities, to assist in this reduction. These include: 30 duress alarms have been installed in remote communities, with another 25 planned into 2003-04; six staff participated in a professional assault response training program – a five day program focussing on identifying and minimising workplace aggression, assault, behaviour; and the Department of Health and Community Services aggression management policy is reviewed and endorsed by the CEO biannually.
During 2003-04, a safety audit of buildings occupied by Health staff will be conducted to assess safety issues, particularly relating to the entry and exit points, lighting and access to parking. I recently visited a number of remote communities in Central Australia to see first-hand the progress towards better health services in the region, and to listen to community views on health issues. At one meeting in particular, the link between effective policing and health services was made particularly clear.
Nyirripi is a community west of Yuendemu. It is unfortunate that, over the past year, primary health care services to the community has been disrupted by the need to withdraw nursing staff who have faced violent incidents. This is not a step we take lightly; it is an action of last resort. However, in the end, I cannot ask my departmental staff to stay in a situation where they feel under threat. Obviously, part of the solution here is for the community and the department to talk through the issues and put in place a process by which the community can assist nurses when they feel under threat. It is about opening up communication and putting in place processes that give the community itself the ability to defuse potentially threatening situations. Indeed, my department is already conducting discussion with representatives of Nyirripi community on how we can do just that.
However, it was also put to me that the community itself needs to be able to call on police for assistance. Currently, there are no police stationed at Nyirripi and responses from the nearest police station at Yuendumu are, of course, not always able to be timely. If serious threats do arise towards health staff - be they nurses, Aboriginal health workers or others - the police, however diligent and effective, may not be able to arrive in time to address a situation that may lead in the worst case to withdrawal of health services. I use this only as an example; I am sure there are many remote communities facing a similar situation. I believe it is another illustration of how this government’s plans to build the Northern Territory Police force will have beneficial effects for the health of Territorians.
Mandatory reporting of aggressive incidents is encouraged throughout my department, and data is compiled to ensure that informed data is available. At the Royal Darwin Hospital, an active multi-disciplinary aggression management working party has been established. The hospital-based police officer plays an important role in this working party. The working party provides a forum for the review, management and reduction of aggressive incidents and behaviour to ensure the delivery of safe health care within the hospital. Royal Darwin Hospital also has two staff security officers per shift. Their role is to provide a range of patient and staff support services, including staff and patient security. They liaise closely with the hospital-based police officer. Security officers provide rapid response to all duress alarms and are part of the aggression management team.
The aggression management response team comprises staff from security, the nursing resource consultant and work area manager. Royal Darwin Hospital has its own hospital police officer. Services include providing support and advice to staff on patient management and response to aggressive incidents. The police officer plays a vital role in providing on-site support Monday to Friday during normal business hours to both patients and hospital staff. Issues such as domestic violence, assault, motor vehicle accidents resulting in personal injuries, theft within a hospital, and other serious issues can be dealt with within the hospital. The hospital-based police officer now has his own office within the main building of the hospital making him more accessible and able to work in a confidential environment.
Royal Darwin Hospital is improving its reporting mechanisms through enhanced data collection and analysis. Zero tolerance signage is displayed at all entrances to hospital buildings and this is enforced by hospital management. Staff are encouraged to report incidents to police and seek prosecution where possible.
Strategies in Alice Springs Hospital include a 24-hour security guard presence, regular foot patrols provided by the local police force, and information from staff safety aggression management. Staff safety at Alice Springs Hospital is of paramount importance and a range of initiatives have been implemented to reduce the number of incidents occurring, including a 24-hour security guard presence which involves external patrols. The police include Alice Springs Hospital on foot patrols. Duress alarms are in clinical and non-clinical areas, with a duress team to respond - which is a new initiative - and security cameras are strategically placed throughout the main building with a monitoring screen at the switchboard. The video surveillance is available to police, which is also a new initiative.
In the area of alcohol and other drugs issues, my department has a very strong relationship with police. Petrol sniffing has devastating effects on the individual, their families and the community, and is a symptom of underlying problems. The petrol sniffing programs in themselves are not enough; there is a need for communities and government working together to address underlying issues both in prevention and intervention. An example of police, my department and the community working together is a project being instigated at Borroloola, where the Police Community Youth Development Unit, and funds set aside by my department for a trial youth centre in Borroloola, have been combined to provide opportunities for young people to gather together in a supervised environment and participate in meaningful development activities.
Young people wandering without purpose or being left to their own devices can pose a number of risks. Commonality and outcomes has enabled the two initiatives to be developed jointly. The Health and Community Services initiative is focussed on prevention and early intervention, supporting and enhancing parental monitoring of young people and the provision of safe activities that build protective factors such as resilience, self-esteem and coping skills. Promoting youth involvement with the local community and improving family and community wellbeing are also key outcomes to be achieved. These outcomes are clearly linked with the broader outcomes of the Juvenile Diversion Scheme and the establishment of community youth development units in remote indigenous communities.
The purpose of the community youth diversion units is to alleviate youth boredom, give young people a sense of purpose, and provide an opportunity to develop life skills that will prevent offending behaviour and assist young people to become responsible members of their community. The unit aims to provide support including coordination of youth services, case management of young people on pre-court diversion programs and for those at risk, and sport and recreation and life skills activities for all young people in the community. It also seeks to provide an umbrella organisation for all government initiatives directed at youth within the community. A similar project is being developed with Tennant Creek’s Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation Community Development Unit.
My department has responsibility for at risk young people under the Community Welfare Act. Youth Support Services fund are under the support of accommodation assistance program and Family Children Services provide a range of services for youth at risk including SAP services which provide accommodation and support service for at risk, homeless, young people – for example, Casey House Youth Refuge in Darwin; Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Support Services, which includes an accommodation and support program for young, pregnant, indigenous girls; as well as a range of programs such as Deadly Treadleys, our bike building project. Darwin Youth Beat is a mobile service that provides outreach support to young people on the streets at night in the Casuarina precinct and the northern suburbs.
Four mobile youth outreach workers commenced in late December operating three nights per week from two vehicles. This service provides information and referral, a crisis response and is active in diverting young people from risky behaviour. Public space protocols have been developed in the Casuarina precinct which let young people know what their rights and responsibilities are in the use of public and community spaces; E-cruz, the Nightcliff trial youth centre, providing after school activities for young people; and working with the Alice Springs’ community in the development of the safe families project.
The Youth at Risk Taskforce, established under the Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention has two tasks: developing a Territory-wide strategy for youth at risk; and immediate solutions for Darwin and Palmerston. There are three permanent members on the taskforce from police – which is the lead agency – the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and my department. The Departments of Justice and Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs have part-time membership.
Extensive consultation is taking place across the Northern Territory with an emphasis on working through already established structures such as crime prevention committees. An extensive literature review has helped to inform the development of the strategy and the strategy is currently being drafted. The taskforce has identified the importance of a range of interventions at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels, for example, early intervention through to intensive interventions with families and young people. The taskforce has also identified the importance of working together across government and with families and communities. The time line for the taskforce to make its recommendations is early December.
An MOU exists between police and my department to provide national drug strategy funding to police for the development and implementation of alcohol and other drug strategies within the Northern Territory. The Department of Health and Community Services funds a senior policy officer in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy Unit of the Northern Territory Police, to design, develop and coordinate an alcohol and other drugs policy and programs within police.
The Department of Health and Community Services is the leading agency for the Diversions Advisory Group of which police is a member. The Advisory Group develops and funds juvenile diversionary programs for young people involved in drug activity. One such program is the Police Pre-court Diversionary Program. This program recently commenced and I look forward to the minister reporting back to the House on its success.
Another aspect of the close interaction and cooperation between police and my department is in relation to the important issue of domestic violence. A good example of this interaction is the Northern Territory hospitals violence project that occurred in Royal Darwin Hospital and the Katherine District Hospital late last year. While this was a sensitive project in many ways, statistics, although disturbing, revealed a snapshot of the incidence of domestic violence in the community through presentations at the emergency department and maternity unit at the Katherine District Hospital.
It is well-known that, unfortunately, a great deal of police work is taken up with domestic violence issues. Sadly, domestic violence is the principal cause of death in women aged 21 to 34 years in the Territory. There is another concerning statistic that shows that domestic violence is responsible for the highest number of hospital admissions in the form of physical injury. Physical injury resulting directly from violence includes a predominance of injury to the body, chest, breast and abdomen, pointing to the deliberate sexual and intimate nature of domestic violence.
Sadly, domestic violence has also been identified as the single most significant trigger for female suicide. In 1998-99, a total of 2552 people sought help from services in the Territory as a direct result of family or domestic violence. Unfortunately, this may just be the tip of the iceberg, as many cases go unreported for a variety of reasons. During the survey period at Royal Darwin Hospital, a staggering 25% of all patients that presented with injuries were directly attributable to domestic violence.
The project was very worthwhile in the sense that the information gathered led to increased ability to effectively assess the variety of injuries and social implications of the presentations. Not surprisingly, the vast bulk of victims of abuse were women. Indigenous women were over-represented over the month of the survey period. The presence of a police officer based at Royal Darwin Hospital gave staff the opportunity to follow up some of the cases with the patient’s consent. The close cooperation between health staff and police during the trial has, hopefully, made some inroads into the numbers of presentations of domestic violence in those two hospitals. The training and awareness developed during the trials in both Katherine and Darwin hospitals has increased the ability of staff to identify and refer the victims of domestic violence to appropriate agencies, such as the police and other supporting non-government organisations.
In some cases, domestic violence spills over towards other family members, particularly children. The relationship between police and child protection staff in my department is a crucial one. As we are all aware in this Chamber, the Martin government has placed an enormous emphasis on substantially improving child protection in the community. Keeping our children safe inside and outside of the home environment is integral to each child’s future development. As a government, we have acknowledged that child protection issues identified in the recent SNAICC Report must be improved immediately. That is why this government is placing significant additional funding and staffing into our Family and Children’s Services.
In conjunction with the increasing resources, my department has also begun a review of child protection in the Northern Territory. The review will engage a broad range of stakeholders, including examining involvement and relationship between our departmental offices in FACS and the police.
My department has an excellent working relationship with our police force in many area. One example is the Sexual Assault Referral Centre, where police, in conjunction with medical, nursing, social workers and other departmental staff, deal with the sensitive issue of sexual assault, which sometimes, tragically, involves children. The cooperative approach between police and departmental officers ensures that every effort is made to reduce the impact of such assaults on the individuals involved. Needless to say, the success of the unit also contributes to the broadening of the relationship between police and the department.
The O’Sullivan Report and the government’s response to the report, by injecting a massive increase in resources to police, will not only assist the police force itself. The broader implications of the review will ensure that many areas of my department will benefit from the response. Importantly, areas of child protection and domestic violence will see important gains from the investment that this government has made into our police force.
In Central Australia, Family and Children’s Services has been leading the development of a protocol with the night youth patrol, police and other agencies, providing after hours services to children and young people.
In addition, Family and Children’s Services and other agencies have established the Child and Youth Safety Committee. This committee and its constituent members have developed a plan for responding to the need of children and young people who are on the streets at night and for the provision of follow up and other family support services.
In accordance with the Mental Health Act, there are unfortunate times when people are at risk to themselves or the community. A memorandum of understanding was established between the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Health and Community Services in June 2002 to establish a cooperative framework for the effective and appropriate management of persons apparently suffering from mental illness in circumstances where the intervention of the Northern Territory Police force has become necessary. A Mental Health and Police Liaison Committee was established to oversee the application of this MOU, and to maintain liaison between the police and Mental Health Services. This committee consists of representatives from police and the Mental Health Services in Darwin and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory Community Advisory Group on Mental Health.
This committee meets twice a year; the most recent meeting was 6 October 2003. At this meeting, the committee agreed that a review of the MOU is timely, and members have been requested to provide recommendations for amendments within the next six weeks. An extraordinary meeting will take place in early December to progress this issue. Further communication will also take place at the next meeting of the Top End and Central Australian regional advisory teams. These teams report to the Mental Health and Police Liaison Committee, and comprise representatives from regional police stations and local Mental Health Services. These teams ensure that local operational concerns are addressed. The next meeting of the Top End regional team is scheduled to take place in November. In my department, the Top End Mental Health Service provides training to police on mental health problems and how to respond to people who are experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.
It is very clear that, in relation to O’Sullivan Report, the huge increase in funding to police will make a significant difference, both to the health of Territorians, as well as to the safety of Territorians. I commend the minister for his statement, and for his enthusiasm in Cabinet when he was able to get this money from the government. I congratulate him and thank him for his statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to add my congratulations to the minister. He inherited a very difficult portfolio, one that many of us living throughout the Territory would understand was riddled with serious problems, and he had the strength and the wisdom to commission an independent inquiry. An independent inquiry is no easy task for a government to commission. It lays itself bare and wide open. A whole range of recommendations, some 112 recommendations, very comprehensive, was a result of that independent inquiry.
I acknowledge the good choice of who undertook the inquiry, former Queensland Police Commissioner, Jim O’Sullivan, and his right hand man Peter Forster. They are both very impressive, intelligent and well-versed police operatives. I had the pleasure of meeting them and discussing law and order issues when they came to my Karama electorate office during the inquiry. They met with the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, of which I am a member, having founded it. The committee and I were very impressed by the way in which both Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster were able to very quickly grasp the essence of what we were saying about law and order issues in our particular patch of the northern suburbs. On behalf of residents and traders, we expressed that there was a desire for regular patrols of police; people wanted to see police back out on the beat and improved response times to incidents. Clearly, outcomes up to these are all tied to a level of resources.
While I was doorknocking the electorate in 2001, prior to the election, I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss law and order issues with police who were living in the electorate. They were quite frank in what they had to say. They said that the force was suffering from an incredibly low morale, and it was due to low numbers. Police were exhausted, they were continually working overtime. They watched an attrition of their very best and finest officers to other forces, such as the Australian Federal Police and interstate police forces. Post the election, I continued to keep in touch with these hard-working police officers, and I kept saying to them: ‘The Labor Martin government is listening and we will action your concerns’.
I also spoke to police spouses who had a series of complaints about the condition of their housing and who, in trying to improve conditions for themselves and their children - where spouses putting up with their husband or partner being away for extraordinary periods of times with the amount of overtime they were working, basically eating out, raising the children on their own, concerned for their own wellbeing - would request the Police Department to upgrade their basic housing regarding putting on a screen door or improving deadlocks and the answer was: ‘No, do it at your own expense’.
It was certainly extremely refreshing to know that all of these matters, with no exception, are comprehensively addressed in the 112 recommendations provided in the O’Sullivan assessment. This all does come at a cost: a $75m injection of funds to provide the Northern Territory with a force that can cater to community needs and community expectations. $75m has been committed by the Martin Labor government to fund the 112 recommendations provided in the O’Sullivan assessment. That will provide for 150 more constables, 25 experienced sergeants, 30 ACPOs and auxiliaries, 80 civilian staff, and an upgrade and improvement of police equipment and conditions.
How on earth is this going to be done? They are already recruiting and training the maximum number of constables each year: 120, as opposed to the situation we had from 1991 to 1994 when there was, shamefully, a freeze on police recruitment. This is absolutely one of the blackest marks that you can make against previous governments, because this has led to an extreme shortage of experienced police; for example, at our sergeant level.
There is good news contained in the report regarding the 80 civilians. This will have the effect of getting more police back out on the beat; they will free up police from duties that really only requires a civilian to undertake.
I remember I spent some months post-election as the local member lobbying both the Officer-in-Charge at Casuarina and my Police minister at the time, to get some on-the-beat work done around the area. It was a surprise to me one day when I had an officer knock at the electorate office door and come in. He introduced himself to me and I said: ‘What are you doing, mate?’. He said: ‘Well, I am out on the beat; I am coming through the shopping centre’. He had the broadest smile on his face and he was a big strapping officer. I said: ‘This is great news; I have been asking for this. This is fantastic’. He said: ‘I have to thank you. This is the first time in seven years I have been able to go out on the beat’. I have to say I just stood there in shock; I could not believe it was the first time in seven years he had had the opportunity to go out on the beat. He was delighted; he raved to me about how police really enjoy the on-the-beat work. He said that they get a great deal of job satisfaction being able to go out on the beat, be proactive, connect with their communities, talk to shop owners, shoppers, youths, the elderly, the people in their community that they very much are a part of, that on-the-beat policing can never be underestimated; it is the most important and critical aspect to good community policing.
The other thing I saw with the response around Karama of having a police officer back out on the beat – people were delighted. They were coming up and saying: ‘Did you see the policeman in the shopping centre today? Isn’t that fantastic?’. That was followed up and I have to congratulate the Officer-in-charge of Casuarina because they really did respond. They really did, under enormous resourcing difficulties, respond to community needs. We have police on bicycles out on patrol. We have the mounted police of which I am a great advocate. There is very much a good role for mounted police in the climatic conditions of the Northern Territory. Mounted police are a type of police that people respond to very positively; children rush up and say hello because of the element of the horse being involved, and there is an exchange of banter. They are agile, they can get down the laneways, they can see over the high fences, and they have very good communication skills with the guys in the cars. My view is we could always do with more mounted police. We also had police out on motorbikes and patrolling in cars.
It was heartening to get the feedback from the community, heartening for people to say: ‘I have started to feel safe for the first time in years, and thank you. It is because I can see our police.’ Certainly people are aware of the way the media deals with police stories and they are aware of a lot of negativity surrounding police work, but by far and away the majority of constituents I speak to hold our police in very high esteem, and are very grateful to the role they play in our society. They acknowledge that in the past, response times have been inadequate, but they are also acknowledging that that is starting to improve. There has been a noticeable improvement in response to incidents in the experience of certainly the residents of Karama and Malak, particularly in the last year or so. The recommendation of more police being put back out on to operational duties just enhances that whole aspect of an ability for police to improve their response times.
For our police themselves, many of the recommendations contained in the O’Sullivan assessment that will be implemented provide for improved living and working conditions. This is absolutely critical to arresting the unacceptable attrition rate of good personnel who simply could not bear the strain of their jobs due to under-resourcing and the highly stressful nature of the job as well. The underpinning provisions of more police and more support for our police, I believe, is money extremely well spent.
Our community for many years has demanded better policing. Our police for many years have struggled under inadequate resourcing, morale-sapping endless overtime and a real lack of resources that are impediments to their jobs. The O’Sullivan assessment, 112 recommendations, radically draws the line under that, and we can move into the future with confidence, in the knowledge that our police will finally be adequately resourced.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the O’Sullivan assessment team of former Queensland police commissioner, Jim O’Sullivan, and his very able right hand man, Peter Forster. They have done a fine job for Territorians. They have come here, gone the length and the breadth of the Territory, talked to police, community stakeholders and agencies everywhere, and have come up with 112 very reasonable, fine and focussed recommendations.
Fundamentally, it would be meaningless if the government did not accept the recommendations. Territorians who have analysed and scrutinised government actions over the years know that the normal pattern as a result of reports or inquiries or assessments or reviews for recommendations is to be paid lip service and sit on the shelf to rot, where we then go through a compounding of the problems that led to the inquiry or review in the first place. How refreshing! How incredibly refreshing that we have a fundamental, complete and utter commitment from the Territory government to spend the $75m it will take to implement the O’Sullivan assessment.
I congratulate the police minister. I know he is the driving force behind this action. I congratulate the Cabinet ministers whom I know have been very supportive. Our Chief Minister has been very supportive. I look forward to being able to see more police out on the beat, to hear of improved response times, and to steer a community where, once again, we can have faith that there is proactive policing, rather than just reactive policing.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Service’ statement in respect to the O’Sullivan Report into police resources. First of all, I applaud Mr O’Sullivan, and Mr Forster who also contributed immensely to the report, which is a very comprehensive report that has been described as a ‘warts and all’ report. This report will be a blueprint for the Northern Territory Police well into the future and will hold us accountable as a community to the people of the Northern Territory. That is the way it should be, as opposed to the rhetoric of the opposition.
There is no doubt that we have very professional and dedicated people at all levels within the police force who are performing, sometimes, a very thankless task. They are unfortunately limited by inadequate numbers of personnel and, as the O’Sullivan Report indicates, up to 100 vacant positions in any given year.
I know only too well the people in my electorate who have on occasions seen fit to have a go at the police in respect of their ability to perform their duties to the best of their ability. To a degree, we now know why the police are not always able to be out in the community patrolling; why there was a lack of intelligence capability to support the police in basic investigative tasks, why clear up rates were low and, indeed, why some police chose to resign due to excessive overtime and perhaps a degree of dissatisfaction with their work conditions.
I re-emphasise that there should be no doubt that some, if not all, of these deficiencies have come about because of historically-based resourcing decisions and resource shortages perpetrated by the previous CLP regime.
I would now like to turn to issues in my electorate, particularly Borroloola. The Borroloola police do an excellent job dealing with unacceptable levels of alcohol abuse and the resultant antisocial behaviour and domestic violence. They cover a population probably in excess of 1500 people over a large area. Quite often, the police in Borroloola work up to 80 hours per fortnight overtime, and I welcome the recommendation in the O’Sullivan Report for an additional police constable. There could be some capacity for an additional female Aboriginal community police officer.
I want to take up the contribution made by the member for Arafura yesterday, when she talked about the need for more women to be recruited into the police force. I include, of course, Aboriginal women as ACPOs. As we know, in a lot of circumstances and cases, there are high levels of domestic violence and, sadly, on a lot of occasions women do not feel too free in approaching their local police officer, particularly if they are male. This action alone will go a long way in providing not only indigenous but non-indigenous women in the bush with confidence, knowing that possibly there will be increased numbers of women employed within the police force.
The recommendations for Tennant Creek call for an additional sergeant attached to CIB, three additional constables and an intelligence officer. There is also reference to one extra ACPO, and I honestly believe that that will also make a difference. As I mentioned previously - and it is important to be straight - in Tennant Creek there probably have been levels of dissatisfaction locally. However, I trust these additional staffing measures will go part of the way to alleviating that situation.
The O’Sullivan Report refers to the standard of housing afforded to police officers throughout the Territory. In relation to Tennant Creek, the standard of housing needs a lot of work done to bring them up to standard. I know that the minister will address this matter in an urgent way because I have spoken to him about it. I know the minister has spoken to local police down there.
I want to digress a little and refer to the housing standards of public servants in regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. It is fair to say that the standard of housing is well below standards acceptable in other places.
Madam Speaker, you will be aware that many of the houses presently occupied by public servants and, indeed, by police officers, are up to 30 years old. Many of those houses have been poorly designed and certainly not suitable for the environment in the Territory. Most people these days do not want to go home to a large backyard with a house stuck in the middle. They want to go home to houses that are more appropriately designed, incorporating outdoor living areas. It is fair to say that perhaps one of the reasons why our public servants, including the police, do not stay long in the bush, or why the retention rates are so low is probably due to the housing conditions. I know the Minister for Housing is also taking a very active role in doing audits throughout some of the bush communities, and I know that there will be a very concentrated approach in addressing this issue over time. There is probably big money involved, and it will take time, but I do know that my colleague, the Minister for Housing, is committed to addressing this situation.
I have spoken in this House previously in regards to PPPs in regards to housing in the bush. I still really believe that it is an option. We could give consideration to perhaps selling some of the stock, demolishing some of the houses that are certainly not worth repairing, and entering into an arrangement with the private sector to build these houses and head lease back to the different government agencies operating in the bush communities. This could possibly mean millions of dollars of injection into the regional economies, which would automatically mean increased jobs. Of course, local businesses would appreciate the flow-on effect. The bottom line is that public servants in the bush would have access to appropriate housing.
I want to make mention of the Elliott Police Station. The O’Sullivan Report indicates that it appears to be adequate, but small demands like airconditioning and carports are critical for officers based there and, of course, their families. I would daresay that airconditioning is not a small demand, but an essential requirement in a place like Elliott. How this got to be is perhaps beyond me, but I know it is now being addressed.
The Ali Curung police, over a long period, have led Australia in their interaction with the Ali Curung community in developing a community-based law and order strategy. It is an excellent example of the term ‘partnership’ between the public sector and indigenous communities. It is fitting that our attempt to afford ACPOs with suitable housing and improved employment conditions substantially adds to the partnership in places like Ali Curung and, indeed, throughout other parts of the Northern Territory.
I will now very briefly talk about Aboriginal Community Police Officers. We know that they have been vital to policing operations in the Northern Territory. In the past, I believe they have been much under-valued by us as a community. It is important to acknowledge their contribution to our state and, as I mentioned previously, our commitment to provide improved conditions is welcomed, and I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police for their commitment in this area. It is long overdue. As I mentioned previously in this House in regards to the provision of renal dialysis units in the smaller communities as being a real benchmark for this government, I believe that the recommendations by O’Sullivan and the commitment by the minister in regards to improving work conditions of ACPOs is also indicative of the Martin Labor government’s and the minister’s commitment to being fair and equitable regarding people and their jobs.
The other initiative I welcomed in the O’Sullivan Report was the capacity for ACPOs being provided with a broader range of options to become constables and perhaps, consequently, having access to a career path. Mr O’Sullivan also refers in his report to the basic requirements of a female Aboriginal Community Police Officer in a remote community on page 161 of his report. It got me thinking what a wonderful person she must be; how humble she must be and how dedicated to her profession as an ACPO, and also to her community. I know that there are many ACPOs like this lady, and I repeat that it is fitting that some of their concerns will be addressed in the interest of us as a community.
I have family members who are ACPOs. I know they are happy with the recommendations arising from the O’Sullivan Report. They see it as a way forward in their own professional development, but also as a means of serving their community. It is important to understand that the demands placed on ACPOs is really quite horrendous. They have all sorts of obligations in respect to their cultural and community obligations and, more often than not, they are at the coalface in respect of disputes. They are widely interlinked between the police and the community. They also provide an important role in talking to local businesses and, last but not least, of course, is their requirements and duty to uphold the law. As I say, it is not easy, but these people do a wonderful job.
I would particularly like to refer to some of the ACPOs in my electorate who have been there for a long period of time and who really do credit to their profession: Mr Noel Dixon, who operates from the Borroloola Police Station; Denise Goddard from Tennant Creek; Lex Holt from Tennant Creek; and also Jarrod Williams - all of these people do excellent work; Gwen Brown from Ali Curung whom I have spoken about previously in this House because of her very important role in working with the police in developing a law and order strategy which has been embraced across the Territory and certainly across Australia, and on an international basis; and also Mr Harold Daly Waters who operates from the Elliott Police Station. Harold is actually moving to Katherine in the next two weeks because his young son requires health treatment, as I understand it, so he has to move there. I extend to Harold and his family the appreciation of the police - certainly the local community and I –for his contribution over a very long period of time.
Members will also be aware that police auxiliaries also play a very important role in a range of functions freeing up police officers to get on with the important work in the community - community policing roles. As I mentioned, there are occasions when police officers are often tied up looking after people taken into custody – an important role within itself. However, the bottom line is that police officers are perhaps tied up with too much of these sorts of duties and they should be out in the community providing the community policing role.
This is only a suggestion on my part, but maybe we should give consideration to linking in with CDEP participants. There could be an opportunity for some of these people to be given these sorts of roles with appropriate national accredited training. I am sure it could be developed and that there are suitable and appropriate people out there who have the capacity and the skills to undertake this task. Obviously, there needs to be more discussions with the Police Association and, of course, the commissioner and everyone else. However, I believe it something that is worth looking at because, sadly, there are very high percentages of Aboriginal people who frequent the police stations, and it is probably something worth looking at. The other thing, too, which could apply is that CDEP participants take with them approximately $200 per week. It is quite possible that this could be topped up to the award wage . As I say, there needs to be a whole lot more work don on this.
Another issue I have spoken about previously in this House - certainly I have had discussions with the minister and the previous minister - is some capacity for the establishment of a police indigenous steering committee. I know that it occurs at regional levels. There are very, very close relationships between the police and indigenous community and other community members where they are able to sit down and talk about issues, develop responses to hot spots or issues that are going on in the community. Maybe, again, it is just for consideration that there could well be some potential for the establishment of a police indigenous steering committee. I know that it has occurred in South Australia in the past. I am not too familiar with how it operates these days, but certainly, it played a great role in breaking down the perception out there in the community, the black and white issues. People were able to sit down in a very constructive way and there could well be some capability for that to occur in the Northern Territory.
The other issue that I want to speak about very briefly - and it is something that I have spoken to the minister about - is the social issues unit or a community education unit. Certainly, I know this applies in Tennant Creek to a certain degree where the police and night patrol get together. They go out and talk to the different communities about some of the issues, such as people coming into town maybe for footy and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It certainly lessens the impact on the community because people out there in the community are aware of what the expectations are when they come into town: what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. More importantly, it allows the community and the police to interact at a level which will be of immense benefit to the Territory in the long run. Quite often in the past, the police linkages with the Aboriginal community has been in terms of the old Welfare Act and, in some circumstances, the Stolen Generations. Initiatives such as these go a long way in breaking down the barriers that have occurred. Although, I will admit that they certainly are a lot better than they were in the past.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr O’Sullivan on his report. I also give my absolute support and congratulations to the minister for Police whom I know has spent quite a bit of time talking to the police in my electorate. They appreciate that. They appreciate his very honest, straightforward approach to things. It augers well for the police improving their conditions, making the place a safer place to live. So, minister, congratulations on all the hard work that you put in, and also to the Martin government. These new initiatives, new approaches, are very important in making our place a safer place and a better place for all.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate on a very important subject. The O’Sullivan Report, An Assessment of Resource Requirements of the Northern Territory Police, is probably going to be one of the most important reports that this government has to deal with throughout this term in office.
I reiterate my thanks to Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster who did the work, going out and visiting virtually all of the police stations in the Northern Territory, talking to hundreds of police officers as well as members of the broader community, really getting their heads around the issues facing the Northern Territory Police Force and crime in the Northern Territory, and delivering a blueprint for, as our Police Commissioner has said, a new era for policing in the Northern Territory. It really is a seminal report and certainly is a blueprint for the way forward.
I would like to pick up on some of the comments that have been made by honourable members in debate. This has been a debate that has been adjourned a number of times because every member on the government benches wanted to contribute to this debate. It is very unusual for all 13 members to say that they wanted to contribute. Obviously, the Chief Minister had a seminal role in approving in Cabinet the authorisation of expenditure, but every other member on this side has contributed to this motion.
I am disappointed, though, that only four members opposite could be bothered to contribute on such an important report. All of us, as local members, spend a fair amount of our time in our electorates dealing with the effects of crime, working with groups such as Neighbourhood Watch and the local crime prevention groups which were derided in this House today by the opposition. We, on this side, believe in crime prevention and setting up structures to try to prevent crime in the Northern Territory. We work with community groups trying to prevent crime. We work with community groups that clean up after the fact, and with individual constituents who are affected by crime, and areas of our electorates that are crime hot spots.
It is very much a part of the work of each and every one of us as members of this House. For only four of the opposition members to bother to take part in this debate, which is the most comprehensive review of policing in the Northern Territory’s history and the single biggest injection of funding to the police, really does show that they are not interested in outcomes or reducing crime in the Northern Territory; they are just interested in the politics of crime and trying to capitalise on an issue that affects every society in the world.
The Leader of the Opposition essentially attacked me for blaming everything on the CLP. What the Leader of the Opposition did not recognise is that this is an independent report. It is not a report that was penned in my ministerial office upstairs. This report was put together by a former Police Commissioner of Queensland, a man with 41 years experience in policing. The report speaks for itself of the history of policing in the Northern Territory. We cannot deny that history. For 26 years of it, that history was CLP history and preceded this government. Many of the issues that are dealt with in this report relate to decisions made by previous governments. For him to think we would not comment on that aspect of the report is naive in the extreme.
The member for Goyder was on the same track, saying that the CLP had done a wonderful job and how unfair it was that the report dared to state that the police had been neglected for many years. That was the tone of his response. It was very, very quick.
An interesting contribution to the debate from the member for Macdonnell, a former police officer. His concern was doubting the ability of the government to recruit an extra 200 - it is actually an extra 150, but building the strength by an extra 200 police. He did not believe that we could do it, but even if we did do it, it was critical because there would be too many inexperienced police on our streets. We cannot have it both ways. The report highlighted the fact that the number one issue facing police in the Northern Territory and the impact of crime in the Northern Territory is to get police out on to the streets in the numbers that they should be. The only way to do that is to recruit ahead of attrition and to maximise recruitment. That is what we have funded and, yes, we are going to have a period in our police force where we are not going to have the depth of experience on our streets that we should have. We would not have to deal with this if the previous government had not failed to recruit for four years.
I do not see how you can boost numbers significantly in the police force without actually recruiting to the police force. That is going to mean that we are going to have an issue for a number of years regarding experience. I am sure it is an issue that the police will rise to. It is a significant challenge but I believe in the commissioner, his executive team and the serving police to be able to deal with that. I have travelled extensively around the Northern Territory since this report was released to police stations from Groote Eylandt to Hermannsburg and most place in between, and our serving police officers will give these new recruits all the support they possibly can in doing the job that we ask them to do.
I quote part of the member for Macdonnell’s contribution:
Member for Macdonnell, you come in here proclaiming great wisdom on all sorts of topics. I really do not believe that the quality of the service which will be delivered can be in any way reduced as a result of putting an extra 200 police on our streets. The quality of the service that we inherited is highlighted in this report, and is no fault of existing serving officers. However, we cannot provide the quality of service that the people of Northern Territory expect of our police for the simple fact that there are not enough of them. How putting more police in place is going to reduce the quality of service is a leap of logic that only the member for Macdonnell could make, but his words stay on the record.
The member for Drysdale basically complained about not getting a copy of the report and focussed on relationships between Labor politicians and the police. I really do not know what he was trying to say, but he was not particularly supportive of the report.
My colleagues made significant contributions in debate. One of the things I appreciate from my colleagues and the frankness of debate that we can have in this House is that members are quite free to put on the record issues they believe that government could and should be looking into. Some of those comments, particularly by members on this side of the House who represent bush electorates, are passionate. They want to see policing improve in the bush. These members are passionate in their support for the ACPO schemes and have suggested ways we can improve the service that police provide in the bush even further.
I will pick up on the member for Arafura talking in an impassioned speech about the under-reporting of sexual assaults to police in the bush, sexual assaults on women, on children and the cultural difficulties that Aboriginal people face when, predominantly, our bush police officers are male, and the difficulties they face in making a report to police about sexual assault. That is a very real issue that I will be taking up with the Police Commissioner in terms of what we can do by way of strategy to raise the confidence of Aboriginal women to report sexual assault. It is certainly an issue that is absolutely inexcusable, reprehensible and we need to be working with Aboriginal people to give them the confidence they need to make those reports so that the perpetrators can be dealt with under the law.
That is something that I will be taking up with the Police Commissioner. It is going to be an issue. If we look at the police annual report, which will be tabled here next week, I believe – and I could be wrong – about three quarters of our police are male. It is certainly something we have to look at, structurally and strategically. There must be options where we can improve the confidence of Aboriginal women to report to police.
The member for Barkly is passionate in his support for ACPOs. Our bush members do know ACPOs in their communities. I have been to a number of communities in the member’s electorate. Again, he raised a very strategic and creative initiative of extending the CDEP scheme for people on communities to work in the numerous administrative and auxiliary roles in police bush stations. That is something we can certainly have a look at regarding local employment: getting Aboriginal people to work more closely with police. As I travel around bush stations, a lot of police talk about how, over time, more and more of their work is confined to the police stations and administration in the roles they have to play for other agencies. That leaves them less time to be proactive in getting out into communities, on to pastoral leases, and this could be a way forward in that role. So, again, that is something that I will be raising with the Police Commissioner.
Also, the thought about an indigenous police steering committee where, potentially, we can get a number of senior Aboriginal people from across the Northern Territory to meet on a regular basis to work with police and advise police on issues in regards to Aboriginal people. Some really good ideas have come out of the positive contributions from members on this side of the House. I do value your input into these debates. They are not going to be wasted, languishing on the Parliamentary Record. I will be taking up those issues which have been raised by honourable members.
The issue – and there is no other way to describe it, and I am surprised it is not an issue that has been raised before – of discrimination against ACPOs in their employment conditions, where they have not had the same employment conditions. It was an issue that was very starkly raised by Mr O’Sullivan, and certainly something that we as a government, in accepting these recommendations, are going to move on very quickly. How this could have been allowed to occur and not be dealt with for many years, certainly does not stand the Northern Territory and its reputation in good stead.
The contribution made by the member for Sanderson from an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail last week – I had not seen that, our people had not picked that up. If this is the way we are being portrayed around Australia as being some sort of redneck enclave, well, it is an era that is in the past. We have to move forward, we will move forward, and the fact that these types of things are still occurring is something that this government is going to move on.
On that issue - and I suppose the history of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Police Force – there is one paragraph here that really does define how this particular Territorian was and is still serving our community above and beyond the call of duty. It is on the Aboriginal Community Police Officers part of the assessment, page 161, and I will read into the Hansard:
For example, in one remote community one exceptional ACPO was the sole policing presence. She confronted
the most difficult of policing situations daily, had turned her own home into a shelter for victims of domestic
violence, was using her own vehicle for policing work, and operated from a tiny makeshift office with no
computer, fax or phone. She was committed to policing and to her community, and was looking forward
to a week’s in-service training with other ACPO colleagues, the first for some years.
That really does sum up how these people have just been neglected in the role that they were - and still are – providing.
My commitment, as Police minister, is to turn that around as quickly as I can. I am very pleased to say that we have just conducted a significant recruitment of ACPOs. We will have 18 new ACPOs graduating early November, I believe. I have certainly advised the commissioner that I want to be there at their graduation. They will be dispersed to all parts of the Northern Territory. We have a review of the entire ACPO scheme occurring at the moment by former Commander Robin Bullock. That review and his recommendations are due by the end of the year.
We have all spoken for many years in this parliament about how important those ACPOs were, but this review has really gone to show that they have been neglected for many, many years. It certainly is something that I am taking a personal interest in seeing those conditions improved as quickly as possible for those valuable people who provide that great service that we all talk about in the bush.
With the $75m, 200 extra police, and 112 recommendations to be worked through, it is a huge challenge for the Police Commissioner, his team, and the Police Association. I can say, travelling around the Northern Territory talking to police officers in the last few months, that morale has improved as a result of this commitment. People do see that there is light on the hill. Our police officers are very proud to serve and protect our community, and of the uniform that they wear. There is absolutely no doubt that this report has laid it on the line, that those people who serve and protect our community have been neglected, in resourcing, for many, many years, yet it has done a magnificent job for the people of the Northern Territory.
Therefore, regarding this government’s strategy, we said that we would tackle the issues of crime in our community. We put out significant plans to doing that. We can see that, with our focussed approach in tackling drug-related crime - my colleague, the Justice minister talked today about the new drug courts - we can see that the police are now freely able to talk in the media about drugs and the links between drugs and crime where, previously, those sorts of comments were not being made by them. The issue is out there publicly now, along with the strategies. With an extra 200 police officers out on the streets, the drug courts, the health programs and a review – particularly of the Liquor Act this year - there is going to be a seminal review for this government, in reducing violence and crime in our community.
This government is tackling crime on all of its fronts, and we can certainly see from the crime figures that are released and independently audited - I pick up on the comments and interjections from the member for Drysdale, that ‘Nobody believes you’, his wont of interjection when we talk about crime figures. What the member for Drysdale is saying – and it is certainly heard by police and others who work in this area – is that, somehow, the police are involved in some political exercise with the government in masking the crime figures. It is an absolute insult to police and to the public servants in Justice who compile these figures. They are the most thorough and comprehensive statistics on crime that are released by any jurisdiction in Australia, in an effort to get a debate about crime and how to reduce crime in the community. They have been, and are, independently audited by an independent commercial accounting firm.
For the member for Drysdale to say nobody believes you, he is insulting all of those people and I urge him to take the statistics on value – they are accurate – and let’s have a debate about crime in the Northern Territory. But let’s not make allegations that police, public servants and independent commercial auditors are somehow part of a government conspiracy to hide the true crime figures in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, again, congratulations and thank you to Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster. Thank you to all of the police who have contributed to this report. Thank you to my Cabinet colleagues for supporting this report and members who have contributed to this debate. I will be pleased to come back into the House and update honourable members on the implementation of the recommendations in this report in the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 21 August 2003.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I do not have a long contribution; a few comments on the strategic review that was made of the Auditor-General’s Office. It is part of the legislation that surrounds the office that every three years there will be such a strategic review. Overall, that strategic review report concluded – and this is great news – that the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an efficient and effective manner. Of course, as it is consistent with the intent of the review, the report also identifies opportunities for improving the office’s operation. There were two components of that review. One to see whether it is operating well, one to get some guiding comments about the future.
As outlined by the Deputy Chief Minister in the tabling statement that he delivered last sittings, the Auditor-General has responded to the findings of the review by undertaking to: assess the structure and operating arrangements of the Auditor-General’s Office; to present a formal proposal to government by the end of the year, by 31 December; and to, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee consider the quantum of performance management systems audits and funding levels when developing the office’s performance, focus and budget for 2004-05. I look forward to following the progress of these issues and, in particular, receiving the Auditor-General’s formal proposal of the structure and operating arrangements for his office by the end of the year.
Just to make some comments on two of the issues that were raised in that review – and I thank the office that did that review, it is a good review. On contracting arrangements, the review has recommended that the Auditor-General’s Office progress an appropriate level of increase in its permanent audit staffing levels, supplemented if necessary by contracting in assistance from Territory based accounting firms or private audit contractors. Government is well aware of potential risks of the office’s current reliance on external contracting. However, we are also committed to supporting and providing opportunities for Territory businesses and certainly acknowledge the flexibility and workability afforded by the current arrangements. We will therefore take time to carefully consider the Auditor-General’s proposal and to weigh up all implications before reaching a formal view on the recommendations. It is a recommendation in the review but we will look at it very carefully and look at it in the light of the business that does go to our local accounting firms because of the contracting out arrangements.
Another aspect raised by the review was audit methodologies. The review identified a decline in the quantum of performance management system audits and recommended that a target level for these audits be considered and agreed in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee. This decline does not include financial or compliance audits but relates specifically to public sector performance management system audits that determine whether objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. As is explained in the review report, the decline relates to a considered decision by the Auditor-General to allow time for agency systems to be consolidated and refined following implementation of the new administrative arrangements that I announced shortly after coming to government, the public sector restructure in November, 2001.
Once again this recommendation will be addressed when the Auditor-General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee, considers the quantum of performance management system audits and funding levels in developing the office’s performance focus and budget for 2004-05.
Madam Speaker, I said my comments would be fairly brief, and they have been. I thank our Auditor-General for the work that he does for us and for his briefings of members. When his reports are released, twice a year, he does, the next day brief, member of the Assembly, which is great. It makes him a very accessible and very effective Auditor-General. I thank him for his commitment to making sure that our public sector is accountable and is seen to be so. With those few comments, I thank the review team for their recommendations for our future.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to make a couple of comments on the Strategic Review of the Auditor-General’s Office.
I have read the review report and was pleased to be asked to participate by interview with Mr Neil Jackson, the Assistant Auditor-General of the Queensland Audit Office, who undertook the review. I was very pleased with the comments he made to me with regard to how the review would be conducted. He certainly took on board the points that I made, two of which are reflected clearly in his review report. One was whether or not the Auditor-General’s Office is structured in a way that does not have enough in-house auditing capability and whether or not it requires more in-house auditing capability so that when weighing up the auditing houses available for contracting to government for a whole range of audit purposes, there arises from time to time, as is the perception, unfortunately, out there, that a conflict of interest could arise in some of these audit houses.
It is particularly important that the Auditor-General’s Office is absolutely firewalled from any sort of criticism. Accounting firms may have fine reputations, but we have seen in recent times the appalling mess that some accounting firms have made in auditing businesses. We certainly do not want to get in a situation where there is any potential conflict for contracted accounting firms that work for the Auditor-General. That was one of the issues that I raised.
One has a different view of the Auditor-General once you are on the other side of this House. He tends to become a very close friend of the opposition, not in a personal sense, but it is the Auditor-General who, in many respects, provides the clearest, cleanest and objective information for the opposition to analyse. Therefore, we are very keen to see that he has all the capacity that he needs to report in a way that gives the opposition as much information as possible. That is far different from the role of government for which, in many respects, by his own charter, his auditing operations can be at times critical of departmental effort. Of course, departmental and Treasury response to auditors’ comments is generally in a defensive way and generally backed up by government comment in support of those departments.
I believe there has been a real watershed change. I do not make any criticism of the previous Auditor-General, but it is a new man in the job. Certainly, Mr Mike Blake, in every contact he has had with me personally or with members of the opposition, has been absolutely fair and impartial in the way he has approached his job. He seems to be a man who is looking to put very good auditing processes in place in the Northern Territory public sector in a practical way. We went through a phase of triple bottom line reporting, which was always a haze to me, in terms of how the previous Auditor-General reported. The current Auditor-General has gone away from that. It is more looking at monies allocated, performance outputs and outcomes in relation to the objectives that the departments set themselves.
I believe we are very lucky to have the Auditor-General that we have in Mr Mike Blake. Notwithstanding the recommendations that are contained in this particular review, I have every confidence in what the Auditor-General says to government, after analysing this review himself, looking at the recommendations that are made, and where he sees that some of these recommendations he can take on fully or, in fact, he believes that they are not necessary. I would go with Mike Blake’s point of view. He has given an undertaking that when he presents his report at the end of this year, either by annual report or some other method; I cannot remember now from reading it, that he will incorporate in that report his final decision with regards to the recommendations of this particular audit.
Office structure: the appointments and terms of reference are well and truly outlined in the review, for the benefit of those reading the Hansard. The terms of reference essentially required the review to evaluate how well the recommendations of the three year review in the past, the 2000 review, had been actioned; how well the recommendations of external and internal audits conducted since this strategic review have been actioned; the audit methodologies of the office in their use and the effectiveness of the contract management practices of the Auditor-General’s Office; the effectiveness of the customer service delivery provided by the Auditor-General’s Office; the adequacy of the human, financial and equipment resources; and overall opinion on the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. As the Chief Minister said, regarding the overall findings he said: ‘I have concluded that the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an effective and efficient manner, although in some areas requiring attention and some opportunities for improvement have been identified’.
He talks about the office structuring and contracting arrangements. He talks, generally, about whether or not there should be more in-house capability for the Auditor-General. I know that that is something that has to be balanced with resources available. I know that the Auditor-General has some concerns about how far he goes in that regard, and has given an indication to complete an assessment of what he requires in addition to his current procedures and staffing structural arrangements, to present a formal proposal to the Northern Territory government by 31 December 2003. From that we will get a clearer idea of where he wants to go and I have confidence in him in that regard.
The performance management systems audit is probably the one area of this review that does need some attention; that is, that we have moved to an accrual accounting system in the Northern Territory. The reality is that officers in the departments are reporting in the budget against their performance targets that they have set themselves and, looking at those performance targets and the way they have been achieved or not; 60%, 70%, 80% or whatever, hours worked. The reality is that there is almost no auditing going on of those performance targets. So, essentially, what is happening is that the departments are picking a figure, writing it down and that is what we have to rely on. The review points to the fact that that is not good enough.
There needs to be far more effort put in to the audit of those performance management systems. I recognise that the Auditor-General has had particular priorities in assisting those departments to move to an accrual accounting system. However, those days are well and truly over. I would certainly hope to see that the amount of effort that is put into performance management systems audits rises quite significantly from the very low base that it is at the moment; in this review there was a 1997 target set for PMS audits around 25% of audit funding. In the review, I noted that the level of PMS audits conducted has fallen from around 19% of total funding for audits at the last strategic review in 2000 to around 8%. Therefore, from a target of 25% which should, it seems to be, the amount that needs to be allocated, we have fallen to 8%. That is unsatisfactory when one considers that all of the budget integrity really falls on the achievement of those performance outcomes that the departments and others have set themselves.
In summary, it is a good report which is very easy to read, with very little in it regarding problems within the Auditor-General’s Office. There are some recommendations that the Auditor-General in his own comments - which are also in the report - agrees entirely with, and says he will look further at it and report later. I have every confidence in his ability to do that. I look forward to the report that he eventually brings down.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the Northern Territory’s Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report 2003, I begin by relating, by way of background information, the process that must take place prior to the commencement of any review.
Section 26 of the Audit Act requires that a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office be conducted no less than once in every three years. Under section 26(5), it is spelled out that there is a process of consultation regarding the appointment of a reviewer, and the terms of reference for the review. This consultation must take place between the Chief Minister, the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General. Part of this process is the Auditor-General providing the Public Accounts Committee with the draft terms of reference. After consideration of the draft and a detailed briefing with the Auditor-General, the committee formerly corresponds with the Chief Minister and, ultimately, provides an endorsement of the finalised terms of reference.
With the Public Accounts Committee being actively involved in the planning process for the review, it also meets with the Auditor-General to discuss recommendations flowing from the review after it is tabled in the Assembly. I can advise members that the committee met with Mr Blake during the luncheon adjournment on Tuesday, and obtained a substantial briefing on issues flowing from the recommendations in the review. Mr Neil Jackson, Assistant Auditor-General, Queensland Audit Office, was appointed to conduct the current review. He also appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 29 May 2003 to discuss various issues surrounding the process he intended to adopt.
There were 14 recommendations contained in the annual report, and I do not intend to address each one of them on an individual basis. There are a number that relate to the conduct of audits, others that touch on managerial capacity with the office itself, and there are number which look at the broader issues of service delivery. Looking at the report prepared by Mr Jackson, it is pleasing to note that, in the first instance, he considers the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an effective and efficient manner. With the limited staff and resources available to the Auditor-General, this statement alone speaks volumes for the professional manner in which the office operates.
Throughout previous reviews, the common thread has been the identification of significant operational risks associated with the lack of private sector audit-based companies within the Northern Territory, some of which the Opposition Leader just outlined. This current review has looked outside the square and now poses a question as to whether consideration should be given to increasing the staff of the office to counteract the possible risks associated with limited resources to conduct the necessary audits. An increase in staff numbers is also one way of addressing the issue of succession planning, and the inability to introduce any such plan through a lack of staff numbers within the audit office has been well documented within previous reviews.
Recommendation 1 shows the issue of staffing increases needs to be fully developed and costed and, until such time as the Auditor-General has an opportunity to carefully consider the options, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on this issue.
Recommendation 4 looks at the development of a formal policy on auditor rotation involving authorised auditors and office staff, and this aspect should possibly sit within any consideration of an increase in staff. This will also require thorough analysis by the Auditor-General. Although this matter is a specific recommendation, I note that the reviewer, Mr Jackson, has included the rider that, and I quote:
Recommendation 3 of the report addresses the issue of conflict of interest declarations for the Auditor-General and authorised auditors as it relates to audit independence. While there are current conflict of interest declarations in place for the current NTAGO staff, the issue of this process involving the Auditor-General will need careful consideration. I am advised that the Auditor-General in Queensland signs an annual declaration of conflict of interest which is forwarded to the Speaker, and the details are held in a register maintained by the Clerk. As the Auditor-General is, in fact, an officer of this parliament, consideration could possibly be given to include him in a similar process in the first instance. In the meantime, this matter is not new within the parliamentary process and I would consider that there would be many best practice procedures in other parliaments which address this very issue and, as such, could be considered for implementation within the Northern Territory.
The issue of effective customer service delivery provided by the Auditor-General to members of the Legislative Assembly and the Public Accounts Committee was a specific matter included in the terms of reference. Recommendation 8 of the report specifically addresses these matters. I am aware that the Auditor-General has in place a very detailed program where he is in constant consultation with agency CEOs. He also provides members of the Public Accounts Committee with extremely well detailed briefings which then become tools for the committee to utilise as it enquires into aspects raised in his tabled reports.
I am also aware that the Auditor-General is prepared to sit down with members on a one-to-one basis to discuss their various issues of concern and he uses the opportunity, when it is made available to him, to explain the unique relationship between the position of Auditor-General and members of parliament. Only yesterday, the Auditor-General held a briefing session in the Litchfield Room during the luncheon adjournment to discuss with members issues contained within his current report tabled on the same morning.
Madam Speaker, I put it to you that the Auditor-General is well on track to satisfying the matters raised in recommendation 8. It is pleasing to note that the reviewer advises, and I quote:
In any review there always has to be a consideration of funding, particularly if there are staffing implications. The Auditor-General is in a slightly different category, in that he has to bring in his resources through the use of private sector authorised auditors.
I am aware that it will be necessary to work through all of the recommendations over a period of time and it is difficult for any one recommendation to stand alone as most are linked in some way or another. Notwithstanding this, I believe the warning bell has been sounded and we should pay heed to it and not just allow the report to sit without any form of positive action.
Madam Speaker, as the Public Accounts Committee has been a primary player in the review process it will be closely watching both the time line and the results flowing from the recommendations. I support the strategic review of the Auditor-General’s Office.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, most of the comments I needed to say have been made. I thought it was important, though, to put on the record my confidence in the current Auditor-General. Since his arrival, Mike Blake has shown a very professional interest in this area. He has taken on, in a very robust way, engagement with departments and, given the limitations on his audit responsibilities, he has done a very good job in talking to departments about setting up audit committees, making sure that he has entre and exit audits in departments. He engages with them thoroughly.
I can remember, being a very old public servant from a different era, we used to have a sense of apprehension whenever the auditor came to our place of work. It was seen as a scrutineer-type position; it was seen as somebody who checked off various things. The Auditor-General now has a disposition to help and his disposition is to go to departments and talk about how things might be better. He is focussed more on outcomes and outputs than he is on finances and fiscal records. That is entirely the way of the world and the way to go. It is very encouraging to have a man of the calibre of Mike Blake and his level of professionalism.
I am heartened, too, by the fact that we did think we had a risk there, with the lessening of firms with mergers and whatever, of audit firms that were available for him, and he has several strategies to deal with this. All of them will bear fruit. In the end, what we are looking for is to make sure there is some fairness. He did talk about one of the recommendations, which was a rotation of auditors, and about the difficulties that that posed with complex audits; for instance the TIO, and the necessity to have someone who is trained in auditing organisations of that ilk.
I am a parliamentarian who believes that this officer of this parliament is a very good appointment. I was not involved in his recruitment, but those who were definitely chose the best person. He comes to us with a very open mind and a very powerful disposition to audit for the best interests of the parliament and the Territory people.
Madam Speaker, I thought it important that I put that short contribution on the record.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I also talk to this strategic review report done by Neil Jackson, the Assistant Auditor-General in the Queensland Audit Office.
The importance of the Auditor-General in our parliamentary system of democracy cannot be underestimated. It is absolutely crucial to open and accountable government and a public scrutiny of the public account, and to outcomes that taxpayers are getting from the money that is spent by government. These triennial reviews are very important, and it is good to see that, on both sides of the House, there has been very active interest taken in the outcomes of this review. I would like to add briefly some comments to the review.
The opposition has outlined the terms of reference for the review, and they are quite comprehensive. I will not reiterate them.
It is very heartening, on page 2, to read the overall conclusion of the review, which is, basically:
I add my voice also to what the member for Drysdale said about Mr Mike Blake. I was involved in the selection panel for that job, along with the member for Greatorex, and there were some very high quality candidates. There was unanimity that Mr Mike Blake was the best candidate. That has been shown to be the fact. I had the impression from him, from his application and also his personal interview, that he is a very thorough person. He thinks very clearly, he steps back and considers things very carefully. That is the kind of Auditor-General we want. I agree also with comments of the Opposition Leader that here is someone who is very, very experienced in this area of public accounts. I am sure that most members would be aware that Mr Blake held a very senior position in Western Australia in health expenditure - very considerable expenditure, and a pretty high powered job. So, we were very lucky to get Mr Blake.
As the overall conclusions flag up, things are going very well but there are some areas requiring attention and some opportunities for improvement have been identified. The major risk that has been identified within the report is the current level of reliance on contracted auditor services. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the pool of companies in Darwin is shrinking and that presents real problems for the Auditor-General in selecting companies so that there will not be a conflict of interest in the various audits that are carried out.
The report says that there are over 12 900 hours of audit work principally done by local audit firms and a further 1800 hours of audit work undertaken by the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. That 12 900 hours is substantial and provides a fairly certain source of income for our local accounting firms, which are top class. Most of us in this Chamber have had to deal both socially and professionally with various principals of the audit companies Ernst & Young, Deloittes, KPMG, TDH Chartered Accountants, Horwaths and BDO. These are all fine companies and doing fine work for the Auditor-General. However, there is concern over the ever-shrinking size of the auditing companies and, may I add, over the number of auditors. It seems it is getting harder and harder to attract, particularly young people, to stay, once they have graduated with their auditing and accounting qualifications.
There was a time when the wider world beckoned to young auditors and accountants – and that is a great thing for people to go overseas and get more experience, both in their professional life and their personal life - but it did have an effect. I believe one of the things the local audit companies are very interested in doing is working with the Charles Darwin University to try to provide scholarships, to provide career pathways for young Territorians, and I commend that. That is a major risk. It has been around for quite some time, but it is one that the current Auditor-General is addressing.
I was very pleased to read about the key achievements of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office in areas of strategic planning, reports to parliament and other initiatives, particularly raising client and public awareness by proactive awareness. That is something that the Auditor-General, previous and current, have been very keen to do.
There are a number of issues affecting the Auditor-General’s Office, and these have been outlined before. They come back to resourcing issues and, basically, asking the question whether there should be an increase in resources, in particular staffing resources within the Auditor-General’s Office. The Auditor-General, as part of this review and its undertakings, will be coming back by 31 December this year with some recommendations in relation to that.
It is also very pleasing to note that the matters previously raised in the 2000 strategic review have been addressed, either in full or in part, and that means that there is an ongoing review process, an ongoing rejuvenation process, within our Auditor-General’s Office, and that is very healthy for this parliament and for democracy.
I close by referring to page 25 of the report, talking about the effectiveness of customer service delivery, to add on to the comments that have already been given. I was sorry I could not get to Mr Blake’s talk yesterday, but I did meet him as he was coming into Parliament House. I am particularly impressed by the way he wants to present his audit findings, either individually to parliamentarians, or to committees like the Public Accounts Committee. It is very important that we are briefed; it is an important part of our work. We are basically clients – well, we are his major customers, if you like - and it is very good to see that level of service.
In closing, I commend the strategic review. In general, it gives a tick, or more than a tick. It is a very favourable review to the Auditor-General’s Office. It does flag some issues. I am sure that, together with the Auditor-General, we can address those issues and point a way forward for the Auditor-General’s Office which is such an important part of our parliamentary process.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 1 May 2003.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks regarding the inquiry in the Electricity Network Access Code, and ask that members note the government’s response to the Utility Commission’s final report on this inquiry.
The commission recommended that the code is the most appropriate instrument to ensure fair and reasonable access to the Territory’s regulated electricity networks. The commission did recommend, however, that the code’s general effectiveness could be improved through various amendments to increase certainty for network service providers and access seekers, and to reduce administration and compliance costs. To this end, many of the issues dealt with by the commission relate to the code’s technical and legal aspects. Accordingly, many recommendations have suggested further consideration of these issues in consultation with relevant parties including PowerWater and legal advisors.
The report’s major recommendations seek to:
introduce a specific objects clause to the code, to provide guidance and certainty to the regulator and
market participants;
introduce a review process whereby interested parties can suggest amendments to the code, subject to
ministerial approval;
remove any doubt that the regulator is to determine future methods of controlling network access prices
in consultation with interested parties, and in accordance with regulatory best practice; and
remove uncertainty as to how the code applies to specific services offered by the network provider.
The next five-year regulatory control period for the regulation of the Territory’s electricity networks commences on 1 July 2004. Prior to this, the Utilities Commission is required to undertake a review of the price regulation methodology that is to apply in the next regulatory control period. This process, which has recently commenced, is referred to as the 2004 Regulatory Reset.
In order to provide a degree of certainty for parties involved, those recommendations of the network inquiry that are directly relevant to the Regulatory Reset, are being considered for early implementation. These include:
recommendation 46: the code’s specific price regulation principles will be broadened to include any other
outcomes that the regulator deems to be consistent with the overall objectives of the codes;
prices are to be set in a manner which provides sufficient revenue to recover the network service provider’s
efficient long-run costs, and to provide a return on investment commensurate with the risk involved;
services which warrant regulation, but which cannot be effectively regulated under the general provisions of the
code, if the parties cannot reach agreement on the provision of such services;
recommendation 50: the length of regulatory control periods will be five years;
periods will be determined by the regulator, in consultation with interested parties and in accordance with prevailing
regulatory best practice;
code will be deleted; and
code’s general network pricing objectives (clause 74), clause 63 provisions will prevail.
The remaining recommendations of the inquiry will be considered further by government and, if deemed appropriate, will be implemented progressively in consultation with key stakeholders and in accordance with legal advice where necessary. I commend the results of the commission’s inquiry to honourable members.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the Treasurer said, most of this final inquiry into the access code is very technical. It is also hypothetical at the moment, because we do not have any competition in the Northern Territory. However, it was an essential aspect of moving PowerWater to become a government business division. This code sets …
Mr Baldwin: Government owned corporation.
Mr BURKE: Sorry, government owned corporation. This code sets up the parameters within which it will work with regards to power, and the atmosphere in which it will work with regards to allowing those who wish to access the system - not now, because there are none knocking on our door, but it certainly could be the case in the very near future.
Reading from the report, it is worth just reinforcing recommendation 1 in terms of the benefits of access regulation and the commissioner states:
Granting third party access to the services provided by essential infrastructure within the electricity supply
industry involves an unbundling of electricity supply into:
generation services (relating to the production of electricity);
of the end-use customer or its retailer via a network infrastructure or facilities, being the system of poles and
wires operated for this purpose).
I will not go on. It is all in the report. But that essentially, for those who are interested, is the rationale behind this whole access code; that is, that PowerWater has a monopolistic situation in the Northern Territory. That monopolistic situation needs to be opened up to competition. However, in a way, that takes into consideration the issues that are in the interest of Territorians and that particular utility and, at the same time, gaining reasonable access in a competitive way for anyone who wants to access the power system - whether as a generator or a retailer - and emphasise the fact that the infrastructure in place owned by PowerWater will need to be accessed by any generator or retailer. We had a situation where NT Power was attempting to access the code and have now withdrawn.
Whilst there are a whole range of recommendations that the Deputy Chief Minister has referred to, the commissioner does say that there are six recommendations referred to on page 5 of the report that he sees as key and important in their implementation. The report is a very good report on those who made submissions to the commissioner, his analysis of those submissions and consideration of those submissions and his final recommendation.
The one thing that the member for Drysdale might be able to put on the record because I do not think the Treasurer has another turn to talk, but I am not quite sure how this now comes forward. Is it a code that forms part of regulations or is there separate legislation? My understanding in reading this report is that the commissioner says the report has to be fairly flexible, a lot of that flexibility needs to be in his hands but I am not quite sure how it now moves from this report on the code into changes to the code. Someone might be able to illuminate me in that regard. With those few comments, I am comfortable with the report.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that this follows on after discussing the Auditor-General because it is important that the Utilities Commissioner has similar independent style of powers and an oversight at arms’ length from the Power and Water Corporation. It is a good report. It is very hard to read as a stand alone document but if you go to page 9 it really encapsulates what it is about. There are two particular policy outcomes we want. One is the facilitation of competition and the use of networks by electricity generators and retailers. So basically, what we want to do is put the welcome mat out. Even if there is not competition out there, we need to be able to demonstrate to people from afar – and it is highly unlikely there will be local consortia that can just jump up and get involved in an industry like this. It is quite a specific industry and it is very capital intensive. We need to make sure that first policy outcome is met. That is, that people from afar can see that we have a Utilities Commissioner who is able to demonstrate to those potential competitors that they are welcome into this jurisdiction.
The second is the prevention of the abuse of the monopoly power by the owners and operators of electricity networks. The two are obviously hand in hand. We are putting out the welcome mat, but at the same time we are reaping money in through our Treasury system from an enterprise that is making good cash. You can understand that a new entrant to town might think: ‘They want me to compete against them and reduce their capacity to make money.’
It is really important that we are able to demonstrate that we are even-handed with those policy outcomes: we want competition, we expect competition and the monopoly powers of our own government owned corporation, the Power and Water Corporation, will not be used unfairly. It is important, therefore, that we ring-fence certain components of the Power and Water Corporation that could be used to cross-subsidise other less performing arms. It is important that there is someone who sits in a very high profile department like Treasury, and has commissioner status, to be able to do that.
Insofar as the code goes - and I could be educated by the minister on this - but it is actually subordinate legislation that derives from the act.
We are in the very rare situation in this parliament where there is unanimity about the processes that have occurred, once we got past the debate about whether we would sell PowerWater or not. There have been two of us journeying on the road on both sides of this parliament that have agreed with the government owned corporate status and the legislation that backs that up, the transition of this major instrumentality into that category, and the fact that we have a Utilities Commissioner.
I was following as the minister went through and signed off on those various recommendations that are in here. I do not find those contentious, and I agree with his signing off. The ones that he has not, I have no argument about those. I would defer to the superior advice that he would be receiving on this because I know that in the policy environment we are pretty much at one here. The opposition should take some confidence in the fact that we have a position of this parliament that is held by both sides.
I thank the minister for presenting the final report. It has been a very difficult thing for us, as novices in this area, to address. I will admit quite openly, as a former minister in this area, that it is very complex. I am pleased, too, that the minister has such talent as Mr Tregilgas and Dr Vertigan on either side of the fence. In the case of Dr Vertigan, who is on the Board of the Power and Water Corporation, he is a former Treasurer so he has the savvy to understand the operational environment and the audit environment.
This augers well for the future of the Northern Territory. We would like to see competition. Obviously, it is not something that is going to come quickly. In those states where it has, it has come with some pain. The continual progress with caution about some of the pitfalls, and to engage people from other places in Australia who know, has augured well for policy setting for this area. I thank the minister for allowing debate in this parliament.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. It is not just other jurisdictions that suffered pain with the entrance of competition; we did in the Northern Territory with the entry by NT Power, complicated and compounded by the fact that it was a business that could not sustain itself over a period of time, but nonetheless caused some disruption in the industry overall. I expect that at some point there would be competition seeking access to the Northern Territory, but only at a time when there are sufficient gas supplies available on the market in order for them to be able to have a supply of energy in order to produce, retail and distribute power into the network.
In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, third party access to prescribed electricity network infrastructure facilities in the Territory’s electricity supply industry is governed by the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Code, which is a schedule to the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act 2000. Many of these are recommendations, and my understanding would be that they will be amendments requiring legislative change. They will come through all the processes of parliament as they are picked up and adopted by government.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this afternoon I provide a ministerial statement to inform the House of the $600m Darwin City Waterfront Project. I strongly believe that the Darwin City waterfront will occupy an important place in the history of the economic development of the Territory. It has all the necessary attributes to become a landmark in its own way, much the same as we have seen nationally with Darling Harbour in Sydney, Southbank in Melbourne or the Fremantle redevelopment.
Before I turn my attention to the details, I would like to spend a minute providing a quick introduction into how this project emerged. In February this year, I announced the establishment of seven new taskforces, under the stewardship of the then New Major Projects Group, with the primary aim of accelerating the development and facilitation of major projects in the Territory. Of those first seven, two key taskforces were handed the challenge of one, developing the Darwin Wharf Precinct; and two, securing a new convention centre for Darwin. The success of this development model is now readily apparent, with the announcement I made in July of the Darwin City Waterfront Project.
The Darwin City waterfront is a wonderful opportunity to redevelop the industrial land adjacent to Stokes Hill, Fort Hill and the old iron wharves into a place of real importance to the people of Darwin. This is an old, industrial place that has served the economy of Darwin and, indeed, the Territory, very well. Until recently, it has been our focal point for trade, communications and defence. That first economic life cycle is now coming to an end, and the 25 hectares of space on the fringe of the CBD will now serve the community in a new way. It will connect the new Darwin to this wonderful harbour, providing a wealth of new facilities and attractions.
While the port redevelopment is about regeneration, the proposed convention centre is a substantial new investment by government in the infrastructure base for Darwin. It will build on the substantial business tourism base, already a feature of the Territory market. In a modern world where governments look beyond the provision of traditional infrastructure, towards the identification of gaps in the economy, convention centres sit near the top of their list of developments that should be provided. They are a classic case where a private investor would secure a return but – and this is important – but, once constructed, they provide a strong economic boost to a wide slice of the business community. Simply put, that boost creates jobs and, in this case, jobs for Territorians. The Adelaide Convention Centre estimates that, for every $1 it generates, the city of Adelaide receives $9.
I have already mentioned just how important this particular area is to the people of Darwin and the Territory. I want to reaffirm today that my government fully understands our obligation to ensure that the development that occurs over the next 10 to 15 years pays due regard to this responsibility. We do have a vision for the precinct which reflects our desire to achieve balance and, importantly, long term social and economic sustainability.
I can describe this to Territorians in two ways: what we want to see; and what we will not allow to occur. First to what we want to see. That is an integrated development that includes community space and activities, tourist attractions, commercial activities, and residential accommodation, with no one attribute dominating the others. We will demand high quality urban design that works for our special climatic conditions and incorporates our community values. It must have vitality and activity 16 hours a day and seven days a week, from people having breakfast to tourists filling the precinct during the day, to everyone enjoying the waterfront location of an evening. As an important place in our heritage and history, it must also be sympathetic to these values and, in conjunction with building aesthetics, architecture and public art, provide a look and a feel that says ‘Darwin’ to Territorians and visitors alike.
Finally, we went to see new business opportunities developed that extend our services to Territorians and visitors, creating jobs along the way, as will undoubtedly happen with the convention centre, for example.
My government has already been very clear about what we will not accept. We will not accept two key things: first, Gold Coast-style strip development, or second, the development turning its back on the rest of Darwin.
The waterfront development will include a fully master planned urban environment featuring a 2 km promenade around the foreshore; the continuation of Stokes Hill and Fort Hill wharves as working facilities; a direct connection between the waterfront and the mall; an unspoilt escarpment; and, as its masthead, a world class convention and exhibition centre.
This convention and exhibition centre will be one of the first developments to occur within the project, and we expect to see construction commence late 2004 or early 2005. It will have capacity for 1500 delegates in a mix of configurations, as well as exhibition space of 4000 m2. These areas, as well as break-out rooms and logistics facilities such as loading docks, will take the total size of the building to 10 000 m2 or, approximately, the size of this Parliament House.
The site selected not only has the capacity for this but, importantly, will also have scope for expansion to cope with increasing demand as we see this centre positioned in the national and international marketplace. While the scale and positioning of the building will be dramatic, that is only a means to an end. Of far more importance is the capacity it offers to market the Territory and to draw in new business tourism. Our modelling has suggested that, in its early years, it could generate 40 000 visitor nights – which translates directly into many thousands of airline seats, hotel rooms, meals, tours and like services.
I acknowledge that there are some in the business community who feel that the convention and exhibition centre should be located somewhere else. I understand their concern that the Darwin city waterfront project will, in generating new business, run the risk of establishing competition for the existing businesses of the city. What I can say to that is this: the convention centre deal must be constructed to generate the best commercial arrangements possible. Decisions of convenience today will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in ongoing subsidies well into the future. It is a simple but unescapable fact that the convention and exhibition centre must be developed around the best economic model available. On the issue of competition, the market is never static. As we have seen with the Mitchell Centre, an investment only occurs where there is a return. If I was to turn the argument around and say that there will not be any new commercial developments on the waterfront, this government would be rightly criticised and counselled to let the market do the talking.
My government has been very clear about the process we will follow in managing this project. What we want to achieve is a project development agreement with a single development consortium. The rationale for this approach is a simple one: our best chance of achieving the values we want is by entering into one long-term agreement. The alternative, that of a multi-block approach, will see inconsistent development, difficulties in securing quality public assets, and no long-term commitment by the private sector. It is our view that the private sector can deliver real value in its ability to both conceive and deliver a sustainable master plan, from both an economic and social perspective. That clearly requires a long-term commitment and, in turn, business opportunities over the long term.
To get to that point, my government has committed itself to a three-stage procurement process which members would be aware is already under way. The first of those stages is the expression of interest phase. That document, EOI, was released by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development last month, and the period of submissions will close on 20 October. The EOI phase is open to everybody, and it provides the vehicle for consortia to form and to put forward their initial response to the vision as set out by this government. The sort of information we are after in the process is the composition of the consortium; their skills and experience; how they intend to approach the development; their financial capabilities; and a range of commercial issues. Over the period to December this year, our evaluation team will assess these submissions and agree on a short list of groups to move forward to the second stage, the detailed bid phase.
Where the EOI was general, the detailed bid phase will be highly specific, because it is at this stage that details of the master plan and the business case become the main drivers. The bidders will need to address a range of factors in their submissions, including design concept, which incorporates the master plan; project models and site plans; both design and documentation of the convention and exhibition centre; feasibility studies and demand analyses; financial considerations, commitment and parameters; management structure; structure of contractual arrangement; and local industry participation. At the completion of this phase, we will select one consortium as our partner for this great project. The selection process should be completed by mid-2004 and final negotiations leading to the signing of a project development agreement will occur in late-2004.
Madam Speaker, there are many ways to develop projects of this scale. My government is determined to continue to build on the great work of the project task forces, particularly in their speed of delivery, by running the various elements of the project in parallel. Let me assure members that parallel is not code for short cutting. In fact, it is the complete opposite. We will be combining the required resources with innovative approaches, to make sure that the processes behind development are minimised, while committing absolutely to the normal checks and balances. The best example of this is the environmental impact process. The company, URS, already has this study under way. Drilling will commence shortly for geotechnical and geochemical mapping of the entire site. The scope of development includes all possible development scenarios. In this way it is likely that more work than is absolutely necessary will be done. However, it will have no impact on the overall project timetable and sufficient analysis will be in place to meet any challenge that may be thrown forward.
The old way of development was to move forward step by step by step, with the slowest or the most lengthy process acting as a brake on the entire project. Today, the challenge is to compress the timetable by applying large doses of energy, innovation and intellect. This is achieved by one fundamental step: the assembly of a project team that has these key attributes or qualities.
I would like to spend a moment informing the House of the team that has assembled, so that all members can have the same level of confidence as I as responsible minister. First, the senior coordination and management role will be provided by the major projects group of government, as it has done since the beginning of the project. The project team comes under my department through the Office of Territory Development. The project director is Pat Coleman of the specialist project management firm, Savant. Our external specialist advisers include PricewaterhouseCoopers for financial and property advice; Mallesons for legal advice; KBR for engineering, Ernst & Young are our probity auditors, as they have been since May; and John Taylor has been retained to provide periodic external review of the project. It is also anticipated that as the need arises we will secure further advice in the areas of convention centre operations and urban planning. Our internal team includes representatives from the Departments of Chief Minister; Treasury; Infrastructure, Planning and Environment; and Business, Industry and Resource Development. That is a fine team and we will hold great expectations for what they will deliver for Territorians in the coming years.
This government has made a considerable commitment to the success of this project. We will contribute $100m towards the development of the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre and associated infrastructure. We will also provide the full 25 hectares up front as well as normal services infrastructure to the boundary of the project. This is a major contribution and a real incentive to consortia to think laterally and innovatively about their solutions to the development of the waterfront area.
We expect to receive a return to taxpayers in the form of revenue and increased economic activity. At this early stage in the project it is not appropriate for government to be suggesting what form that revenue may take. That is really up to what the market can deliver through the competitive tension between bidding consortia. They have a wealth of options to choose from, and I look forward to seeing what the private sector can bring back to government on this issue.
Another commitment my government has made is to enshrine local industry participation up front in the bid documents. I would like to take one quote from the expressions of interest:
This is a $600m 10 to 15 year project situated on one of the world’s best natural harbours and within the central business district of our major city. We are very conscious of the need to keep the community informed on all the major project issues as they unfold. People will want to know what is planned and, we say, rightly so. We will commit to consultation right through the development process. Already we have released an unprecedented level of project information on all the key major elements of the project. That approach will continue with a mixture of formalised consultation mechanisms and general information activities.
The formal mechanisms will include: two EIS consultative events, one in November and the other around May next year; the release of the draft master plan around October 2004; and ongoing discussions with key stakeholder groups. Our information activities will include permanent and mobile public displays, community information packs and presentations to community and business groups.
Darwin City Waterfront is a new and exciting development that Darwin deserves. It is a place central to so much of the activity that has occurred in this great city. It was, and is, the home of the Larrakia people who for centuries traded with the Macassans. It is where Goyder and his survey team made anchor on the Moonta in 1869. It was the site of the early settlers’ camp.
First, there was the Gulnare Jetty, 1874, then Railway Jetty, 1886, followed by Town Jetty, 1904 and then Stokes Hill Wharf, 1956. While it has been a place at the centre, it has been ever changing and in 2003, the next chapter is starting to be written. This change will take some time to complete, but it will be as dramatic as any of the changes that have preceded it.
The picture will be an interesting one: a world class convention and exhibition centre will stand in the centre of the area servicing a burgeoning business and tourism market. It will also be the conduit connecting the waterfront with the remainder of the city. Parks and promenades will weave throughout the area, with a range of community facilities and, importantly, space for our public art. Both early in the morning and late in the evening, the main promenade will be filled with singles, couples and families out enjoying the waterfront location before they return home to Darwin suburbs or to one of the residential developments that are part of the project. Tourists will visit to learn about our history, culture and to have a little fun in the harbour side location, and new businesses that provide services to residents and visitors alike will fill the commercial spaces that will emerge over time. It is a great picture, and one that should capture the support of all members of this House.
The other half of the picture is less romantic, but equally important: this development, Darwin City Waterfront, will provide real and long-term jobs for Territorians - in construction, tourism, hospitality and services. Some will be in the waterfront development and others will be in the airlines, hotels, restaurants and shops of the city. This spells growth, delivering the lifestyle and jobs that are at the very centre of our society.
Darwin City Waterfront is at its most early stages, but it is already clear that it can offer a great deal to the people of Darwin and indeed, the Territory. It is a bold, exciting and creative project that will deliver a brand new image to Darwin. I encourage all members to keep up with this project.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had a look at this statement a number of times, and I have been trying to figure out how I could respond to it in a meaningful way. I could probably start here and rattle off about 100 questions that I would have with regards to this project, but I do not know whether that would be fruitful because it is clear from the Chief Minister’s statement so far that the answers to those questions are not forthcoming by means of the process that has been put in place at this stage.
What I will say at the outset is that it is a project that we want to support. The concept of a convention centre for Darwin is something that the CLP pursued and pursued strongly. So, do we want a convention centre in Darwin? Will the opposition support a convention centre in Darwin? Tick. Darwin Wharf Precinct redevelopment was a centrepiece of a our previous election platform. So the concept of redeveloping that whole Stokes Hill Wharf area is also - tick.
But we do have a responsibility to ensure that whatever process is put in place, that the end result matches the fine words and the sentiment and the vision that are here in this statement today. Certainly, all of the sentiments that the Chief Minister expresses on what she and the government want to achieve and what the project has to achieve in jobs and amenities for Territorians, is all there. We have no problems with that. We would like to wholeheartedly support the government through this project, providing that we are satisfied that the project, the sentiments, and the information that is being given to us all is correct, and we can have confidence in the whole process.
The Chief Minister made the comment that the public want to know what is being planned, and she said ‘rightly so’. Well, that is all the opposition is saying: rightly so, we should be able to get the information that is necessary to judge this project in its entirety. Certainly, it is not there in the statement. If the information is there, in the hands of officers and others, I would like to get more of it, and hope the Chief Minister might take on board this request; that is, that the opposition stands willing to walk with you on this project, to ensure that your view, your vision, is realised. However, it will be very difficult to do so unless we can get alongside those who are starting to make these decisions, because there is no confidence in this statement and, except for one piece, no more information than I was given some months ago; that is, ‘this is what we want to achieve, this is the process we are going to go through and in due course all will be revealed’.
I say it in this context. Today is October 2003. We have the labour force figures that have come out today. The reality is that in Darwin at the moment we are experiencing a fall in population. Whilst we all hope that the economy improves, and improves well, it is not looking good at the moment. Shops and restaurants in the CBD are closing. Present developments again almost doubled their level of vacant space in the city, and there has been a 7% decline in the number of people employed. That is the situation we are in at the moment.
The Chief Minister says, ‘Take us on trust, that in six months’ time we will decide who the project developer is going to be for probably the most important development that has ever happened, certainly in Darwin. We are going to decide that in six months’ time. However, if you ask me where we are today, I do not have a clue. I have a vision’. It is like saying, ‘I want to build a house, and I want this house to have a roof and a couple of windows. I am not sure how many windows it is, and I would like it to be down by the sea. I would like people to walk past and say it is a great house but, apart from that, I am not all that sure what I want. What I will do is I will go and get someone to tell me what I want, and when they tell me what I want, then I will make the decision. Mind you, I have already told them how much I am going to pay for it. I have already decided, in my own mind, I am not going to own it; I am only going to live it because it is never going to be mine, it is going to be owned by the person who is going to do it for me’.
That, essentially, is what is happening here with this project. To my mind, what the Chief Minister has said is, ‘We are going to take the best piece of real estate in the Northern Territory. We are going to give to a developer 25 hectares of the best real estate in Darwin’. It says in the statement 25 hectares is going to be given up, up front. It was only a few months ago the Chief Minister said that the taxpayers’ contribution to this project was going to be $100m ...
Ms Martin: If you would listened, the revenue return - don’t be silly!
Mr BURKE: We do not know what the return is either. You have not told us what your return is; you do not know. We are only talking about contribution at this stage: we want a convention centre; we want to redevelop the wharf precinct; we have 25 hectares of land to do it with; what are we going to put up front? We do not know what they are going to ask yet but, before they even ask, or tell us what they are going to do for us, we are going to tell them an up-front contribution of ours. And the up-front contribution of ours is now $100m of taxpayers’ money and 25 hectares of the best land in Darwin.
I do not know what the UCV is on that 25 hectares; I am sure it is disputable. It would have been helpful to say: ‘This is the UCV on that land’. I tell you what the sale price was of the latest piece of real estate, a bare block of land, that was sold at Cullen Bay - 104 Cullen Bay Crescent. It was 1120 m2 and it sold for $710 000. That was a vacant piece of land at Cullen Bay. That piece of land was $633 per square metre. We are now going to give a developer $250 000 a square metre. If you apply the same rate as you did to that residential land at Cullen Bay, you are telling me that you are going to give a developer $250m gratis. So, $100m for the land and $250m gratis ...
Ms Martin: No, no.
Mr BURKE: Well, now the Chief Minister says in surprise: ‘No, you know nothing’. If I know nothing - are you going to sell it to the developer or not. Just nod or …
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mr BURKE: Well, why did you say in your statement …
Ms Martin: It is going to be made available.
Mr BURKE: Made available up front. Why didn’t you put in there ‘at market price’?
Ms Martin: Look, this is part of the negotiations.
Mr BURKE: Well, it is going to be part of a negotiations now. This is the point I am trying to make: if you want the opposition to come along with you on this project, recognise that any reasonable person would say this …
Ms Martin: Look, if you do not want to come along with the project, just say it, Denis. Come on, be as negative as you like.
Mr BURKE: Well, I am giving you the offer. I am giving you the offer now because it is such an important project. Now, I recognise that this is the …
Mr Henderson: Did you ask for a briefing?
Mr BURKE: I am speaking now on behalf of many Territorians in the responsible role I have as Leader of the Opposition, along with other members of the opposition.
What you are telling Territorians to do is, firstly, accept the economic climate we are in at the moment, and a process that is going to lock in the best land in Darwin - not under government control, under some developer’s control. You are going to stitch this whole process up from go to whoa - certainly in deciding who the developer is going to be - within six months. Good effort; I hope you achieve it.
We could reflect on some of the achievements so far; for example, the announcement was made yesterday of the multipurpose centre at Palmerston. It has taken two years to find the site …
Ms Carter: Hospice.
Mr BURKE: The new hospice is all over the place, but we have confidence in the government’s ability to achieve it if the process is done properly.
However, I find it very hard to believe that you can go through this process and achieve what you want to achieve, and gain and continue to gain and maintain the confidence of Territorians that you will achieve it.
It is one thing to say: ‘We are going to come out with a flagship election project that is going to be so pretty, it is going to have so many bangs and whistles on it, and it will be so early in its implementation, that it will get us through the next election and we will be voted in’. That is fine; I understand the politics of that, and that that would be foremost in your mind. However, what we do not want is a ‘slam bam’ process that locks Territorians and their kids into what could be a mess forever. That is all I am asking for. I am asking on behalf of anyone who has a concern and interest in this project, that we all be taken along with the process properly, because 25 hectares of the best land available land in Darwin has to be guarded with a sense of integrity for Territorians and their families. You have the responsibility, you are in government. What we ask is the integrity and the process to be open and transparent so that we can go along with it.
The Chief Minister says it will not have an impact on the existing retailers in the CBD, but it would not be logical - and the words in the statement are this:
Well, that is totally illogical. This is not letting the market do the talking. This is providing such an incentive that the market comes to the table. That is the concern of the retailers in the CBD. The retailers in the CBD are saying that the market forces are not there at the moment; the market forces are not naturally progressing down there at the moment. You are going to put in such an incentive with taxpayers’ money that you have the capacity to create three or four new Mitchell Streets down at Stokes Hill Wharf. You had better get it right, because we are the ones that have made the investment at the moment. We are the ones that have not had the government incentives behind us and what we do not want is to be left stranded and isolated. That is the question being asked by the retailers. It is illogical to say to them, ‘This is just letting the market doing the talking’, because the market is not. The market is being embraced. The market is being incentivised to come to the table onto this sort of project. And it is the degree to which the incentives are being provided that raises the questions.
The Chief Minister said: ‘The 25 hectares’, which is clearly in the statement - and I will repeat the Chief Minister’s words in the statement - and is clear in my mind:
Well, that reads that the normal services infrastructure to the boundary are provided by government - that is a responsibility - and she has thrown the 25 hectares up front. If it is being provided UCV, say it, and say it clearly, emphatically and unequivocally. But the Chief Minister has also said: ‘Oh well, we will negotiate that’. Well, you cannot have it every which way and expect to get the confidence and support of the opposition.
Territorians have a right to know what return they are going to get for this particular development. You are asking them to commit to a development that will take 10 to 15 years to proceed and complete. You are also saying to them that there is no other option, practically, than to give it to one developer. Now, the Chief Minister says if we gave it to other than one developer, you would have a mix-match of projects that are being developed and you would not get any integrity to the master plan. Anyone who has dealt with government and seen some of the master plans that we have been provided by some developers that have been approved, and then seen how those master plans have changed after those developers come back to you and want changes because of so-called market forces, would know, I would suggest, that there is, in many respects, a bigger risk of going to one developer, giving them the whole project and signing it off. We do not even know how this project is going to be signed off. Is it going to be signed off by legislation? Is it going to be signed off in some sort of way that puts penalty parameters on the developer? We have no idea what the process is going to be in achieving the integrity of the master plan as it progresses.
I have said all along that in the development of the Stokes Hill waterfront there should be a government owned corporation or body formed. I would imagine that if you used the same model that the Chief Minister has there and said, ‘I will give a government owned corporation $100m of taxpayers’ money plus I will throw in the 25 hectares as well’, I bet you they could soon come up with a project team and the joint venture partners that would start that development; and the master plan would be held entirely and completely in the hands of government and taxpayer Territorians, as it progressed. The Chief Minister dismisses that as an option as if to say: ‘It is not an option. We are going to give it to one project to proceed along’.
Yesterday, members of this House debated how important Darwin Harbour was to Territorians, but they are being asked to take on trust that Darwin Harbour will be protected, that the environmental impact on Darwin Harbour of this development will be safeguarded by decisions that will be made by the expert team and they will make them all in six months. Incredible. Incredibly optimistic.
Mr Henderson: No vision, Denis, no vision.
Mr BURKE: No vision. The member for Wanguri says, ‘No vision’. I accept that criticism, but it is also right to turn around and say it is one thing to have vision, it is another thing to have some experience. People who have experience in this business out there are very worried. They are very worried to say, ‘What is happening here? Do you have a developer who has already been given preferential treatment? Is a lot of time and effort being spent by others that is going to be a sham and a waste? What information do you have, the technical information in particular? How is that information being shared?’
I understand, for example, that the Stokes Hill Wharf area, that 25 hectares, requires between two or three metres of fill. I also understand that no one can seem to get any definition as to whether it is two metres or three metres. The difference between two and three metres of fill is the difference between 250 000 m and 500 000 m of fill, and that is a lot of money to someone who is going to submit tender documentation.
Is the probity auditor making sure that all the technical information is going out properly? If the probity auditor is, it would be nice, as I said, if people like the opposition who are interested in this project could be given more briefings, could be brought into the whole project …
Mr Henderson: Have you asked for them?
Mr BURKE: I am asking now. I have asked in the past. I am saying to you that you have the opportunity to get the full support of the opposition on this project. I do not know whether you are right. You might be right, but throwing accusations like ‘you have no vision’ is not the way to proceed with such a massive decision on the use of taxpayers’ land and the amenity of Territorians.
We all have a stake in this and the decisions that this government makes, the project development that they decide on, the commitment of Territorians’ money and land is all in this statement as essentially: ‘Trust us. We have a vision. We are optimistic for the future. We expect some revenue from this project but it is inappropriate for us to say what it is now because it is too early in the project’. Too early? It will be supposedly beginning construction within 12 months! All we have so far is that we are drawing towards the end of the first stage and about to go through into the next phase with no more confidence than the project will be handled in a way that Territorians can have confidence in it.
In some respects it is difficult for the opposition to criticise the project because we all want that sort of project and the CLP has worked very hard to achieve that sort of project. My concern is what is driving the speed of commencement of construction? If what is driving the speed of commencement of construction is the next general election in the Northern Territory, that is not the right way to go with this project. It is too important. You have one shot at it, and we need to be assured that it is done properly and the process is full and open and transparent.
I am quite sure that if our public briefings and pretty plans put out to public that everyone conceptually would like what they see, but we have a deeper responsibility than that. We have a responsibility to ensure that this is something that Territorians can be proud of and the Labor government of the Northern Territory, who proposed it, can be proud of. However, I have no great sense of confidence, given the statement that the Chief Minister presented today, that gives me any more information than we had when this was first released. If the government has the information, the least that should happen is that the opposition be brought as fully as possible into the project.
I would like to have briefings from the project manager, the probity auditors and, probably and possibly from those briefings, a lot of these questions could be put at ease. But until that happens, I will continue to raise questions as to what is happening here. I have a greater responsibility in my own mind, because I intend to live here and die here, that what we do and the decisions we make, the amount of money that we spend on behalf of the taxpayer is spent responsibly and in a way that Territorians can have confidence in the people who are making those decisions.
I appreciate the fact that the Chief Minister has brought forward a statement to the House. It was something that we asked that she did. It is unfortunate the detail that I expected is not there. I offer the Chief Minister the opposition’s cooperation in this project as it moves forward. I will wait to see how that transpires.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak today in total support of the Chief Minister’s statement, and as also part of Cabinet, which has been part of the process that has got us where we are to date. This is a visionary project for Darwin, for the Northern Territory. We live in a great city, with some of the best sporting facilities and amenities of any city in Australia; a lot of new facilities built post-Cyclone Tracy. The opportunity to develop and redevelop this old waterfront site really does give us the opportunity to help develop the jewel in the crown for the City of Darwin, with a focus on the waterfront, as I said in the House yesterday.
The vision that we are striving for, as government, really came home to me during Expo this year when I had the opportunity to host a minister from the Sabah government on a helicopter flight around Darwin, pointing out the landmarks of the city, the development of the LNG plant, the new port and the railway. Flying back to the airport from the new port facility and approaching the old waterfront site, you could really see a huge opportunity to provide a magnificent complement to the City of Darwin, an entrance through to the city from the sea, with a convention centre at its heart. I am no urban planner but you can see that this site is absolutely right for development and the vision the Chief Minister has announced in her statement today and where we are at in the process.
This is going to be a process of many steps, and the details are going to change as that process evolves. There is no certainty of any aspect of a project as complicated and complex as this, from the first step that you take. For the ex-Chief Minister to say – and he understands this, he was part of complicated, commercial discussions in regards to the railway, the previous government had any number of attempts to get a convention centre up for Darwin – he knows full well that you start with a vision. You put a plan around that vision, and the details of that evolve as you progress. You cannot stand here with absolute certainly on day one and say, ‘This is the return. This is what we are going to offer. These are the details of the contractual negotiations’. It is absolute lunacy to have that position from day one, and he full well knows that. We have to start with the vision, and the vision is to redevelop the waterfront precinct with a world class convention centre as the catalyst for that development.
This was not a decision plucked out of thin air by the government. There has been an extraordinary amount of consultation. The ex-Chief Minister fails to recognise that much of the advice that we are getting in government - and we do take advice - is from public servants who previously worked for his administration on massive projects such as the railway and the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Public servants of huge capacity are providing us the same advice that they provided for him. Therefore, for him to come in here and basically say we do not know what we are doing in embarking on this process, is really a slight on those many public servants who are providing us with advice. We are not - and I give the Leader of the Opposition this guarantee - making reckless decisions in regards to this project. There is a lot of advice being sought and being heeded.
The catalyst has to be the vision. I missed the beginning of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution. However, the vision can only be created in the redevelopment of the waterfront precinct with the catalyst development at its heart. That catalyst development we have determined, on advice, will be a convention centre that this government has committed $100m to create and develop. Again, the advice that we received from many people - senior officials of government spoke to world class developers – and who have said to this government, is that if you want to redevelop that area you need a catalyst, you need a heart. The advice was that the convention centre would be a marvellous incentive for any developer to leverage off that $100m commitment to create a world class waterfront precinct. That advice received from numerous developers of local, national, international standing, was unanimous. Therefore, at the heart of the vision is the convention centre at that precinct.
For other opposition speakers who follow, in regards to the half-hearted support that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the project today, what I want to understand from the opposition is: do they support the government’s decision to build the convention centre at the Darwin waterfront? The position that I have from the opposition is a press release dated 1 August from the Leader of the Opposition. And the first sentence in that press release is:
He goes on to say:
He finishes:
That is the latest recorded position I have of the opposition’s support for the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront. You cannot support the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront without, at the heart and the catalyst for private sector investment at the waterfront without having a catalyst development - and that catalyst development is the convention centre. It is going to be very clear today, at the end of this debate, whether the CLP supports the convention centre as part of this waterfront precinct redevelopment, or if they do not. If the answer is that they do not, then the CLP opposition does not support this development; it cannot support this development and that is the official position.
They are trying to play weasel words here. They are trying to have a foot on both sides of the fence. They have been embarrassed. They were pretty quiet on this. When the decision was finally made we had the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Territory Construction Association, the Professional and Design Engineers Association, and numerous people in the tourism industry all came out and very loudly supported the government’s decision to locate the convention centre as part of this redevelopment. The opposition is now caught in the previous position which was supporting comments that have been made very audibly through the public media from some people. I accept that there people in the CBD who are nervous and oppose this development.
Our challenge as government and the developer of this project is to ensure that those linkages are built to link the waterfront precinct with the CBD, to enhance, complement and build on the investments, and build on the economy of Darwin. That is the challenge. The advice is that those linkages can be made. I believe we can have win/win. I acknowledge that some people in the CBD are nervous; other people in the CBD I have spoken to are very supportive of this. It is government’s role to make decisions in the broader interest of the community and the economy.
It really is a catalyst in this debate today of the opposition support. They have to say whether they support the convention centre as part of this project, or, as in the press release dated 1 August, in the Darwin CBD. As I said yesterday, we did look at a convention centre in the CBD. We tested that. The size of and the opportunity for the convention centre to be attractive in the marketplace as a destination is all enhanced by having a waterfront aspect, with a wonderful view over our great harbour that we spoke about yesterday. That is really the competitive advantage of this particular location.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about retailers in the CBD being very concerned because they do not get any government incentives and they have made their own investments. And those retailers have. But the reality is that the retail environments in the CBD are underpinned and supported by massive government investments in office space and leasing in the CBD. My colleague the minister for DCIS said something like - and I might be wrong here with the number - but 60% of all office space in the CBD is government leased, and those leases underpin the retail environment. We can just see the Mitchell Street Centre that is open now; that retail space is underpinned by government commitment to office space. That is the incentive the government has put in and public money that is put in to support those retail environments. Those retail opportunities would not be there in the CBD if it was not for government commitment to office space and that commitment will continue. Many of those leases are long-term leases – 10, 15 years. We have in place now open and transparent policy in how office leases will be selected and purchased by government. That is going to continue to underpin the existing retailers in the CBD for many, many years.
For the Leader of the Opposition to throw this notion out there, total contrary to the fact that government is not supporting retailers in the CBD, well, the facts are really are totally opposite to his allegations. Certainly, government commitment to office in the CBD will continue and will continue to support those retailers.
The reason why we have shops opening and closing is more and more retail space is coming on to the marketplace. A lot of those retailers taking up space in the Mitchell Centre have moved from the mall. What this decision of the waterfront redevelopment is all about is growing our economy.
If you were to take the Leader of the Opposition’s position today, under previous CLP administration, they would have never built Yulara. We have many debates, maybe it is the nature of the opposition, over the years about the amount of public money - I forget what Yulara eventually cost the taxpayer; I believe it was something like $400m. From day one, the then Chief Minister of the day would not have been able to answer the very specific and detailed questions that the Leader of Opposition had when that project was conceptionalised as a vision and the journey was embarked upon. That Yulara investment is now a world class tourism facility that employs hundreds of Territorians, brings millions of people to the Northern Territory. It is something that everyone in the Territory now sees as a world class facility to the people of the Northern Territory.
It is the same beginnings we are starting with this development. I would challenge the Leader of Opposition that if he is going to be genuine in his support of this project, be genuine in your understanding of how these projects evolve. I am sure, speaking on behalf of the Chief Minister, that we are prepared to answer any detailed questions you might have on this project to the capacity that we can when we are just embarking on those steps. We do not even have a developer yet, so how on earth would we know what the eventual rate of return on the project is going to be? We do not know. We have to test the market.
You are the people who are supposed to be the friends of business and understand how business works. We have to go to the marketplace and test the market to see what sort proposals are going to be submitted with what rates of return from the competing players. So, all of these issues and the detailed questions are going to evolve, but you have to take your first step. You have to embark on a project and time frame that has been clearly articulated by the Chief Minister. The catalyst for this project, the only way to get this project up - on advice that we have from the same people who used to give the Leader of Opposition advice - is a catalyst development and that catalyst is the convention centre. To support the redevelopment of Darwin waterfront, you have to support the convention centre at that site; you cannot have it both ways.
I am very pleased and excited to advise honourable members that this project, given the fact that it is going to receive significant taxpayer facilitation to the tune of $100m as outlined by the Chief Minister, will require a local Northern Territory industry participation plan. This was a plan that I launched some months ago after much discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the TCA. If members have not seen a copy of Building Northern Territory Industry Participation, it is on the Internet, and I am sure I can get hard copies circulated. I urge members to read it. Under the plan, all bidders will be required to address the following aspects, and bids will be assessed, in part, in this light.
the first thing they are going to have to do is the project description very broadly, obviously an outline of the
project, and an outline of Northern Territory industry component;
the second part is how services, suppliers and labour will be utilised. This should include an outline of what
goods and services will be required; what goods or services industry can tender for; pre-qualification and
tender criteria; how the NTISO will be engaged; opportunities for local participation through all tiers of the
supply chain, including potential subcontractors; estimated local employment during construction and
operation; and proposed work force operations in the Northern Territory;
the third part of the plan is enhancement to business and industry capability. This should include an outline of
the proposed skills development; research and development; opportunities for networks and alliances;
encouragement of international quality standards; use of proven emerging technologies and materials;
and integration of local industry into global supply chains;
There is also a requirement to address regional economic development benefits; proposals for indigenous participation; a communications strategy in regards to how the proponent will inform local industry about particular opportunities; and a reporting methodology to report back success.
Very clearly, whoever is going to develop this project - it is not hands off, give it to a southern developer, walk away from it and see and hope. Developers will have to abide by this local industry participation plan, and there will be real jobs and real opportunities for Territory businesses over many years as a result of this particular project.
I am very pleased to be supporting the Chief Minister in her statement today, as minister for business and industry, and also minister for procurement, responsible for the local industry participation plans. I am looking forward to other members contribution to this debate.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to repeat or amplify the comments which the Leader of the Opposition made, but I wish to add a few things. The concept of the wharf precinct development is not a new one. I suppose governments, to a degree, cannot take complete ownership of projects which are absolutely obvious. It has been obvious for many years that the wharf precinct and Stokes Hill Wharf was going to be developed, and that it was always going to be a part of the grand plan for the future of Darwin. The CLP certainly did an enormous amount of work discussing this project. I recall, prior to the last election, there was, in fact, a launch and the then CLP government produced a plan, a part of a vision which they had for the wharf precinct.
If you look at what occurred, there was a change of government, of course, and there was the much talked about - lots of hype – at the Economic Development Summit which took place in this very Chamber. A number of high profile Territory businessmen, as well as indigenous stakeholders and representatives from all the peak bodies came together. As a result, a number of recommendations were prepared, drafted and forwarded to the government. One of those recommendations was to fast-track this wharf precinct development. It was going to fill the gap between the railway and the gas really ramping up. There were a number of press releases from the Chief Minister and some other ministers talking about the fact that, ‘Yes, we will take on board the recommendations. We are certainly heading down that path. We will fast-track this development’.
What occurred was that the web site which detailed those recommendations effectively came to an end, and those recommendations just disappeared into the wind. The next thing we heard was that the government of the day decided to form seven task forces, and two of those task forces would be looking at matters relating to the development of the wharf precinct. It is a little over two years since the election and, practically speaking, in turning sods of dirt, we are really not much more advanced. So much for the undertaking from the Labor government: we will fast-track this development, we are going to get it moving. It really has not occurred. The average person living in Darwin could be forgiven for thinking that the Martin Labor government has been sitting on their hands in respect to this particular development.
The statement is full of fine sentiment and, certainly, statements of vision. There is absolutely no doubt that a project of this size will have a significant effect on Darwin. It will have a huge effect on Territory businesses, likewise for tourism, and will shape the very fabric of Darwin, for many years to come. The real concern is in the detail; the old clich, the devil’s in the detail. Reasonable questions such as the nature of the land tenure. It seems, at first glance, that the entire 25 hectares is being given to this consortia to develop. How is it being given? Is it going to be some sort of Crown term lease with a number of conditions? Is it going to be some sort of perpetual lease? Is the land going to be held in some sort of trust and, eventually, transferred to this new legal owner?
The reason I ask that - and it may not register on those members on the other side of the House – is, ultimately, what control you have on the land dictates what sort of control you have on the development. We have seen a number of developers - this is historically speaking, both in the Territory and interstate – who do the best they can to strike a good deal. They say they have these grand plans for a particular project - and certainly Stage 1 looks okay. When Stage 2 comes along, they say: ‘Well, it actually does not stack up economically, things have changed for whatever reason’. They come back to government and say: ‘We are going to have to change a few things’. The government is compromised; they are embarrassed, they have an election coming and, of course, that does not occur. Therefore, the developer, by using this commercial leverage, is in a stronger position and gets an even better deal.
We cannot have any meaningful debate about this statement without the detail. The statement does not even specify the parameters which are going to apply to the sale of the land. We heard the Chief Minister interject when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, saying it is market price. Well, of course it is market price. Then there was some other comment on conditions: ‘We will talk to the developer’. What does that mean? Is it market price versus some sort of premium to the developer to make sure that the project stacks up? Of course, the developer is going to say: ‘Look, market price is $250m; that is a bit rich. Because I am taking an enormous risk here, here are all the fantastic reasons why you should give it to me just a little cheaper’. That is how it works, so the developer eventually gets a premium. That is the way business works, and that is the way you do business; you are trying to maximise the profits you can get for your shareholders and the like.
In this statement at page 6, there are a number of politically very saleable-type comments, but I am not sure how you can practically translate these into reality. It talks about the government demanding: ‘We want to see a number of things’, and about demanding ‘… high quality urban design that works for our special climatic conditions’. Well, that sounds reasonable and we can probably do that. But then it goes on to say: ‘… that incorporates our community values’. How do you quantify our community values? What sort of safeguards do you inject into this project to ensure that government is able to demand that this particular design incorporates our community values?
Dr Burns: Because the research has already been done. Focus groups have taken place.
Mr MALEY: Well, let us see it; present it. Well …
Mr Dunham: Oh, it is easy then, isn’t it?
Mr MALEY: Okay, if it is that easy, we can look at the detail now.
It goes on to say at page 6 - these are the demands that the government says they will ensure the developer complies with. We are talking about building aesthetics. Well, okay, I suppose we can all look at a building and decide whether it is aesthetically pleasing and public art. We are going to have some sort of constraint or condition on a developer to say: ‘It is an important place and we want you to be sympathetic to these values’, which include this reference to public art.
It might be okay for a press release to persuade some poor journalist that this government cares and it is making all the right noises. Well, we have heard all the right noises being made for some time but, once again, it comes down to a complete lack of substance. You cannot say, ‘These are the fundamentals of the project’. Every developer who looks at this will say: ‘Oh my God, another government we are dealing with, with absolutely no idea’. The reality is, this is a project which is going to go for 10 or 15 years. Territorians will almost definitely see the end of this - or this government will not exist. There will be changes in government, invariably and, in 10 or 15 years’ time, there will probably be a couple of changes in government in that time, and people will look back and think: ‘Oh, the Martin Labor government, the first Territory Labor government really had absolutely no idea’. If anyone ever reads the Hansard or ever looks at these statements again, they will look back and scratch their heads and think: ‘You just cannot be serious’.
One of the very sensible proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was the need to be, for example, perhaps a government owned corporation. The government owned corporation would be involved in this ongoing process over the next 10 or 15 years to ensure that people and values as they change are given some weight. One of the other comments which is, I suppose, aimed politically at the media and the like - and probably is politically palatable - is, of course, that we do not want Gold Coast-style development, or strip development. However, on the other hand, there are some aspects of the Gold Coast which are great, and there are a number of lessons that can be learnt. To just say that we do not want anything to do with that type of development and we are not going to pay any regard is fairly short sighted. I know from a friend of mine who was a developer on the Gold Coast that they have learnt a huge number of lessons from mistakes made there. The Gold Coast is absolutely massive. There are some portions of it, some newer portions, which are very well done and very well put together. Certainly, the old strip development did receive a fair bit of criticism 20 years ago.
The components of the project, particularised at pages 7 and 8 of the ministerial statement, are described as ‘the development will include …’ and it goes on bang, bang, bang. I will not repeat it, but once again, I do not see any vehicle which can properly enforce those constraints and those key points on a developer. We need to look at that. That is really what this debate will be about. We are setting the parameters upon which this project will continue. To merely make these motherhood statements without saying this is the way that we are going to do it, is fairly meaningless.
In relation to the convention centre, the member for Wanguri stood up and read out a press release from the Leader of the Opposition. He made some comments about the convention centre being the fundamental catalyst to this project. Well, I am not convinced that is the case. Let us see the evidence. He is saying, from what I understand, that without the convention centre this project could not proceed. That just cannot be the case. There are number of potential catalysts. There are number of potential options and I am sure there are options for the development of the wharf precinct which do not include the construction of a convention centre. I must say, I am in favour of a convention centre being constructed in Darwin. It is long overdue and credit where credit is due. It is good to see. At least the government has made a decision. Now, there are certainly some quarters of the business sector saying, ‘Gee you have abandoned us by moving out of …’ – well, it is still in the CBD, but for what the average Territory person thinks as the CBD, you have moved it away.
One of the fundamental prerequisites of a convention centre is that it is within easy walking distance of the cinema, of restaurants and the like. A convention centre at Stokes Hill wharf will not be within easy walking distance of the cinema and a number of restaurants at that end of town. That is a complaint which does have credit, but at least it is going to proceed. We would rather have a convention centre at Stokes Hill wharf, than not have one at all.
I do not believe, and I do not accept for a moment, the premise that a convention centre is a fundamental catalyst to this particular development. I do not accept the word from the member for Wanguri. Unless he produces some credible material to support that, he should be very careful before he makes those sorts of assertions. I can say that Darwin does need a convention centre, and I would rather have one now at Stokes Hill than not at all.
The community consultation aspect of it – and I am coming back to that point; that is the second point I made in this address - is crucial. As a parliament, if we are to properly represent the interests of the taxpayer, who are fairly significant financial contributors to this project, we need to look at the mechanisms, what type of independent statutory authority, the terms and conditions of this Crown term lease, and what sort of control we are going to have, as members of the public and taxpayers, over this project. It is something that is going to affect not only this generation, but the next generation of Territorians. I know there has been some work done by the previous government by examining the structure that was used in one of South Africa’s foreshore developments which apparently is worthy of consideration.
Let me indicate that potentially this is a very exciting project for the Northern Territory. It has an enormous amount of potential and is a project on which I look forward to working closely with the government of the day to ensure that Territorians are not short-changed, and have their say, and that this project and the development will serve not only this but future generations of Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to admit that in the beginning I was very dismayed with the member for Goyder’s tone about the wharf precinct and the convention centre. However, the closing paragraph encouraged me to believe that the opposition will come to the party and will work together to develop the wharf. As the member for Goyder said, governments come and go. If we stuff it up then the next government is going to inherit it and it might be you, but it might be us. So let’s work together to make sure that this development goes ahead and becomes a showcase not only for the Northern Territory but also for Australia.
Let’s face it: the wharf precinct is the last big parcel of real estate close to the water anywhere in Australia. Everywhere else, real estate like this has already been developed. I do not have to remind you of the Melbourne docklands, or Darling Harbour, or some of the developments very close to the Swan River or in Fremantle in Western Australia.
I have to admit that when the CLP developed the idea of the wharf precinct, I thought it was a very good idea, an excellent idea. I did not like the plan, the vision, the layout, but that is very personal, very subjective; some people like something and others do not. Personally, I did not like the big, brick-paved, open space and the avenue of the nations. However, the idea of redeveloping an old industrial site to something modern, something that will actually put Darwin on the map was very important to me. To be frank, if you look at a photograph of Darwin, you cannot put it on the map. It could be anywhere. There are other tropical cities in Australia, Asia, the world and, unfortunately, the recent trend in architecture is to build glass cubes that look the same whether they are in the United States, Europe or Asia.
Darwin needed something. The newly elected member for Katherine knows that Katherine has a landmark; it has the gorge. Alice Springs has the MacDonnnell Ranges and the Gap. You can tell immediately where you are by looking at the natural features of the area. It is very difficult, especially if you do not know Darwin, to point out where you are in Australia or the world. We need a landmark development that people will see and say, ‘Yes, this is different. This is something unique in Australia and in the world. This is Darwin!’ That puts us on the map.
I come from Perth, Western Australia, where they went through a very significant period of redevelopment and urban renewal, starting first with the East Perth redevelopment, then with Subiaco and Northbridge and, of course, now completing it with the convention centre. I am pretty sure some of you have travelled to Perth and have seen some of this development. The East Perth area was the old gasworks, and it was a place that you would not want to find yourself after 6 pm. Subiaco was divided in two by the railway line. Northbridge was a very old, run-down group of houses that the then Western Australia government decided to upgrade. East Perth was initiated by the Liberal government of Western Australia, a conservative government, and then the Labor government came into power and took over Northbridge and Subiaco. Some of them have now been completed. I will come back to them.
I will go to Melbourne Docklands and the significant development there. The old Docklands area now has entertainment areas, stadiums, and has completely changed the face of the Docklands and the harbour in Melbourne. One place I visited, because I heard a lot about it, and the controversy, was Darling Harbour in Sydney. I have to admit, I was astounded by the quality of the development and the opportunities that offered to people, both locals and tourists, in the harbour.
The wharf precinct redevelopment is very significant to the Territory, not only because it will put Darwin on the map, but because it is a $600m development in a 25 hectare area. It will include a world class convention/exhibition centre, to the value of $100m - government money - but at the same time it will provide many benefits to the Territory. There will be over 1000 jobs within the 10 to 15 year development period, and these jobs will be significantly locally based or locally sourced.
When we started looking again at the wharf precinct a year ago, I, with some of my colleagues, visited other states to find out about similar developments. I was also invited by a company in Sydney to speak to them about this redevelopment. I was astounded by the significant interest of people interstate who already knew about the wharf redevelopment, obviously from the previous government’s attempts to redevelop. These people were so advanced that they had developed their concept plans, they were even putting on their finance, obviously because they wanted to base themselves in an advanced position so when and if expressions of interest were called, they would be first in the door. It was very interesting to hear people in Western Australia, in South Australia and in New South Wales talking about the wharf precinct. They were well informed about the wharf precinct, and talking about how they could actually be part of this exciting redevelopment.
The Leader of the Opposition asked what we are going to do and how we are going to put all this new development in Darwin when the economy is not doing very well, with shops and businesses closing down. I would like to ask the question: if the economy is doing so badly, why in the past few months have we seen a significant boom in real estate, with real estate prices going through the roof, and a significant interest from interstate, putting money and their faith into Darwin? I recently had discussions with real estate agents and construction people. They were telling me that they are selling houses and units off the plan before they even dig the soil on the block of land. One developer told me, out of the 24 units that he is going to build - he has not started the actual construction - he has already sold 16 of them off the plan, and he refuses to sell the other eight because they are for his own use.
Another big development recently completed in McMinn Street was sold before it was finished. There were only two units left and he was negotiating with three different buyers to sell the units. So, there is significant interest in Darwin, a significant demand. Many people have realised that there is a boom in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, with the advent of the gas and the railway; certainly with the gas from Blacktip going up to Alcan, and the significant investment in industrial processes and projects. Not only Alcan but the LNG plant, the Darwin Business Park, and with Toll arriving in Darwin, putting its foot in Darwin to position itself in the right place and at the right time to take advantage of the export and import opportunities that the port of Darwin, in combination with the railway, will bring to Darwin.
We understand you cannot isolate one factor that affects the economy; it is a combination of factors. The same combination of factors affects the closing and the opening of shops, restaurants, and job opportunities. But let us not forget that, for a long time, Darwin and the Northern Territory had been a government town and a government-driven economy. Most of the projects that took place in the past years were government-driven. Even the Yulara Resort and other projects in Darwin were driven by the government. The building of multi-storey buildings with office space were actually driven by the government, and government demand to establish government offices. The Defence Force’s houses, the Defence Force’s camps, were government-driven, albeit by the federal government, but they were still government driven. One of the problems we had is not enough industry - or not any industry - in Darwin, apart from the service and hospitality industries.
The Chief Minister was also asked questions about what the government is going to contribute. How much are you going to give the developers? If you are going to give the land, what is the value of that land? The Opposition Leader compared them; he actually said that a block of land in Cullen Bay costs $700 000 for 1000 m2. How much is the wharf precinct, or what value do you put on the wharf precinct? The reality is they are two different things. In one, you have a very well developed area at Cullen Bay, it is already built, so the available land is not there - well serviced. That, of course, affects part of the land that is available in the area. The wharf precinct is an old industrial site that has to be examined; has to be assessed. In some areas, it has to undergo remediation, and so we have to put this consideration into the value. Again, what we have to remember is that this land is government land, it is one of the assets we have in our hands in order to negotiate with the developers.
A developer is not going to come here and put all the money in to buy the land, and then hope that he is going to make a profit in 10 years. Most developers would most likely want to go into partnership with the government. However, until we receive the tenders on the table and find out what the conditions or the proposals are, we cannot say we are going to go this way or another way. Everything will be driven by the tender, the conditions of the tender, the proposals and, certainly, the rate of return for the government, because the rate of return for the government will be the rate for return for Territorian taxpayers.
The Leader of the Opposition has also asked why we did it like that; why we did not appoint a management committee, give them $100m and let them redevelop. It is a very interesting notion that, here we have a conservative party that advocates a government-run economy. On the other side, we have the Labor Party that advocates a free economy and open-minded approach. As an example, in Western Australia, the Liberal government, when it was developing East Perth, which was a significant development for Perth, subdivided into blocks no bigger than 400 m2. Because it is a waterfront area, each one of those blocks sold for in excess of $200 000 or $300 000. The Liberal government did not appoint a government management authority to develop it and sell it to make profit. What they did was appoint the East Perth statutory authority in order to facilitate the project, to overcome difficulties with planning and other issues; to specify design roads, town planning, what could and could not be built there, to the extent that they could actually direct what colour paint you could use on your house and what design your house would be, and what colour your roof would be - rather than providing the money for them to run it. The East Perth authority did such a good job in the area that the Labor government that came afterwards, re-employed the same concept and the same people for the re-development of Subiaco. They have done a good job there and they have moved them to Northbridge to use them there.
The statutory authority that the governments in Western Australia appointed had the role of looking after the development from a different point of view - from a planning point of view, from facilitating the process rather than working as a government agency. They are a government-owned corporation as a developer. That it is something that the government here is going to consider when we start receiving expressions of interest and when we start receiving the information about it. We want to find a way that development is not going to be uncontrolled. There is going to be a level of control of the development by government. We have to make sure that there is going to be a concept, and that the concept is going to be followed rather than a piecemeal approach as has happened in other areas.
Another example was mentioned by the member of Goyder and that was his friend on the Gold Coast. They made mistakes many years ago with the strip development. Of course they do not do strip developments anymore; they have canals now. Here is another disaster. Everybody has now realised that what they are doing in the Gold Coast is not such a good idea; you are not allowed to swim in the canals, not because of the stingers but because of sharks there! On the other hand, you can argue that they have created a niche for wildlife under threat of extinction with the sharks, but that is a different point.
Apart from Western Australia, we can go to New South Wales. The New South Wales government established the Darling Harbour statutory authority, with the same role again: to oversee development in the Darling Harbour so it will be orderly development, rather than a piecemeal approach. It did not just give the money to the statutory authority and tell them to go and become a development developer. Usually when governments gets involved with this kind of development, they burn their fingers. The last thing we want to see here in the Territory is NT Inc, like they had in Western Australia. We would prefer that it be a very good partnership between government and private developers, and under the control of a system that the government is going to put in place, and we will put in place, because we would make sure that it will happen.
Coming now to the convention centre. There is a long debate about the convention centre and if it should be built. Everybody said yes, but the biggest debate was where it was going to be built. I attended the Property Council meeting a few months ago, and a number of people with vested interests in the CBD, other people who had interest in tourism, and the Leader of Opposition also attended. I recall very well that some people said it should be built in the centre of Darwin. The Lord Mayor of Darwin had a bright idea of putting it underground, which is a very novel idea. But the Leader of Opposition was saying not to put it on the wharf, because it is not a good idea, it will be too far away from the CBD, and all convention centres are usually within walking distance of the CBD. I beg to differ. If you go to Brisbane, you will find out that the newest convention centre are outside the centre of the city. The same thing applies in Melbourne. Similarly, the same thing applies to Western Australia, where it is actually nearer the Swan River and far away from St Georges Terrace, which seems to be the commercial centre of the city.
Certainly, it might be walking distance if you want to walk a couple of kilometres, but the reality is that the convention centre on the wharf is the same distance from the mall as the Carlton Hotel is. So the difference is none. If people want to go to the convention centre at the wharf, it will be a good idea walking through the city. It would be a very good idea having 1000 delegates moving from their hotels to the convention centre, either by car, taxi, by foot or by bus, going through the city to see what else Darwin has to offer, rather than living in the hotel, getting lifts to the 5th floor to the convention centre or to the auditorium, then going back to the restaurant, and then to their room.
The other thing I want to point out is that, when I had a look at the plans drawn by the CLP with regards to the development of the wharf precinct, there was a very large building in their plan marked ‘special functions building’. That is a different name for a convention centre, but they are not game enough to come up and say: ‘Well, that is a different name for a convention centre. We were thinking about it, but now we play politics, and we want to go back to all the dissatisfied people in the CBD, and see if they want to get the convention centre back nearer their properties, so that their properties get higher values’.
We really need the convention centre in a location where it going to offer benefits to Territorians, and also be attractive and provide some benefits, not only during the construction period, but during the running as a convention centre. The government employed PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an assessment of the convention centre with regards to location, and to analyse the potential benefits. PricewaterhouseCoopers gave their report and it specified that, if we put the convention centre at the wharf precinct, the wharf precinct would become a living precinct of Darwin. Darwin people would be proud of it, and would move down there. There will be direct and indirect jobs during the construction, during the operation of the convention centre and an estimated increase of $190m over 20 years in total expenditure from the convention centre, especially if there were large areas of open space and it was close to the water.
On many occasions when people attend conferences in convention centres say that the reason they go back to the particular convention centre is because of location, location, location. During the research, PricewaterhouseCoopers spoke to people who operated convention centres and in the Adelaide Convention Centre, 60% of the people who attended conventions there preferred to go back because of the location and the scenery. So putting something facing Woolworths in the mall, will not be such an attraction.
Dr Burns: Or even underground, for that matter, for the cave man.
Mr VATSKALIS: Or even underground, in a bunker. But something that faces the Arafura Sea with wonderful Darwin sunsets will be something that tourists would like to come back to.
The public art was another interesting comment. The member for Goyder had difficulty understanding how the government can influence public art in the new convention centre or in the new wharf precinct. For his information, next time he gets a trip at taxpayer expense, perhaps he should go to Perth and have a look at some of the new redeveloped areas and the plethora of public art exhibited in the open spaces, in the parks and in the squares in those redeveloped areas. It is not only Perth; the same applies to the Docklands in Melbourne and Darling Harbour in Sydney.
On my part, my department will play a significant part in the wharf redevelopment and will be the proponent of the environmental impact statement. We have given $870 000 …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. An $870 000 contract for the EIS was let to a local company and the contract includes the level of geotechnical survey that is necessary for design infrastructure work for the site. The EIS will take about 12 months, will be complete in August 2004, and will involve two periods of public consultation: one for the public to comment on the draft guidelines and another for the public to comment on the draft EIS report itself.
The EIS will examine any kind of development, potential dredging, potential land filling and will incorporate the two wharves even if the two wharves are not incorporated in the area under development, but because they might in the future be redeveloped. The EIS will take into account the widest range of development options. Because the wharf precinct is old industrial site, it will examine if there are any contaminated areas and will explore the opportunities and options for remediating the area.
The wharf precinct is a great project. It is a project that this government is very keen to see off the ground and, despite all the allegations, it is has not yet been decided where it will go. The process will be open and transparent. There is probity audit already in place to ensure that the process will be followed and everything will be above board to avoid any allegations or any complaints that the project has already been decided and that the successful tender has already been decided. This is not the case. If that is what you think, I suggest that you speak to the Probity Auditor or to other people involved in the project.
It is a fantastic project and I commend and support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Port Darwin, I can tell you all that I am delighted that the convention centre is going to be built in my electorate. Obviously, I had very few doubts that it would not be one day, but it is great that it is coming on board sooner rather than later.
Years ago, I had a job which involved having to organise a convention and I cannot tell you the frustrations that people who organise conventions in the Darwin area face trying to get something off and running in the very limited accommodation that we have here. Certainly, in my experience in the mid-1990s, it was desperately needed. It is going to provide a huge boost to this town and to the Territory. People all around Australia and around the world, people who go to conventions are looking for exciting and different places to go. They go for up to a week. They are there to spend money. They are there to have a good time and learn something at the same time also. I am sure we will find that, like Alice Springs, the convention centre in Darwin is going to be a real plus for us.
I made a submission when submissions were called for with regard to the convention centre, and I put my submission in as a preference for an inner CBD site. My preference would have been somewhere on the Esplanade. Having been someone who has been to conventions from time to time, it is always great if your convention centre is right in the midst of a range of hotel options so that people who cannot afford flash ones can get to the less expensive ones, and if you can afford a flash hotel you go to that. Also, with your convention centres in the midst of restaurants and other entertainment, it is very convenient for out-of-towners who usually do not have transport, often do not have a lot of money, and need to do a fair bit of walking. I have concerns that one of the aspects of putting the convention centre within the wharf precinct area is that, certainly on a steamy afternoon, it will be quite a struggle for some people to get up physically into what we now know as the CBD.
However, as the Chief Minister has said, this is a long term project, and perhaps the whole structure of the Darwin CBD will change over the next 10 to 15 years as we grow and spread. The tank farm is going, all sorts of things are going to happen here in the CBD over then next 10 to 20 years. I suspect that at some point we will find the fact that the convention centre is at the wharf, in a built-in area, will not be a big deal at all because there will be heaps of other support facilities there, such as restaurants and a range of accommodation. So this initial problem we have with concerns over the siting of the convention centre will be a thing of the past and we will all enjoy and welcome its presence there.
At a more local member level, because it will be me getting the complaints about these things in the years to come, obviously I would certainly encourage the government to undertake very careful planning over the convention centre. My personal preference is that the whole centre of the convention centre and the wharf precinct has some sort of a theme; hopefully it is a tropical theme for Darwin, to capitalise on that, so that it is not bits and pieces all over the place. Not one sort of architecture next to another sort of architecture, that it has some sort of theme flowing through it, that it blends and it complements each of the structures and each of the activities that are happening at the wharf area.
I did a submission with regard to the wharf precinct in the last year or so. There has been a sort of draft drawn up of how the wharf area could look with roads and things like that. I notice there are some roads that would sweep right through the area. I hope that the planners look at traffic controls in that area. We do have a problem in the inner city with the hoons, bless their hearts, who come in here with their boom box cars and want to do rat racing and things like that. I hope the planners take that into consideration, that we do not have a situation that is like a semi-speedway at 2 am going through the wharf area. It is a very complex bit of land, if you look at it geographically. I am sure quite a bit of care will be given looking at the roads and taking into consideration some of the behaviours that do go on in places like that. I know, because they happen there right now.
For the pedestrians, we need wide footpaths. Certainly, there are some riverside developments in Brisbane and Melbourne which would lend very good indications as to how you can prepare your pedestrian area, Southbank being one of those. They are just great projects that are happening down south, and I am sure that we will see something like that here in Darwin over the next 10 years.
All of the local members, I am sure, are aware of the problems we face with regards to people’s concerns about safety. Here in the inner city area, we have a fabulous park called Bicentennial Park, along the Esplanade. The Esplanade Action Group meets in my office every month, just as many of the other northern suburbs have community groups in their area. One of the key issues is the lighting of public areas in the night time. My plea to the planners is that area is well lit so that it will be a place that people feel safe; that they can go out at night time and stroll along the foreshore, which will be fantastic.
I note that part of the concept will be that you will have a mixture of residential in with business and commercial at the wharf, which is great. In the development of the residential buildings, another plea is that the planners take into consideration modern noise control, and the fact that they are going to be building - I would assume - high rise developments, or certainly high density developments, within a small area packed in with commercial and entertainment activities. These buildings, nowadays, need to be built in a way that people can, if they feel the need, close themselves in, put on the aircon, and get away from the noise. Those things need to be thought about. We are not going to be able to rid of noise in a precinct like that, so people need to have some option in the building to take that into consideration.
Obviously, at the start of the project - it is going to be a high density area, I suspect, with the accommodation that is in there - there needs to be good infrastructure going in to allow for future growth. That will be water, power, and IT connections, so that we are not digging the roads up every five years to bump up the ability of it to cope.
One final plea, of course, to do with the huge success down at Cullen Bay, is the view to not have take-away alcohol outlets. There is one place that only sells a certain kind of alcohol which does not attract people who enjoy antisocial behaviour. I would put in a plea for the wharf precinct to have a similar policy; that we do not have a bottle shop anywhere there, because you all know what will happen then. Here is hoping that will not happen.
I just close my supportive comments with a few ideas. It is a wharf precinct area; the convention centre will just be one part of it …
Dr Burns: No, it is a waterfront development.
Ms CARTER: It is going to be a waterfront development, and it will have a convention centre in it. However, other things can go in there as well, and I am sure they will. Some of the things that we need here in the inner city, I believe, is some sort of appropriate recognition of our namesake, Charles Darwin. Many tourists and locals alike would be very interested to know more about Charles Darwin; why his name is used to name this city. We do not really have much along those lines here. Perhaps it could be some sort of plaque and memorial. You could even call one of the roads Charles Darwin Drive or something like that.
Something else you could have down there - and it is going to be something that I am going to probably push over the next decade or so - is that Darwin really needs to have some sort of a substantial commemoration to the bombing of Darwin. As members all know, the wharf area was very heavily bombed in the war, and it would be a great opportunity to have some sort of a commemoration there to the bombing of Darwin. I have not been to Pearl Harbour - and I dare say we will not have something similar, as I gather they have a fantastic memorial there. However, there are memorials around the world that commemorate bombings and similar events, and we could do something really quite spectacular there because people are very interested in this aspect of Darwin’s history. That is something that could be done.
Another idea - of course, we are down at the wharf area, so it would be a place where you could capitalise as other cities have done, in a maritime museum of some sort. To conclude, the Chief Minister said at the end of about two years we will start to see the turning of the soil, basically; but that is for the convention centre. Can I suggest that the site is cleared - anyone who takes a stroll down there can see it is not a particularly attractive sight at the moment. The buildings that are there incredibly industrial and do not have much aesthetic value to them. The site could be cleared. There has been mention that we will have to have some substantial top soil put on it. Why not grass it and put a few trees in, so that we can have a fabulous grassed area? We have heard it is going 10 to 15 years to complete. Have a beautiful park down there for the interim period.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have some concerns with the Chief Minister’s statement and they basically go to - it is a bit of a ‘trust me’ statement. The statement says we need these various things and people do not argue against them. People do not argue against singles, couples and families strolling in the balmy, tropical night, along the promenade, and they do not argue against the fact that we need jobs. They do not argue against the fact that we need a convention centre. They do not argue generally against the fact that the site is right for development. The concern really is, ‘can you do it?’ I guess the Chief Minister has said: ‘I think we have the goods to do it’, and then you have to define what ‘it’ is because if ‘it’ is building something, that is pretty simple.
It is very simple for convention centres. They are pretty much just big air conditioned sheds and you have break out rooms and places for people to park and that sort of stuff. They are pretty simple. The trick is running it. That is the trick. It is a bit like building a port; you can build a port, but running it is the trick. You can build a railway; running it is the trick. You can promise to build a hospice, but running it is the trick. You can promise to build an oncology facility, but running it is the trick. You can promise to build a birthing centre, but running it is the trick.
So what we need to do is not talk about plans and engineers. We need to talk about whether this thing works because someone is going to have to run it. It is going to have to run for a long time and if you muck up at the architectural, engineering and siting end, it makes the running end hard. So, that is where the problem is because this ‘trust me’ statement is saying ‘Yes, we can build it’. I believe you can. There are probably 200 convention centres in the world - plans everywhere, they are not that hard to build. But if you go around and talk to those 200, they are damn difficult to make money from. I notice that the Chief Minister has mentioned the Adelaide one in her statement. The Adelaide one by all reports is the best run in Australia. It derives most of its income from parking in the CBD. So, these are not simple things to do. The building which is where this is all focussed on is very simple stuff.
We are going to do this because we have a team and it is a really good team; and they probably are. We have all sorts of people on the team. We have financial property advice, legal advice, engineering advice, probity auditors, some chap here I do not know, Mr Taylor, and we have departments, various government departments, Chief Minister, Treasury, Infrastructure, Planning, Business, blah, blah. Who runs convention centres out of them? Which one of them runs convention centres? That is where the problem is going to be. This mob have shown us time and time again that it is not the plan, it is not the building of it, is not the siting of it. It is the capacity to make a buck out of it. If you look back over the last two years you can see why people are a bit worried about it. You can see why people have some level of scepticism.
I was in Cabinet when one convention centre was built in Alice Springs. I was there when we decided not to build another, and that is the problem because what this mob have said is: ‘We were going to build this thing, by hook or by crook we will build it’. It is a bit like someone taking off and saying: ‘I am going to buy a car today’. Well, when you get to the used car yard, they are rubbing their hands together because they know you are going to buy a car. You are not going to get there and say: ‘Well, gee, I really wanted red and you have only got blue ones’ or ‘I wanted something a bit cheaper’ or ‘I wanted something that had four doors and not two doors’ because they know you have turned up to buy a car. And this is what this mob have done. They have said ‘We have the cash, we have $100m, and we are going out to buy a convention centre, by hook or by crook’. I do not think that is smart because in the business environment you are in, you are a captive purchaser. You will have to buy a convention centre.
They belittle the step-by-step approach in part of this statement where they say, ‘The previous thing was to go step-by-step’. You go step-by-step because somewhere along the line you might have to push the abort button. You might find you set off in this brave new world and private enterprise and Aboriginal people are going to get involved, and everyone is going to win jobs and all the rest of it. But what if you get halfway down the line and you find that is not the case? That could happen. It could happen that they say ‘Well look, it is not $100m, it is $200m or it is this or it is that’, because we do not know yet. These are just grab figures out, and people are saying: ‘It looks good and it is stacks’. Well, you do not know whether it is stacks or not, the same way as the purchaser when they say, ‘I would really like to buy that house in Nightcliff’, and then goes to the bank manager and he says ‘I am not going to give you the money’, or ‘He wants too much’, or whatever. That is where we are.
We are taking off with our $100m in the pocket. We have a nice asset that we can barter, but we do not know how much that is going to be bartered for. We have gone out to the business community and said, ‘If you blokes build us a convention centre, we will all live happily ever after’. Don’t you reckon they are rubbing their hands about this mob? I mean, these are like babes in the woods. They are wandering off. We know the end point. The end point is they can not renege. You have put yourself over a barrel because, at the end of the day, you must have a convention centre. The potential there with the political realities is you will say: ‘Well, gee, we are just going to have to go ahead’, and you will trade off on engineering and getting the building out of the ground functionality and efficiency and making the it effective.
If you look at the key components of the project, at page 7 of the Chief Minister’s speech, you will find very little argument:
Nobody is going to complain.
There might be some complaint, but certainly not from this side of parliament where we have talked about this in plans before.
No complaint. ‘Unspoiled escapement’, which is supposed to be ‘escarpment’. ‘… as its masthead. World class convention …’. No complaints with it. The detail we want is as you take off with your money in your pocket, your $100m, and your free land - or maybe it is going to be paid for; maybe it is not - whatever that bartering chip is, it ain’t your cash. It is the people’s cash, and you have to make sure you turn it to best advantage.
One of the issues in town, and it is the issue about site, is: will it integrate with the mall? Will it be symbiotic? Will it be of mutual benefit to both players? You have a facility there that is dependent on existing business, existing businesses dependent on that to drive it. That seems to be how it argues. If you go to page 7 of the Chief Minister’s statement, she makes the statement that she will not accept two things: Gold Coast, obviously because that is a nice bogie man to throw around; but ‘the development turning its back on the rest of Darwin’. Okay. When I read that, I assumed she meant it has to be integrated with the rest of Darwin. I do not know how you then reconcile that with what she said earlier:
There are a lot of activities in the CBD that do not go that long.
The word ‘precinct’ will give you an idea that maybe this is not as integrated as we think. Maybe there is some suspicion that this is a stand alone government-subsidised precinct that will compete against those already in business. If the ‘precinct’ word means ‘this has its own identity’ - you have already said that we want it to generate all this activity in the precinct for 16 hours a day, seven days a week - I can see why some of the commercial operators who are not government subsidised in other areas in close proximity might be a bit jumpy.
Why don’t we talk about this integration factor and the symbiotic relationship? Why don’t we put some of those things to bed early? I was interested when the member for Wanguri said we should take the first step, and the Chief Minister describes the first step as her brave efforts to set up some committees. She said:
Well, it did not. This has emerged from a lot of work over a long time. It has emerged from work that has talked about a blueprint for how we might lay out our city. It has emerged from work that was done on a previous effort to look at a convention centre. It has emerged from all of those things that have been sitting there, in some cases dormant, but certainly the work was done.
If your intention is to put a brand on it that says: ‘The Clare Martin thing’, okay, do that; I can live with that and swallow my pride on that sort of stuff. If your intention is to say, ‘We need to do something quickly before the next election’, I plead with you: don’t. That is crass, to rush in and put up some black plastic, buildings getting knocked over, like happened straight after announcement. The announcement has been made, we have to go, and this shed is doomed, because this shed is going to be symbolic of our great impatience to get cracking and get on with this thing. And so, over goes the shed.
If you look at what is going to make this thing work, you can see why I am a bit jumpy. In it, the Chief Minister is looking for a range of commercial issues, and does not say what they are. She says it is going to work because there are people out there with large doses of energy, innovation and intellect. As I said, it is no good claiming those things for yourself if they have not happened in the past, so why have we not put energy, innovation and intellect into the Oncology Unit at the hospital and built that, that is overdue. It is a similar thing, it is not that hard to make them; once you have the cash, you just make them. Running them is difficult, I concede, same as hospices. It is no good promising these things are in your repertoire of skills and you are savvy if it is not there.
The matters relating to environment were interesting. They seem to have some sort of sign-off, which is a pretty good sign, I guess. The environmental impact is already on foot. Later on, it says, ‘No matter what they find, it will have no impact on the overall project timetable, sufficient analysis will be in place to meet any challenge that may be thrown forward’. That is not bad.. So you are saying, we are going to have a look what is out there, we do not know what is out there, but whatever it is we can fix it up in time to meet this timetable. You might find …
Dr Burns: Can-do attitude.
Mr DUNHAM: The can-do attitude is good, but you cannot do the hospice, you cannot do the oncology, you cannot do the birthing centre, you cannot make the railway work, you cannot make the port work, you cannot create jobs. I do not mind you saying ‘can-do’, and that is the worry here. You are saying, ‘We can do this’, and your history shows you cannot. It is like saying we can win Wimbledon. Well, I have seen how you play tennis; you cannot. The problem is not going around saying, ‘We can do this’, because if you do not have that in your CV, people do not believe you. You have a problem with credibility. Our confidence in this is a bit shaky, I have to tell you, but anyway, back to environment.
What they have said is, ‘We are going to do a environmental impact, and we do not care what we find, because it will not throw the timetable out’. You could find unexploded ordnance. The previous speaker to me told us what had been bombed out of this place. You do not need to look at many photos to see where they were bombing them, so you can find some of them. You might find some toxic materials that are very difficult, hazardous, dangerous to move; it is a working port. You might find some human remains. You might find all sorts of things, you might find some anthropological things. I know in the case of places like Dublin, where they have a pretty gung ho attitude to development, they found the remnants of probably the biggest Viking site in Ireland. They went ahead, but that thing went to the international court.
I am not saying you are going to find a Viking site, that would be pretty silly. But do not assume that the people you talk about here, the Macassans or Aboriginal people, or some of the Chinese who came into this place, did not leave some little markers behind. And do not assume and say, ‘Well we have picked this and whatever we find, we are going ahead regardless’, because you might not have that luxury.
Let us assume that happens. You still have not done an EIS. All you have done is a site clearance to say no one is going to get killed, poisoned, or whatever, and we are not going to have any great impact on the anthropological or archeological values of this place. That is all your clearance does. Do not pretend you are doing an environmental impact statement. An environmental impact statement is a little bit different to that. If you are going to have these people 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 25 hectares of human habitation, they are going to be doing number ones and numbers twos, and it has to go somewhere. And I tell you, you have big problems if you think you can run a metal detector over it, find a few bits of shrapnel, pull the bulldozers over it, dig up maybe a couple of plumes of oil, or some other noxious fuel that is there, and put some top soil on top. You have not finished.
You are nowhere near finished because EISs are a bit more critical than that. They talk about the waste product you make, they talk about visual and other aesthetics. They have to give the community confidence that this thing is in the right place, doing the right thing, and not having impact on that thing we talked about last night: the Darwin Harbour. Last night, we all put our hands on our hearts and said: ‘Oh, gee, it is really good we are not going to muck the harbour up’. Twenty-five hectares of high density human habitation is going to be plonked right on the harbour. So, do not pretend that you can bring in a statement about the pristine wilderness of the Darwin Harbour last night, and tonight say: ‘We are going to drop this great big thing next to it’. You have to remember, this is not a firewall. There is no great firewall there. We are all going to be looking out on the harbour, and you have to remember that they are linked, and that link is an EIS.
Therefore, if you want to take my position, it is cautious support because we would agree with the elements. There is no doubt that we agree with the elements. Our problem with it is, you can have the best, latest car from Holden that we are all a passenger in, and we just do not like the driver. We do not like the driver because, if you look in the rear vision mirror, you are not that flash really, are you? You have trotted in here and said, ‘Trust us, the business community are going to love us; $100m convention centre; we will integrate with town. Oh, but it is a precinct, with all this stuff going on down here. We are going to go ahead, no matter what we find down there. We are going to go ahead, no matter what the finances stack up to be - because we do not know what those are yet; they are just listed as financial considerations’. You can see why we are a bit jittery.
I also think you are babes in the woods when it comes to this stuff. I do not think you have enough grunt to argue. Somebody with $600m in their pocket is a pretty formidable negotiator. You are going to go out there and find these several consortia with $600m and send in Kon - or whoever you send in - and he is going to be taking it right up to them. The person who is the head negotiator - it could be the member for Wanguri, he sees himself as a bit of a head kicker. So, he is sitting at the table with these dudes - I tell you mate, they will eat you up; you are not in the hunt. Yes, you can make it …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about the powerlines. There is a good deal.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, you can make it. You would like to know about the powerlines? I am quite happy to talk to you about the powerlines, but this is probably the wrong debate.
The issue we have here is that it can be done. The issue is that we have signed off on the critical elements - as you have because you have mostly plagiarised what we have written anyway, and there is a lot of that going around.
The other issue is that we think some of the component parts can be made to work. This is an issue of making sure that the long-term benefit of this place is not jettisoned in the hunt for some short-term gain. That hunt for short-term gain is: ‘Let us do something quickly; sign bits of paper in the next two years because that could win us an election. Oh, and by the way, this thing has a life of 50 years or 100 years but, certainly, it is 15 years to build it’. The little trite comments from your member from Casuarina about the great irony of the socialists out there fighting for the capitalist cause, and how we are shying behind some sort of a government thing; that is all nonsense. You would find we would sign up on pretty much the fundamentals of this. If you really ran an analysis over it, you would find that it comes down to a lack of confidence in your capacity to deliver on such a project, given the things that are in the past.
We can quickly change it. You can quickly turn the port into something that is doing better; you can quickly turn the rail into something that is doing better; you can quickly turn your Access Economics fully-funded promises into something that is doing better. We think that would probably give you some runs on the board. So, you do not actually need this. Do the things that you were going to do and, if you do them well, you will find there will an upswell in community confidence for you.
We think when you talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, that that is merely platitudes unless you actually create jobs, jobs, jobs. If you do 8000 jobs cold, you can see why people are starting to worry. They are thinking, ‘This is a mob that said they had a jobs plan, and they have only had one in the last couple of months - they went to South Australia to get it done, but before the election they said they had one. If they do have a jobs plan and if they did have one before the election, they must realise that it should not have been something that causes us to lose 8000 jobs. That would have been a pretty silly jobs plan’.
I would ask that some of those things be mulled over by those opposite. If they want to run some vindictive thing about our philosophy or theirs, you will find that there is great similarity in the things we are signed off here. Maybe they should be trying to look at the differences and trying to accommodate those.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to respond to the waterfront statement from the Chief Minister. I also think it is a good idea. I should make it clear that after listening to some of the comments, that just because somebody has some concerns about it, does not mean that one does not support it. The idea that one goes down the path of being Blind Freddy regardless, no matter what happens, is a silly way to go. I support it, but that does not mean I should not ask questions and delve into some of these issues a little more deeply. I am certainly no expert on the economic side of it but I certainly have some queries on some of the other matters.
I would like to thank the member for Port Darwin. Not only was her reply succinct, it raised many good ideas that were well worth noting. I hope the Chief Minister takes on board some of those ideas because it showed that the local member is ticking over, if I can put it that way, thinking about options for the CBD, for the city waterfront project. I mean this sincerely. I hope the Chief Minister takes on some of those ideas and I might come back to them later.
As everybody has said, this is a great project. It will help the economy, help employment and, with the state of the economy in Darwin, it is certainly needed. The Chief Minister mentions style and design being something that would fit in with the tropics and I certainly support that. It would be great to see, as the Minister for Lands and Planning said, that we have something that is special. I have written down here, ‘something that is unique and something that is Darwin’. Members have heard me speak previously about my concerns about the new township of Weddell, that we need to have vision. If we are going to develop a city like Weddell, let us see what it would look like in three dimensions. Put out some tenders, or put out a competition to say this is what the city is going to look like. The only thing that I can really think of in the Darwin region is not in Darwin at all; it is the water tower at Palmerston. It sticks out there, you might say like the proverbial, but it sticks out there and you remember Palmerston because of the water tower. We could have done a lot of better with the Palmerston CBD but one does remember Palmerston for that.
Certainly this building, I suppose, today is probably the closest to remembering what Darwin is like. When I first came to Darwin there were two or three buildings. There was St Mary’s Cathedral, there was the Supreme Court which was knocked down, next door, and there was the old Reserve Bank building which is the United Nations building. Those buildings certainly reminded me of Darwin. People, to some extent, have gotten old and we have forgotten they exist. I certainly support the Minister for Lands and Planning saying we need something special, we need something that we can remember the city by.
I hope we would also look at trying to have an energy efficient building. We are going down the path of having a fully air-conditioned city. We talk about black outs and we talk about more generators, but our design is going down the path of high energy. That goes against what I would have thought were the government’s own principles on greenhouse gases and using less of our useable resources. I would have thought it goes all against that. I see a key element in this design being a low energy design and I hope that is taken into account.
Mr Bonson: Which I am sure it will, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Millner. There are a number of issues I would like to talk about. One of those that comes up is the need to be connected to be CBD. A number of people have mentioned it. I do also have to laugh that at this time of year, October-November, and the convention people knock off for lunch and say: ‘You can come back at three o’clock. You can go and do some shopping in the mall’. I reckon a walk from the convention centre to Rourke’s Drift, maybe go and take some photos of St Mary’s Cathedral, or you can go further down to the cinema to watch something at midday. They are going to be totally exhausted and literally dripping. This is one of the key factors that has not really been looked at. I brought it up at the briefing and they said it is not in their bailiwick. But the connection of the convention centre to the CBD by something more substantial than a footpath is an essential element of this project. We live in a hot, tropical climate and we should be looking at a way of transporting people who have just arrived from Melbourne, have never been to Darwin, all white and lily-skinned and suddenly – if you remember coming off a plane at the old Darwin airport – you collapse. The heat is oppressive. We have to look at ways of moving lots of people quickly from the harbour to the city. I have asked before why we don’t look at some sort of monorail or sky rail. Some people have suggested we could go under and use the tunnels and come up near the reserve bank building.
A member: Free shuttle bus.
Mr WOOD: Yes. We have to look at something a little bit different. I asked why we couldn’t have a monorail that went right down the Esplanade to the MGM Grand and linked everything up. Those possibilities should still be looked at. One of the concerns of business people in the CBD is that this will take business away from the CBD. If that is the case, we should be trying to address it by having modern, cool transport systems so people can go into the heart of the city.
The member for Drysdale raised an issue about the EIS. I know there is an EIS. During the briefing, I asked what happens if you find something pretty terrible under there. The answer was, ‘We will be able to fix it’. I hope they are right, but I wonder what would happen if something terrible was found underground. People are telling me that such a discovery will not be made, and I will accept their superior knowledge. I wonder if we are going to have an EIS done when the design of the building is completed. I hope there will be normal planning processes and this won’t be a case of this is a great process, so we will circumvent the planning processes. I hope this goes through the Development Consent Authority.
This is such a large project, 25 hectares, and could impact on the escarpment and possibly on the sea. There is going to be waste, noise, landscaping and all those issues normally involved in planning and they will need to be looked at before it goes to the planning process. The way to do that is for the minister to ask for an environmental impact statement to be done before it gets to that stage. It is all very well to say we have all these processes running along in parallel, but the public – and we cannot leave them out; we have everyone else in here – should have a say on how this development will turn out and what effect it will have on the community.
There are issues like transport. The member for Port Darwin mentioned a really important issue and that is car parking. It was mentioned by the member for Drysdale that car parking helps pay for the Adelaide Convention Centre. That was a pretty good idea. Most convention centres are pretty light on for car parking during the day. Most people do not use their own transport because they are visitors. If we are going to include car parking, one thing we should definitely do is cover it. I don’t say put a cover over the whole lot, but you can landscape it so that it has shade. One of the problems with car parking in Darwin is it is primarily shadeless. If you go down to Woolworths at Coolalinga, you will see a new design. There is well designed shade for vehicles. We should be thinking about that and not have acres of bitumen. Perhaps we can generate some income from that car park to help run the convention centre. After all, try to find a car park around this part of the world. You have buckley’s at times. The Supreme Court car park is nearly always full.
Mr Bonson: You have to pay for your parking, too.
Mr WOOD: Yes, maybe, but it may be as done in Adelaide: they obviously pay for their car parking there, too. It may be a way of having ongoing income to help run it. These are the sorts of ideas that we have to think about.
On the issue of whether the land is being given away, I understand where the Opposition Leader was coming from because the terminology used in the Chief Minister’s statement is ambiguous:
We will also provide the full 25 hectares …
‘Provide’ could mean we will provide it for sale, or we are just going to provide it to the developer. The Chief Minister did leave it, again, a little ambiguous, because she said, ‘You know, this is sort of subject to negotiation’. So we have this $100m the government is going to put in; the public should be told how much of this land will be given, or how much it will be sold for and, if it is going to be sold, at what price it is going to be sold. I must admit, if I was a developer in Mitchell Street who did not get any money for his block of land to help him along, he would be saying, ‘Hey, how come they are getting a bit of a deduction down there which has the risk of taking business away from me?’ That is a fair argument.
I will be keeping an eye on the land, and I will be interested to know whether taxpayers - because they own the land to some extent - will be subsidising the company by giving some of that land away, or at reduced cost.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned things like memorials, and I thought that was a great idea. When we are talking about visitors, they go looking for those sorts of things. The problem is, as locals we tend to forget. I sometimes go back to Melbourne, where I came from originally, and look at places I never bothered to look at when I lived there. The same happens in reverse. We probably do not look at some of the memorials around the place, but I certainly know tourists do, and the idea of memorials in that area would certainly be good.
The member for Port Darwin also mentioned hoons. That is a topic that I have been talking about for a while and I suppose I am a little bit disappointed that, at these sittings, a certain bit of hoon legislation which I hoped would surface at these sittings has not. I am told it is going to be in November. I would like to put on record on now that, if it is not put up by the first day in the sittings in November, I will certainly reintroduce my own legislation. It does not take, I do not know how many months, to put this bit of legislation together because I had it pretty well altogether in the first place. Hopefully, if that legislation comes through, member for Port Darwin, we might have a way of solving some of your problems.
Mr Baldwin: A hoonless society.
Mr WOOD: Oh no, I do not think you will have a hoonless society, but you might have a quieter society, member for Daly.
On a final note, this book talks about - and I cannot resist this, Madam Speaker, so I will probably get into strife for it - the wonderful harbour on page 3. It talks about the world’s best natural harbour. Then I heard the member for Wanguri say: ‘The opposition has no vision’. I had to chuckle, because it is the member for Wanguri, it is his department that is ripping the guts out of the harbour. We say it is the world’s best natural harbour, and yet we are taking literally tonnes of gravel under the vision of his department. It is crazy. There is no vision. That is the problem. I am not saying this does not have vision, but if we are talking about the best natural harbour, let us be real. It is not, I am afraid, ending up that way, and it is very sad. And when I hear the Opposition Leader say - or the member for Drysdale or someone said - there will be fill required for Stokes Hill to a certain height, and I shudder, because where is the fill going to come from? It certainly will not come from Darwin, I do not think. They have finished their days cutting hills down because they are putting houses on what is left.
Mr Baldwin: Stokes Hill.
Mr WOOD: Oh yes, I realise that, but there are also some tanks still there that belong to …
Mr Baldwin: They will go.
Mr WOOD: No they will not, that is still Commonwealth land. I would shudder as to where some of this fill is going to come from, and if it comes from the centre of the harbour again, I would say it is like fill one hole in, in one place, and dig a hole in another place.
My vision is, yes, we want to have a good convention centre, we want to have places there where people can enjoy the harbour, but I would hate to see the last thing is, when you look straight across the harbour to the left of the LNG plant, you see all these orange lights. Why? Because the member for Wanguri’s vision is industrial. Their documents show ‘industrial’, so what will you look across the world’s best natural harbour at – the lights of industry. You will see the little plumes of air conditioning steams and that coming from the dry cleaner. Yes, you will see the steam rising from the bottle factory that has to clean up that. That is all going there, it is not gas, it is nothing to do with gas, because we are not putting gas things in the middle of the harbour. We are putting just industry. Therefore, when people look across at the world’s best natural harbour, they will be able to think of the member for Wanguri’s great vision: mining and industry.
Hopefully - I do not want to finish up on an entirely negative note, Madam Speaker - this is a great project. It will be great for Darwin. I just hope that one day when we will all go down there and enjoy it, we still enjoy the world’s best natural harbour.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few points on the public record in relation to this statement. I also think it is a great project, and I want to make it very clear that the CLP is supportive of this project. I listened to the member for Wanguri, who was trying to divide and get an answer out of us that was definitive about this project. Well, I can give you a definitive answer: the CLP is very supportive of the development of the wharf precinct as a project. Why? Because we did the planning. We did the planning and the concept that has been talked about by the Labor government is no different from this document here. It is exactly the same as this document here. If you talk about monuments to Charles Darwin or to, indeed, Stokes, it is all in here. You only have to read the document: you have Charles Darwin Avenue and Stokes monument. If you talk about walkway linkages to the mall, this talks about using the World War II tunnel that comes out just near the Reserve Bank. It also talks about using the World War II tunnel that comes off that one and comes out where the Deckchair Cinema is. We are supportive of this development, because we have had the vision to lay down these plans.
The statement, talking about the development of the waterfront, is predicated on these plans which, as the member for Wanguri said, were produced with the assistance of many public servants who are now advising the Labor government. They have not moved from that. In fact, in the paraphernalia that comes out with the project statements by the Chief Minister when they announced this previously, they talked about all sorts of things going there, including perhaps a town beach. At one stage, the Chief Minister bagged the idea earlier on about a town beach. However, I noticed in their paraphernalia that a town beach is not excluded, which is a good thing to see. It is one of the dominant characteristics of waterfront development here in Darwin that will provide, once and for all, not only an attraction for tourists but a safe playground for Darwinians in the harbour that we would love to be able to swim in all year around. It is critical that that becomes part of it.
When this concept document was delivered in the House, the member for Fannie Bay at the time said nothing about the plans in her first speech – I have just been reading it - but said, at the front end - at the beginning of her contribution and at the end of her contribution, ‘The devil is in the detail’. That is exactly what we are saying here tonight. We are supportive, but we have some concerns and we will be watching.
The member for Wanguri said: ‘This development cannot go ahead without a convention centre being a part of it’. That is just utter nonsense. What he means is: this development should not go ahead, or probably could not go ahead, without a major catalyst. He is saying the only major catalyst can be a convention centre. Okay, that is his opinion; that is government’s opinion. They have made that decision on all the advice - wherever it came from - that they received. However, it is not the only catalyst that would make this development work. There are other catalysts that would make it work. It could be a major maritime museum, for instance; I do not know. There are other things that could make this development work and, particularly, if you were prepared - like the government said - to put in $100m up-front cash towards such a catalyst. That has been proven, not only on waterfronts around Australia, but in Cape Town which we went and had a look at.
The two concerns that I have - and they are concerns only – is, as the member for Fannie Bay said, the devil will be in the detail. We will be watching for that detail so that we can assure ourselves of these concerns, that they have been taken care of. What they found in Cape Town - and I still think, and this is a personal opinion and one of the things that I differ on from this government - my one major concern is that the government is proposing to give, sell or whatever, trade, 25 hectares of the most significant - as the member for Casuarina said - piece of waterfront development land anywhere in Australia that is left. They are going to trade this land to a single consortia. That is a travesty. It is a travesty that we are going to live to regret and if we do not, certainly our children will.
I say this, not through any great knowledge, because who knows, perhaps you are right, but it is a travesty. Why would you give away 25 hectares of the most valuable and important piece of land in Darwin, when you have the option of leasing that land? When you have the option of leaving that land in public ownership. You could give 100 year leases, similar to what we do with pastoral leases. Make it 150; I do not care.
This is how London is built. London is owned by a few people who date back a lot of years, but it is owned by the public. I say to the government, please, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, do not sell this 25 hectares to one private consortia. I know what will happen. What we will get is a nice model and, yes, this is what we want here and here and here, and it all looks beautiful and here is the land, and let us hope they have to buy it if you do insist on giving it over to one consortium. Let us hope they have to pay market value at AVO valuation because this land would be worth a fortune in anybody’s terms. I do not care whether it is $50m, $100m or $250m. But, what will happen at the end of the day is when government ticks off on the development and we start the development, the first thing obviously is going to be a convention centre and that is great. Ten years down the track when this land is half developed or a third developed or whatever, that consortium is going to walk through the door to the government of the day, whoever they are, and say: ‘We have spent $300m to date, and we need to develop further but we cannot do it unless we change this or that, or we want a casino there, and we want something different there’.
It happens all the time. Ask any government about private developments that take place over a long time frame. It will happen. What you start with is a concept, and I do not care how you try to lock it down, it will not be what you finish with 10 years or 15 years or 20 years down the track. It is a grave travesty to give this piece of land into private ownership.
I am Darwin-born and this is the worst thing you can do; give it to somebody who is going to have private ownership. What if, in 10 years time, the government of the day, whoever they are, decides to lock down that you cannot on-sell that land. When it happens in 10 years time, the government of the day says you can on-sell that to some other consortium, or a portion of it, three hectares? Now we have two consortia. Can they on-sell it? How many times can they on-sell it and what will we end up with? That is the fundamental mistake that the Labor government in my opinion - my opinion - is making. I hope I stand corrected. I hope my kids and their kids do not say, ‘I wonder who did that job’, in their lifetime, and are ashamed of it. This is the single biggest mistake that can be made.
I would prefer to see an option which has been suggested, of a government business division or a statutory authority, as the Cape Town Authority has been established. They receive government funding. They have to work on a completely commercial basis, and they are ongoing under legislation. In the legislation is all of the parameters of what can go in that Cape Town harbour precinct, and it cannot change without a lot of public comment. This will be able to because it will be under private ownership. The beauty is that the ownership stays with the people, whereas this will not: this will go to a few people, 25 hectares to a few people. That is my first concern and it might grow in the eyes of the community of Darwin.
My other concern, apart from all of the planning principles – they are easy enough to take care of – is, as has been mentioned by the member for Nelson, the environmental process. I have looked through all the paraphernalia that coincided with the announcement. I have read the statement, and I know we have an environmental impact study going on at the same time as going to expressions of interest, selecting a proponent, having them work up the detail. However, I agree with the member for Nelson, and this is a very important point. When government finally says, ‘You are the winner. We like your model’, it is incumbent on government to say, ‘Now we want a full EIS on the detriment or otherwise that this 25 hectares will have on the surrounding harbour, environs and land habitats’. Surely that has to be compulsory when you have a development of this magnitude in such a sensitive area.
You would have to, Minister for Environment and Heritage, be obliged to carry out a full EIS, not a parallel one that is not going to take care of the impact at the end of the day. In the case of whether you need to raise the Stokes Hill area – going beyond the tanks where the old power station was; that is part of all of this – what are you going to do? You are going to take the tanks out of there and demolish the hill and fill that area. That would be one of the proposals. Those tanks have been there since World War II. I remember the member for Wanguri trying to stir up the media about a so-called ‘massive leak of oil’ there.
Mr Henderson: Oh!
Mr BALDWIN: And he knows what I am talking about: snuck through the fence, took the photos.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Snuck through the fence, he did, took the photos. Who knows what has been spilt there? These were bombed. Once you have a picture of what is going there, it has to be incumbent on government for a complete EIS. I bet, because I know you are a betting man – a losing betting man – that at the end of this process, the community will be calling for a major impact statement to be done before the development proceeds. However, it is not in your time frame.
They are the only two points I wanted to raise. Three, really: do not ever suggest that we are against the development of the wharf area and the waterfront precinct. Do not ever suggest it, member for Wanguri. I know where you are going.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I know where you are going because you have priors on all this. You have priors on all this, I know, and I have put it firmly on the record that we had the vision; yours is predicated on it. There is no doubt about that.
Madam Speaker, I make the point again: the biggest travesty in all of this - and we will all live to regret it if they go down this path - is that they are going to turn this land over to private ownership and take it out of public hands. I do not care whether you give it or sell it. It does not matter at the end of the day. And the people who were born here, like the member for Karama, should be utterly disgusted with the concept of giving up this. You will find a swell in the community when you propose to do this that you are going to regret. I see the member for Karama shaking her head and disagreeing with me, but you are going to give away our future. Well, good on you. Let us see how it goes.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, with the exception of the member for Port Darwin, whom I thought gave a very worthwhile analysis and made some very good suggestions on this issue, all I have heard from the remaining members of the opposition just reminds me of what I think was in Frank Hardy’s book: ‘“We’ll all be rooned”, said Hanrahan’. We will all be ‘rooned’ - either its raining, it is going to flood, or it is a drought, or …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has to quote to the right author. It was John O’Grady.
Dr BURNS: Oh, I do not think so.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, Hanrahan is well known and that was his key saying, ‘We’ll all be rooned’. Much of this goes back to the fact, particularly with the member for Drysdale, that they are not calling the shots anymore. They do not want to see this Labor government go forward, on behalf of Territorians, and build and construct a very successful convention centre as part of a waterfront redevelopment. That is what really gets up their nose, because they think that they are the only ones in the universe that can ever do this sort of development. Well, they are wrong, wrong, wrong, Madam Speaker, because, as a government, we have ideas, we have vision, we have energy and, I believe, we have the skills to plan, organise and complete this very special project for and on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory.
Much has been made about the EIS statement and, you know, it is going parallel and if it is adequate. I give the guarantee in this House that our EIS project will be adequate. It will address all the environmental issues. We are running to a time frame, but I am very confident that, with the Office of Environment and Heritage and the whole process, environmental and heritage values will be protected in that very special part of Darwin. I am prepared to stand here tonight and give that guarantee because I am confident. I know the Environment Centre of Darwin gave its approval to the project and the process. We will be consulting the community and community groups, such as the Darwin Environment Centre, on the development of this convention centre, because it belongs to everybody and it is going to be a great asset to Darwin.
Tonight, I particularly want to speak about the advantages for tourism in the waterfront development. I call it the waterfront development because that is what we are calling it. That is what it is. The opposition can do all that it likes; pull up plans and say, ‘We had this plan before the election and you are just stealing our plans’. They had a plan but they did not have a convention centre. Their plan was different from our plan. We are putting a convention centre down there. There is going to be development down there. This will be a great asset for the Territory and the people of Darwin. It has this government’s stamp all over it, because we are doing it in consultation with the public. We have already held a range of focus groups on the issues. We know what the public want to see down there and what they do not want to see down there.
As a government, we will move forward, in consultation with the people of Darwin, and I believe it will be very successful. It amuses me that a few weeks ago, or months ago, in this place, we had the opposition absolutely rabid about siting the convention centre in that precinct down there, in that waterfront area, and now it was always their plan to do it. In their plan they might have had a special function area - as they called it - but it was never a convention centre. It was very glib of the member for Drysdale to come in and say, ‘Oh, it is just a big shed, there is not much to it’.
I know they call it Jeff’s Shed; I went and saw Jeff’s Shed. Even though Jeff’s Shed is called a shed and might resemble a shed, there is a lot more to a convention centre than just four very large walls. There is a lot of logistics involved in it, technical aspects to it, and to demean it and say it is just a shed and anyone can build a shed - well, I will leave the member for Drysdale in his little world with his relevance deprivation syndrome, and may it continue. We will listen to what he has to say. We will listen to genuine concerns of the opposition but, as a government we have set a course now. If we had tried to expand the time frame, people would have said, ‘It is taking too long because the economy is in trouble, we need employment, we need tourism development’ But as soon as the time frame becomes in any way compressed, it is wrong. With the opposition, it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. A lot of them can never be pleased. However, I would have to say the member for Port Darwin gave a very good speech on this, and she also made some very reasonable suggestions, and ones that I am certainly willing to take on board.
In relation to my tourism portfolio, this waterfront development is anticipated to act as a catalyst for tourism and infrastructure development in the Top End. Infrastructure underpins most tourism development in the Territory, and appropriate planning and investment in tourism infrastructure is essential in ensuring the Northern Territory maintains its competitive position. Attractions, including the development of tourist precincts, enhance visitors’ travel experience, and are absolutely vital to the success of tourism in the Territory. While the NT currently offers a diverse range of natural man-made or human-made historical and activity-based attractions, it has been some time since large-scale tourism development occurred within Darwin - or for that matter, within the Top End.
The new waterfront precinct will add value to the marketability of Darwin as a destination, and add to the range of tourism product available in the city. Its development is entirely in line with the NT Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07. Importantly, this development will provide a real impetus to expanding the share of tourists that the Northern Territory can attract, and increased opportunities for all tourism operators. The development will provide a new focus point for our city, which can be translated into images and new angles for tourism marketing. The precinct will become a defining, iconic representation of our vibrant city in the same way the Sydney Opera House helps define the Sydney waterfront area.
I turn to a specific component of the development that has additional and significant tourism benefits: the convention centre. It will be a world class convention centre with seating for 1500 people and 4000 m2 of exhibition space. Over 20 years, new tourism spends of $193m is expected, over and above already forecast tourism expenditure, with associated impacts on GSP of an estimated $139m over 20 years. These are very impressive figures, and it shows just how important a convention centre is in tourism and attracting guests to Darwin.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the convention centre estimated it would provide 68 incremental convention events. These are new events that would not otherwise have been held in the Territory. These incremental events would generate over 39 000 new delegate days. Intra-Territory visitors have been excluded from these calculations because they are not bringing new money into the Territory economy, although I suppose we would welcome a few Alice Springs people up here to walk around the new precinct and spend a bit of money. Of course, we would, just the same as they welcome us in Alice Springs. Well, we do all the time, but it would be good to have a few more swaps.
Based on Tourism Commission estimates of that average delegate expenditure of $250 per person, per day, this means an extra $10m per year directly into the Territory economy, with a smaller amount expected indirectly. Business tourism is an important growth market for the Northern Territory. Convention visitors are very high yield, spending over $200 per day, compared to $150 per day for holiday visitors. Conventions offers excellent opportunities for expanded pre and post touring options, including in our world heritage listed Kakadu National Park and other areas around Darwin, such as Litchfield and Nitmiluk National Parks.
Business tourism has an important role to play in attracting visitors to the Territory, in non-peak periods. A purpose built convention centre is expected to increase visitation to Darwin during the traditional low season in the Wet, attracting national and international visitors. This will assist retailers, accommodation providers and tour companies and spread that visitation through out the year. This will improve overall profitability of businesses and is also consistent with one of the government’s core tourism objectives of improving seasonalities. Along with the Ghan extension to Darwin early next year, the waterfront development offers key opportunities to overcome one of the greatest impediments to tourism development in the Top End.
The Darwin convention centre is expected to create 161 full-time equivalent tourist jobs for Territorians by year 4, growing to over 200 new full-time equivalent jobs by year 10. Tourism is by nature, a labour intensive service industry and as such has a larger employment multiplier effect than most other industries including mining and construction. The construction phase of the Darwin Convention Centre and Exhibition Centre and Wharf Precinct will result in a value added impact in the Northern Territory construction industry of $85m in present value terms, and 950 full-time equivalent nett construction jobs or 70 new jobs per annum. These are impressive figures. They point to job growth. They point to growth in our economy through visitors who will be attracted to this Convention Centre and Exhibition Centre, and it is a fantastic development.
Significant flow-on effects to the community are expected from the project, both from a social and lifestyle point of view and from a more practical perspective. For example, it is anticipated there will be an additional airline capacity attracted into Darwin, potentially increasing direct links with major southern destinations, such as Melbourne. This will have obvious flow-on effects and benefits to the local community.
We should never underestimate, in Darwin, our ability to attract conventions, not only nationally within Australia, but also internationally, particularly in the Asian regions - with all our fine facilities here, we are safe destination, we are within easy travel distance to major centres to our north. That will be part of our marketing strategy to market Darwin, and the convention and exhibition centre into Asia. There will be many professional groups, many different groups, which will be very interested in having convention and exhibitions in Darwin.
The convention centre will assist to build the Territory business case for increased direct air linkages with the Asian region. Darwin will be marketed throughout the region in addition to domestically as an alternate world class convention destination. Increased demand for business travel, point to point, from Asia to Darwin, will critically improve the yield on the Darwin route. Along with other major developments, such as the oil and gas and Ghan extension, the convention centre will add greater weight to the Territory’s claim for increased direct schedule air links with our Asian neighbours.
The Northern Territory Convention Bureau, a division of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, is an impartial bureau that provides information on tourism and business services. Its principle role is to facilitate bids for bringing business events to the Northern Territory, the local business tourism and incentive operators. The Northern Territory Convention Bureau markets the Northern Territory as a business tourism destination through a dedicated web site, brochures, advertising, trade shows, direct marketing campaigns, newsletters, and public relations on a national and international basis. It is well placed to exploit the opportunities offered by the new Darwin Convention Centre.
If I can digress slightly for a moment, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to advise that a new Manager for Business Tourism began with the Northern Territory Tourist Commission on Monday. Ms Kym Cheatham has 14 years experience in the tourism industry, most recently in the business tourism sector as Brisbane-based Manager, Tourism Whitsunday Conventions and Incentives. She has an extensive network of contacts and, importantly, has experienced the challenges of attracting business to a regional destination that is not all at dissimilar to that faced by the Territory and Darwin. Kym, therefore, has an appreciation of an industry sector in a formative stage of development from a business tourism perspective. She will be travelling around the Northern Territory in the next few weeks meeting industry representatives and exploring the opportunities presented by the recently completed, highly successful Alice Springs Convention Centre and, of course, the prospect and completion of the Darwin Convention Centre. I welcome Kym to the Tourist Commission in her new role during this exciting time.
I should also add that Maree Tetlow, the Managing Director of the Tourist Commission, also has very extensive experience in this area. She was Deputy CEO and Director of Marketing with the Melbourne Convention and Marketing Bureau. So, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission is well equipped to impart considerable knowledge and experience and make a very valuable contribution from a tourist perspective in the decision making process for the development as it proceeds.
I am aware that the Northern Territory Tourist Commission Board has been following, with considerable interest, the Darwin Convention Centre. The board has expressed its support of the development proposal including its location within the CBD precinct. This development will see what is currently a fairly unattractive and under-utilised area transformed into a visionary project linked to existing CBD areas which the people of the Northern Territory can be proud of over the long term. It will provide a new facet, a new element, to the city of Darwin, and to our life. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members, some more fulsomely than others, for their contribution to this debate.
I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by members of the opposition, but to note while they are raising these issues that not one member has recently asked for a briefing. For example, it was disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition. This is a wonderful project. It is visionary, it creates jobs, it certainly will enhance tourism and lifestyle. To hear the opposition led by the Leader saying, ‘We do support this, but …’ on the basis of ignorance is very sad.
The Leader of the Opposition said very early in his response that he had hundreds of questions he would like to ask. I said, Well?’, and he did not have them. If the Opposition Leader has hundreds of questions to ask, then this was the time to put them on the record if he had not had time for a briefing - just to be charitable. Have the briefing, understand the detail that you want has to be appropriate to be given at this stage, and we will do it.
This is the same process that we had with the railway. We certainly recognised from the past government that those briefings were always forthcoming. The railway project and the detail of how it was run had our support. There are great similarities between the way this project is going to be run and the way the railway was run. For the opposition to be saying that somehow or other government is hiding information is simply absurd. If the opposition want specific details, all they have to do is ask. The opposition has Question Time, they have opportunities in response to statements like this, to put on the record the specific information they need. The Opposition Leader said, ‘There are hundreds of questions that I need to ask’, well, he did not indicate what they were in this debate, and he certainly just touched on a couple of different issues that he has chosen to misinterpret from information that is already on the public record.
One of the Opposition Leader’s statements was virtually that government is giving the land away for nothing. We have been very clear, and I have been very clear in this House; the details that are available, either through publication or on the Internet, are clear about that. The land is subject to negotiation. My statement today said the 25 hectares are part of the negotiation package. Of course it is. However, that does not mean it is for free. What he said was, ‘You are putting $100m in for the convention centre, and you are giving the land away for free. What are you getting back?’ You could draw a comparison with the railway, where we put $165m in, we acquired the land, and we are not getting any revenue back, but we are recognising the nature of that railway project. Certainly this is different in that the land will be made available to the successful bidder, and we will be looking to get revenue back. How that happens is subject to negotiation. We are hoping for the most competitive process. Therefore, when those bids come back in, we will be looking for what is a competitive process, and what will get most advantage back to the Territory taxpayer.
The land is available to develop, and will be provided as a development lease, most likely Crown lease term. The land will be converted to permanent title when the stages are completed, consistent with the agreed master plan. If you want to look at some of the issues about revenue, there are a number of options that we anticipate the market may consider in their bids. Again, I say, regarding revenue which we are looking to get back to taxpayers, Territorians: we are looking for that competitive process. We have undertaken our own business model on that. We are in advance of the expressions of interest process, but we are not going to flag what it is. We want to see how competitive it is when it comes back from the private sector. There are a variety of options. There is an up-front payment for land on the mixture of unimproved capital value and some development profit. You can go for the top line revenue model over time from the sale of development activities, or you can combine them in some other way. You can get a combination of the two. But, if the Opposition Leader had cared to be interested in that, rather than just coming in here and say you are giving the land away for nothing, then we would have more respect for the contribution he made in this debate.
The Opposition Leader raised another issue he has raised in here in previous sessions: is there a developer who has been given preferential treatment? No, no, no. I do not know how many times you can say no. Not only do we say no, but we say how we have managed the process. Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, a probity auditor will oversee the process and provide an independent assessment that the selection process is going to be done fairly and equitably. It is an integrated development and requires a long term approach if we are to achieve the values we are seeking from the land.
We want to get the best value for the Territorians. We want to make sure that it is a long term development. We want to make sure we have the most competitive bid that will bring the most value to this very important project. We are going to be tough. We are going to be very tough on that. We want to make sure that there is a real commitment to local industry participation. We want to make sure that Territory subcontractors are in there with work, that suppliers are there, that the jobs that are created are for Territory jobs. As the Deputy Leader today said, the calculation is, over the time of that project, we are looking at something like 5500 jobs on the development of the waterfront.
It is very disappointing when you have the Opposition Leader simply trying to raise unfounded issues about this project. We can say with confidence, when we were in opposition, that we trusted the probity auditor in the railway process, and believed that government had put in place those appropriate checks and balances. These are the same checks and balances on this project and, yet, you have such suspicion and unnecessary questions about this from the opposition. Let us just put it clearly for all those here who are interested: there is a probity auditor in place and we want no preference for any developer. What we are looking for is the best proposal for building what is a visionary project, and to get most local content.
The Opposition Leader was also very critical and negative about many aspects of the development, especially the current process that is under way. I say to the Opposition Leader: the process that has been followed has been arrived at on the basis of excellent advice from our very expert public servants, who are serving this government exceedingly well, and served the previous administration. Again, I am sure that this process that is put in place is an excellent one and they are very committed to that. To slur the process is to slur those public servants who worked for the previous administration, and are doing that same excellent job for this government.
The Leader of the Opposition - and there are other members of the opposition as well - said his preference for the wharf project was to be run through a government owned corporation. We recognise that is one option available but, if you are going to look at a model like the railway, that was a successful major project and that was achieved through a public/private partnership. It is a model that has worked well and it is the kind of model that we are going to use to deliver this project. We looked at those different options and, just because the Opposition Leader said: ‘Brrrr!’, finger up to the wind, ‘My preference is for a government owned corporation’, it is not the only way to go. In light of our public/private partnership policy and the success of the model for the railway, that is what we are going to pursue.
In the early stage of the project, the project development is being managed by the Department of Chief Minister, then the project will move on to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment which monitors and manages all government developments.
The Leader of the Opposition was also concerned at what fill would be required on-site. There is no doubt about it; this is an old industrial site and it has been long used for housing aspects of industry that related to the wharf and shipping, so there is going to have to be a thorough environmental impact process. We are having those geochemical and geotechnical surveys starting already, so we will understand what the composition of the site is, and we will be dealing with it. However, that process will be done comprehensively and it will be done in an open and transparent way. Any implication that we will not is a real slight on the company that is undertaking it now. We recognise that it is a former working site - it still is – and there have been things like bitumen plants there, it has been a bulk materials wharf, so there has been a lot of activity over many years. As the statement said, it has been a wharf for a long time, and that has been an associated wharf area. We recognise that there is probably a lot of work to be done on the site. However, it would be no different from the sites that have been managed around the country as wharf redevelopments have been done, and probably nothing compared with the Homebush site where the Olympic development was done in Sydney, which was a challenge.
Looking at some of the criticisms the member for Goyder raised - again, rather like the Opposition Leader - he gave begrudging support of what is a great visionary project which will create Territory jobs. He was critical, as was the Leader of the Opposition, about what they say is the haste with which this project is being done. Balance that against the criticism we have been taking over the last six months, particularly from people like the Opposition Leader, who said: ‘Just get ahead and build the convention centre now’. We were criticised roundly for having PricewaterhouseCoopers do a thorough assessment of what kind of a convention centre we would need, where it could best be positioned in the market. We wore the flak from the Opposition Leader who said, ‘Do it now, stop going over the process again’. It was one of the things he added spend, spend, spend for and now he is joined by the member for Goyder. And when we make the decision and set what is a realistic but not a slow process, then we get criticised for doing this in haste.
I stood here for question after question today, about the state of the economy, and ‘What are you doing,’ was coming from the opposition. When we are doing something, we are getting criticised for doing it too quickly. I do not understand the logic. In fact, there is no logic and I believe with this process, this important development, we need to make sure it is done properly. We need to make sure it is done openly and transparently, but that does not mean that we should not set an achievable time frame that is one that does not allow too many delays in it. That is the kind of time table that we set with the railway. It was a very tight time table and it was achieved. What an inspiration! If we can do it with the railway, which is such an enormous infrastructure project, we can certainly set an achievable time frame for this project which will be over 10 to 15 years, but let us get it going.
Let us get jobs created, let us get the opportunities for tourism and let us get that roll-on factor in the Territory economy. As the Adelaide Convention Centre shows, every dollar that is spent in the convention centre, nine times that goes into the wider economy. How good is that for Territory business? How good is that for Darwin businesses, from your local florist, through to your hotels, through your tour operators, through to your dry cleaners, through to everybody, through to the restaurants? It all flows on to our Territory economy. We need to get that convention centre up and running and taking what will be an important part in the market for convention centres and exhibition spaces as soon as we can.
The criticism from the opposition is not only illogical but it is hypocritical. Let me look at other criticisms. The member for Goyder also accused us of a lack of detail in the statement. Again, I say to the member for Goyder, if you are interested in the waterfront redevelopment, then ask for a briefing. The Opposition Leader and the member for Goyder, and any other member of the opposition who is interested, can ask for a briefing. The opposition has decided that the only way to run this - because again the member for Goyder reiterated this - is that it needs to be a government owned corporation that you set up to run this. Again, I say to the member for Goyder: public/private partnership worked well on the railway, and it will work well in this project.
The contributions from this side of this House were constructive, visionary, positive, and looked at the contributions that this project will make to the local economy. I thank this side of the House for their positive contributions to this statement.
Turning to the member for Port Darwin, the member stated her preference for the convention centre to be built, as she describes it, in the CBD, despite the fact that the waterfront is the CBD as defined by the previous government. The member for Port Darwin is still saying it should be built in the CBD and, again, it is an illogical argument because as even the members on the other side recognise, there needs to be room for expansion of this convention centre and exhibition space, and there is no space in what she is closely defining as the CBD for anything of that size to be built.
As I said in my statement, what we are planning initially is the size of this Parliament House, and that is just a first stage. If you look around the country, exhibition spaces are the ones that are being expanded. We are starting with 4000m2, but when you look at what is happening in Perth, or Brisbane, or Sydney, they are expanding those exhibition spaces by vast amounts of square meterage and we are starting very modestly at 4000m2. Perth is starting at 16 000m2 and if you want to be really big and look at the Hong Kong model, then it is 65 000m2 of exhibition space. I think the member for Port Darwin has missed what this project is all about. This project is about building the capacity of the Darwin city. It is not about a project that will do for the next five years; this is about projects for our future. When you are looking at expenditure of $100m of public money, what we want to see is really significant returns on it. Our investment of $100m for the convention centre and some associated infrastructure development will realise a project that can be $600m to $700m, so the benefits are there because of the site we have chosen. The 25 hectares of prime land on our waterfront is a most magnificent site. This project will see the aspirations we have for that site realised.
The member for Port Darwin said she hopes the waterfront redevelopment will be tropical in nature. I note also that the member for Nelson said that. Yes, yes, yes, it is certainly one of the requirements. Being tropical in nature means we are looking at things like energy efficiencies, appropriate design - and that will be one of the criteria by which to measure the winning tenderer. There is no doubt about that. This is a project for our future, not a project that has buildings facing away from prevailing breezes, or does not have appropriate tropical design. We want it to be innovative and we want it to have appropriate public spaces. We want to make sure that those who use it, Territorians and visitors alike, can enjoy the public amenity.
One of the things that I am keen to pursue in the waterfront redevelopment is good use of public art. When you go to developments like this, public art enhances what is there. If we look at all those elements – vegetation, the way buildings are going to be designed, meeting the tropical challenge, public and recreational spaces, and public art – we are going to have a magnificent tropical design, and that is what we are after.
Convention centres need to make a statement in themselves. When you visit Adelaide and look at how they have made a statement overlooking the water with their convention centre and made it a very pleasurable place to visit, they get a 65% return from those who go to conventions and use the exhibition spaces. What we want is a building that says to people, ‘Come back!’ We want a building that shows them the harbour, and one that meets tropical design requirements, and we will get there.
Member for Nelson, I have not deal with all the matters you raised, but come and have a briefing and we will talk to you more about it because I have run out of time.
Mr Wood: I have had a briefing.
Ms MARTIN: You have had a briefing?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: Well done! Ten points. I thank everyone for their contribution. This is an important project for the Territory. It means jobs and new opportunities. To have a convention centre and exhibition space as the centre point of this waterfront development will really give it the go-ahead.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
This year’s Alice Springs Festival was a wonderful celebration of the energy and talent of this community. Over 15 000 attendances were recorded at 54 diverse events that made up the festival. Only three years have passed since the first festival in 2001 and, in that time, the program has grown immensely in volume and quality.
There is something in the Alice Springs Festival for everyone. It involves a huge range of sectors of the community, from kids to fine artists, from remote Aboriginal people to gardeners. The festival cultivates local talent as well as bringing in outsiders. The St Cecilia Chamber Orchestra from Tasmania was a real coup for this year’s festival, but so was the involvement of our local kids in the Deadly Digital Photographic Online Gallery at the Gap Youth Centre.
Aboriginal performers and artists played a major role in the festival, strengthening Alice Springs’ position as the hub of a strong but accessible indigenous culture. Desertsong, a concert for remote indigenous choirs, is held in the Todd River each year, and this year it attracted an audience of almost 2000 people. The Desert Mob Art Show attracted over 3500 people, and the Janganpa dancers, almost 100 people. The festival forms a springboard for the development of new talent in the visual arts and crafts, performing arts, music, literature and even new media. It also has the important philosophy of bringing art to the community, with multi-art activity happening in the Todd Mall throughout the 10 day event.
The arts in Central Australia are not just about cultural expression, they are also about the strategic strength of Alice Springs. They are a significant contributor to the economy and an area of future economic growth, both directly through employment and marketing and sales, and indirectly in providing a visitor experience. That is why our government is keen to get behind the arts, for example, with its recent backing of indigenous arts with a $3.2m three year development program. It is also why I am personally keen to get behind the Alice Springs Festival and see it grow into the future.
I am sure the festival organisers are immensely grateful to Loraine Braham for providing free rent in her office during the renovations of the old Repco Building. I gather she thoroughly enjoyed it, and the parade of creative people constantly challenging her photocopier! However, it is important that the festival continue to grow, and I look forward to meeting with them once they have drawn their breath, to plan for next year’s festival. I congratulate Di Mills, the Festival Director; Ingrid Laguna and Tiffany Manning, the Project Managers; Clive Scollay, the Festival Chair; and the team of volunteers who had dreams and worked hard to turn them into reality. The enthusiasm and energy of the group is just truly inspiring and a great asset to Alice Springs.
One of the highlights of the Alice Springs Festival was the performance of the Aboriginal dance troupe, Janganpa Dancers, at the Araluen Theatre. Janganpa is a group of Warlpiri and Anmatjere traditional artists, singers, performers and dancers who have been performing for many years, including performances in Germany, New Zealand and Korea. They are particularly known for their film work, with members of the company performing in Tracker, Rabbit Proof Fence and Kings in Grass Castles. However, this was the first time they transformed traditional dance into a format suitable for a western theatre. It is not an easy task. You cannot change Aboriginal law; authentic dance has certain restrictions and rules, such as the need to dance in a certain geographic direction, which is difficult on a stage which has a fixed orientation. There is also a very different atmosphere to develop without the smoke and flames of a campfire or the dust from stomping feet. The director’s notes say that it is a bit like trying to fit a game of football into a lounge room; the goal posts have shifted dramatically.
However, Janganpa wanted to do this to prove to the tourism industry that they can adapt to different locations that may be more suitable for some markets. For example, there is a whole new potential market with the convention centre’s business tourism clients, who may not want to go out bush to experience traditional dance. They sought the assistance of Tracks, a renowned Territory dance company, to help transport their dance into a western theatre. Janganpa and Araluen together took the initiative to invite members of the tourism industry to a free showing, and gave each person a survey to fill out with their comments on how appealing the show would be to different tourist markets. The results were honest but positive, with a generally very high level of satisfaction and interest, and some good suggestions on how to make it suit the industry.
Congratulations to Peter Yates, the Manager of Janganpa, and to Andrea Lehman from Araluen, for putting together this survey. Special congratulations to the dancers themselves for their initiative and dedication in getting this potential new tourism product happening. I will name the dancers: Noreen Nampijinpa Robertson, Lydia Nangala Sampson, Ida Nangala Granites, Pamela Nangala Sampson, Audrey Napanangka Martin, Judy Nampijinpa Granites, Topsy Napaljarri Dixon, Maggie Nakamarra, Johnny Possum Japaljarri, Ted Egan Jangala, Jimmy Jangala Collins, Charlie Jampijinpa Brown, Albie Jampijinpa Morris, Frankie Japanangka and Derek Egan Jampijinpa. Amongst that group, there are both very senior people from the Anmatjere and Warlpiri communities, but also some young people who are starting to be inducted into the ceremonial knowledge. This is very much an extra incentive for the young people to learn this very important knowledge from their elders. Just as we have seen in the visual arts, often this contemporary application of culture is a way of reenergising, I guess, the desire to learn culture amongst the younger generation coming through.
I really hope that we will see a successful fusion of western theatre with ceremonial dancing; one that retains the integrity of the ceremonial knowledge and dancing but, at the same time, provides a very important new product to the tourism industry.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a number of functions I attended over the last month, since last sittings. The first of these was the COTA gala dinner dance on Saturday, 30 August. COTA stands for people over 50. It is a member of the COTA National Seniors Partnership. Carole Miller OAM, is the executive director. Carole is also one of my ward members on the Darwin City Council, and I have had the pleasure of working with her for the last two years. She has been a nothing but a joy to work with and is a very professional operator.
The membership officer was Mrs Kit Holtham. I was contacted by COTA and asked to sponsor a table. I gladly did so, as I have a number of seniors in my electorate, particularly around Hazell Court/Reynolds Court area and, in particular, the seniors hall in Coconut Grove. The people I invited were Kevin and Betty Gould - Kevin is the President of the seniors hall at Coconut Grove; Maureen Hack, Janet Roe, Pat Bonson, Dot Daby, Nancy and Arthur Cox and, of course, I and my wife, Mona-Lisa Bonson. A fabulous night was had by one and all. It was held at the MGM Grand and over 200 people attended. Everyone danced the night away. I left at around 10.30 pm to attend another function, otherwise I would have stayed there all night, no doubt, dancing.
On Saturday, 4 October 2003, I attended the media awards. These awards were held at MGM Grand. It was an interesting event. George Negus was the guest speaker and gave an hilarious speech, and a very interesting one, during part of which every politican in Australian copped a jovial jibe in the stomach. Winners included ABC radio current affairs journalist, Anne Barker, who won the 2003 Telstra Journalist of the Year Award; Best news story, print - Edith Bevan, Northern Territory News; Best news story, radio - Mark Bowling, ABC; Best news story, TV - Mark Bowling, ABC; Best TV news camera work - Wayne Hylard, Channel 9 - Wayne does a bit of filming in the Chamber during Question Time; Best photography or camera work in a feature story - Terry McDonald, ABC - he also does some work during Question Time, and did a fantastic story on his experiences in China; Best photography - Clive Hyde, Northern Territory News; Best sports journalist - Richard Earle, Northern Territory News; ATSIC award for best coverage of indigenous issues - Heather Stewart, Anne Barker, ABC - that was presented by none other than Kim Hill, Yilli Rreung Council member and Northern Territory Commissioner for ATSIC; Best regional journalist - Glenn Morrison, Centralian Advocate; TIO award for best feature - Anne Barker, ABC radio, Heather Stewart, ABC TV, produced by Murray McLaughlin. The big prize of the night was Channel 9’s Allison Langdon who received the David Marchbanks Award for best new journalist. Northern Territory News reporter, Chris Carter, was highly commended; in other words, he ran close second.
It was a fabulous night. Over 300 people attended. I had the opportunity to meet, depending on what you think of journos so this is my kickback to the journos there, the infamous or notorious or famous Nigel Adlam of the NT News, and spent 20 minutes speaking to a man who spends many hours reporting on the events of politicians throughout the Northern Territory. I found that quite interesting and I met his delightful wife as well.
I also had the opportunity late last month to attend the Central Australian Football League Grand Final for 2003. It was a great event. It was the first time I had attended the grand final there and the chair person was a great host, Mildy Raveane. The co-captains for Pioneers were Graeme Smith who is also a co-coach of the Pioneer Football Club and Vaughn Hampton. The co-captains for South were Kelvin Maher and Bradley Braun. Kelvin Maher is a two times Nichols medalist in the Northern Territory. South was coached by Greg McAdam, from the McAdam family, related to the member for Barkly, Elliot McAdam, and also a AFL player in his own right. The coach of Pioneers was Roy Arbon, who is a famous football coach in the Territory; and his sons, Joel Campbell and Matt Campbell played for Pioneers. Joel Campbell may have an opportunity to go to the AFL.
It was a fantastic day. It was one of the most exciting matches that I have had the opportunity to see in the last few years. South hit the front and were leading most of the day. Pioneers fought back in their last quarter and were, I believe, 15 points in front with about 10 minutes to go, and there was an almighty collision on centre wing, which stopped the game for a couple of minutes. South was able to regather under the play of Gilbert Fishook who kicked nine goals and they came back and won the game.
Players for Pioneers were: Aaron Kopp, Daniel McCormack, Matt Campbell, Standley McCormack, Nathan Pepperill, Nathan Flanigan, Geoff Taylor, Peter Donoghue, Eric Campbell, Richard McCormack, Geoffrey Gibson, Wayne McCormack, Joel Campbell, Daniel Craig, Joe Cole, Martin Hagan, Ryan Mallard, Ricky Mentha, David Kerrin, Vaughan Hampton, Graeme Smith, Craig Turner, Jethro Campbell and Gordon Mallard.
The squad for South was: Edwin Cooke, Kelvin Maher, Jeremiah Webb, Charlie Maher, Lloyd Stockman, Bradley Braun, Kasman Spencer, Shane Hayes, Darren Talbot, Albert Tilmouth, Gilbert Fishook, Donny Schaber, Malcolm Ross, Richard Morton, Ali Satour, Aaron Reid, Shaun Cummings, Trevor Reid, Shaun Cusack, Brenton McMasters, Sheldon Liddle, Ben Abbot, Nigel Lockyer and Wayne Braun.
It was a fabulous event and I thoroughly enjoyed the day. The broadcast of the event by CAAMA Radio was fantastic. I thank all Alice Springs people for their hospitality.
I also attended and spoke on behalf of the Northern Territory government at the 20th Anniversary of the Litchfield Times. It was a great pleasure and it was an indigenous celebration. Parliamentary colleagues who also attended were Peter Maley and Gerry Wood representing the Goyder and Nelson electorates which largely cover the circulation area of the Times; I am reminded that Gerry’s presence was brief as he had some vital family business to attend and I believe that there was a birth of a grandchild …
Mr Wood: Yes! Number four.
Mr BONSON: Number four. That has been confirmed by the member for Nelson.
It was a small but congenial group that gathered at the Sonsie Restaurant in Parap. I was honoured to be there to offer the government’s congratulations to Val Smith and her staff, both present and past, who have been part of the Litchfield Times for the past 20 years. After all, it marked a significant milestone for both the Litchfield Times and for the Northern Territory.
It is fair to say that the newspaper history of Darwin is littered with failure. To my knowledge, there have been at least six attempts to establish independent newspapers in Darwin and Palmerston in the past three decades. Only the Litchfield Times survives. Until the Humpty Doo and Rural Area Times came on the scene, the most successful alternative to the NT News was the Darwin Star started by Kerry Byrnes.
It is no coincidence that Val Smith was a stalwart at Star Printers, publisher of the Darwin Star. It was the sale of the Darwin Star to South Australian businessman, Alan Scott, its brief status as a tri-weekly publication and its subsequent demise that prompted Val to set up a newspaper in her own right. She had as a partner another former Darwin Star employee and gifted artist, Shaun ‘Spud’ Murphy, who not only worked on the layout of the paper; he also drew cartoons and did artwork for advertisements.
In its earliest days, the paper was laid out in a tin shed on Val’s property at Humpty Doo. For the first few years the ‘HD RAT’ was published in a similar format to the old Darwin Star; that is, roughly half the size of the current tabloid layout. I really enjoyed seeing examples of those first papers on display for the anniversary celebrations.
The Litchfield Times is a rural area and Territory success story. It has succeeded where others, as I mentioned, have succumbed to the economic pressure the NT News has demonstrated it can apply to squeeze out competition, even if it is not direct competition. For 20 years, the Litchfield Times and Val Smith have given the people of the Darwin’s rural area a strong local voice because Val Smith and those who have worked for her over the years have lived in and been part of the rural community.
I was reminded at the anniversary celebrations that the Litchfield Times had given extensive coverage to the machinations surrounding the formation of the Litchfield Shire. There was considerable antipathy in the rural area to the idea of local government, and we were reminded that it took amendments to the Local Government Act to limit the level of council rates before it was finally accepted.
It might have followed a conservative line, but the Litchfield Times has sought to be politically even-handed, and has always taken an independent line, reflecting the fact that for much of its time, it has covered the electorate of at least one independent local member.
Reflecting the essentially rural nature of its circulation area, it has always given strong coverage to agriculture, horticulture and other primary industries, providing plenty of room for difference of views. There was a heavy emphasis on reporting news that mattered to people of the rural area, and has given those people a voice through Letters to the Editor and a variety of columns. It has always given good coverage of local sport and has delivered a healthy dose of humour.
For many, the Croc Rot gossip column is a must-read starting point and, before that, it was the column ‘Round the Green Ute’, which referred to a ute parked at the Humpty Doo Bush Shop on a nightly basis and, for many years, was the focus for a group of locals who liked to sink a green can and swap yarns. A colleague has reminded me that candidates seeking election to the first Litchfield Shire Council back in 1985 had to make a mandatory appearance at the green ute and buy at least one round!
Working for the Litchfield Times has helped expand or perhaps test the journalistic skills of a couple of the well known locals, among them Jack Ellis, who went on to work for the NT News and ABC, and Leonie Norrington. Leonie, a third-generation Territorian, is the author of a wonderful book on tropical gardening and has the first two books in a children’s trilogy published to warm acclaim. She still writes a regular gardening column in the Litchfield Times.
The current crop of employees of the Litchfield Times are: advertising reps, Lynda Francis and Caroline Koole; reporters, Bill Meyer and Ian Dudgen; layout artists, Sue Dibbs and Caroline Tapp, and Lorraine Milsom in accounts. They continue to publish a well regarded local paper.
I cannot say I was surprised to hear that Val Smith was easing back her workload in favour of more golf, after all, she is a first class player. It is an open secret that the Times is up for sale. I am sure I join with local residents in hoping that if ownership does change, the Litchfield Times will continue to offer the rural region an alternative and independent local news source.
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the night. We enjoyed the food, the wine, the conversation and left a definite impression on the Litchfield Times staff. On the front cover the next week was the member for Goyder and I. I do not know if that is a good look for both of us, kissing the top of the baby’s head! Any politician knows that that is always a good way to come across. I thank those who attended the night. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. On 24 September, I had the great honour to be invited to a very important ceremony near Yuendumu, where a commemoration was held to mark the 75th anniversary of what has come to be known as the Coniston Massacre. It was a commemoration a long time in coming, but one that developed into a day of remarkable reconciliation. The day was held to honour the families from the Warlpiri, Anmatjere and Kaytej nations, whose lives are still marked by the tragic events of three quarters of a century ago.
At the same time, we were there to remember the old kartiya man who was killed at that place. The place is known as Yukurru, but is also named Brooks Soak, after the dingo trapper who was killed there. It was the spot that marked the start of events that led to the deaths of perhaps 100 Aboriginal people. They were the ancestors of the many families who attended the anniversary ceremony. It was a day of remembrance and mourning.
It was not so long ago in the history of the Australian nation that this terrible thing happened . It happened only 22 years before I was born, only 11 years before the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard was born. Indeed the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, was two years old at the time. It is within historical memory, part of the social political and moral fabric of Australia. It is a part of Australian history we cannot ignore, let alone forget and, for the Warlpiri people, it is a history of irreplaceable loss.
It must be remembered that the late 1920s was a time of major drought and therefore, in the context of what was still very much the frontier of black/white relations in Australia, the conflict over resources was intense. It was a conflict between the land and its people; and the cattle, and those who had brought with them the guns and diseases that followed. What is often misunderstood is that the Coniston Massacre was no single event, but a series of punitive raids that occurred over a number of weeks as police parties killed indiscriminately. Even Keith Windschuttle, one of the great deniers of frontier violence, acknowledges the savagery and disproportionate nature of the Coniston reprisals. Even he, albeit based only on the unsubstantiated writings of a journalist, agrees that many more died than the official record will admit.
For the Warlpiri, the consequences of that savagery continue to this day. It is no accident that the diaspora that followed Coniston is still a reality for the Warlpiri. Despite enormous commitment to the Jukurrpa, the source of the law of their land, no major Warlpiri community is located today on Warlpiri traditional lands. This is a direct legacy of their flight and dispersal after Coniston to centres such as Yuendumu, Lajamanu, Ali Curung, and Tennant Creek. It is only since the protection of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act came into be being in 1976 that Warlpiri people have been able to move back on to their country to outstations, and the re-invigoration of their connections to country through traditional law.
The day at Yukurru, through the Yawulyu danced by the women, demonstrated that renewed commitment to country that had been so badly damaged in 1928. Yet, the day at Yukurru was not a day of bitterness and rancour. As I mentioned before, it was a day of remarkable reconciliation. We were joined by a descendant of Constable Murray, the man who led the raids. Lisa Dale-Hallet, a great niece of Murray’s, spoke very movingly of discovering a part of her family heritage that is not pretty, but a family legacy that had to be faced up to as a part of an understanding by all of us of the history of the last 215 years. It was gratifying to see at Yukurru, Commander Gary Manison of the Northern Territory Police service based in Alice Springs, and his acknowledgement of this past tragedy. Both were there on that day to remember the past, in brotherhood and sisterhood with the descendants of the Aboriginal people whose lives intertwined with that of, respectively, their ancestor and predecessor, on such a violent frontier three-quarters of a century ago.
It was not a time for recrimination or pay back, but a time for our collective memories, nevertheless. Despite the tragic and disproportionate suffering of the Aboriginal men, women and children who lost their lives over those awful weeks of 1928, we were all there at Yukurru that day in friendship and solidarity. Just as at the Wukidi ceremony at the Supreme Court in June, we were there to look to a future where our histories are acknowledged; not as a stick to beat each other up with, but to learn from - and that must be the lesson of Coniston.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also congratulate the organisers, the Central Land Council, for being able to organise, as they have shown in the past, these types of gatherings where people can come together. Their staff also need to be acknowledged for the great work that they contributed in ensuring that the commemoration ceremony was a really fantastic event.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a recent happening at Fogg Dam, which neighbours my electorate. Fogg Dam happens to be a place famous for its file snakes, fish and wildlife. There is a group of scientists - the NT News calls them ‘boffins’ - from the University of Sydney who have been studying Fogg Dam for quite a number of years. In fact, I am told that Dr Tom Madsen, who is out there full-time, has been there for quite a number of years and just about knows personally every goanna, children’s python, and just about everything else that moves out there. He has put radio transmitters on most of the goannas that live there, and he is studying the biodiversity of that area. I do not think I am giving any trade secrets away, but anyone who was at public meetings of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, would know that one of the things that the Territory appears short on is definitive data on the biodiversity.
One of the problems we have with the cane toads coming is that we do not really know what effect it has on our biodiversity because, except for a study by the Conservation Commission in Dr Bill Freeland’s time round near Borroloola, there has been very little work done on establishing what baseline biodiversity we have in the Northern Territory.
Sydney University has been working for quite a long time on this particular project. Dr Rick Shine works out of Sydney and visits Fogg Dam on occasions; Dr Greg Brown works at Beatrice Hill farms, and Dr Tom Madsen and his wife, Dr Beata Jvari, live at Middle Point village. They also have a number of other visitors come from Sydney University such as post-graduate students who come up and work from time to time.
The reason this has come to my attention is not only because I knew about this from the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, but I had a phone call from Dr Rick Shine a couple of weeks ago asking if I knew they wanted to knock the flats out there where his scientists work. He showed me a copy of the letter to the Chief Minister and he sent a copy to me asking that something be done about this because it certainly would interrupt the work they were doing.
I waited a couple of weeks and again I get another phone call and I find out there has been a group of people going out there tapping the walls. What they were doing was working out how best to knock these flats down. I also got going on the pen and paper and sent a letter to the Minister for Lands and Planning, and the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and sent a copy of those letters to the Chief Minister, saying basically: ‘Whatever you are doing, you should rethink it’. I travelled out there and had a look at these flats where Dr Tom Madsen was doing his work and it was very hard to believe that these flats, even though they were built before the cyclone, were worthy of being knocked down. They were in very good condition. They were being used continually. The Sydney University people were paying rent on them. They were also using it as part of their laboratories. So it was of great concern that these people were basically being asked to pack up and leave when not only were they paying to do work in the Northern Territory, they were doing work for the Northern Territory that we really should have been supporting wholeheartedly.
I must admit it did disappoint me that there was not an immediate reaction to say hang on, these people are working for something that the Northern Territory needs, that is, it needs baseline data, especially with the movement of cane toads across the Northern Territory. I would have thought they would really get up and go but I received a letter from the minister the other day, dated 6 October, in which he thanked me for my letter and politely told me that the land and buildings at Middle Point are the property of the Northern Territory Land Corporation, not the Northern Territory government. I must admit I felt a little bit disturbed at that because for many years I believed the Labor Party had no time for the Land Corp. It was that secret body out there which gathered land in to make sure it was not susceptible to Aboriginal land claims. Yet, when I ask the government to give us a hand to help make sure these flats were not going to be destroyed, I was told to go and see the Northern Territory Land Corporation, which I did. I did not see them but I rang up Peter Blake and discussed the issue with him. Peter Blake is a pretty good bloke and I am told today that he actually went out there and had a look.
It seems that the story was that the Housing Commission used to operate these flats and they were passed over to the Land Corp. The Land Corp were particularly worried that these were not up to code. Well, anything built before 1975 or 1976 would actually not be built to code. They said if you are going to bring it up to code you are going to have to do some changes to the building. One of the changes would have been to knock out the ceilings and the ceilings were made of asbestos. They must have thought that knocking that out was going to cost more money than upgrading the building so why not knock the whole thing down. But luckily, I received good news this afternoon. Dr Tom Madsen had rung me this afternoon to tell me that Peter Blake and one of his staff had been out there today, and it appears they have recognised that the buildings are very good buildings.
Even though they do not come up to code, Middle Point is a fair way from a cyclone. I doubt whether you are going to get very much of a blow-out that far. It appears that there are options for either Parks and Wildlife taking over the building, or Sydney University taking over the building, or even someone privately taking over the building, so this essential work can continue. It is essential work. They have probably only have about one more year before the cane toads have reached Fogg Dam. I was talking to Dr Tom Madsen about it, and he believes the cane toads will just devastate the goannas. In fact, they are going to do another study after the cane toads have gone through because he believes that there will be so few goannas left they will then study the gene variations in what is left, and they will see whether there is enough gene pool for the goannas simply to survive. He said you might have 290 goannas out there at the moment, there is enough of a gene pool to make sure the goannas will survive. However, if you only end up with four goannas, that gene pool is diminished quite a bit. He will be doing a study to see whether such a low base of genes can enable these goannas to survive into the future and build up a new population.
They are very important studies because even Dr Bill Freeland admitted that whether goannas have survived in Borroloola or not - possibly they have, possibly they have not - and perhaps this is the sort of information we need. In the end, even though a little bit disappointed, the government perhaps should have jumped in there and shouted from the roof tops that these buildings were not going to be knocked down.
One other point: someone rang me the day before yesterday and mentioned the Leprosarium at East Arm. Through my wife, I have had connection with East Arm Leprosarium because my wife’s mother lived there for quite a while. She had leprosy and eventually she died from leprosy. I remember many years ago going down a single lane bitumen road, having to stop at a gate where there was a house, because it was also the road to the Quarantine Station, and then you travelled down to the East Arm Leprosarium, which was on the hill, on the right hand side. If you are going down there now, you will see the tracks that lead to it, and that is all you will see. Sadly, one can say this is progress, that this is development, but with the development of the East Arm Port and the railway, East Arm Leprosarium has been totally demolished as far as I can see. There is not anything there now and I presume the hill will be flattened and used as fill.
This person said how sad it is that all that history is gone. I wonder whether the government would consider putting some sort of memorial there. Many Aboriginal people went through there, a lot of nuns - in this case, because it was a convent – who helped Aboriginal people went through there. The word was that during the cyclone, the convent was blown away and the only thing the nuns had for shelter was a table and they all held one leg of the table until the winds died down. That was their only protection.
Of course there is a very famous person who worked there - I presume he was not the only doctor, there would have been other doctors and nurses - Dr Hargraves who I have said before is a living saint, not only because of the work he has done at East Arm and amongst lepers, but also the work he has done in Timor with people with facial deformities. Even in his ‘retirement’, this man is a giant of a man in the Northern Territory. He continues to do great work. I believe it would be very appropriate if something could remain there, even if it was the entrance that went up to some sort of plaque that recognised when the Leprosarium started and when it finished.
The history of leprosy in the Northern Territory is a tragic history. Leprosy, especially in the early days, was treated as ‘the unclean’ as in the Bible. That is why people originally lived on Mud Island, which is the island in front of Wickham Point, if you can call it an island - it is just a strip of sand and a bit of mud. People lived there and they were put there to keep them away from the rest of us. Eventually, they moved to Channel Island and that was not much better. There was no connection to the mainland, so everything had to be shipped in. Sandflies and mosquitos were abundant, so eventually Channel Island was abandoned and East Arm Leprosarium was established.
There is a very long history which revolves around some very brave people. There are many Aboriginal people - and I would say there would be some alive today - who would have spent some of their time there. It is because of all those people who worked there that, eventually, we have been able to get on top of leprosy. Drugs are now much better than they used to be, and the care is much better. Leprosy is just about a dying disease if we can call it that - as we know, it has killed people - but hopefully it is a disease we will not see around much longer in the Northern Territory.
I put it to the government that progress is great, development is great, we need the port, we need the rail, but let us not forget some of the past. I hope the government and maybe the minister for Health might put it to the government for a memorial and perhaps a small ceremony there would be fitting for everything that has happened there in the past.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): It has been a long day, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would like to talk on a couple of issues tonight. First, following on from my colleague, the member for Arnhem, and his contribution to adjournment tonight on the Coniston Massacre and the reconciliation, essentially, that took place a couple of weeks ago between the families of those people affected and the Northern Territory Police. It just goes to show that the Territory is moving on, and we can address issues, such as Coniston and history, and move forward - and a big step forward - in reconciliation. I place on the record my congratulations to the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Police, particularly Gary Manison, in coming together to honestly appraise the history of what happened at Coniston, not that long ago, and actually come together in the spirit of reconciliation. It really does go to show that the Territory is moving forward when we are seeing things like this happening.
In some ways though, things never change. In parliament and the argy-bargy that goes on here, we have certainly seen a bit of robust debate in the last couple of days on the issue of alleged plagiarism. I would like to speak tonight, not so much in the defence of my colleagues - they capably and ably defended themselves - but of some of the hypocrisy from members opposite who throw the stones.
The member for Macdonnell, in his statement last night - I was upstairs, I did not see it - but there was a bit of a double act going on here regarding alleged plagiarism by the member for Sanderson. Obviously, we have had a good look at this alleged plagiarism overnight. When you go through the quotes that were used in this debate last night by the member for Macdonnell, the vast majority of those quotes were actually attributed by the member for Sanderson, absolutely the vast majority of them. We have been through with the highlighters. The member for Macdonnell is at it again. He is back on the front bench, he is out to make a name for himself. He is being very deceitful in what he is saying. In fact, there was so much of that work that was actually attributed, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, by yourself, it was really hard to find bits that possibly were not.
In the whole hoo-ha of this particular debate, I would like to advise honourable members, as Leader of Government Business, I have had look at the standing orders and there is certainly nothing in standing orders that says that there is any crime for quoting text, or commentary, or anything that is being researched; there is nothing in standing orders. Much of the member for Macdonnell’s diatribe last night was complaining about members not complying with the rules of footnoting. Well, there are no such rules of footnoting, certainly within standing orders. The member for Macdonnell has demanded strict compliance with these rules.
As my colleague, the member for Sanderson, said in his explanation this morning, all of us, as members of parliament, it is a bit of a different life as a minister, you have people who do the research for you, and present you with materials, but I have done my time in opposition as well, and sat upstairs on the 5th floor until two, three o’clock in the morning, researching responses to statements and what have you. But you do use material from all over the place in compiling responses. We all get made ministers or shadow ministers, or backbenchers, and are asked to contribute in areas of debate that we have no background in, that we have no history in, that we have no particular academic knowledge of. So you have to source material and use that material in contribution to the debate. That is part of the job of being a politician.
Certainly, in all cases, if you were using substantive slabs of material, yes, that should be attributed; it is just the natural thing to do. In the work that we have been through today from the member from Sanderson, he certainly does a lot of attributing, going through all of this. But, let us look …
Mr Elferink: No, he does not; he mentions. He leaves a couple of smoking guns and that is it!
Mr HENDERSON: … at the member for Macdonnell. He has been too smart - too smart by half here. According to the member for Macdonnell, if one does not do this, he or she is guilty of plagiarism and should be ashamed of themselves. There was language used by the member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: Come on, bring it on!
Mr HENDERSON: … ‘parasite’ I believe was one of the beautiful adjectives he used last night in this colourful language that the member for Macdonnell sometimes uses. This is the man, if you pour water, you are an instant expert on everything. I will certainly acknowledge that the member for Macdonnell works hard and does a lot of research, but he is an instant expert. On every topic that you wish to draw breath on, the member for Macdonnell has some informed opinion on.
However, obviously, since the member for Macdonnell’s comments last night, we have done a bit of research, as you would, to review some of the contributions the member for Macdonnell has made in this Chamber. We did not have to go very far, actually. It was somebody up on the 5th floor, a lawyer, said, ‘I remember last year in February – no, in February this year - in amendments to the Bail Act’. We have a few lawyers who work amongst our staff. I am certainly no lawyer, and the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General brings things into Cabinet. It makes my eyes glaze over, in the way lawyers think and what have you. We need lawyers, but I am not a lawyer. It certainly is not a world that I have ever moved in.
In came the member for Macdonnell with a very polished speech in regards to amendments to the Bail Act. He stood up like a bush lawyer, quoting and contributing very fulsomely to debate. Well, there are people upstairs on the 5th floor who are also lawyers and read the law journals and knew exactly where he was coming from in this particular debate. To say that the member for Macdonnell’s arguments were inspired by an article written by David Kell in the Australian Law Journal in 1994 would be an understatement. The entire arguments that the member for Macdonnell proffered in his contribution to that debate, theme by theme, was exactly the same as David Kell, with no attribution that these are the opinions of David Kell: ‘These are the opinions and I am going to rearticulate them because they form much of my own opinions’. No, no mention of that. He stood up here saying: ‘This is my great wisdom - my wisdom. These are my words, my thoughts, my contributions to this debate’. The entire presentation of the themes, even in the orders that Kell argued, were the same as in the member for Macdonnell’s statement.
However, it was worse than that. Not only did he follow the theme and the sequence of the theme of this great contribution to the amendments to the Bail Act - I wish they would work out on the other side who is the shadow Attorney-General. We have at least three of them over there. Two of them are actually qualified lawyers and one bush lawyer, wanting to contribute in detail regarding legislation. They still have not sorted out who is the shadow Attorney-General.
Not only was the actual theme and the arguments of Kell entirely replicated in the member for Macdonnell’s contribution to the debate - so he absolutely plagiarised the intellectual property of David Kell in forming his article - but he also lifted in parts, word for word - five sentences and 150 words copied word for word into the debate. So, not only did he steal the intellectual property of Kell in his arguments and the way he presented them, but he also took those words. After his contribution, the member for Macdonnell bounced back into this Chamber and said, and I quote:
So one small mistake and wants to be completely tidy. So, I am not going to take issue with the fact that …
Mr Elferink: See, I came in here realising I’d made a mistake. I corrected it!
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Macdonnell and the arguments were stolen directly from David Kell, stealing his intellectual property of contribution …
Mr Elferink: This is the best you can do. This is so sad, mate!
Mr HENDERSON: We are not going to take argument with that. We are not going to take issue with the fact that he lifted 150 words word for word and then said, ‘Oh, it was only a couple of sentences’. I am going to take issue with the member for Macdonnell having complete double standards ...
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate! You are outrageous.
Mr HENDERSON: … and a level of hypocrisy in this debate. He preaches strict adherence to the rules of footnoting, to the concept of intellectual knowledge and capacity, and attributing that intellectual capacity into debates, yet he plagiarised entirely …
Mr Elferink: Oh, rubbish! You are full of it, mate.
Mr HENDERSON: Plagiarised entirely the work of David Kell in this report, Consent to Harmful Assaults Under the Queensland Criminal Code – Time for Re-Appraisal, and presented that as his own position. He lifted 150 words directly …
Mr Elferink: And attributed them. And attributed them by your own statements …
Mr HENDERSON: … but says oh no, you have to be holier than thou and present everything as your own work. When he does it himself it is a small mistake and we are just doing a bit of a tidy up. Yet when my colleague does this, ‘You are a parasite. You should be ashamed of yourself’. Now, what hypocrisy and absolute double standards by the member for Macdonnell in this particular instance. We chew up a lot of oxygen in this place, and my colleague, the Treasurer, has actually calculated how many thousands of dollars an hour it costs to run parliament. We spend a lot of time debating many important and serious issues ...
Mr Elferink: This is so sad.
Mr HENDERSON: Important and serious issues, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. But the nonsense that has been run in here is absolutely pathetic by those members opposite. And if this is the best you can do …
Mr Elferink: No, it is the best you can do.
Mr HENDERSON: If these are the most important issues facing the people of the Northern Territory, well, you are very much mistaken. I thought you got it right this morning. Finally we had a Question Time on something of substance. It took a while but you got there in the end. Those are the issues that Territorians are going to be interested in. If you are going to come in and play the man not the ball, well, you will get it back in spades.
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate!
Mr HENDERSON: So, this is a complete slump in the bush lawyer, the member for Macdonnell, coming in and saying: ‘I have this great opinion on reform of the Bail Act’. His whole argument is lifted from …
Mr Elferink: Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: Sequences of what was presented are listed in there, quoted word for word there, 150 words …
Mr Elferink: And then attributes it!
Mr HENDERSON: … and it is just a couple of words, a bit of a tidy up, an absolute hypocrisy from the member for Macdonnell. The words that were quoted last night by the member for Macdonnell, we have been through it, I am not going to go here word for word through it. But virtually everything there was attributed by the member for Sanderson …
Mr Elferink: You are a goose.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Macdonnell should go back to his electorate and take aim at the camels and instead of coming running in here …
Mr Elferink: Oh yeah, yeah, next!.. Maybe it is time to go for the goose season.
Mr HENDERSON: … with this type of rubbish. We know what his constituents are saying about him out in that part of his electorate …
Mr Elferink: You’ve been there?
Mr HENDERSON: Actually I was, I was out there just recently …
Members: Where? When? Was it Docker River? You should know where it is!
Mr HENDERSON: Not out in the Docker River region but I was certainly out in Hermannsburg just recently and had a chance to talk to some of his constituents.
But people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and for the member for Macdonnell to portray his position on the Bail Act as being his work, well, he has been caught out.
Mr Elferink: This is the best you can do! This is your best shot!
Mr HENDERSON: It was the work of David Kell in an article written in 1994.
Members: Table it! Table it!
Mr HENDERSON: We have not even started to have a look yet, so if that is the best he can do ...
Mr Elferink: Table it! Put it on the table!
Mr HENDERSON: We will table it. I have no problems tabling that whatsoever. But the member for Macdonnell is a hypocrite. It is an absolutely pathetic debate. He has been caught out, and I am sure we will have a theatrical response.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind members that I am aware that there has been a meal in progress to welcome the new member to the House, but I would temper all contributions in the knowledge that some people have been at this meal.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have heard some desperate things in this House in the past, but that is outrageous. The only thing that I did was that I said something in a debate and so concerned was I about the fact that I had used a quote and had not attributed it, at the next available opportunity, I entered this parliament and corrected it, so concerned am I about those sorts of issues.
It is astonishing that with 50 researchers upstairs trawling through probably every speech I have ever given in this place, the best they can do is that there might be a similarity between something that somebody once wrote in the terms of the order that they wrote upon an issue, which, by the way, has a certain logical progression to it, that I am suddenly some sort of plagiarist. Well, I will talk to you about attributing by the member for Sanderson, and I would care to have the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services listen to this. I quote the member for Sanderson:
Having introduced his own work, the member for Sanderson then goes on to plagiarise in the most outrageous terms from the Holmes O’Malley Sexton solicitors’ web site in Ireland. It is as simple as that. That is act of being a parasite that I referred to.
I said in my speech last night that on occasion, the member for Sanderson had left a smoking gun in the speech in the sense that he mentions the author, mentions the report and then goes on to lift whole blocks. It must be also remembered that the member for Sanderson is sent a copy …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! By the member for Macdonnell’s own definition of plagiarism that he tendered here last night, it necessarily involves a student. The member for Sanderson is neither a student or anything related to a student. The member for Macdonnell should be very careful with a serious allegation of plagiarism by his own definition which, under Standing Order 62, is imputing all sorts of improper motives and conduct to a member of this Assembly.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Macdonnell of Standing Order 62 and the inference to members in the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have this member plagiarising this directly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Here we have the member for Macdonnell again making an allegation of plagiarism, a very serious offence, which, by his own definition, could never apply to anyone within this House. Besides that, he should be aware that copyright does not apply to debates within this House, so the allegation of plagiarism is completely misplaced. It is absolutely pernicious and he should withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, he did not mention anything to do with students. He mentioned plagiarising and he did so on the basis that the member for Sanderson actually apologised for that offence. So, if a matter has been before this House …
Dr Burns: Speaking to the point of order …
Mr DUNHAM: … there has been an apology tendered, so the case has been rendered. All he is doing now – no, no, no – and I would ask that the clock be stopped if these frivolous, vexatious points of order are going to continue.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are the one who jumped. I am not stopping the clock.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night in the debate - and I am looking at page 54 of the Hansard rushes - the member for Macdonnell defined plagiarism as follows:
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale! Before I rule on this, member for Johnston, member for Macdonnell, are you aware of the convention for copyright in the House?
Mr ELFERINK: I am fully aware of parliamentary privilege, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: But as it applies to copyright, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, do I have a ruling?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the ruling is that under section 62, you can’t - I do not have the book in front of me, but, well if you could read that out to me, member for Macdonnell. Do you have 62 there?
Mr Dunham: No, make a ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I am running out of time …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Do I have a ruling from you?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will make a ruling. Withdraw the term ‘plagiarism’.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will make a ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling, under Standing Order 220. I request that the Speaker be brought back into the Chamber forthwith. I also request, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that the clock be stopped whilst we deal with this dissent motion.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Stop the clock.
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Well, he has not given a ruling yet.
Mr ELFERINK: I am dissenting from the ruling, he just gave one. You clowns come in here, you think that this Chamber, which is a democratic place where people are allowed to talk, is somewhere you can shut down debate. Well I am dissenting from the ruling.
Dr Burns: No one said that; he has not given a ruling.
Mr Dunham: He gave a ruling that plagiarism was not allowed. That is the ruling he gave.
Dr Burns: He did not.
A member: The Speaker has left the Chair.
Dr Lim: The Speaker has left the Chair. You cannot just walk out …
The DEPUTY CLERK: Can someone take the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: I have a motion here from the member for Macdonnell dissenting from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. Is that correct?
Honourable members, we have a motion of dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. We have had it seconded by the member for Drysdale. The question is the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion ...
Mr Henderson: It can be debated.
Madam SPEAKER: It can be debated. Leader of Government Business, sorry, do you want to speak to the motion?
Mr HENDERSON: That is what I was seeking clarification on because I was unclear as to whether the Acting Deputy Speaker had actually made a ruling at all.
Dr Burns: He had not made an order.
Mr Wood: Yes, he had.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned as to what is the motion that is currently before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, I am sorry to be coming in on this. Did the Acting Deputy Speaker make a ruling on the point of order that was made?
Mr Dunham: He asked that the word ‘plagiarist’ be withdrawn.
Mr Kiely: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Who moved the point of order?
Mr Henderson: The member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, the member for Johnston. Did the Acting Deputy Speaker then say there was no point of order? He said there was a point of order?
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a minute, let me hear from the Deputy Clerk.
The Acting Deputy Speaker actually made a ruling that it was out of order and asked you to withdraw. The member for Macdonnell then refused to withdraw. Is that when you moved the motion of dissent?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I was directed by the Acting Deputy Speaker to Standing Order 62 and told to withdraw the word ‘plagiarism’. I dissent from that ruling.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I based that ruling after asking the member for Macdonnell whether he understood the terms of copyright …
Mr Elferink: It was not your job to cross-examine me, sunshine!
Mr KIELY: … and plagiarism. I made the ruling that the word ‘plagiarist’ should be withdrawn, as had been requested by the member for Johnston, on the basis – and this is from the Parliamentary Library Service – in regard to a background paper on copyright:
Madam SPEAKER: The way I read it, what we are talking about now is that the Acting Deputy Speaker made a ruling and the member for Macdonnell has moved dissent against the ruling …
Mr Elferink: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and that is exactly what we are debating at the moment.
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Is everyone quite clear? The motion is that the member for Macdonnell dissents from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker - regardless of what the ruling was or anything like that, all he has done is dissent from the ruling. Quite clear on that?
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. It has been seconded by the member for Drysdale.
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: The question I am putting to you is: is the dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I dissent and have chosen to move this motion of dissent because I am no longer confident that the member for Sanderson, when sitting on that Chair which you now occupy, is able to be a fair and open arbiter in this House. There has been a trend, unfortunately, in the last two years where that Chair has been used by people who sit in it as a way of manipulating what happens in the House, and having the effect of reducing the ability of members to speak freely and openly in this House.
This House is a parliament; the root word it comes from is the French ‘parlez’, to talk. This is a place where people talk. It is a fundamental of democracy that people be allowed to speak their minds in this House. Yes, there is always banter; yes, there is often argument across the floor. However, at the end of the day, surely members should be allowed to talk. Frivolous is the only way that I could begin to describe the points of order that were being called by the minister for primary industry. The fact that the Acting Deputy Speaker allowed those points of order not to go on for moments but for minutes, and the refusal by the Acting Deputy Speaker to hold the clock, thus allowing the minister for primary industry to take up my speaking time on frivolous points of order - shutting me down - is an outrage. It is an outrage and it is a breach of trust of Territorians. That is how serious this issue is, Madam Speaker.
To then finally come forward and make a ruling, telling me that under Standing Order 62, that I could not use the word ‘plagiarism’ is for me absolutely astonishing. ‘Plagiarism’ is a perfectly good English word. It is a perfectly acceptable word. It is not offensive in the sense that other words are offensive. The words I refer to are expletives and unparliamentary language, like ‘liar’ and such things. What is being allowed to occur by make such stupid, short sighted rulings, or the effect is, is that I and other members on this side of the House are not being allowed to speak.
This is an affront to this parliament. It is an affront to the people of the Northern Territory, and if the accusations of arrogance that used to get levelled at the former CLP government are anything to go by, these guys have learned nothing from what they used to accuse us of.
Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that I have been asked to withdraw that word. I am dismayed under the obtuse use of standing orders to achieve that, and it is for that reason that I have chosen to move dissent.
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chair was vacated in the course of this debate. I seek the guidance of the Chair and the Clerk to advise me on the continuance of this parliament tonight on the matter of this because the Chair was vacated for some time. In fact, there were calls from the floor for the Chair to be occupied, for some minutes. I call your attention to the fact that the Chair was vacated by the Acting Deputy Speaker, of his own volition. I am merely asking where this parliament stands on rules of debate from here on.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order. The Chair was not vacated, Madam Speaker.
There was an exchange of Deputy Speakers from one Speaker to the other Speaker to the Chair. Now, that is standard behaviour in this House, as people move from one to the other. If the opposition want to debate this tonight, let us debate this issue, not bring in some red herring when there was a transfer from one Deputy Speaker to the other, that somehow the Chair was vacated because it was not the case.
Madam SPEAKER: My advice is that the member for Sanderson stood down from the Chair and the member for Barkly took the Chair over.
Mr Dunham: He did not take the Chair, Madam Speaker. He refused to take the Chair.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber and I saw the member for Macdonnell approach the Deputy Clerk to hand him his written notice of dissent which was then duly handed to the Acting Deputy Speaker. He read the document. He got out of the Chair. He walked toward the rear exit at which time there were calls from the floor to say, ‘Take the Chair’. When he looked quite perplexed and unsure of where he was going, some of us yelled out, ‘Elliot, take the Chair’, at which time the member for Barkly approached the Chair, declined to sit in the Chair, motioned to the Deputy Clerk for advice, at which time you then entered the Chamber. The member for Sanderson was missing from the Chair for quite a protracted period of time …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point?
Dr LIM: The Chair was vacated. We are asking, as the member for Drysdale has asked, what is the decision on that when the Chair is vacated for a significant time.
Madam SPEAKER: I did receive notice that I was needed in the Chamber and I came, as you know Leader of the Opposition, when that was indicated to me. I seek the Clerk’s guidance. The fact was that there was a change of people in the Chair, but there was no adjournment of the House. There was no motion to adjourn the House or suspend sittings. I am now here so carry on.
We now have a motion before the Chair that the member for Macdonnell has dissented from a ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion, I was the one who raised the issue in respect of Standing Order 62, which I will read:
And this is the crucial part:
Over the past couple of days, the word ‘plagiarism’ has been bandied about this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: The motion is about dissenting from the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling, and I would like all members who speak on this to stick to that point.
Dr BURNS: I am sticking to the point, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Then make it quickly.
Dr BURNS: I raised this standing order because plagiarism is a very serious charge. It has been bandied around this Chamber for a number of days now. The charges have been unsubstantiated. They continue to be levelled. The member for Macdonnell defined plagiarism in the context of educational institutions and examinations within educational institutions, yet he wants to apply plagiarism to this Chamber and offerings within this Chamber.
I have looked at the offerings by the member for Sanderson, which have been allegedly unattributed, and the majority of them have been attributed. In my own case, the allegation …
Madam SPEAKER: Stick to the subject, thank you, which is the dissent.
Mr Burke: It was a down right lie in your own case.
Dr Burns: I beg your pardon?
Mr Burke: It was a down right lie.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask the member …
Mr Elferink: This place is becoming a circus under your government and you are not concerned.
Mr Stirling: You are making a circus, you goose.
Mr Elferink: No! You guys are making it a circus by putting that clown in that chair and you know it, Syd.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Drysdale to withdraw the allegation that my colleague is a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you make an allegation, member for Drysdale?
Mr BURKE: It is withdrawn, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I did not, Madam Speaker. He is mistaken.
Dr Burns: The member for Brennan, it was.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear it, but, member for Johnston, you are on your feet. Remember what the motion is. It is about dissent from the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. I would like to get this cleared quickly. Do you have any more comments to make?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, in essence, the member for Macdonnell has been attributing conduct and motives to members regarding plagiarism, which I believe are unsubstantiated and, on that basis, I raised that standing order. I do not think he has substantiated any of those claims, particularly in relation to the member for Sanderson or, in a wider sense, in relation to me. These are serious charges that have been made flippantly. That is why I raised Standing Order 62 and I believe there is substance in the point of order I raised in relation to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Elferink: Then why didn’t you raise it when that clown was making the same allegations?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here he is again, calling people clowns!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, did you do that? Withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Withdrawn, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I believe we should wrap this up.
Madam SPEAKER: So do I.
Mr BURKE: The point that the member for Johnston gets so upset about – he really should think about the reason he is so aggrieved. The reason the opposition has made comment is that in a ministerial statement that you made, part of the statement was that your department had met with the Central Land Council over the last year or so in two separate locations, which was similar – absolutely, word for word – to a statement from former minister Palmer. You have not admitted at this stage whether or not that paragraph was totally fanciful. You have not admitted that it was a lie.
We would not have this aggravation tonight if you accepted the fact that, first, in the case of your ministerial statement, you should be at the very least embarrassed. From an academic point of view, you should be humiliated.
In the case of the member for Sanderson, I would submit that on any case, prima facie, it is plagiarism. You can object to that, but I would let the average person decide.
There are two issues here tonight. One is dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. Obviously, the government will win that on the numbers so we should not labour that any longer.
There was also an issue of vacancy of the Chair. You have resolved that. I move that the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: We have a motion on the floor.
Mr Baldwin: The ayes have it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the ayes have it that we put the motion. That is what the Leader of the Opposition moved. So the question now is that the dissent moved by the member for Macdonnell be agreed to.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what the motion was: the motion be put. I am putting the motion, the dissent motion. Do you understand? So we are now voting on that the dissent motion moved by the member for Macdonnell be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Let me just say that a motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling, particularly a Deputy Speaker’s ruling, is highly irregular. It is something that you should think seriously about in the future. It is most unfair when you come in at a late hour like this throwing things around, and I am very disappointed that the Acting Deputy Speaker has been put through this ordeal.
The matter is now closed. We are back to the Adjournment debate and the only people I will accept to speak are those who have not spoken in the Adjournment tonight.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As a result of this particular ruling, do I understand it that the word ‘plagiarism’ is now unparliamentary?
Madam SPEAKER: No, that was not what we just voted on. We just voted on dissent from Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. So get it right. The Acting Deputy Speaker made a ruling, and that is what you objected to. The next round of when it is raised, whoever is in the Chair can then make their own judgment accordingly. As you know, Deputy Speakers or Speakers tend to make decisions depending on the situation and the circumstances. Tonight, that was not acceptable, and that was the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. Another time, it may be different.
Now, why are you on your feet, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I wish to continue with my adjournment debate. We have just seen, in this House, the extraordinary business of this government now trying to change the rulings, or affect the rulings of the Chair, so that they are effectively silencing members.
What I was basically saying was that the member for Sanderson had plagiarised work from the Holmes O’Malley Sexton solicitors’ web site. The defence that the Leader of Government Business chose to run was that I had spoken in a debate in relation to the Bail Act. They could not find anything in that, other than some words which I had used. So careful was I about this particular issue, that I came back into this House at a later speech to correct the mistake I had made. I have no problem with making mistakes in this House. I came into this House to correct the mistake I had made, and have done nothing wrong.
This is just a sordid, little attempt by a government to cover for somebody in their ranks who simply lifted material; to lift the material, plagiarise, whatever. But at the end of the day, the member stands up in this House and says, ‘I would like to continue with my contribution, as over here, we on the backbench, I, I, I, we, we, we. This is my piece of work’. So, misleading were those statements, that if memory serves me correctly, the Attorney-General spoke after the member for Sanderson spoke, and the Attorney-General used the term ‘statesman-like’, in the speech that he delivered.
There is nothing statesman-like in relation to what the member for Sanderson had done and said. The fact is he did not attribute, anywhere in his speech on that day, anything to Holmes O’Malley Sexton, Barristers and Solicitors in Ireland. That is the fact. What is the government’s response? Well, oddly enough, the member came into this House this morning and apologised for something that he had not done, according to the Leader of Government Business. Why would the member for Sanderson be apologising for something he had not done, unless he got hammered by his own people last night? All they want to do is engage in some little muckraking exercise to try to cover their own shortcomings. Well, that is going to fall well short of any mark they have tried to set. That is the very best they can do. All that staff to do all that research, and the best they can do is that.
The fact is there is a hierarchy of responsibility, which is now clear. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries said that plagiarism, according to my definition, only applies to students, therefore I cannot use the word ‘plagiarism’ in this House. Well, I use the word ‘plagiarism’ and I use it directed towards the member for Sanderson and the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. However, in the hierarchy of plagiarism, if you are a student, you are failed in the Northern Territory. If you are a government backbencher, you are made to apologise and, if you are a government minister, you can plagiarise to your heart’s content and you can simply blame it on a public servant.
The hallmark of this government is to blame it on the public service. We have seen it in the minister for Police, and now in the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Well, hell, what do you know? The minister for Police was given an opportunity to back up his most senior public servant and failed to do so. The moment there is a bit of trouble for the minister for primary industry, it is a public servant he wants to blame.
Madam Speaker, I also want to finish tonight with some comments about what happened in here tonight, and what has been happening in the Chair in your absence. I have to put on the record that I am dismayed at some of the antics of Deputy Speakers in the Chair over the last two years …
Mr Henderson: You are a sanctimonious windbag!
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. What is so sanctimonious about having my right to speak in this Chamber?
Mr Dunham: Nothing, mate.
Mr ELFERINK: Nothing. This government, by allowing its backbenchers to behave in such a sordid, tawdry, poor, ineffective, biased manner in that Chair, is cheapening this place in a way that is just astonishing. I have never heard a Speaker of any parliament in any place demand from a member a lecture on copyright rules in an effort to interfere with the member’s speech. What an extraordinary thing to do! I have never heard a point of order go on and on and on in the fashion that a point of order was allowed to go on and on and on by the Acting Deputy Speaker.
We should put on the record that the Acting Deputy Speaker tonight was the member for Sanderson. I put that on the record because he has a vested interest in how this debate goes - he has a vested interest. Because of the fact that he was behaving in such a fashion, it shows that he is prepared to undermine the very fundamentals …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker!. The member is reflecting on the Chair and, at the time, he is a person appointed by this Chamber to sit in that Chair. To say that the member for Sanderson has a vested interest in the debate is something that I find highly disgusting and out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to admit it was unfortunate that the member for Sanderson was in the Chair when such allegations were being made. I believe, though, that we have accepted that it happened and we need to move on. Member for Macdonnell, conclude your remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the sort of problem I have. Every time somebody says something on this side of the House that that government does not like, they call points of order …
Madam SPEAKER: It happens both ways, member for Macdonnell. Both sides tend to do it. Keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, every time somebody says something they do not like, the effect from the Chair - other than when you are in it - is just outright interference. They deliberately interfere in the way that debates are run. Madam Speaker, you are aware that I have raised this issue outside this Chamber on several occasions with you. I am fully aware of how serious a dissent motion is. I felt I was now being pushed into a situation where I had no choice. The point of order was going on and on and on. I simply asked for the clock to be stopped. The response to that was, ‘Give me a lecture on copyright law in Australia’.
It is just astonishing that this House is being corrupted in that fashion in your absence. It concerns me deeply. And now I put it on the record loud and publicly that this Chamber is being abused in a horrible fashion by this government. This Chamber is a place where I have earned the right to speak on behalf of Territorians in my electorate as has every other member in this Chamber. To allow cheap shots and the stunts that have been pulled to continue, Madam Speaker, is to me a great, great loss. The members opposite are now laughing and joking and they think it is funny.
Members interjecting:
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that these members sitting here think it is funny, they think it is a joke, is a reprehensible indictment on this government. This government came to power with certain promises and they have failed to live up to their contract with the people in the Northern Territory. Now the very institution of the parliament itself is being eroded by a government which sees it as nothing else than an impediment on how they do business.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a couple things tonight. One that has arisen is an issue that I raised in the context of the debate from the minister for primary industries on 7 October. Members may recall that I sought confirmation from the minister, or advice from the minister, as to whether the horticulture section at the Alice Springs Gaol had been closed. In his later reply on 7 October and I quote, he said:
The following day in a ministerial report, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General commented that he was at the gaol - I think it was a couple of weeks ago and his words were he was ‘up to his arm pits in vegetable and chooks’. I obtained further advice from a person who works at the prison and I now invite, on a subsequent occasion, either the minister for primary industries or the minister for justice to confirm whether it is the case that the horticultural section within the gaol that operated in the management zone and was manned by Aboriginal prisoners has been shut down, and whether the horticulture officer who worked in that area has been relegated to other duties.
I will flag that because I actually really do want an answer to this, I might put the question on notice. But in the context of a couple of debates it is important for me to pursue the matter on the Parliamentary Record. That was the first matter I wanted to deal with.
The next one was to thank the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed. It is the case that many members of the opposition over the course of next week will be having a word or two to say about Mike Reed. I would very much like to contribute to providing a bundle of speeches which Mike Reed will probably never read. In fact, I suspect that what we will do is bundle them up and give the speeches to his wife because it is very unlikely that Reedy will read them. That is what makes him fundamentally different from anyone else who has occupied a place in the Chamber. Even if we would not publicly admit that we read speeches that were made about us, we might in a quite moment sit down and read those speeches. Well, I am not sure that Mike will ever read the speeches. I am fairly confident that Anne will and no doubt she will pass on the sentiments that members of the CLP will and have expressed.
Obviously, I am a newcomer to the parliament, and a relative newcomer, I suppose, to the CLP. Not long after I was preselected, I knew that the time would come when I would have to work with Mike Reed. He was not a man I knew at all well. I was a bit fearful of him because I had heard all of the dreadful stories. After my preselection, I met him officially at the turning of the sod of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. I had heard a lot about Mike Reed. I understand that a member of his family was sick at the time of my preselection, so he was not there, and he did not know me from a bar of soap.
However, to his great credit, he came bouncing up to me at the site of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, extended his hand and said how much he was looking forward to working with me. I was greatly relieved because I had heard that he was everything from a pain, an aggressive man – I suppose the word I am looking for is ‘bastard’, which, in the context of this speech, I am sure will be permitted.
I then got to know Mike and became very fond of him, and respected him ...
Mrs Miller: You’re right. You’re doing good, doing good.
Ms CARNEY: I respect him a great deal. Who would have thought that something like this would happen in the context of having a chat about Mike Reed?
I have to say that as a new member, he was really very good to me, notwithstanding all of the horrible stories about this bloke. He was very good to both the member for Goyder and me, always a man who never held back with his advice, never fearful of providing it to anyone about any thing. The member for Katherine always showed great integrity, great commitment, and what was most interesting was an incisive political mind.
It is really quite funny. When the members for Drysdale and Daly were talking yesterday, it sounded as though Mike Reed was dead, but clearly, that is not the case. Perhaps this is a taste of things to come when he finally does move on. He was held in great esteem by many people - across political fences, I might say.
The most fascinating part about Mike Reed is that as I got to know him better, I used to go home and tell all sorts of ‘Reedy’ stories. I would need a couple of days of debriefing because Reedy is the funniest person I know, by a country mile, and I would tell some of my friends - some of them are good Labor voters, I should say – and they would say to me: ‘You realise you are talking about Mike Reed?’. I would say, ‘I know! I know I am talking about Mike Reed, but he’s a really good bloke. He’s very funny’. And I would tell all sorts of stories.
He is something of an enigma. He is something of a caricature of himself. His public image, it is fair to say, is appalling. People think that he is a red neck, sexist, racist pig. As I got to know him, I learnt that that just was not the case. I have heard him give quite passionate speeches about Aboriginal people. Despite his humour, he is good to women in that general, small-p political sense. This demonstrates that he really is not the man who the public might think he is.
What is also interesting about Mike Reed is the way he conducted himself in the parliament. He knew all of this was a complete circus, yet he knew when to take it very, very seriously. What I thought was really very sweet was the relationship that he developed with the member for Nhulunbuy, and it really was a very sweet arrangement. It is fair to say, on any analysis, that the Rottweiler on this side of the parliament was Mike Reed and the Rottweiler on that side of the parliament is the member for Nhulunbuy. I respect both of these blokes enormously. What is quite delightful is the respect that these two have for each other. It was very quaint that they could be screaming at each other at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning. By 4 pm, one of them would, I gather, say to the other, ‘Should we have a drink?’ They would go to a room out the back and talk about all sorts of things, which I always understood was their own cone of silence. It was never the case that Mike Reed came into us and said, ‘You will never guess what Syd said’. They obviously had a very sophisticated arrangement and understanding whereby they appreciated the funny side of parliament, the serious side of parliament, but the need for members to develop good working relationships. I suspect, although neither of them would admit it - although they might, you never know – that they are actually quite fond of each other. As a new member, that was really delightful to watch.
I wish Mike every success in his retirement. When he came in here the other day, it is fair to say that he was beaming; a happier man I have never seen. A man who takes his bird watching, his interest in parks, and his family incredibly seriously. I am sure he will pursue those interests with continued vigour. He will do so in a way that will make him happier and more balanced. He will have time to pursue those things without the public gaze or the pressure of work, whether it is in government or in opposition. I wish him the very best.
As a new member of parliament, I would like to thank him. He was very generous with his time, always happy to answer questions, and to assist in what ever way he could. I would like to thank him for that. He was always incredibly frank with his advice, as I am sure you would well know, sometimes too frank, sometimes brutally frank, but it is fair to say that you always knew where you stood with Mike Reed. Which is great. In this day and age, and perhaps more so in this job than many others, you do not always know where you stand with other people. But you do know where you stand with Mike Reed. So I would like to thank him, I would like to wish him well, and we will miss him.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): First, a little tribute to you, Madam Speaker. I am glad you intervened when you did. I have been associated with this parliament for some time and we are on the verge of, well not the point of no return, but we are in a period where it needed control in the Chair. I thank you for doing what you did. It is a difficult thing when you are in a combative, robust situation like that, and the Chair is vacated. For you to be vigilant about what was happening, come in and restore order, is a tribute to you, Madam Speaker.
I now want to talk about the Katherine by-election. With the Katherine by-election, we saw some of the good things and some of the bad things in politics. I have fronted for the CLP in many elections, both bush and town, Katherine, for myself even, in 1990, one of my booths was at the Katherine Town Chamber, and I won that booth, thankfully, but lost the election. I know a bit about Katherine, and I know a bit about politics, I know a bit about the CLP, I know a bit about the ALP.
However, this last election is something that really needs some analysis. Labor would believe that the difference is that they are now in government and had access to resources. Certainly, when I spent some time with their candidates, they were quite incredulous about the fact that they went out in their ones and twos at the last occasion. On this occasion, they went out in force. Darwin came and helped them, and they had all these resources of publications, smart polling, analysis from the HQ down south, and all that sort of stuff that they had never seen before. They were pretty buoyant about it. They were saying thing like, ‘Gee, I hope this happens next time’. Interestingly, the president of the local branch was in Darwin on the day of the election, because what had happened was, the machine rolled up, the machine turned up in Katherine, and it turned up totally armed. They had every armament for an election that you would want.
They had the big guns, little guns, covert agents, the whole lot - they had the works, and they lost. The spin on it is: ‘Well, we did better than last time’. I try to do a bit of analysis for elections and I can tell you they got 26% last time. There was a bloke, Mick Pearce, who stood for them. When you look at what happened when Labor won government, virtually, if you were a member the Labor Party, you got a job. I believe that 90% of the membership of the Labor Party got a job somewhere in the system, except Mick Pearce. You have to ask why. The reason is that, while Mick is a pretty straight sort of bloke, he is not particularly attractive to the voters or even his own party, as was evidenced by the fact that he was among the very small percent of them who did not pick up a job. So, there is Mick who gets 26%. That is an environment where the CLP was supposed to be in its ascendancy and all that sort of stuff. I would have thought if you were an analyst, you would look at that and say, ‘Mick Pearce, the week before the election, went out into the Daly … - he never even canvassed Katherine, I do not think he even doorknocked – ‘… not a particularly candidate attractive politically …’ - or aesthetically or in any way really – ‘…but he gets 26%. The incumbent, Mike Reed, gets 52%’.
The people up on the 5th floor would have said: ‘Hey, we are in with a chance here; we have got rid of the incumbency. We must have a baseline of 26% surely. Surely, we have to improve on that’. So, in they came with their apparatchiks, the machine, the sweaty people from down south who really did not understand what being in Katherine in October was going to be all about - in they came. So, you doorknocked the house - I did not doorknock because you would realise it was obviously empty, and the letterbox would be full of all of the stuff with Clare’s face on it, how you could not trust the CLP and all that sort of stuff, just jammed in about that high. We had one or two items amongst that mail, I will admit, but it was pretty serious stuff - glossy, fold-out, colour, all that sort of stuff.
Doorknocking: I am quite happy to say I went doorknocking for Fay, and I enjoyed it. People in this House know I am a native of Katherine. I love the place, and I do not need an election to go there. I would be happy to doorknock next week, regardless of an election. I would be happy to go anywhere in Katherine next week and talk to people regardless of the election, because I love the place, the people interface with you, and their frankness. So, I went out.
What Katherine people saw was a sweaty, florid person, obviously from out of Katherine, who did not know anything about the place, pushing a case that they knew that they could parrot, but knew nothing about the place. The interesting thing was - certainly from the people I spoke to, and I probably spoke to hundreds - they did not ask us what our policy on this was or that was; they wanted a person. They knew they had a strong, competent, former Cabinet member in Mike Reed, and they wanted someone who could replicate that. Not another Mike Reed look alike. but someone strong, definitely Katherine focussed, definitely ultra-jingoistic about the centre of the universe.
I am tempted to give the Labor Party some hints here, and it might backfire on us because they might actually take them up. However, I will give you a couple. The business about putting Clare’s photo with your candidate is probably a good idea if your poll said: ‘Pete, she has high recognition’, but I was a bit worried on the Saturday when you pulled her photo off the bottom of the NT News. All the way through it was like Siamese twins - we are voting for people with two heads, or one person with two heads’. Come election day, on the Saturday banner down on the bottom of the paper – whoops! - one of them was missing in action. They had pulled the Chief Minister.
We thought: ‘Gee, they must be hearing the same stuff we are hearing’. This is not a clever thing in Katherine to say: ‘Vote for me because I will do whatever Clare tells me’. It came home to roost. There were people who talked to us and said: ‘The Chief Minister doorknocked us last night and she had that lady with her’. We said: ‘What lady?’. ‘Well, the lady who does not talk, but who is with Clare’. It was a very dumb move - pretty dumb. There is one little hint.
I can give you a couple of others. All those sweaty Darwin people who do not like being in Katherine - do not bring them. If you do not like being in Katherine and you are trying to convince people to vote for you, do not bring all these people from the 5th floor. Leave them up there; they are so used to airconditioning, leave them there. They were uncomfortable there, they let everyone know how hot it was. So, if you really want to run a Katherine campaign, there is hint No 2 - I will not give you any more, there is probably about 50 of them - pick Katherine people. Get Katherine people on side and they will help you.
One of the reasons we were successful is that our successful candidate, Fay Miller, had an army of helpers – an army of them. Even the people who came from Darwin, and there were a few of us, we had a connection with the town. We had a connection with the town. We loved the place.
Mr Vatskalis: Some of us like Katherine.
Mr DUNHAM: We love the place. Well, it is not evident. It is not evident.
Mr Vatskalis: I was there quite a bit.
Mr DUNHAM: So, you might like the place. The Chief Minister said, ‘Yes, of course we filmed locally. I had to stand out in 34 degree heat and get a camera put on me in Katherine’. How terrible! Well, would you believe people actually work there, live there, recreationally, they love the place. So, the fact that the Chief Minister found it hard to do a photo shoot, you have to say, well, wrong call really. No, I will not give you any more, but you understand the theme.
You are the wrong people bringing a big city campaign to a small town and they picked someone they knew. They knew all the candidates. Jimmy is well known to all of them. Now we get to the business about win at any price, whatever it takes. It is the name of a book written by a bloke called ex Senator Richardson and it is offensive to some of us politicians because they are lines. You cannot just go in and just do whatever it takes to win. That is what Labor did. They said: ‘Whatever we need to do, we will do. If we need to poll, push poll, run subversive campaigns, run allegations that are defamatory and untrue on the radio, through the ABC …’ - and I may as well say it in parliament – ‘… one of our allies on the air, two days before the campaign, we will do it’. They had three how-to-vote cards. This is unknown in Territory politics. I know there are a few students of politics and the Electoral Office helps them because they make sure that some of this paraphernalia is gathered up and put in the State Library and I agree with that - eventually you have to come back and have a look.
The last election we were pilloried for putting One Nation before Labor. So we said, ‘You have us and you have our enemies, Labor, and in the middle you have a rabble’. Now some of that rabble in some sense was One Nation. So, they ran a campaign saying, ‘Aha, CLP are preferencing One Nation’. We saw when we had this little intrusion on parliament, they preferenced the Social Democrats, the fruit bats and all these other people who are out there running smoking for peace gunga parties in Raintree Park. But okay, leave that alone. Let us talk about Katherine. You have to preference everybody. So, to say they preferenced One Nation is a fact of having a formal ballot paper. You have to preference everybody. But who you preference above us was the push poll technique that they used at the last campaign.
The push poll technique was, ‘We are Labor and we are nice and One Nation is above us, therefore the CLP like Pauline Hansen and all that goes with it’. Now that is almost actionable legally and I actually have a legal opinion on it, but we thought not to run. In Katherine, we had three how-to-vote cards and in typical Labor fashion it was duplicitous; we had a two faced party with a two faced card. On one face, they had Jimmy Forscutt. I know Jim and I hope what I say does not worry him too much, but he is very close to the Nats and he is very close to One Nation. He is very close to some of the stuff that they found offensive at the last general election. So 1, Labor; 2, Jimmy, we love you. Kiss kiss, both cheeks, okay. So, that was Jimmy.
Other side, Labor; Carl Bader. Now, Carl - Markus Bader, sorry. Carl Bader was my next door neighbour and his parents are known to me. All the Bader family are known to me and I treat them as friends from Katherine. However, in politics you would have to say Markus had a chequered background. If you were going to go to polls and say a man who confessed to going to jail for assaults and all this sort of stuff, is our second preference, you would have to say that you were taking on exactly the mantle that you tried to put on us, the cloak you tried to put on us about One Nation. You are either very lose to Jim Forscutt, whose background is definitely close to One Nation, or Markus Bader, whose background he divulged of his own volution and everybody knew, or you have got a third option. The third option is a Labor person standing in front of a booth saying do not vote for Labor. Because if you do not put Labor 1, you are saying do not vote for them.
We had Labor apparatchiks stripping off their Labor livery and putting on some sort of mufti to pretend that they were incognito, saying, ‘Psst! You want to buy a naughty post card?’. But in this case, what they were doing is holding up a card saying, ‘1 - Jim Forscutt’. These are Labor people handing out a ‘Vote 1, Jim Forscutt’ to our candidate.
These three how-to-vote cards also went against them. How can you make a decision about the railway, a convention centre, how many specialists you should have in your hospital if you do not even know who your second favourite candidate is, for God’s sake? If you cannot make the basic decision to win the campaign and that person should be second on the card, if you have to make a decision that maybe Jimmy should win the campaign and we should be second, or maybe we should and Jimmy should be second, or maybe we should and Markus Bader should be second – three how-to-vote cards, all written and authorised by the Labor Party. I have never seen anything like it in my life.
I do not know what poor old – what’s his name? The third bloke.
Mrs Miller: Peter Byers.
Mr DUNHAM: Peter Byers had done to them, but you’d reckon they could have come up with a fourth card. I do not know how many permutations there are – I can’t remember my maths – but there has to be 20 permutations, and they came up with three cards.
The other thing I have to say – and this is something I will pursue – is the allegation that was made about illicit activity on the part of our candidate two days out from an election is absolutely astonishing. I have never seen it. Laurie Hughes went on the ABC, made an allegation, was backed up by the various producers and reporters there, and the allegation two days out from an election about illicit activity on the part of our candidate, I will pursue myself. Nothing CLP, nothing Fay Miller. Dunham - it is that serious.
If you want to run stories about what people do with little kids and goats or selling alcohol to drunken Aborigines, you want to be pretty careful in the heat of a campaign. I was absolutely offended by it. It turns out that the allegation that Fay Miller had bought didgeridoos for alcohol was not only untrue, but she had not sold a didgeridoo for five years. If Laurie Hughes, ex-policeman, wants to make allegations of that nature that are five years old and coincidentally come up two days before a poll, I suggest he start to seek some legal counsel. I am going to pursue this. I am absolutely astonished. I have the transcripts, and I know that the Labor Party were in bed with this bloke. I know that members of the 5th floor, who are close to the Chief Minister, rang media outlets and asked for this allegation to be perpetuated, and that some of them chose not to do it.
That is as much as I have time for, Madam Speaker, but I will finish on my absolute anger and contempt for such action.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, your time has expired. Member for Daly, are you sure you want to do this?
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Yes, Madam Speaker, I might pick up where my colleague left off because I also want to talk about the Katherine by-election. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Drysdale regarding the allegation about the now member for Katherine and what she was alleged to have done in respect of didgeridoos and the peddling of that story by Labor – not apparatchiks, officers, Labor officers employed by government. Apparently that allegation will be borne out in the future.
I would like to talk about the paraphernalia that was printed and produced in Queensland. We have seen today that the Chief Minister has admitted that the Labor Party’s banners were produced in Queensland. That is a terrible thing to have to admit, that while they are in government talking about jobs and growth, they have to go to Queensland to produce banners that can be produced here by Territory businesses and that they have abandoned Territory business to have those banners produced.
I would like to particularly talk about the television ads. The Chief Minister was asked by the member for Katherine about the television ads which, in yesterday’s reply, she conveniently skirted and said that the ads were done here, in Katherine, in 38 degree heat, by Simon Manzie, son of Daryl Manzie. It is my understanding that they were given, that is the NT News, was given an assurance by the Labor government, or officers of the Labor government, that that was indeed the truth. Today, in answer to a question from the member for Katherine to the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister again referred to the television ads, and said - and I quote, because plagiarism is a bit of a burning issue at the moment. Certainly, I will attribute this to the Chief Minister, and quote part of what she said yesterday, because yesterday’s question was about:
And when I said to her:
Well, if I could remind the Chief Minister that the question that was asked of the Chief Minister prior to this question was, in fact, to do with the production, not the filming - and that was made very clear, and Hansard can be checked on this - the production of the ads was done interstate.
Conveniently, in her usual smarmy way, the Chief Minister side-stepped that. She ducked and weaved, and that is something she is very good at doing. In fact, I am thinking of getting her to give my son, who plays rugby for Sydney City Roosters, some tips on ducking and weaving so that he does not get so hurt. However, let me say that it is my understanding that the ads were actually made in Queensland. There is no doubt. And the Chief Minister made a smart remark about how, when we went to do our ads, we could not find a cameraman.
Let me assure the Chief Minister that the cameraman and the soundman was not a problem. In fact, I would say, and I am sure even Simon Manzie would agree with me, that we had one of the best in the Territory, who did a fantastic job, and I will not name him. He and the soundman did an excellent job filming for the ads for the CLP. It is my understanding that the production of the ALP ads - and whether they went through their great media company, Hawker Britton, who would know, but I suggest they would have - it is my understanding that they ended up with the Cutting Edge Group, which is based in Brisbane, Sydney, and on the Gold Coast. The Cutting Edge Group produced them; that is - and the Chief Minister knows all about this stuff because she has been in journalism - they did the editing. They put together the raw footage, filmed by Simon Manzie, it appears, and edited it and turned it into ads. Then, I assume, they would have probably gone back through Hawker Britton, and gone off down south to get their fax numbers, then sent to Channel 7 and Imparja to be played.
So, it is very convenient for the Chief Minister to come in here and try to side step the issue in the way that she did. But we were very succinct in the question we asked: ‘Where were they produced’, and she still has not confirmed that they were made in Queensland. It is incumbent on her to do so, because not only was the TV ad produced there, but we know now that the banners, that could have been produced by Territory businesses, were produced in Queensland.
We also know that some of the corflutes that were used by Labor in the election were printed in Darwin, but a very, very small amount. It is our understanding that the rest of them - and there were a great many of them, were produced in Queensland. What is it with the Labor Party that says Territory businesses are just not good enough to spend your money with? Why do you have to employ Queensland companies to produce your paraphernalia? What is it about Territory businesses that you do not like? That is a question that needs to be answered by the Labor Party and, particularly, by the Chief Minister.
The member for Drysdale mentioned - and it was an issue today mentioned by the member for Nelson - this extra how-to-vote card that had on the bottom, ‘Printed and written and authorised by the Labor Party’ with the logo ‘Labor Party’, but it was asking for you to choose Jim Forscutt as No 1 and, if you did choose Jim Forscutt as No 1, please put the Labor Party second. That was a very deceptive move on the people of Katherine - and the member for Drysdale mentioned it but we have to make a point of this. I saw it with my own eyes, so nobody can deny it. Well, they can try to deny it, but I know what I saw. That is, you had 15 or so Labor Party people in Labor Party T-shirts handing out their two Labor Party cards and saying: ‘Vote for Sharon Hillen; she is the one. Get a voice in government’, all that sort of stuff. Then you had this other poor little fellow at the booth I was on who was there saying, ‘If you are voting for Jim, put us No 2’. You thought: ‘All right, they are doing that’. But it came time to give that fellow a break. That was the funny part, because what you saw was somebody step out of the line of the 15 Labor Party people, take the yellow T-shirt off, walk up to the bloke and say: ‘Here is the T-shirt, give me the cards, and now I am the non-persona person. I am not a Labor person. We will call it; do not worry, we know what is going on’. They were swapping in and out, pretending to be some individual who had this passion to get Jimmy up and put Labor No 2.
What a contempt for the people of Katherine. Labor should be ashamed of the way that they treated the people of Katherine. I know, and we all know, that the Chief Minister - or was it the Deputy Chief Minister – said: ‘Yes, we were trying to maximise our vote’. What a deceitful way of trying to do it. I know when it came to the count, that the Labor Party people were quite happy with themselves that Jim Forscutt’s second preference votes went 50:50, because they knew that usually they would probably go 60:40 CLP. They are usually conservative people who vote for Jim, as my colleague said, because of where he has been; he has been with the Nats, and he has been closely associated with One Nation, and so forth. They were trying to maximise their vote.
But what a downright deceit to do that to the people of Katherine. Thank goodness, they did not fall for it; they did not fall for that sort of trick. Jim’s vote, at the end, nullified itself and history will show that one Fay Miller for the CLP won the seat. It was pretty disappointing for Labor because their polling was saying: ‘Do not go trying to get Jimmy up. Try to maximise on his No 2 vote, because he is not going to be second. If you go all out, Labor is going to be second and we need the preferences - we Labor need the preferences - to get across the line’. That is what their polling was telling them and they went out and tried every trick in the book, including dressing up the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The other issue that I want to take up tonight is the issue of plagiarism. We have had a case here this week where the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries read an almost exact speech of minister Palmer from some three years hence, in 2000. We know it is exact in at least 12 or so of those chunks of the statement. There is no doubt that in anyone’s terms it is plagiarism.
The issue that I want to talk about briefly is the minister’s response. The minister came in here and said: ‘I do not know how this happened, but it is my understanding …’ and ‘I am informed …’ – they are cute words, ‘my understanding’ and ‘I am informed’ …
Mr Dunham: In the fullness of time.
Mr BALDWIN: … that, in fullness of time, we have worked out that it was the same public servant who wrote my speech, as it was who wrote Mick Palmer’s speech three years ago. Thank goodness, got out of that’. So, they blame some poor public servant. Someone in the horticulture section of what was the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, that is now the Division of Primary Industries in some other department where they have all been lost, is very angry. I will tell you why: because there is no way that I can personally believe that a public servant who is passionate about his job and about the horticultural side of the agricultural sector, would sit down and write a speech that is exactly the same as a speech three years ago, without amplifying what had changed in that time. Can you believe that? Can you believe that there would be somebody silly enough - and this is no reflection on the public service, because this is what the minister is saying: ‘Believe me, there is somebody silly enough in the public service who would write the same speech, three years later, that he did for a minister, three years ago.’ Come on, that is just outrageous!
He owes an apology to the public service, because he is digging himself a deeper hole. There are many things that have changed in three years in the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. The most passionate people who would want to amplify that to the parliament and to the people of the Territory, are the very people who work in, and have to provide information on, the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. You cannot tell me that we have been asked to believe that they would write some speech that has remained the same and static for three years, to the point where the speech by Mick Palmer said, in the year 2000: ‘We are working closely with the Central Land Council to have workshops in two weeks time, to look at the horticulture industry, and move it forward with Aboriginal people’. Then, three years later, that he is going to write the same thing: ‘We are working with the CLC to have workshops in two weeks time.’
What is he asking us to believe? This is just outrageous. This minister owes an apology to his department and division, and the horticultural section that he is supposed to provide leadership to. He has no leadership. All he has done is turn around and blame the people he purports to represent. It is just outrageous, and to ask us to believe that, as a puny excuse for plagiarism, is just beyond belief.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about what happened tonight; not so much of the actual events that took place – although I may make some brief comments about that. It is about the quality of the behaviour, the process, that has occurred in this Chamber. I noticed over the last couple of years that it has continued to deteriorate.
Tonight’s behaviour by members, particularly the Acting Deputy Speaker – first of all, he should not have been in the Chair when the debate was about him. I thought he enjoyed the contribution that the member for Wanguri was making in support of himself. He sat in the Chair and revelled in the praise that he received and the defence that the member for Wanguri was putting to the Chamber. When the tide turned and the member for Macdonnell was making his speech, the feeling that the member for Sanderson, who was then in the Chair as the Acting Deputy Speaker, was then starting to take its toll, and through many interjections which became quite confusing if you are not experienced, he just lost track of the debate and was caught up in the heat of the debate himself while he should have been impartial. He then started taking sides, particularly his own side, thus making the decision that he made.
The fact that he vacated the Chair, I could also say was in the heat of the moment. He should have stayed there and sought another Acting Deputy Speaker to take the Chair before he left the Chamber. It was not until we yelled out that he should return before the member for Barkly took the Chair that someone attempted to go near the Chair.
What it highlights is that there is insufficient knowledge about the process of this Chamber by the newer members. Not only that, but the new members have not been conducting the duties of the Chair in an impartial way. I was terribly surprised last night, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, when you were in the Chair, that you found in my favour when the Leader of Government Business called a point of order when there was no point of order.
Unless you start to understand the process, you allow the process to be bastardised, particularly by more senior members or members who yell loudest. That will bastardise the process. Why do you think I resigned as an Acting Deputy Speaker? Early this year, I chose to resign as an Acing Deputy Speaker because there was a lot of discussion earlier this year about how it was seen that opposition members are not favouring the government and therefore they should not be in there, the fact that opposition members were not acceding to some of the ministers’ demands on points of order.
It was after much discussion with my fellow members on this side of the House that I wrote to the Speaker, and I quote from the letter:
In another paragraph, I added:
When I was told about the things that were happening, I really felt that it was not tenable for me to stay as Acting Deputy Speaker.
Again, I come back to the point that members need to understand standing orders properly, do not try to abuse what is in the standing orders, observe convention or at least understand the convention – talk to the senior members of your own party. The Deputy Chief Minister has been here a long time. He is the most senior member in years of service in this Chamber. He is the most senior of all of us. Ask him. Learn from him. Do not just make decisions in the Chair about how you feel you should be in a partisan manner. It does not help things; it does not help the smooth flow of work in this Chamber.
If someone did plagiarise – and the evidence so far as I have heard definitely tells me that the member for Sanderson has committed a very serious error of judgment and has committed a serious act of plagiarism, he got up, he apologised. His apology was qualified. He said: ‘If I have offended or plagiarised, I apologise’. While qualified, it would indicate to me that he, in his own mind, believed that he had done something wrong.
However, the great intellect, the member for Johnston, he is the one who tells us he is the doctor, he has done a PhD. He has done heaps of research and he knows what it is all about, writing dissertations and academic papers. When he then started articulating a speech that was written for a previous minister, and was caught out, he declined to accept responsibility. That is where it all goes wrong. We in the Chamber are fairly forgiving. We are all humans and we all do make mistakes from time to time. If somebody is strong enough, brave enough, and manly or womanly enough to accept that there was an error made and apologise fully to the Chamber, nobody takes any umbrage.
However, this minister, after three full days, continues to defend his indefensible position. He has done what no academic would ever dare to do, or if they did and were caught out, would have their academic qualifications stripped from them. That is what it is like. I wonder whether the university which awarded his PhD - I think it is the NTU, I believe he did his at PhD at the Menzies School of Health Research; I might be wrong there. If he did, it might be worthwhile for the university to check his doctorate thesis to see whether there is anything there that is unbecoming. Probably not, and I wish there is nothing there that could be found, because that would be a tragic chain of events for the minister. However, the minister has done something wrong, and it is time he came in the Chamber, maybe not tonight, but if he wants to that is fine, to apologise for what he has done and remove that odium from the public servant who was asked to write the speech for him. The member for Daly explained, in quite clear terms, what could possibly be the reasons for how things went wrong, and so it is up to the minister now to get it set right.
In my closing few minutes, I would also like to speak about the former member for Katherine, Mr Mike Reed. I met that man in the early 1980s when he was then a backbencher. I met him, not only through the party, but I got to know him a bit better when we both shared Roger Vale’s flat at Hudson Fysh Avenue. That was at the time when Roger was a minister or Speaker of this House. Roger Vale only had two bedrooms in his flat, so Mike and I used to share one bedroom, through my occasional visits to Darwin, when I had to attend the Northern Territory University Council meetings or some other party matters.
The next time I noticed Mike Reed, I was in the political system as a member of the party, and on the executive of the party. I noticed him because he had become the health minister. I thought he was one of the better of the ministers we have had in the Territory. He has always taken great interest in many portfolios that were given to him, and health was something he was quite interested in. His greatest influence on me was when he became the Deputy Chief Minister, with the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone. It was in his capacity as Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer that I related to him most. By that time I had been elected to this parliament, and it was through those roles, me as a backbencher and he in his capacity as a deputy chief.
I remember the long debates we had on euthanasia where he and I had a similar position. However, most of the interaction between Mike Reed and I has always been the distance between the Deputy Chief Minister and a backbencher. I am sure some of you in the backbench in the government at the moment would understand. I found Mike Reed to be a very astute politician, very incisive in his ways, in his thoughts; the way he could articulate many points in politics with very short sentences. Basically, when you would design a question to ask in this Chamber, he would come along and dissect it fairly quickly and say: ‘This is what you are trying to say. How about we make it in these few words rather than the verbose way that you have constructed your question?’. That is the way he was. He was quite sharp at that in his thoughts. Then again, he was also very sharp with his words. If he did not like something, he was very prone to tell you without any fanfare and without pulling any punches. He would just tell it to you straight: ‘This is what I think and if you do not like it, well, that is too bad’.
That was how Mike Reed contributed to our political process. He helped me think more clearly about the processes that we have here, and the issues that we have to debate in this Chamber. However, the one thing that I found Mike Reed was most impatient about was when debates dragged on. He had this little pencil which he use to swing around and, when he had enough of your debate, he would point the pencil at you. This was particularly used very effectively with the member for Goyder, who took much notice of the pencil that Mike Reed had.
I wish Mike and Ann and the children well in Mike’s retirement. I am sure he has retired only from politics. His life goes on with his interest in bird watching. He has a huge block of land in Katherine that he will have lots of time now to tend and look after the huge mob of kangaroos that frequent his backyard. I wish Mike and Ann and the children well in the years to come, and I am sure our paths will cross from time to time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I speak on the Corrugated Iron Youth Arts. This group is based in Nightcliff Community Centre and it runs an exciting program for young people in the wider Darwin community.
Corrugated Iron started life in the mid-1980s as a program of the Browns Mart Community Arts, providing skilled training and performance opportunities for youth. Corrugated Iron eventually incorporated in 1998. The focus was on the performing arts, as it is today. Its charter is about young people, and the young people are very much involved in the management by being involved in decision-making at all levels.
Its current home at the Nightcliff Community Centre has an office and a large rehearsal space, and now has three permanent staff and also has a project staff from time to time. The current team includes Artistic Director Jeremy Rice, Administration Manager, Raechel Browne, and Bookkeeper, Clare Corfield. Corrugated Iron is recruiting an Indigenous Project Officer.
Corrugated Iron receives funding from Arts NT, Australia Council and ATSIS. It also receives funding for specific projects from time to time. An example would be Just Us Dreaming; Dreaming Justice, that received assistance from the NT Police and the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Other funding sources include membership, participation fees and the box office.
In June this year, Corrugated Iron put on a major theatre production, Living Here, that was staged at the Fannie Bay Gaol. It was about the lives of young people in Darwin. More recently, during the school holidays, they have been running the 2D, Darwin and Dili dance and drama workshops for 12-year-olds to 25-year-olds featuring dance, Capoeira and drama. This program was targeted at Timorese and African young people, many have only limited English.
Corrugated Iron has had notable participants. Anna-Lise Philips, star of the television series Young Lions and films Walking on Water and Wilful, started her acting career with Corrugated Iron. Corrugated Iron Youth Arts has contributed much to Darwin’s community arts over many years and continues to do so. Nightcliff is very lucky to lucky to host this group and benefits of the persons for this dynamic youth group.
I also talk tonight about the solar car challenge and the Nightcliff Primary School. It is two years since the last solar car challenge and the next one heads out of Darwin on 19 October. This event has had special involvement with one of the schools in my electorate. Two years ago, Nightcliff Primary School hosted a team from the Netherlands by providing them with a workshop and other facilities in the lead up to the race. The team, the Nuon Solar Team, went on to win the 2001 event in their car, Nuna. The team is back with Nuna 2 and they have taken up residence in Nightcliff Primary again. They are preparing and fine tuning the car for the 2003 World Solar Challenge. The team members are Anke Kempin, the only female member, who is involved with ergonomics and mechanic; Okke Bronkhorst who is involved with aerodynamics; Henk Jan Kinds, is with contracts, finances, insurance; Jan Verdaasdonk, logistics, safety officer; Sten Swanenberg, mechanic and driver; Raphael Janssens, telemetry; Eric Trottemant, strategy; Martijn Hinderdael, computer design, solar array and driver; Mark Olsthoorn, structural design and driver; George Arkesteijn, electronics; Koen Koster, marketing and communication; Diederik Kinds, team leader; and Wubbo Ockels, former astronaut and team adviser.
Mr Ockels, who is a former astronaut from the European space program and the only member of the team from the 2001 race, recently gave a talk to the Nightcliff Primary students on his space adventures which, I believe, was very well received. He is also the only member of the team who is not a student. All the other members of the team are studying at the universities in Europe and come from a range of disciplines, both technical and non-technical. It is a diverse group for a complex and sophisticated project.
However, this is not a university project. It is a group of young people who run their own foundation to finance the venture. One of the fantastic things about this involvement of the team with the school is that it gives the students a close up look at scientists working on the latest technologies. The team members have been happy to show off their car to students and teachers and talk about the developments they have made. It really is a unique experience for students.
There is another development at Nightcliff Primary School which I would like to share with members. Steve Marshall, the principal, has now moved onto a new position within the Department of Education. Nightcliff Primary School will certainly miss Mr Marshall very much. He has had a very positive effect on the school in the three years he has been at Nightcliff. He was recruited to Nightcliff from Whyalla in South Australia and quickly made the transition to the Territory. Mr Marshall has overseen the implementation of a Lighthouse project into the school. Nightcliff Primary, together with Nightcliff High, are becoming leading schools in the Darwin area and providing working models of the thinking and learning approach to education. I congratulate Mr Marshall on his promotion and wish him well for the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Milikapiti Housing Association
Milikapiti Housing Association
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 93 petitioners relating to the Milikapiti Housing Association. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the undersigned, being residents of Milikapiti, request that Tiwi Island local government leave our
housing association alone and to concentrate on local government issues and not our housing association.
Bathurst Island Housing Association
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 86 petitioners relating to the Bathurst Island Housing Association. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- Nguiu petition. Keep Bathurst Island Housing Association.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
AustralAsia Railway - Track Laying Update
AustralAsia Railway - Track Laying Update
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that track laying for the AustralAsia Railway is now complete - 1420 km of standard gauge line now connects the Territory to Australia’s rail grid. This project has been 100 years in the making, and completion of track laying marks the start of a new era and transport for the Territory.
During this great infrastructure project, 146 000 tonnes of steel rail were produced and delivered; two million concrete sleepers were produced at the depots in Katherine and Tennant Creek; over 2.8 million tonnes of ballast was produced for the whole of the project from the Katherine and Tennant Creek quarries; 90 bridges of varying sizes have been built; over 103 000 Thermit welds make the standard gauge AustralAsia Railway a continuous rail weld; employment peaked in September 2002 at 1451, with 434 still employed during the last month; and $1.08bn in contracts have been awarded to the project, of which $681m were awarded to Territory companies. I congratulate ADrail, the construction contractors, on their dedication to this project and their early completion of track laying.
Two events were held recently to celebrate the historic completion of track laying milestones. On 18 September, I officiated at a ceremony in Alice Springs, where the Premier of South Australia and I lit the final Thermit weld to link the north with the south by rail for the first time in Australia’s history. This ceremony was an opportune time to acknowledge the hard work of governments, public servants, AustralAsia Pacific Transport, the construction contractors, ADrail, and all those who worked with ADrail.
A week later, on 25 September, we celebrated at the northern end of the line to mark the arrival and completion of track laying at the port of Darwin. First Lord Mayor of Darwin, Dr Ella Stack, and I placed the final rail clips into position. This ceremony was live to air on the Today Show, beaming the completion of track laying of the project to thousands of homes across Australia.
Completion of construction, signifying the handover from construction to operations will be in late November. FreightLink, the owner and operator, will then begin operational testing, including time trials and driver familiarisation, in anticipation for the arrival of the inaugural freight train departing Adelaide on Thursday, 15 January 2004, arriving in Darwin on Saturday, 17 January 2004, which will be an historic day for the people of Australia and the Territory. The inauguration of Australia’s largest infrastructure project will be a wonderful time to celebrate our future. Planning has begun in earnest for the arrival of the first train, which will feature community celebrations in Adelaide, Port Augusta, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Each regional centre will have community-focussed events to witness the arrival of the first train on the AustralAsia Railway.
I am extremely pleased to report that FreightLink has an agreement with the largest freight forwarder in the central corridor, NT Freight Services, known as NTFS. FreightLink anticipates moving 120 000 tonnes of goods to Darwin for NTFS in their first year of operation. FreightLink recently released freight rates to all freight forwarders and announced their new marketing and business plans for the ongoing development of the AustralAsia Railway.
The initial focus will be on securing domestic freight, with increasing opportunities for international freight over time. It is expected there will be five return freight services a week from Adelaide to Darwin, with the potential to increase freight to over 800 000 tonnes per annum within the first few years of operation. There is no doubt that these exciting freight developments are an integral part of the Territory’s future success.
In addition to the freight focus of this new railway, exciting opportunities now exist for passengers undertaking what will be one of the great transcontinental train journeys in the world. The inaugural Ghan passenger service will depart Adelaide on Sunday, 1 February 2004, arriving in to Darwin on Tuesday, 3 February 2004. Regular passenger services will begin as of 8 February 2004. Great Southern Rail, operators of the Ghan, have already sold over $6m in tickets - I believe it is $6.4m and growing - for this great train journey. The Territory looks forward to the tremendous tourism spin-off with the arrival of train passengers.
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has been undertaking design of rail passenger facilities to provide for the commencement of passenger services. My government has committed a cash injection of $7.5m to construct passenger terminals in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and I announced recently that local company, Sunbuild, was the successful tenderer for the construction of the $2.4m Darwin Rail Passenger Facility at Berrimah, and I am also pleased to be able to report that Territory company, Norbuilt, has been announced as the successful tenderer for the construction of the $2.2m passenger facility in Katherine.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a great day to look forward to in January of next year when the first freight train arrives in Darwin on a railway line that many thought would never be built. It is pleasing to anyone who has been involved in any way with this project to drive, as I did often in the last few weeks, from Darwin to Katherine and look at the majestic engineering that has occurred on that line.
One of the things that strikes me about the railway line through its entire construction process has been the concept of simplicity in engineering. It has been amazing, from my point of view, to see modern construction methods, not only in track laying but in the way that bridges have been constructed. The advances that have been made are amazing; advances in engineering resulting in the way it is presented at the end of the day being very simple in the concept. The bridges look very much like large Meccano pieces where they simply slot into each other.
The construction of the rail line has now been achieved. I was particularly pleased to hear that Northern Territory Freight Services have been secured in terms of 120 000 tonnes to come onto that line. I would like assurance that it is a contractual arrangement. I understand that it is an MOU, but if it is a contractual arrangement, well done because FreightLink are hard negotiators. It is good to see progress occurring regarding the transfer from road to rail. There will always be detractors of this railway line. Chris Corrigan was recently quoted in southern newspapers as saying that the return of public and private money on investment to profit would be as little as the ‘testicle on a tick’, as I recall. That sort of detraction will always be there from southern commentators.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I was just getting started.
Madam SPEAKER: I know. I know.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I mentioned the building of the Darwin rail passenger facility and the letting of the contract for the one in Katherine. Tenders for the Tennant Creek passenger facility are currently being received by DIPE.
Another aspect of this is rail safety. As the construction of the railway now involves passage of construction trains across roads, the travelling public needs to be increasingly aware of the fact that trains are operating at level crossings and need to obey signs and traffic control devices. The DIPE Road Safety Unit recently launched their rail safety campaign, which includes television, radio and advertising mediums and community visits.
Information signs have been installed at eight strategic locations along the Stuart Highway for the travelling public, and these signs provide constructions facts and inform travellers of the safety requirements for crossings. It is an issue. We will be monitoring it carefully so we can have the 100% safety at our rail crossings.
Katherine Region - Crime Prevention and Community Safety
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, in September my colleague, the Minister for Community Development, and I met with the members of the Katherine Region Harmony Group. Chaired by the Deputy Mayor, Anne Shepherd, its representatives are drawn from a diverse range of groups working across the Katherine area, including ATSIC, the Jawoyn Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Katherine Town Council, Northern Territory Police, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and the Katherine Regional Tourism Association.
In February 2003, the group agreed to undertake the role of the Regional Crime Prevention Council for the Katherine area, becoming the third council to be established in the Territory. It has now also agreed to take on the role of coordinating body for the implementation of the itinerant strategy in Katherine.
When the minister and I met with the Harmony Group, it had identified its four key priority areas as itinerants, substance abuse, youth, and crime prevention. At the meeting we attended, it was looking at the linkages between each of those areas. It was also to hear reports on the itinerant strategy work being carried out in Darwin and Palmerston, and to help it identify projects for the Katherine region.
In 2003-04, a total of $650 000 has been allocated to the itinerant strategy in Katherine, and that will cover an Elders Visitation Program, a Centrepay guarantee fund for Return to Home programs, capital works for basic shelter, specialist intervention programs for alcohol and mental health issues, expanding community foot patrols, a daytime diversionary facility, and a coordinator position.
The Itinerant Strategy Coordinator position will work with the Katherine Harmony Group on implementation of itinerant projects for the region. Interviews have recently been held for the position and an appointment is expected to be made this month.
Building on the success of the Kalano day foot patrols, we have allocated $50 000 to expanding the community foot patrols. The Harmony Group is also working on a Katherine Region Community Safety Plan. A $30 000 crime prevention grant will enable the group to engage a person to develop the plan, and advertising will commence shortly for this position.
By working on these four critical areas the Harmony Group can make a significant contribution to crime prevention and community safety in the Katherine region. The minister and I were impressed by the energy and drive of the members of the Harmony Group, who have determined to take on some difficult issues and committed to making a real difference in their community. Our government is also committed to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour across the Territory. I commend the Katherine Region Harmony Group for joining with the government in the push to make our community safer for Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. It is remarkable that it was so similar to the press release issued in September about the group in Katherine. What this minister does is issue press releases with great gusto. In all of those press releases about this thing called crime prevention, or so-called crime prevention initiatives, he refers to ‘his’ and ‘his government’ and other people’s commitment, their determination to do things, the development of strategies, how keen everyone is to address things like crime, antisocial behaviour and so on. He uses expressions, both in press releases and in parliament, about a new force in crime prevention. Yet what the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General constantly fails to do when he comes into this parliament is actually give us, and all Territorians, details and practical outcomes of what these groups are doing.
I know many of the people on some of the councils. I know there is a level of frustration around, and that this is driven by government. I call upon the Attorney-General, over the course of these sittings, to come into the parliament and put aside all of the political spin and political speak, and actually tell us what the crime prevention councils are doing – and what will they do. Are there time frames? What sort of performance indicators are there? What sort of criteria are there? Because minister, I have reviewed all of the speeches you have given in this parliament. There is very little detail there, and many of your speeches bear a striking similarity to your press releases.
So, let us get on with it, minister. You say you are fair dinkum. Well, give us some outcomes, give us some evidence.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the shadow minister for Justice has just revealed how little real contact she has with these community groups. If she was connected, was getting out and actually working with them, especially the ones in Alice Springs - you probably do not even know what is going on down there - the proof is in the pudding. It appears in the crime statistics and in the government grants to the community level initiatives that these crime prevention councils are putting out into the communities. It is in the plans, particularly the juvenile justice plans in Alice Springs, that have come directly out of these groups.
The community safety plan that I referred to just now in a statement that has been prepared under the Katherine Harmony Group is the work that the people are doing. What we will now have is a planned and strategic approach to crime issues in our community. That was totally lacking under the previous government. Go out and have a talk to these people in the communities, you will find out what they are doing, and do not disparage them in here.
Mr Dunham: Stop pointing. God, you are an arrogant thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are out of order.
Mr Dunham: Madam Speaker, I was merely interjecting about his finger pointing which is also out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Your interjections are out of order. I do not know if you think your interjections are acceptable, but they are not.
Public Housing – Security Measures
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide this further report to the Assembly on progress with another important Martin Labor government initiative – to provide safe and secure housing for all Territorians. Security screens are now installed in over 3000 Territory Housing flats and units. All new social housing dwellings constructed now have security screens and doors. All dwellings constructed with disability access modifications and household safe rooms were fully screened during the 2002-03 financial year.
It is the government’s intention to screen all public housing dwellings within the next three years. The projected cost of the extended screening program is approximately $9m. An amount of $50 000 has been specifically set aside each year for additional screening for those cases that fall outside of the defined policy and which require security screening as a matter of urgency. A total of 585 houses categorised in the highest priority group have now received security screening. This includes 386 dwellings in Darwin and Palmerston and 199 in regional centres. Stage 2 of the security screening roll-out - which included 479 houses in the suburbs of Moulden and Karama - was completed earlier this year. An additional initiative of this program is to provide smoke alarms to all housing stock. The alarms will complement the security program, providing an additional safety precaution.
Approximately 1200 houses will be screened in the current financial year. Locations to be screened in 2003-04 include the suburbs of Driver and Gray in Palmerston, and the suburbs of Millner, Rapid Creek, Ludmilla, the Narrows, Parap, Fannie Bay, Stuart Park, Larrakeyah, Leanyer, Wanguri, Tiwi, Nakara and Alawa in Darwin. In the regions, locations to be screened will include Larapinta, Gillen and Morris Soak, and all of the remaining houses in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Alyangula.
While the government’s initiatives in crime prevention are demonstrating positive results in reducing crime, it is important that public housing tenants have the additional personal security that is provided by household security screens. This initiative is another election commitment of the Martin Labor government. Many public housing tenants I have met over the last 12 months have commented to me that it is a program they very much welcome. As has been amply demonstrated, this government honours its commitments to Territorians while simultaneously working to address the unsustainable budget deficit left by the CLP.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on his last line first. I always find it curious that these folk have now been in government for two years and, in spite of that, still everything that is horrible in the world is the former CLP government’s fault. When are these people actually going to take over governance of the Northern Territory? That is the question I have. The minister walks in here and says: ‘It is all the CLP’s fault’. Well, if it all the CLP’s fault, why is he so happy to announce a CLP program coming to a point of successful completion? All he is doing is saying: ‘We have a program approaching conclusion, and it is the CLP’s fault that this is all that was wrong’. Well, that is a little cute, and he should point out to the people of the Northern Territory that it is a CLP program that started. So, if he going to blame the CLP government, he should also cheer the CLP government. However, of course, this minister has no intention of being so much as fair in this House, and would quite happily rewrite history for his own intent.
The policy is a very good one; it works well. I congratulate the minister on the idea of smoke alarms; they are a good idea. It is a shame that we live in a community where we need these security screens. The minister identified stocks all over Darwin that had to be completed, as well as in the Alice Springs area. It is a shame that we live in a community which needs these security screens. We have a government which says: ‘Crime is on the way down; property crime is not happening. It is all under control folks, relax. All we have to do now is finish putting security screens up so you can be secure in your homes’.
The government has also moved to secure Wirrina flats with fences and security equipment. The only one problem in that area is that, although the government has spent money on the gates, it appears that the gate is continually being left open.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am confused. The member for Macdonnell …
Mr Elferink: It is not difficult, Jack. It comes easy to you.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, hang on. Hear me out because, on the list provided on Tuesday, it has here the ‘shadow minister for Housing, Peter Maley, member for Goyder’. Now we have the member for Macdonnell, the great orator from the other side, confused once again. I do not know who the shadow person is, if this is incorrect.
Mr Dunham: Go and get a briefing, Jack. What is wrong with you?
Mr AH KIT: You are disorganised. You continue to be disorganised. The fact of the matter is the truth hurts with the opposition. We are getting on with providing safe and secure housing for our public housing tenants. The opposition is still disorganised and in disarray. They do not know who is shadow for whatever. We just got handed on Tuesday a paper and yet we have the member for Macdonnell doing the member for Goyder’s dirty work in respect of the responses he is providing.
We will get on with continuing to do what we need to do.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired. I might remind the minister that that extra minute is to sum up the comments you have made about your report. I would remind the minister also there was someone else in this House who was minister for Housing and recalls very clearly what programs she put in place.
Tiwi Health Board – Voluntary Administration
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I inform the House about the situation at the Tiwi Health Board. As members are no doubt aware the Tiwi Health Board, an Aboriginal community controlled primary health care organisation, decided to go into voluntary administration on 25 September. Under the Corporations Act the administrator – who is now in place – will shortly report on the accounting and financial position of the organisation.
I also note that the board is an independent body incorporated under corporations law. As such, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is empowered to investigate any irregularities. Whilst I understand the great health needs of the Aboriginal community, at the end of the day, any independent organisation has to operate within its budget and be accountable for the funds that it receives. The investigating accountants, Ernst & Young, have already highlighted some issues relating to the financial management of the board’s affairs, including inaccuracies in the recording of financial transactions; inaccuracies in the posting of income and expenses with respect to specific grants; and problems with the accuracy of financial reports to both the board and to the board’s funding agencies, namely the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing.
A great deal of work was done by my department, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and Ernst & Young to avoid the collapse of the Tiwi Health Board. This included engaging an interstate firm of public accountants to assess the financial status and financial management practices of the Tiwi Health Board. As a result of that report, which provided recommendations for steps to remedy a budget deficit, the board was asked to achieve certain milestones which included reducing expenditure to match the level of income. Frankly, I have to say that I am disappointed that it has reached to this point.
The CEO of my department has appointed an external auditor to examine our own processes. However, at the most fundamental level, it seems that despite ongoing financial and administrative assistance from the Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Health and Community Services and Ernst & Young, the organisation could not operate within the budget provided. In June 2003, Tiwi Health Board requested an early release of both Commonwealth and Northern Territory government funding for 2003-04 to address current liabilities. Unfortunately, we were unable to accede to this request.
None of this detracts from the successes of the health service delivery staff and the commitment of the Tiwi people themselves, which I acknowledge and applaud.
The process of involving the community in its own health services to the maximum extent practical is the best practice model, recognised nationally and internationally. This government will not walk away from the process of community control. We are committed to a partnership approach with other governments and the community, and that means being committed to overcoming problems when they arise.
I assure the Tiwi community that the organisation will continue to provide primary health care services while the company is under administration. Under the provisions of the voluntary administration, expressions of interest are required to be sought from parties interested in taking over services currently provided by the board. Accordingly, the administrator will be placing advertisements in paper later this week to this effect.
My department will be putting in a formal expression of interest for the ongoing delivery of those services. I understand the Commonwealth will take similar action in relation to the aged care services. Through this process I can guarantee that the Territory government will maintain current funding levels to health services on the Tiwi Islands. We have also received assurances from the Commonwealth that they will maintain their funding. We will ensure that the Tiwi community is consulted and involved in the process of redesigning the service within the budget allocated.
Creditors can be assured that the company is now under administration and the provisions of the Corporations Act will govern the treatment of creditors. I understand that the administrator called a meeting of creditors on Thursday, 2 October 2003. That meeting confirmed the administration arrangement and considered whether to appoint a creditor committee to advise the administrator. The creditors elected not to appoint a creditor committee.
This is a complex and very disappointing situation, but the Tiwi people and their health are now the focus of government.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report, although I agree with her that it is a very disappointing situation that has arisen on Tiwi. I know that there will be many members of this House who will be likewise disappointed with what has happened.
My view is that a statement is needed on this issue; it is a very important issue. Tiwi was chosen because it was arguably the easiest of the Aboriginal community areas to be moved into the zone roll out and to have community control of their health services because of the homogenous nature of the people there - the language groups are very similar - as opposed to other areas like Katherine West or Sunrise. It had certain advantages going for it. It was implemented with a great deal of care over a number years. I know many people worked very hard on the project.
It flags a concern about the other roll outs that are occurring at the moment. If Tiwi has fallen over, what does that indicate with regard to the other ones that are happening? As the minister said, this is a model that has been applauded nationally and internationally, and it was certainly something that many of us hoped would be substantial and sustained.
There have been comments made in the press, arguments that funding was not adequate for the area in that instead of being funded for 2000 people, they should have been funded for 2700. I am sure that that is coming from members of the board, the concern of inadequate funding. I wondered if the minister would comment on that.
To conclude, the opposition was very supportive, when we were in government, of this initiative. We certainly hope it will not be long before we see it back on its feet again.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, my first comment would be that what I was talking about was that the community control of health services was in fact was the best practice model nationally and internationally.
The PHCAP model is slightly different from the Tiwi model. What we are putting in place is a system which has many more checks and balances than this one. One of the issues with the Tiwi situation is because it is an incorporated body under the Corporations Act, it is much harder for either the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory to intervene when there are difficulties. This is being looked at very closely in the roll out of PHCAP. For example, the Katherine West Health Board, which is very successful, does not have this particular kind of structure and is working very successfully.
I can assure you that the Territory government is taking this very seriously. It is looking at how we can support the Tiwi people and how we can involve them still in services on the islands. If there are particular issues that the member for Port Darwin is interested in, I am happy to provide a briefing.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Sanderson
Member for Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have had a request from the member for Sanderson to make a personal explanation. I have agreed because I have seen what the member for Sanderson intends to say, but I just remind him that he cannot introduce new matter or depart from what we have agreed upon.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, last night, the member for Macdonnell in this Chamber and, by way of media release, accused me of being, in his words: ‘an intellectual parasite prepared to leach off the cerebral efforts of others.’
The honourable member referred to the contributions I have made to debates in this Chamber and the way I have used materials from external sources in my contributions. In those contributions, I have expressed my views and used materials from books, articles and other sources pertinent to the topic under consideration.
I do not claim to be an expert on every topic that comes before this Chamber. It is part of my job to research material and find out more about the topics we are asked to consider. To this end, I often utilise the Parliamentary Library, journals and the Internet for research purposes. It is because I am not ‘an intellectual parasite prepared to leach off the cerebral efforts of others’ that I undertake this research off my own bat.
I was taken aback by the allegations levelled at me by the member for Macdonnell last night. Overnight, I have taken the opportunity to re-examine some of the contributions I have made. I had expected that all members would see that in those speeches, I have utilised material from other sources. I have never made a secret of the fact that I have used them. Often, I have brought the article or the book into the Chamber and read directly from it; but if this has not been the case, I apologise.
I reassure all members that I will continue to research material. I will continue to use this material and will make it very, very clear when the materials are being referred to and that they are being utilised. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make this statement.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT (No 2) BILL
(Serial 178)
(Serial 178)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act, to enshrine in legislation current licence conditions prohibiting the practice of book-up, and make it illegal for licensees authorised to only sell takeaway liquor, such as store licensees and liquor merchants, to provide book-up for the sale of liquor. The proposed amendment will also make it illegal for licensees to retain credit cards or debit cards as security for payment by an individual in relation to the sale of liquor.
Book-up is the practice of running up a tab or book with a merchant. Informal, short-term credit is provided, whereby security in the form of an individual’s social security cheque or key card, debit or credit cards and pin number is retained by the merchant. Payment of account usually occurs at the next pension day and is usually controlled by the merchant. In many cases the goods consist of liquor.
It should be noted that not all forms of book-up are unacceptable or inappropriate. There are acceptable forms of book-up that offer benefits to those involved. The government recognises this and has no desire to stop all book-up. However, there are problems when the book-up relates to liquor. It is widely recognised that in an uncontrolled environment, book-up practices can exacerbate problem drinking and problems associated with alcohol consumption, as it is a means of increasing access to the purchase of alcohol by those who can least afford it. The person with the drinking problem is caught in an endless cycle, which reinforces drinking and all of its associated problems. The person is also often captured by the particular outlet to make most of their purchases where their key card is retained by the outlet.
The concern about the book-up of alcohol and its potential impact on problem drinking was previously highlighted by the Legislative Assembly’s Sessional Committee on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol in 1991, when it recommended that conditions be put in place to prohibit licensees from giving book-up for alcohol. The Liquor Commission introduced licence conditions prohibiting the book-up of liquor in 1993. However, not all licensees embraced the spirit of the licence condition. Pernicious licensees often utilise the ambiguity of the provision to skirt the boundary. For instance, the licensee would provide a cash advance to the customer who would, in turn, use the cash to purchase alcohol. Compliance with the licence conditions have been difficult to police. Anecdotal evidence suggests that liquor book-up by licensees is still widespread.
The need for legislation has arisen from growing concern in recent time over antisocial behaviour associated with excessive alcohol consumption, and the findings from a recent hearing by the Licensing Commission into antisocial behaviour resulting from unscrupulous book-up practices. A legislative base is needed to establish the framework for a more effective system. This is achieved by making the current book-up restrictions on liquor a legislative requirement.
The legislative amendment reflects current licence conditions by stipulating that the payment for the sale of liquor must be made by one of the following methods: by legal tender; by credit card or debit card payment; by cheque; by debiting an approved deposit-taking institution; or by charging the business account in the case of a business customer. The bill also proposes to prohibit licensees from retaining credit cards and debit cards as security for payment by an individual for the sale of liquor.
Due to the difficulties experienced by the Licensing Commission in obtaining evidence of wrongdoing by licensees, the bill seeks to enhance the current regulatory regime by putting greater responsibility on licensees to maintain records of relevant transactions to substantiate that they are not in relation to the book-up of alcohol. Provision is made to enable the licensee to be prosecuted in a court of law if found to be in possession of another person’s key card, and the licensee is unable to produce evidence to show a legitimate purpose for keeping a person’s card. The onus of proof is with the licensee. However, if the director deems that prosecution is not warranted, the Licensing Commission may conduct its own hearing, in which case the onus of proof is with the director and the commission to prove any wrongdoing. Generally, prosecution actions would be the exception rather than the rule. Prosecution actions are only taken in particularly serious cases; for example, due to the gravity of the problem, or repetitive breaches by a licensee.
To ensure licensees know what they have to do regarding the minimum record-keeping requirement, a provision is made to enable the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing to issue guidelines in this regard. In a recent hearing by the Licensing Commission, it was found that consumers were booking up food and other necessities while their available cash was being used to buy liquor. The proposed amendment will enable those types of transactions to be more easily identified and, if necessary, action to be taken. Industry was consulted in May based on a proposal to outlaw all book-up - liquor and non-liquor - by stores with a liquor licence, unless the licensee was otherwise authorised by the commission. In response to industry concern, the proposal has been modified to outlaw book-up of liquor only, but with appropriate record-keeping requirements. There has not been an opportunity to consult with the industry on the revised proposal, but the commission’s proposed record-keeping guidelines will be raised with industry before the amendment takes effect.
The application of the amendment has been kept as narrow as possible by restricting it to store licensees. Unfortunately, the system is not adequately equipped to enable the Licensing Commission or the government to address only pernicious operators without sufficient proof of wrongdoing. Thus, all stores with liquor licences will need to maintain adequate records where they do retain cards or book-up items other than liquor, to demonstrate they are not in breach of the amendment. The amendment is necessary to enable the Licensing Commission and the Director of Licensing to take action on suspicion of wrongdoing. The proposed amendment makes the government’s intentions very clear and also establishes a more effective mechanism to ensure that licensees providing book-up practices are accountable.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 2003 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
DISCHARGE OF BUSINESS
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 10), which is item No 13 in the Orders of the Day on the Notice Paper, be discharged from the Notice Paper. The Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) that is being introduced today incorporates the amendments proposed by the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 10) that was introduced in October 2001.
The purpose of the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 10) introduced in October 2001 was, firstly, to allow for the new names of local government councils in the future and, secondly, for the avoidance of any doubt to confirm retrospectively the title chosen by the Tiwi people for their new local government body when it was established on 12 July 2001. Amendments that will achieve these objectives are incorporated in the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) that is being introduced today.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, we are dealing with as a separate motion, I take it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, this is just discharging it from the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I would just like to place on the record that I am surprised that the minister is going down this path. It is obviously a piece of foreplanning on his part, but we will accept the motion and we will not resist it.
Motion agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 176)
(Serial 176)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Local Government Amendment Bill 2003 is an important bill which will ensure that we continue to provide an effective legislative framework for the third tier of government in the Northern Territory. While the bill contains a variety of amendments, the overall aim and intent of the current Local Government Act is not changed. The major proposals are designed to reduce or minimise the legal differences between municipal councils and community government councils, and to more clearly define the roles of presiding members, elected members and the CEO of the councils.
The current Local Government Act came into operation on 1 June 1994 and was based on the groundbreaking act of 1985. A number of amendments were made in 1995 and in 2000. The bill before the House results from a further review which commenced in 1999. The proposed amendments were considered by the former government on more than one occasion but for various reasons were never finalised.
Also, there have been extensive consultations with councils in the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, LGANT, concerning the proposed amendments. The process of consultation with LGANT was undertaken over a considerable period during the development of the proposed amendments. In addition to the major proposals that I have mentioned, the bill also introduces a number of innovations such as allowing a member to attend a meeting of council by telephone, tele-conferencing or other technological means; a change of title from ‘clerk’ to ‘CEO’ for the person who leads and manages a council’s administration; and clarification of a number of issues that have been found to be unclear.
I will now turn to the major provisions of the bill and provide members with the reasoning behind some of the more important proposed amendments. I should note at the outset that the bill contains amendments in relation to penalties under the Local Government Act and regulations, resulting from a review of all current penalties for Territory legislation to ensure that they remain contemporary. In addition, there are a number of amendments which simply changes the name ‘community government scheme’ to ‘community government constitution’. The term ‘constitution’ is considered to be more readily understood by communities and the people it affects and is technically more correct.
Clause 5 of the bill contains the same amendments proposed in the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001. This amendment is still required for the same reasons as outlined in the second reading speech of 24 October 2001. In the second reading on 24 October 2001 the amendment provides a capacity for titles other than those currently specified in section 5 of the act to be used as part of the title of a council established under the Local Government Act. While the amendment is required to protect the title of the existing Tiwi Islands Local Government it will also assist in establishing sensible titles for other re-forming councils.
Proposed clause 9A will clarify the circumstances where an employee may be a member of a council. Under the current provisions of the act, an employee of a community government council may also be an elected member. There is a clear capacity for the existence of a conflict of interest to present in such situations. In the past it has been considered that with very small community governments it was not feasible to restrict the pool of those who could be elected or employed. Whilst there are still many small councils it is considered that it is time that, at least for key positions, it is no longer appropriate to allow the CEO, Chief Financial Manager or Chief Works Manager to also be a member of a council. Where other employees are members of council or vice versa, the council will now be required to obtain the minister’s approval for each situation.
A number of amendments are proposed in clauses 10, 11 and 12 to clarify matters related to the term of office of a member; allow a declaration by a member to be provided to a nominated person as well as the CEO; to allow the minister to intervene where an elected member has failed to provide a declaration within the specified time; and to ensure that it is clear that a member’s office may only be declared vacant where the member misses three meetings of the council without apology.
As you aware, section 13 of the act provided for ‘reversible’ resignations by council members who wish to stand for election to the Territory parliament. Section 13 of the act was repealed in 1995 and was reinserted by the Local Government Amendment Bill 2002, (Serial 44), introduced by the member for Nelson on 27 February 2002 and commenced on 16 July 2002. Legal advice has now been received that indicates that it is possible to extend the application of this provision to also allow council members to stand as candidates for federal elections after submission of a reversible resignation. The proposed amendment will allow this to occur. The Australian Services Union has raised concerns in relation to the ability of council staff to stand for elections. The concern is that currently, staff members are not able to submit revocable resignations as is the case for aldermen and public servants in the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Public Service. I have requested that my department investigate this matter and provide recommendations that would provide equity.
As the modifications to section 13 of the act involved quite a number of textual changes, it was found that it would be simpler to repeal section 13 and substitute new provisions to modernise the style to make it easier to read and understand. Clause 14 of the bill seeks to repeal Part 2, Division 3 of the act, and two new divisions are inserted into the act following section 14; that is, Division 2A and Division 3. Division 2A will define the role of members under the act. There are no specific provisions in the act at present that describe the role of members of council. This division will apply to both municipal councils and community government councils. Division 3 of the act is repealed and a new Division 3 is inserted which relates to council meetings.
In addition, Part 3, Division 4 of the act, which relates to the meetings of municipal councils, is also repealed by clause 21 of the bill. The new Division 3, which is a combination of former sections 15 to 19 and sections 51 to 57 of the act relating to meeting procedures, will now apply to meetings of all councils, that is, both municipal councils and community government councils. This is simply a means of clarifying current requirements of the act. Clause 15 seeks amendment of section 20(1) of the act to make it clear and for consistency that a member must declare an interest in a matter if the member has an interest in that matter or a possible interest in a matter that could or may arise in the future.
Section 20(2) of the act currently sets out four situations where a member is deemed to have an interest in a matter before a council. This subsection is proposed to be amended to clarify that the four situations are not exclusive. That is, these matters are not the only situations that could amount to an interest.
In addition, a new section 20(4) is provided to allow a member to declare a potential interest in a matter before the council or a committee meeting and for the meeting to decide, by resolution, whether the potential, but as yet undeclared interest, needs to be declared by the member. As proposed under section 21 of the act, the member with the potential interest is not permitted to vote on the resolution.
Clause 16 of the bill seeks to repeal and reinsert section 21 of the act with minor amendments in a modernised style to make it easier to read and understand. One substantive amendment permits a member who has declared an interest or possible interest in a matter to remain at the meeting and take part in the discussion, however, the member may not vote on a motion as to whether the council should request the minister’s approval for the member to take part in consideration of the substantive matter. A member can only remain at a subsequent meeting during consideration of the substantive matter or to vote on the substantive matter if the minister has given approval.
The amendment to section 21(3) of the act allows the minister, if he or she is of the opinion that it is in the interests of council or the residents of a council area, to approve that a member take part in a discussion and allow the member to vote on the substantive matter.
These changes to sections 20 and 21 of the act are intended to clarify and improve the procedures for declaring an interest. They do not lessen the duty imposed upon members to declare an interest, or possible interest, in a matter under discussion.
As you are aware, municipal elections are held on the last Saturday of May of each leap year. Section 38 of the act is being amended to change this date to the last Saturday in March of each leap year. The proposed amendment will allow newly-elected councils to finalise their next budget and their management plans, rather than inherit them from the outgoing council.
The amended provisions will also allow the Chief Electoral Officer to change the date of the election if the last Saturday in March of a leap year is Easter Saturday. The date may be adjusted two weeks either side to allow for Easter. The Chief Electoral Officer will be required to give at least six months notice of such a change. Following discussions with LGANT, it has been agreed that there is now insufficient time for the date of the municipal elections to be brought forward and held in March 2004. Therefore, the 2004 municipal elections will still be held on the last Saturday of May for the year 2004. The amendment to change the date of municipal elections to the last Saturday in March will commence from the 2008 municipal elections.
Section 58(2) of the act provides that certain land may not be rated by council under the act, which includes Crown land, roads, parks, cemeteries, museums, hospitals, schools, charities and including public benevolent institutions, etcetera. There are an increasing number of organisations seeking exemptions from rates as public benevolent institutions even though the activity on the land, or a portion of the activity on the land, is clearly of a commercial nature. A new subsection is being added to section 58 to make it clear that such commercial business operations, or the portion of the activity that is clearly of a commercial business nature, are statutorily excluded from qualifying as PBIs, and thereby claiming exemption from rates.
Section 64 of the act is amended by adding a new provision requiring the declaration of rates to specify the dates on which rate instalments are due, if the council chooses to permit the payment of rates by instalments. A new subsection is also proposed to be inserted to permit a council to declare more than one minimum rate where land within the specified category includes land divided under the Unit Titles Act.
Councils will be able to declare a second minimum rate where, in the opinion of the council, the imposition of the first minimum amount would be inequitable having regard to the value of the parcels in the category. The amendment is intended to allow council to mitigate the effects of a minimum rate which might apply to industrial blocks where the zone also contains strata-titled self-storage sheds.
It is proposed to insert a new section 74A into the act to allow the minister to correct an irregularity in a council’s annual declaration of its rates and charges. It is proposed to amend section 75 of the act to include a requirement for a council to specify certain details in the public notices to inform ratepayers of the declaration of rates and charges. The public notice must include details of the amount intended to be raised by the rates, the total assessed value of land, details of rate instalments, dates and discounts for early payment.
It is proposed to insert a new section 88A into the act to allow a council to adjust a previous minimum rate. It will permit a council to rectify an anomaly or to redress an inequity between the minimum rate actually imposed for the previous year or years and the minimum rate that the council is proposing to impose for the subsequent year under new section 64(1A), whether this relates to either a property or class of properties or a ratepayer or a class of ratepayers.
Section 90 of the principal act is proposed to be amended to make it quite clear that general rates and charges made for a service provided by a council become an overriding statutory charge on the land.
Section 115 of the act will be amended to clarify that the general competence powers of councils to specifically include the power for councils to levy charges, dues, fares, fees and rents, and to also grant permits, licences, authorities and registrations. Whilst it was considered that there is a general power to do these things in section 115, a more specific description will avoid any doubt.
The proposed amendment to section 122 of the act relates to the functions of a community government council. A community government constitution sets out the permissible functions that may be performed by the council. As these functions have become virtually standardised, all council functions will now be included in schedule 2 of the act. This will enable less complex constitutions to be prepared for community government councils in the future. Schedule 2 presently lists the functions of municipal councils only, but is amended by clause 68 of this bill. The declaration of functions given to a community government council can be only those functions listed in the instrument of approval or all the functions of local government specified in schedule 2 of the act, other than those that may be excluded in the instrument of approval, as the case may be.
The proposed new section 122A of the act will allow the minister to declare a function of a council as a core function. In declaring a core function, the minister will have the power to specify the standard of performance a council must achieve. Where a council fails to achieve the standard of performance required, it will be possible for the minister to issue a direction to a council that it achieves that standard. This capacity is proposed as a method of ensuring that constituents receive at least a minimal level of service from their council.
Section 128 of the act has enabled a body other than a council – namely, the Nhulunbuy Corporation – to make by-laws for the purposes of dog control. The Nhulunbuy Corporation has requested further power to make by-laws for the control of public places. The amendment to section 128 of the act will enable the minister to approve the exercise of additional local government powers to a body such as the Nhulunbuy Corporation.
Section 142 of the act is amended to change the title of a ‘clerk’ of a council to CEO; that is, chief executive officer. This is a significant change, but is considered necessary given the higher profile being placed on local government in the Northern Territory. Most states now refer to the clerk as the chief executive officer or general manager. In the Territory, town clerk or council clerk is currently used flexibly and inconsistently. Many councils also use CEO. While some councils would prefer to adopt their own nomenclature, the title of CEO has been adopted for consistency.
It is proposed to insert a new section 142A into the act, which will define the role of the CEO, to clearly spell out the duties of a CEO for the benefit of elected members, council, and the public at large. This new provision expands on the basic set of functions specified for the CEO in section 142(2) of the act.
The proposed new section 143A at clause 40 sets out the employment principles to be observed by councils. While councils are expected to generally follow reasonable human resource management principles as practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelt out for councils in the current act. This new provision will cure this deficiency.
Under section 144 of the act, a council may delegate many of its powers and functions to an officer or employee but not the power of delegation. It is proposed to amend section 144 of the act to enable the CEO to delegate the powers or functions that have been delegated to the CEO by council where an expressed condition is attached to enable the further delegation. In addition, the CEO may also delegate any his powers and functions under this act.
Section 148 of the act is amended to provide a requirement that a resolution of a council to dismiss their CEO cannot take effect under 14 days after the minister has received written advice of the resolution. It is not intended that the minister assumes any responsibility for dismissals. It is only proposed that council advise the minister. However, it may allow the minister or the department to offer intervention in the form of mediation and negotiation where this is deemed desirable. Also, an investigation could be instigated. The provision is not intended to frustrate a council in the exercise of its responsibilities. Experience indicates that some protection is warranted from impetuous and unfair dismissals particularly as these can involve substantial claims before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Section 149 of the act is amended by inserting a new section 149(6) to the act which states that details of rates and charges paid to a council by a ratepayer are not to be included in the publicly available rate book. The ratepayer’s credit worthiness or payment history should not be publicly available from this source. These details are not necessary for determining whether rates are outstanding on a parcel of land. A council is already able to give a certificate to this effect pursuant to section 223 of the act.
It is proposed to insert a new section 149A into the act which permits a person, upon application in writing to the CEO, to exclude from publicly available documents and records the personal details including telephone numbers of a person that may lead to his or her identification or location. The person’s application should demonstrate reasonable grounds for the request.
Section 149 of the act prescribes that a number of council documents and records must be available for public inspection. An example of these is the rate book pursuant to section 149(1)(d). It is desirable for the name and telephone number of certain persons in these documents and records be silent. Examples are persons who may be subject to harassment, domestic violence or witness protection programs. Silent entries are permitted in telephone directories and Commonwealth, state and territory electoral rolls. The proposed amendment will permit silent records to be provided in council documents and records where appropriate.
An amendment to section 150 of the act will permit surveys of residents, not just electors, when a council conducts a survey. At present, section 150 of the act provides that a council may only conduct referendums or surveys of electors. The amendment is required to permit a resident or members of the public to participate in a council survey. That is the wider populace. Referendums should be restricted to electors only.
Section 155 of the act is amended by inserting new section 155(2) which provides that a council should not give, grant, advance, or loan money, services, or goods of any kind to a person other than in accordance with its adopted estimates unless there is a resolution by the council for the specific purpose. There continues to be demands placed upon some CEOs of councils for allowances and wages to be paid in advance to members and employees. These are often not repaid. The proposed prescription offers support to council CEOs in the lawful administration of their council.
It is proposed to insert new section 161A into the act to prescribe that a business plan must be prepared by councils. With a need for improved accountability by councils and for effective planning, the new section is proposed to require that business plans must be prepared by all councils. These plans will consist of an annual business plan that is an integral part of the ongoing strategic plan which covers the ensuing three years. Both plans will be reviewed and updated annually and prescribed contents of the two business plans are contained in the Accounting Code, which was adopted under the Local Government Accounting Regulations in August 2002.
In addition, section 165 of the act, which provided for the preparation of an annual financial statement and annual report, have been repealed and two new sections substituted. It is necessary for councils to be more open and accountable with their financial affairs and to report on their operations and activities on a regular basis. There is a new stand alone provision which requires a council to prepare annual financial statements which relate to the income, expenditure, assets and liabilities of the council for the period. The financial statements will be prepared as general purpose reports, as currently prescribed in the Local Government Accounting Code. A separate provision is provided which requires a council to report on its operations and activities for the past financial year. There are expanded reporting requirements for the preparation of annual reports prescribed in the Local Government Accounting Code.
Section 170 of the act relates to borrowings by councils, which currently require ministerial approval. There is some confusion as to what constitutes ‘borrowings’ and when an approval may be required. It is proposed to amend section 170 of the act to extend the meaning of ‘borrowings’ to include several forms of leases, particularly operating leases and finance leases except those with a value of less than $10 000. However, if the maximum total value of all leases exceeds $35 000 at any one time, then the minister’s approval must be sought for all subsequent leases.
Section 243 of the act is amended to confirm that failure to obey a lawful direction of an inspector under this provision is an offence. This amendment will correct a drafting ambiguity.
Section 264 of the act has been re-drafted to provide clarity and certainty for the suspension of members of council. The list of circumstances wherein a council may be suspended has been amended to include failure to carry out a function that has been prescribed as a core function. That is, such as road maintenance and garbage removal and disposal.
In addition, it is proposed to include a provision to allow the minister, following the initial suspension of council, to appoint a person to be the manager of the council. The manager is appointed as an Inspector of Local Government under proposed amendments to section 241(2) of the act, and I refer members to clause 61 of this bill. This will provide the manager with the same powers and functions as an inspector of local government in which to complete the investigation of council affairs. The manager will restore council services and conduct an investigation of the business affairs and financial circumstances of the council and take any action necessary. In addition, the manager is to provide a report to the minister within an agreed time frame. These proposals will allow the processes to correct the failure by council to be remedied in a quicker and easier way than under the current act.
The rules of natural justice will, of course, prevail, with the minister advising the suspended members of council the findings of the inspector’s report, and seeking further submissions from those members. This will enable the minister to take into consideration any special or extenuating circumstances in his final deliberations on the matter, which may need to be taken into account when making a recommendation to the Administrator that the suspended members of council be either reinstated or dismissed.
Under proposed new section 264A and, after considering the manager’s report and any submissions by the suspended members, the minister must recommend to the Administrator the members of council be reinstated or that they are dismissed from office. If the members of council are dismissed, then the minister must advise the Legislative Assembly within five sitting days of the dismissal. Should it be found that there are issues of fraudulent or criminal behaviour, the minister can still appoint a commissioner under proposed section 264B to inquire into and investigate the matters referred by the minister to the commissioner for consideration.
New section 264C follows similar provisions contained in former section 264, concerning the holding of elections following the dismissal of a council. These provisions are now provided in a separate section to make it easier to read and understand. As mentioned, it is proposed to amend schedule 2 of the act to include functions currently included in community government constitutions, that is, formerly called community government schemes. As schedule 2 will now be applicable to all councils, not just municipal councils as at present, the heading of schedule 2 will also be amended to ‘Functions of Councils’.
The further amendments listed in schedules 1 and 2 of this bill make minor amendments to the act and the various local government regulations as listed. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Note statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Continued from 8 October 2003.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services on the statement he delivered to the House on 12 August on the O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources.
Providing $75m towards building our police force indicates very strongly to the community that this government is not only serious about the safety of the community, it is actually doing something about it. The Department of Health and Community Services worked closely with the Police Department for many years. An additional 200 police officers will not only lead to a safer community, but also contribute to the health of Territorians. There are many areas of my portfolio where Health and Community Services staff work closely with police officers and Aboriginal community police officers. I will be looking at some of these areas in this statement.
Staff safety is a prominent area of concern, especially in rural and remote communities. The additional police numbers, in conjunction with the extra 28 community police officers, will allow for an increased presence in rural and remote communities. My department has initiated a number of strategies to develop a coordinated approach to staff safety, particularly in remote communities, to assist in this reduction. These include: 30 duress alarms have been installed in remote communities, with another 25 planned into 2003-04; six staff participated in a professional assault response training program – a five day program focussing on identifying and minimising workplace aggression, assault, behaviour; and the Department of Health and Community Services aggression management policy is reviewed and endorsed by the CEO biannually.
During 2003-04, a safety audit of buildings occupied by Health staff will be conducted to assess safety issues, particularly relating to the entry and exit points, lighting and access to parking. I recently visited a number of remote communities in Central Australia to see first-hand the progress towards better health services in the region, and to listen to community views on health issues. At one meeting in particular, the link between effective policing and health services was made particularly clear.
Nyirripi is a community west of Yuendemu. It is unfortunate that, over the past year, primary health care services to the community has been disrupted by the need to withdraw nursing staff who have faced violent incidents. This is not a step we take lightly; it is an action of last resort. However, in the end, I cannot ask my departmental staff to stay in a situation where they feel under threat. Obviously, part of the solution here is for the community and the department to talk through the issues and put in place a process by which the community can assist nurses when they feel under threat. It is about opening up communication and putting in place processes that give the community itself the ability to defuse potentially threatening situations. Indeed, my department is already conducting discussion with representatives of Nyirripi community on how we can do just that.
However, it was also put to me that the community itself needs to be able to call on police for assistance. Currently, there are no police stationed at Nyirripi and responses from the nearest police station at Yuendumu are, of course, not always able to be timely. If serious threats do arise towards health staff - be they nurses, Aboriginal health workers or others - the police, however diligent and effective, may not be able to arrive in time to address a situation that may lead in the worst case to withdrawal of health services. I use this only as an example; I am sure there are many remote communities facing a similar situation. I believe it is another illustration of how this government’s plans to build the Northern Territory Police force will have beneficial effects for the health of Territorians.
Mandatory reporting of aggressive incidents is encouraged throughout my department, and data is compiled to ensure that informed data is available. At the Royal Darwin Hospital, an active multi-disciplinary aggression management working party has been established. The hospital-based police officer plays an important role in this working party. The working party provides a forum for the review, management and reduction of aggressive incidents and behaviour to ensure the delivery of safe health care within the hospital. Royal Darwin Hospital also has two staff security officers per shift. Their role is to provide a range of patient and staff support services, including staff and patient security. They liaise closely with the hospital-based police officer. Security officers provide rapid response to all duress alarms and are part of the aggression management team.
The aggression management response team comprises staff from security, the nursing resource consultant and work area manager. Royal Darwin Hospital has its own hospital police officer. Services include providing support and advice to staff on patient management and response to aggressive incidents. The police officer plays a vital role in providing on-site support Monday to Friday during normal business hours to both patients and hospital staff. Issues such as domestic violence, assault, motor vehicle accidents resulting in personal injuries, theft within a hospital, and other serious issues can be dealt with within the hospital. The hospital-based police officer now has his own office within the main building of the hospital making him more accessible and able to work in a confidential environment.
Royal Darwin Hospital is improving its reporting mechanisms through enhanced data collection and analysis. Zero tolerance signage is displayed at all entrances to hospital buildings and this is enforced by hospital management. Staff are encouraged to report incidents to police and seek prosecution where possible.
Strategies in Alice Springs Hospital include a 24-hour security guard presence, regular foot patrols provided by the local police force, and information from staff safety aggression management. Staff safety at Alice Springs Hospital is of paramount importance and a range of initiatives have been implemented to reduce the number of incidents occurring, including a 24-hour security guard presence which involves external patrols. The police include Alice Springs Hospital on foot patrols. Duress alarms are in clinical and non-clinical areas, with a duress team to respond - which is a new initiative - and security cameras are strategically placed throughout the main building with a monitoring screen at the switchboard. The video surveillance is available to police, which is also a new initiative.
In the area of alcohol and other drugs issues, my department has a very strong relationship with police. Petrol sniffing has devastating effects on the individual, their families and the community, and is a symptom of underlying problems. The petrol sniffing programs in themselves are not enough; there is a need for communities and government working together to address underlying issues both in prevention and intervention. An example of police, my department and the community working together is a project being instigated at Borroloola, where the Police Community Youth Development Unit, and funds set aside by my department for a trial youth centre in Borroloola, have been combined to provide opportunities for young people to gather together in a supervised environment and participate in meaningful development activities.
Young people wandering without purpose or being left to their own devices can pose a number of risks. Commonality and outcomes has enabled the two initiatives to be developed jointly. The Health and Community Services initiative is focussed on prevention and early intervention, supporting and enhancing parental monitoring of young people and the provision of safe activities that build protective factors such as resilience, self-esteem and coping skills. Promoting youth involvement with the local community and improving family and community wellbeing are also key outcomes to be achieved. These outcomes are clearly linked with the broader outcomes of the Juvenile Diversion Scheme and the establishment of community youth development units in remote indigenous communities.
The purpose of the community youth diversion units is to alleviate youth boredom, give young people a sense of purpose, and provide an opportunity to develop life skills that will prevent offending behaviour and assist young people to become responsible members of their community. The unit aims to provide support including coordination of youth services, case management of young people on pre-court diversion programs and for those at risk, and sport and recreation and life skills activities for all young people in the community. It also seeks to provide an umbrella organisation for all government initiatives directed at youth within the community. A similar project is being developed with Tennant Creek’s Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation Community Development Unit.
My department has responsibility for at risk young people under the Community Welfare Act. Youth Support Services fund are under the support of accommodation assistance program and Family Children Services provide a range of services for youth at risk including SAP services which provide accommodation and support service for at risk, homeless, young people – for example, Casey House Youth Refuge in Darwin; Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Support Services, which includes an accommodation and support program for young, pregnant, indigenous girls; as well as a range of programs such as Deadly Treadleys, our bike building project. Darwin Youth Beat is a mobile service that provides outreach support to young people on the streets at night in the Casuarina precinct and the northern suburbs.
Four mobile youth outreach workers commenced in late December operating three nights per week from two vehicles. This service provides information and referral, a crisis response and is active in diverting young people from risky behaviour. Public space protocols have been developed in the Casuarina precinct which let young people know what their rights and responsibilities are in the use of public and community spaces; E-cruz, the Nightcliff trial youth centre, providing after school activities for young people; and working with the Alice Springs’ community in the development of the safe families project.
The Youth at Risk Taskforce, established under the Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention has two tasks: developing a Territory-wide strategy for youth at risk; and immediate solutions for Darwin and Palmerston. There are three permanent members on the taskforce from police – which is the lead agency – the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and my department. The Departments of Justice and Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs have part-time membership.
Extensive consultation is taking place across the Northern Territory with an emphasis on working through already established structures such as crime prevention committees. An extensive literature review has helped to inform the development of the strategy and the strategy is currently being drafted. The taskforce has identified the importance of a range of interventions at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels, for example, early intervention through to intensive interventions with families and young people. The taskforce has also identified the importance of working together across government and with families and communities. The time line for the taskforce to make its recommendations is early December.
An MOU exists between police and my department to provide national drug strategy funding to police for the development and implementation of alcohol and other drug strategies within the Northern Territory. The Department of Health and Community Services funds a senior policy officer in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy Unit of the Northern Territory Police, to design, develop and coordinate an alcohol and other drugs policy and programs within police.
The Department of Health and Community Services is the leading agency for the Diversions Advisory Group of which police is a member. The Advisory Group develops and funds juvenile diversionary programs for young people involved in drug activity. One such program is the Police Pre-court Diversionary Program. This program recently commenced and I look forward to the minister reporting back to the House on its success.
Another aspect of the close interaction and cooperation between police and my department is in relation to the important issue of domestic violence. A good example of this interaction is the Northern Territory hospitals violence project that occurred in Royal Darwin Hospital and the Katherine District Hospital late last year. While this was a sensitive project in many ways, statistics, although disturbing, revealed a snapshot of the incidence of domestic violence in the community through presentations at the emergency department and maternity unit at the Katherine District Hospital.
It is well-known that, unfortunately, a great deal of police work is taken up with domestic violence issues. Sadly, domestic violence is the principal cause of death in women aged 21 to 34 years in the Territory. There is another concerning statistic that shows that domestic violence is responsible for the highest number of hospital admissions in the form of physical injury. Physical injury resulting directly from violence includes a predominance of injury to the body, chest, breast and abdomen, pointing to the deliberate sexual and intimate nature of domestic violence.
Sadly, domestic violence has also been identified as the single most significant trigger for female suicide. In 1998-99, a total of 2552 people sought help from services in the Territory as a direct result of family or domestic violence. Unfortunately, this may just be the tip of the iceberg, as many cases go unreported for a variety of reasons. During the survey period at Royal Darwin Hospital, a staggering 25% of all patients that presented with injuries were directly attributable to domestic violence.
The project was very worthwhile in the sense that the information gathered led to increased ability to effectively assess the variety of injuries and social implications of the presentations. Not surprisingly, the vast bulk of victims of abuse were women. Indigenous women were over-represented over the month of the survey period. The presence of a police officer based at Royal Darwin Hospital gave staff the opportunity to follow up some of the cases with the patient’s consent. The close cooperation between health staff and police during the trial has, hopefully, made some inroads into the numbers of presentations of domestic violence in those two hospitals. The training and awareness developed during the trials in both Katherine and Darwin hospitals has increased the ability of staff to identify and refer the victims of domestic violence to appropriate agencies, such as the police and other supporting non-government organisations.
In some cases, domestic violence spills over towards other family members, particularly children. The relationship between police and child protection staff in my department is a crucial one. As we are all aware in this Chamber, the Martin government has placed an enormous emphasis on substantially improving child protection in the community. Keeping our children safe inside and outside of the home environment is integral to each child’s future development. As a government, we have acknowledged that child protection issues identified in the recent SNAICC Report must be improved immediately. That is why this government is placing significant additional funding and staffing into our Family and Children’s Services.
In conjunction with the increasing resources, my department has also begun a review of child protection in the Northern Territory. The review will engage a broad range of stakeholders, including examining involvement and relationship between our departmental offices in FACS and the police.
My department has an excellent working relationship with our police force in many area. One example is the Sexual Assault Referral Centre, where police, in conjunction with medical, nursing, social workers and other departmental staff, deal with the sensitive issue of sexual assault, which sometimes, tragically, involves children. The cooperative approach between police and departmental officers ensures that every effort is made to reduce the impact of such assaults on the individuals involved. Needless to say, the success of the unit also contributes to the broadening of the relationship between police and the department.
The O’Sullivan Report and the government’s response to the report, by injecting a massive increase in resources to police, will not only assist the police force itself. The broader implications of the review will ensure that many areas of my department will benefit from the response. Importantly, areas of child protection and domestic violence will see important gains from the investment that this government has made into our police force.
In Central Australia, Family and Children’s Services has been leading the development of a protocol with the night youth patrol, police and other agencies, providing after hours services to children and young people.
In addition, Family and Children’s Services and other agencies have established the Child and Youth Safety Committee. This committee and its constituent members have developed a plan for responding to the need of children and young people who are on the streets at night and for the provision of follow up and other family support services.
In accordance with the Mental Health Act, there are unfortunate times when people are at risk to themselves or the community. A memorandum of understanding was established between the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Health and Community Services in June 2002 to establish a cooperative framework for the effective and appropriate management of persons apparently suffering from mental illness in circumstances where the intervention of the Northern Territory Police force has become necessary. A Mental Health and Police Liaison Committee was established to oversee the application of this MOU, and to maintain liaison between the police and Mental Health Services. This committee consists of representatives from police and the Mental Health Services in Darwin and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory Community Advisory Group on Mental Health.
This committee meets twice a year; the most recent meeting was 6 October 2003. At this meeting, the committee agreed that a review of the MOU is timely, and members have been requested to provide recommendations for amendments within the next six weeks. An extraordinary meeting will take place in early December to progress this issue. Further communication will also take place at the next meeting of the Top End and Central Australian regional advisory teams. These teams report to the Mental Health and Police Liaison Committee, and comprise representatives from regional police stations and local Mental Health Services. These teams ensure that local operational concerns are addressed. The next meeting of the Top End regional team is scheduled to take place in November. In my department, the Top End Mental Health Service provides training to police on mental health problems and how to respond to people who are experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.
It is very clear that, in relation to O’Sullivan Report, the huge increase in funding to police will make a significant difference, both to the health of Territorians, as well as to the safety of Territorians. I commend the minister for his statement, and for his enthusiasm in Cabinet when he was able to get this money from the government. I congratulate him and thank him for his statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to add my congratulations to the minister. He inherited a very difficult portfolio, one that many of us living throughout the Territory would understand was riddled with serious problems, and he had the strength and the wisdom to commission an independent inquiry. An independent inquiry is no easy task for a government to commission. It lays itself bare and wide open. A whole range of recommendations, some 112 recommendations, very comprehensive, was a result of that independent inquiry.
I acknowledge the good choice of who undertook the inquiry, former Queensland Police Commissioner, Jim O’Sullivan, and his right hand man Peter Forster. They are both very impressive, intelligent and well-versed police operatives. I had the pleasure of meeting them and discussing law and order issues when they came to my Karama electorate office during the inquiry. They met with the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, of which I am a member, having founded it. The committee and I were very impressed by the way in which both Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster were able to very quickly grasp the essence of what we were saying about law and order issues in our particular patch of the northern suburbs. On behalf of residents and traders, we expressed that there was a desire for regular patrols of police; people wanted to see police back out on the beat and improved response times to incidents. Clearly, outcomes up to these are all tied to a level of resources.
While I was doorknocking the electorate in 2001, prior to the election, I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss law and order issues with police who were living in the electorate. They were quite frank in what they had to say. They said that the force was suffering from an incredibly low morale, and it was due to low numbers. Police were exhausted, they were continually working overtime. They watched an attrition of their very best and finest officers to other forces, such as the Australian Federal Police and interstate police forces. Post the election, I continued to keep in touch with these hard-working police officers, and I kept saying to them: ‘The Labor Martin government is listening and we will action your concerns’.
I also spoke to police spouses who had a series of complaints about the condition of their housing and who, in trying to improve conditions for themselves and their children - where spouses putting up with their husband or partner being away for extraordinary periods of times with the amount of overtime they were working, basically eating out, raising the children on their own, concerned for their own wellbeing - would request the Police Department to upgrade their basic housing regarding putting on a screen door or improving deadlocks and the answer was: ‘No, do it at your own expense’.
It was certainly extremely refreshing to know that all of these matters, with no exception, are comprehensively addressed in the 112 recommendations provided in the O’Sullivan assessment. This all does come at a cost: a $75m injection of funds to provide the Northern Territory with a force that can cater to community needs and community expectations. $75m has been committed by the Martin Labor government to fund the 112 recommendations provided in the O’Sullivan assessment. That will provide for 150 more constables, 25 experienced sergeants, 30 ACPOs and auxiliaries, 80 civilian staff, and an upgrade and improvement of police equipment and conditions.
How on earth is this going to be done? They are already recruiting and training the maximum number of constables each year: 120, as opposed to the situation we had from 1991 to 1994 when there was, shamefully, a freeze on police recruitment. This is absolutely one of the blackest marks that you can make against previous governments, because this has led to an extreme shortage of experienced police; for example, at our sergeant level.
There is good news contained in the report regarding the 80 civilians. This will have the effect of getting more police back out on the beat; they will free up police from duties that really only requires a civilian to undertake.
I remember I spent some months post-election as the local member lobbying both the Officer-in-Charge at Casuarina and my Police minister at the time, to get some on-the-beat work done around the area. It was a surprise to me one day when I had an officer knock at the electorate office door and come in. He introduced himself to me and I said: ‘What are you doing, mate?’. He said: ‘Well, I am out on the beat; I am coming through the shopping centre’. He had the broadest smile on his face and he was a big strapping officer. I said: ‘This is great news; I have been asking for this. This is fantastic’. He said: ‘I have to thank you. This is the first time in seven years I have been able to go out on the beat’. I have to say I just stood there in shock; I could not believe it was the first time in seven years he had had the opportunity to go out on the beat. He was delighted; he raved to me about how police really enjoy the on-the-beat work. He said that they get a great deal of job satisfaction being able to go out on the beat, be proactive, connect with their communities, talk to shop owners, shoppers, youths, the elderly, the people in their community that they very much are a part of, that on-the-beat policing can never be underestimated; it is the most important and critical aspect to good community policing.
The other thing I saw with the response around Karama of having a police officer back out on the beat – people were delighted. They were coming up and saying: ‘Did you see the policeman in the shopping centre today? Isn’t that fantastic?’. That was followed up and I have to congratulate the Officer-in-charge of Casuarina because they really did respond. They really did, under enormous resourcing difficulties, respond to community needs. We have police on bicycles out on patrol. We have the mounted police of which I am a great advocate. There is very much a good role for mounted police in the climatic conditions of the Northern Territory. Mounted police are a type of police that people respond to very positively; children rush up and say hello because of the element of the horse being involved, and there is an exchange of banter. They are agile, they can get down the laneways, they can see over the high fences, and they have very good communication skills with the guys in the cars. My view is we could always do with more mounted police. We also had police out on motorbikes and patrolling in cars.
It was heartening to get the feedback from the community, heartening for people to say: ‘I have started to feel safe for the first time in years, and thank you. It is because I can see our police.’ Certainly people are aware of the way the media deals with police stories and they are aware of a lot of negativity surrounding police work, but by far and away the majority of constituents I speak to hold our police in very high esteem, and are very grateful to the role they play in our society. They acknowledge that in the past, response times have been inadequate, but they are also acknowledging that that is starting to improve. There has been a noticeable improvement in response to incidents in the experience of certainly the residents of Karama and Malak, particularly in the last year or so. The recommendation of more police being put back out on to operational duties just enhances that whole aspect of an ability for police to improve their response times.
For our police themselves, many of the recommendations contained in the O’Sullivan assessment that will be implemented provide for improved living and working conditions. This is absolutely critical to arresting the unacceptable attrition rate of good personnel who simply could not bear the strain of their jobs due to under-resourcing and the highly stressful nature of the job as well. The underpinning provisions of more police and more support for our police, I believe, is money extremely well spent.
Our community for many years has demanded better policing. Our police for many years have struggled under inadequate resourcing, morale-sapping endless overtime and a real lack of resources that are impediments to their jobs. The O’Sullivan assessment, 112 recommendations, radically draws the line under that, and we can move into the future with confidence, in the knowledge that our police will finally be adequately resourced.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the O’Sullivan assessment team of former Queensland police commissioner, Jim O’Sullivan, and his very able right hand man, Peter Forster. They have done a fine job for Territorians. They have come here, gone the length and the breadth of the Territory, talked to police, community stakeholders and agencies everywhere, and have come up with 112 very reasonable, fine and focussed recommendations.
Fundamentally, it would be meaningless if the government did not accept the recommendations. Territorians who have analysed and scrutinised government actions over the years know that the normal pattern as a result of reports or inquiries or assessments or reviews for recommendations is to be paid lip service and sit on the shelf to rot, where we then go through a compounding of the problems that led to the inquiry or review in the first place. How refreshing! How incredibly refreshing that we have a fundamental, complete and utter commitment from the Territory government to spend the $75m it will take to implement the O’Sullivan assessment.
I congratulate the police minister. I know he is the driving force behind this action. I congratulate the Cabinet ministers whom I know have been very supportive. Our Chief Minister has been very supportive. I look forward to being able to see more police out on the beat, to hear of improved response times, and to steer a community where, once again, we can have faith that there is proactive policing, rather than just reactive policing.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Service’ statement in respect to the O’Sullivan Report into police resources. First of all, I applaud Mr O’Sullivan, and Mr Forster who also contributed immensely to the report, which is a very comprehensive report that has been described as a ‘warts and all’ report. This report will be a blueprint for the Northern Territory Police well into the future and will hold us accountable as a community to the people of the Northern Territory. That is the way it should be, as opposed to the rhetoric of the opposition.
There is no doubt that we have very professional and dedicated people at all levels within the police force who are performing, sometimes, a very thankless task. They are unfortunately limited by inadequate numbers of personnel and, as the O’Sullivan Report indicates, up to 100 vacant positions in any given year.
I know only too well the people in my electorate who have on occasions seen fit to have a go at the police in respect of their ability to perform their duties to the best of their ability. To a degree, we now know why the police are not always able to be out in the community patrolling; why there was a lack of intelligence capability to support the police in basic investigative tasks, why clear up rates were low and, indeed, why some police chose to resign due to excessive overtime and perhaps a degree of dissatisfaction with their work conditions.
I re-emphasise that there should be no doubt that some, if not all, of these deficiencies have come about because of historically-based resourcing decisions and resource shortages perpetrated by the previous CLP regime.
I would now like to turn to issues in my electorate, particularly Borroloola. The Borroloola police do an excellent job dealing with unacceptable levels of alcohol abuse and the resultant antisocial behaviour and domestic violence. They cover a population probably in excess of 1500 people over a large area. Quite often, the police in Borroloola work up to 80 hours per fortnight overtime, and I welcome the recommendation in the O’Sullivan Report for an additional police constable. There could be some capacity for an additional female Aboriginal community police officer.
I want to take up the contribution made by the member for Arafura yesterday, when she talked about the need for more women to be recruited into the police force. I include, of course, Aboriginal women as ACPOs. As we know, in a lot of circumstances and cases, there are high levels of domestic violence and, sadly, on a lot of occasions women do not feel too free in approaching their local police officer, particularly if they are male. This action alone will go a long way in providing not only indigenous but non-indigenous women in the bush with confidence, knowing that possibly there will be increased numbers of women employed within the police force.
The recommendations for Tennant Creek call for an additional sergeant attached to CIB, three additional constables and an intelligence officer. There is also reference to one extra ACPO, and I honestly believe that that will also make a difference. As I mentioned previously - and it is important to be straight - in Tennant Creek there probably have been levels of dissatisfaction locally. However, I trust these additional staffing measures will go part of the way to alleviating that situation.
The O’Sullivan Report refers to the standard of housing afforded to police officers throughout the Territory. In relation to Tennant Creek, the standard of housing needs a lot of work done to bring them up to standard. I know that the minister will address this matter in an urgent way because I have spoken to him about it. I know the minister has spoken to local police down there.
I want to digress a little and refer to the housing standards of public servants in regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. It is fair to say that the standard of housing is well below standards acceptable in other places.
Madam Speaker, you will be aware that many of the houses presently occupied by public servants and, indeed, by police officers, are up to 30 years old. Many of those houses have been poorly designed and certainly not suitable for the environment in the Territory. Most people these days do not want to go home to a large backyard with a house stuck in the middle. They want to go home to houses that are more appropriately designed, incorporating outdoor living areas. It is fair to say that perhaps one of the reasons why our public servants, including the police, do not stay long in the bush, or why the retention rates are so low is probably due to the housing conditions. I know the Minister for Housing is also taking a very active role in doing audits throughout some of the bush communities, and I know that there will be a very concentrated approach in addressing this issue over time. There is probably big money involved, and it will take time, but I do know that my colleague, the Minister for Housing, is committed to addressing this situation.
I have spoken in this House previously in regards to PPPs in regards to housing in the bush. I still really believe that it is an option. We could give consideration to perhaps selling some of the stock, demolishing some of the houses that are certainly not worth repairing, and entering into an arrangement with the private sector to build these houses and head lease back to the different government agencies operating in the bush communities. This could possibly mean millions of dollars of injection into the regional economies, which would automatically mean increased jobs. Of course, local businesses would appreciate the flow-on effect. The bottom line is that public servants in the bush would have access to appropriate housing.
I want to make mention of the Elliott Police Station. The O’Sullivan Report indicates that it appears to be adequate, but small demands like airconditioning and carports are critical for officers based there and, of course, their families. I would daresay that airconditioning is not a small demand, but an essential requirement in a place like Elliott. How this got to be is perhaps beyond me, but I know it is now being addressed.
The Ali Curung police, over a long period, have led Australia in their interaction with the Ali Curung community in developing a community-based law and order strategy. It is an excellent example of the term ‘partnership’ between the public sector and indigenous communities. It is fitting that our attempt to afford ACPOs with suitable housing and improved employment conditions substantially adds to the partnership in places like Ali Curung and, indeed, throughout other parts of the Northern Territory.
I will now very briefly talk about Aboriginal Community Police Officers. We know that they have been vital to policing operations in the Northern Territory. In the past, I believe they have been much under-valued by us as a community. It is important to acknowledge their contribution to our state and, as I mentioned previously, our commitment to provide improved conditions is welcomed, and I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police for their commitment in this area. It is long overdue. As I mentioned previously in this House in regards to the provision of renal dialysis units in the smaller communities as being a real benchmark for this government, I believe that the recommendations by O’Sullivan and the commitment by the minister in regards to improving work conditions of ACPOs is also indicative of the Martin Labor government’s and the minister’s commitment to being fair and equitable regarding people and their jobs.
The other initiative I welcomed in the O’Sullivan Report was the capacity for ACPOs being provided with a broader range of options to become constables and perhaps, consequently, having access to a career path. Mr O’Sullivan also refers in his report to the basic requirements of a female Aboriginal Community Police Officer in a remote community on page 161 of his report. It got me thinking what a wonderful person she must be; how humble she must be and how dedicated to her profession as an ACPO, and also to her community. I know that there are many ACPOs like this lady, and I repeat that it is fitting that some of their concerns will be addressed in the interest of us as a community.
I have family members who are ACPOs. I know they are happy with the recommendations arising from the O’Sullivan Report. They see it as a way forward in their own professional development, but also as a means of serving their community. It is important to understand that the demands placed on ACPOs is really quite horrendous. They have all sorts of obligations in respect to their cultural and community obligations and, more often than not, they are at the coalface in respect of disputes. They are widely interlinked between the police and the community. They also provide an important role in talking to local businesses and, last but not least, of course, is their requirements and duty to uphold the law. As I say, it is not easy, but these people do a wonderful job.
I would particularly like to refer to some of the ACPOs in my electorate who have been there for a long period of time and who really do credit to their profession: Mr Noel Dixon, who operates from the Borroloola Police Station; Denise Goddard from Tennant Creek; Lex Holt from Tennant Creek; and also Jarrod Williams - all of these people do excellent work; Gwen Brown from Ali Curung whom I have spoken about previously in this House because of her very important role in working with the police in developing a law and order strategy which has been embraced across the Territory and certainly across Australia, and on an international basis; and also Mr Harold Daly Waters who operates from the Elliott Police Station. Harold is actually moving to Katherine in the next two weeks because his young son requires health treatment, as I understand it, so he has to move there. I extend to Harold and his family the appreciation of the police - certainly the local community and I –for his contribution over a very long period of time.
Members will also be aware that police auxiliaries also play a very important role in a range of functions freeing up police officers to get on with the important work in the community - community policing roles. As I mentioned, there are occasions when police officers are often tied up looking after people taken into custody – an important role within itself. However, the bottom line is that police officers are perhaps tied up with too much of these sorts of duties and they should be out in the community providing the community policing role.
This is only a suggestion on my part, but maybe we should give consideration to linking in with CDEP participants. There could be an opportunity for some of these people to be given these sorts of roles with appropriate national accredited training. I am sure it could be developed and that there are suitable and appropriate people out there who have the capacity and the skills to undertake this task. Obviously, there needs to be more discussions with the Police Association and, of course, the commissioner and everyone else. However, I believe it something that is worth looking at because, sadly, there are very high percentages of Aboriginal people who frequent the police stations, and it is probably something worth looking at. The other thing, too, which could apply is that CDEP participants take with them approximately $200 per week. It is quite possible that this could be topped up to the award wage . As I say, there needs to be a whole lot more work don on this.
Another issue I have spoken about previously in this House - certainly I have had discussions with the minister and the previous minister - is some capacity for the establishment of a police indigenous steering committee. I know that it occurs at regional levels. There are very, very close relationships between the police and indigenous community and other community members where they are able to sit down and talk about issues, develop responses to hot spots or issues that are going on in the community. Maybe, again, it is just for consideration that there could well be some potential for the establishment of a police indigenous steering committee. I know that it has occurred in South Australia in the past. I am not too familiar with how it operates these days, but certainly, it played a great role in breaking down the perception out there in the community, the black and white issues. People were able to sit down in a very constructive way and there could well be some capability for that to occur in the Northern Territory.
The other issue that I want to speak about very briefly - and it is something that I have spoken to the minister about - is the social issues unit or a community education unit. Certainly, I know this applies in Tennant Creek to a certain degree where the police and night patrol get together. They go out and talk to the different communities about some of the issues, such as people coming into town maybe for footy and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It certainly lessens the impact on the community because people out there in the community are aware of what the expectations are when they come into town: what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. More importantly, it allows the community and the police to interact at a level which will be of immense benefit to the Territory in the long run. Quite often in the past, the police linkages with the Aboriginal community has been in terms of the old Welfare Act and, in some circumstances, the Stolen Generations. Initiatives such as these go a long way in breaking down the barriers that have occurred. Although, I will admit that they certainly are a lot better than they were in the past.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr O’Sullivan on his report. I also give my absolute support and congratulations to the minister for Police whom I know has spent quite a bit of time talking to the police in my electorate. They appreciate that. They appreciate his very honest, straightforward approach to things. It augers well for the police improving their conditions, making the place a safer place to live. So, minister, congratulations on all the hard work that you put in, and also to the Martin government. These new initiatives, new approaches, are very important in making our place a safer place and a better place for all.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Note statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate on a very important subject. The O’Sullivan Report, An Assessment of Resource Requirements of the Northern Territory Police, is probably going to be one of the most important reports that this government has to deal with throughout this term in office.
I reiterate my thanks to Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster who did the work, going out and visiting virtually all of the police stations in the Northern Territory, talking to hundreds of police officers as well as members of the broader community, really getting their heads around the issues facing the Northern Territory Police Force and crime in the Northern Territory, and delivering a blueprint for, as our Police Commissioner has said, a new era for policing in the Northern Territory. It really is a seminal report and certainly is a blueprint for the way forward.
I would like to pick up on some of the comments that have been made by honourable members in debate. This has been a debate that has been adjourned a number of times because every member on the government benches wanted to contribute to this debate. It is very unusual for all 13 members to say that they wanted to contribute. Obviously, the Chief Minister had a seminal role in approving in Cabinet the authorisation of expenditure, but every other member on this side has contributed to this motion.
I am disappointed, though, that only four members opposite could be bothered to contribute on such an important report. All of us, as local members, spend a fair amount of our time in our electorates dealing with the effects of crime, working with groups such as Neighbourhood Watch and the local crime prevention groups which were derided in this House today by the opposition. We, on this side, believe in crime prevention and setting up structures to try to prevent crime in the Northern Territory. We work with community groups trying to prevent crime. We work with community groups that clean up after the fact, and with individual constituents who are affected by crime, and areas of our electorates that are crime hot spots.
It is very much a part of the work of each and every one of us as members of this House. For only four of the opposition members to bother to take part in this debate, which is the most comprehensive review of policing in the Northern Territory’s history and the single biggest injection of funding to the police, really does show that they are not interested in outcomes or reducing crime in the Northern Territory; they are just interested in the politics of crime and trying to capitalise on an issue that affects every society in the world.
The Leader of the Opposition essentially attacked me for blaming everything on the CLP. What the Leader of the Opposition did not recognise is that this is an independent report. It is not a report that was penned in my ministerial office upstairs. This report was put together by a former Police Commissioner of Queensland, a man with 41 years experience in policing. The report speaks for itself of the history of policing in the Northern Territory. We cannot deny that history. For 26 years of it, that history was CLP history and preceded this government. Many of the issues that are dealt with in this report relate to decisions made by previous governments. For him to think we would not comment on that aspect of the report is naive in the extreme.
The member for Goyder was on the same track, saying that the CLP had done a wonderful job and how unfair it was that the report dared to state that the police had been neglected for many years. That was the tone of his response. It was very, very quick.
An interesting contribution to the debate from the member for Macdonnell, a former police officer. His concern was doubting the ability of the government to recruit an extra 200 - it is actually an extra 150, but building the strength by an extra 200 police. He did not believe that we could do it, but even if we did do it, it was critical because there would be too many inexperienced police on our streets. We cannot have it both ways. The report highlighted the fact that the number one issue facing police in the Northern Territory and the impact of crime in the Northern Territory is to get police out on to the streets in the numbers that they should be. The only way to do that is to recruit ahead of attrition and to maximise recruitment. That is what we have funded and, yes, we are going to have a period in our police force where we are not going to have the depth of experience on our streets that we should have. We would not have to deal with this if the previous government had not failed to recruit for four years.
I do not see how you can boost numbers significantly in the police force without actually recruiting to the police force. That is going to mean that we are going to have an issue for a number of years regarding experience. I am sure it is an issue that the police will rise to. It is a significant challenge but I believe in the commissioner, his executive team and the serving police to be able to deal with that. I have travelled extensively around the Northern Territory since this report was released to police stations from Groote Eylandt to Hermannsburg and most place in between, and our serving police officers will give these new recruits all the support they possibly can in doing the job that we ask them to do.
I quote part of the member for Macdonnell’s contribution:
- This has the potential effect of not only lowering the quality of the service which will be delivered to the people
of the Northern Territory, but also exposing the Northern Territory Police Force through simple inexperience
and mistakes.
Member for Macdonnell, you come in here proclaiming great wisdom on all sorts of topics. I really do not believe that the quality of the service which will be delivered can be in any way reduced as a result of putting an extra 200 police on our streets. The quality of the service that we inherited is highlighted in this report, and is no fault of existing serving officers. However, we cannot provide the quality of service that the people of Northern Territory expect of our police for the simple fact that there are not enough of them. How putting more police in place is going to reduce the quality of service is a leap of logic that only the member for Macdonnell could make, but his words stay on the record.
The member for Drysdale basically complained about not getting a copy of the report and focussed on relationships between Labor politicians and the police. I really do not know what he was trying to say, but he was not particularly supportive of the report.
My colleagues made significant contributions in debate. One of the things I appreciate from my colleagues and the frankness of debate that we can have in this House is that members are quite free to put on the record issues they believe that government could and should be looking into. Some of those comments, particularly by members on this side of the House who represent bush electorates, are passionate. They want to see policing improve in the bush. These members are passionate in their support for the ACPO schemes and have suggested ways we can improve the service that police provide in the bush even further.
I will pick up on the member for Arafura talking in an impassioned speech about the under-reporting of sexual assaults to police in the bush, sexual assaults on women, on children and the cultural difficulties that Aboriginal people face when, predominantly, our bush police officers are male, and the difficulties they face in making a report to police about sexual assault. That is a very real issue that I will be taking up with the Police Commissioner in terms of what we can do by way of strategy to raise the confidence of Aboriginal women to report sexual assault. It is certainly an issue that is absolutely inexcusable, reprehensible and we need to be working with Aboriginal people to give them the confidence they need to make those reports so that the perpetrators can be dealt with under the law.
That is something that I will be taking up with the Police Commissioner. It is going to be an issue. If we look at the police annual report, which will be tabled here next week, I believe – and I could be wrong – about three quarters of our police are male. It is certainly something we have to look at, structurally and strategically. There must be options where we can improve the confidence of Aboriginal women to report to police.
The member for Barkly is passionate in his support for ACPOs. Our bush members do know ACPOs in their communities. I have been to a number of communities in the member’s electorate. Again, he raised a very strategic and creative initiative of extending the CDEP scheme for people on communities to work in the numerous administrative and auxiliary roles in police bush stations. That is something we can certainly have a look at regarding local employment: getting Aboriginal people to work more closely with police. As I travel around bush stations, a lot of police talk about how, over time, more and more of their work is confined to the police stations and administration in the roles they have to play for other agencies. That leaves them less time to be proactive in getting out into communities, on to pastoral leases, and this could be a way forward in that role. So, again, that is something that I will be raising with the Police Commissioner.
Also, the thought about an indigenous police steering committee where, potentially, we can get a number of senior Aboriginal people from across the Northern Territory to meet on a regular basis to work with police and advise police on issues in regards to Aboriginal people. Some really good ideas have come out of the positive contributions from members on this side of the House. I do value your input into these debates. They are not going to be wasted, languishing on the Parliamentary Record. I will be taking up those issues which have been raised by honourable members.
The issue – and there is no other way to describe it, and I am surprised it is not an issue that has been raised before – of discrimination against ACPOs in their employment conditions, where they have not had the same employment conditions. It was an issue that was very starkly raised by Mr O’Sullivan, and certainly something that we as a government, in accepting these recommendations, are going to move on very quickly. How this could have been allowed to occur and not be dealt with for many years, certainly does not stand the Northern Territory and its reputation in good stead.
The contribution made by the member for Sanderson from an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail last week – I had not seen that, our people had not picked that up. If this is the way we are being portrayed around Australia as being some sort of redneck enclave, well, it is an era that is in the past. We have to move forward, we will move forward, and the fact that these types of things are still occurring is something that this government is going to move on.
On that issue - and I suppose the history of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Police Force – there is one paragraph here that really does define how this particular Territorian was and is still serving our community above and beyond the call of duty. It is on the Aboriginal Community Police Officers part of the assessment, page 161, and I will read into the Hansard:
For example, in one remote community one exceptional ACPO was the sole policing presence. She confronted
the most difficult of policing situations daily, had turned her own home into a shelter for victims of domestic
violence, was using her own vehicle for policing work, and operated from a tiny makeshift office with no
computer, fax or phone. She was committed to policing and to her community, and was looking forward
to a week’s in-service training with other ACPO colleagues, the first for some years.
That really does sum up how these people have just been neglected in the role that they were - and still are – providing.
My commitment, as Police minister, is to turn that around as quickly as I can. I am very pleased to say that we have just conducted a significant recruitment of ACPOs. We will have 18 new ACPOs graduating early November, I believe. I have certainly advised the commissioner that I want to be there at their graduation. They will be dispersed to all parts of the Northern Territory. We have a review of the entire ACPO scheme occurring at the moment by former Commander Robin Bullock. That review and his recommendations are due by the end of the year.
We have all spoken for many years in this parliament about how important those ACPOs were, but this review has really gone to show that they have been neglected for many, many years. It certainly is something that I am taking a personal interest in seeing those conditions improved as quickly as possible for those valuable people who provide that great service that we all talk about in the bush.
With the $75m, 200 extra police, and 112 recommendations to be worked through, it is a huge challenge for the Police Commissioner, his team, and the Police Association. I can say, travelling around the Northern Territory talking to police officers in the last few months, that morale has improved as a result of this commitment. People do see that there is light on the hill. Our police officers are very proud to serve and protect our community, and of the uniform that they wear. There is absolutely no doubt that this report has laid it on the line, that those people who serve and protect our community have been neglected, in resourcing, for many, many years, yet it has done a magnificent job for the people of the Northern Territory.
Therefore, regarding this government’s strategy, we said that we would tackle the issues of crime in our community. We put out significant plans to doing that. We can see that, with our focussed approach in tackling drug-related crime - my colleague, the Justice minister talked today about the new drug courts - we can see that the police are now freely able to talk in the media about drugs and the links between drugs and crime where, previously, those sorts of comments were not being made by them. The issue is out there publicly now, along with the strategies. With an extra 200 police officers out on the streets, the drug courts, the health programs and a review – particularly of the Liquor Act this year - there is going to be a seminal review for this government, in reducing violence and crime in our community.
This government is tackling crime on all of its fronts, and we can certainly see from the crime figures that are released and independently audited - I pick up on the comments and interjections from the member for Drysdale, that ‘Nobody believes you’, his wont of interjection when we talk about crime figures. What the member for Drysdale is saying – and it is certainly heard by police and others who work in this area – is that, somehow, the police are involved in some political exercise with the government in masking the crime figures. It is an absolute insult to police and to the public servants in Justice who compile these figures. They are the most thorough and comprehensive statistics on crime that are released by any jurisdiction in Australia, in an effort to get a debate about crime and how to reduce crime in the community. They have been, and are, independently audited by an independent commercial accounting firm.
For the member for Drysdale to say nobody believes you, he is insulting all of those people and I urge him to take the statistics on value – they are accurate – and let’s have a debate about crime in the Northern Territory. But let’s not make allegations that police, public servants and independent commercial auditors are somehow part of a government conspiracy to hide the true crime figures in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, again, congratulations and thank you to Jim O’Sullivan and Peter Forster. Thank you to all of the police who have contributed to this report. Thank you to my Cabinet colleagues for supporting this report and members who have contributed to this debate. I will be pleased to come back into the House and update honourable members on the implementation of the recommendations in this report in the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note paper - Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report 2003
Note paper - Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report 2003
Continued from 21 August 2003.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I do not have a long contribution; a few comments on the strategic review that was made of the Auditor-General’s Office. It is part of the legislation that surrounds the office that every three years there will be such a strategic review. Overall, that strategic review report concluded – and this is great news – that the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an efficient and effective manner. Of course, as it is consistent with the intent of the review, the report also identifies opportunities for improving the office’s operation. There were two components of that review. One to see whether it is operating well, one to get some guiding comments about the future.
As outlined by the Deputy Chief Minister in the tabling statement that he delivered last sittings, the Auditor-General has responded to the findings of the review by undertaking to: assess the structure and operating arrangements of the Auditor-General’s Office; to present a formal proposal to government by the end of the year, by 31 December; and to, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee consider the quantum of performance management systems audits and funding levels when developing the office’s performance, focus and budget for 2004-05. I look forward to following the progress of these issues and, in particular, receiving the Auditor-General’s formal proposal of the structure and operating arrangements for his office by the end of the year.
Just to make some comments on two of the issues that were raised in that review – and I thank the office that did that review, it is a good review. On contracting arrangements, the review has recommended that the Auditor-General’s Office progress an appropriate level of increase in its permanent audit staffing levels, supplemented if necessary by contracting in assistance from Territory based accounting firms or private audit contractors. Government is well aware of potential risks of the office’s current reliance on external contracting. However, we are also committed to supporting and providing opportunities for Territory businesses and certainly acknowledge the flexibility and workability afforded by the current arrangements. We will therefore take time to carefully consider the Auditor-General’s proposal and to weigh up all implications before reaching a formal view on the recommendations. It is a recommendation in the review but we will look at it very carefully and look at it in the light of the business that does go to our local accounting firms because of the contracting out arrangements.
Another aspect raised by the review was audit methodologies. The review identified a decline in the quantum of performance management system audits and recommended that a target level for these audits be considered and agreed in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee. This decline does not include financial or compliance audits but relates specifically to public sector performance management system audits that determine whether objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. As is explained in the review report, the decline relates to a considered decision by the Auditor-General to allow time for agency systems to be consolidated and refined following implementation of the new administrative arrangements that I announced shortly after coming to government, the public sector restructure in November, 2001.
Once again this recommendation will be addressed when the Auditor-General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee, considers the quantum of performance management system audits and funding levels in developing the office’s performance focus and budget for 2004-05.
Madam Speaker, I said my comments would be fairly brief, and they have been. I thank our Auditor-General for the work that he does for us and for his briefings of members. When his reports are released, twice a year, he does, the next day brief, member of the Assembly, which is great. It makes him a very accessible and very effective Auditor-General. I thank him for his commitment to making sure that our public sector is accountable and is seen to be so. With those few comments, I thank the review team for their recommendations for our future.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to make a couple of comments on the Strategic Review of the Auditor-General’s Office.
I have read the review report and was pleased to be asked to participate by interview with Mr Neil Jackson, the Assistant Auditor-General of the Queensland Audit Office, who undertook the review. I was very pleased with the comments he made to me with regard to how the review would be conducted. He certainly took on board the points that I made, two of which are reflected clearly in his review report. One was whether or not the Auditor-General’s Office is structured in a way that does not have enough in-house auditing capability and whether or not it requires more in-house auditing capability so that when weighing up the auditing houses available for contracting to government for a whole range of audit purposes, there arises from time to time, as is the perception, unfortunately, out there, that a conflict of interest could arise in some of these audit houses.
It is particularly important that the Auditor-General’s Office is absolutely firewalled from any sort of criticism. Accounting firms may have fine reputations, but we have seen in recent times the appalling mess that some accounting firms have made in auditing businesses. We certainly do not want to get in a situation where there is any potential conflict for contracted accounting firms that work for the Auditor-General. That was one of the issues that I raised.
One has a different view of the Auditor-General once you are on the other side of this House. He tends to become a very close friend of the opposition, not in a personal sense, but it is the Auditor-General who, in many respects, provides the clearest, cleanest and objective information for the opposition to analyse. Therefore, we are very keen to see that he has all the capacity that he needs to report in a way that gives the opposition as much information as possible. That is far different from the role of government for which, in many respects, by his own charter, his auditing operations can be at times critical of departmental effort. Of course, departmental and Treasury response to auditors’ comments is generally in a defensive way and generally backed up by government comment in support of those departments.
I believe there has been a real watershed change. I do not make any criticism of the previous Auditor-General, but it is a new man in the job. Certainly, Mr Mike Blake, in every contact he has had with me personally or with members of the opposition, has been absolutely fair and impartial in the way he has approached his job. He seems to be a man who is looking to put very good auditing processes in place in the Northern Territory public sector in a practical way. We went through a phase of triple bottom line reporting, which was always a haze to me, in terms of how the previous Auditor-General reported. The current Auditor-General has gone away from that. It is more looking at monies allocated, performance outputs and outcomes in relation to the objectives that the departments set themselves.
I believe we are very lucky to have the Auditor-General that we have in Mr Mike Blake. Notwithstanding the recommendations that are contained in this particular review, I have every confidence in what the Auditor-General says to government, after analysing this review himself, looking at the recommendations that are made, and where he sees that some of these recommendations he can take on fully or, in fact, he believes that they are not necessary. I would go with Mike Blake’s point of view. He has given an undertaking that when he presents his report at the end of this year, either by annual report or some other method; I cannot remember now from reading it, that he will incorporate in that report his final decision with regards to the recommendations of this particular audit.
Office structure: the appointments and terms of reference are well and truly outlined in the review, for the benefit of those reading the Hansard. The terms of reference essentially required the review to evaluate how well the recommendations of the three year review in the past, the 2000 review, had been actioned; how well the recommendations of external and internal audits conducted since this strategic review have been actioned; the audit methodologies of the office in their use and the effectiveness of the contract management practices of the Auditor-General’s Office; the effectiveness of the customer service delivery provided by the Auditor-General’s Office; the adequacy of the human, financial and equipment resources; and overall opinion on the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. As the Chief Minister said, regarding the overall findings he said: ‘I have concluded that the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an effective and efficient manner, although in some areas requiring attention and some opportunities for improvement have been identified’.
He talks about the office structuring and contracting arrangements. He talks, generally, about whether or not there should be more in-house capability for the Auditor-General. I know that that is something that has to be balanced with resources available. I know that the Auditor-General has some concerns about how far he goes in that regard, and has given an indication to complete an assessment of what he requires in addition to his current procedures and staffing structural arrangements, to present a formal proposal to the Northern Territory government by 31 December 2003. From that we will get a clearer idea of where he wants to go and I have confidence in him in that regard.
The performance management systems audit is probably the one area of this review that does need some attention; that is, that we have moved to an accrual accounting system in the Northern Territory. The reality is that officers in the departments are reporting in the budget against their performance targets that they have set themselves and, looking at those performance targets and the way they have been achieved or not; 60%, 70%, 80% or whatever, hours worked. The reality is that there is almost no auditing going on of those performance targets. So, essentially, what is happening is that the departments are picking a figure, writing it down and that is what we have to rely on. The review points to the fact that that is not good enough.
There needs to be far more effort put in to the audit of those performance management systems. I recognise that the Auditor-General has had particular priorities in assisting those departments to move to an accrual accounting system. However, those days are well and truly over. I would certainly hope to see that the amount of effort that is put into performance management systems audits rises quite significantly from the very low base that it is at the moment; in this review there was a 1997 target set for PMS audits around 25% of audit funding. In the review, I noted that the level of PMS audits conducted has fallen from around 19% of total funding for audits at the last strategic review in 2000 to around 8%. Therefore, from a target of 25% which should, it seems to be, the amount that needs to be allocated, we have fallen to 8%. That is unsatisfactory when one considers that all of the budget integrity really falls on the achievement of those performance outcomes that the departments and others have set themselves.
In summary, it is a good report which is very easy to read, with very little in it regarding problems within the Auditor-General’s Office. There are some recommendations that the Auditor-General in his own comments - which are also in the report - agrees entirely with, and says he will look further at it and report later. I have every confidence in his ability to do that. I look forward to the report that he eventually brings down.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the Northern Territory’s Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report 2003, I begin by relating, by way of background information, the process that must take place prior to the commencement of any review.
Section 26 of the Audit Act requires that a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office be conducted no less than once in every three years. Under section 26(5), it is spelled out that there is a process of consultation regarding the appointment of a reviewer, and the terms of reference for the review. This consultation must take place between the Chief Minister, the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General. Part of this process is the Auditor-General providing the Public Accounts Committee with the draft terms of reference. After consideration of the draft and a detailed briefing with the Auditor-General, the committee formerly corresponds with the Chief Minister and, ultimately, provides an endorsement of the finalised terms of reference.
With the Public Accounts Committee being actively involved in the planning process for the review, it also meets with the Auditor-General to discuss recommendations flowing from the review after it is tabled in the Assembly. I can advise members that the committee met with Mr Blake during the luncheon adjournment on Tuesday, and obtained a substantial briefing on issues flowing from the recommendations in the review. Mr Neil Jackson, Assistant Auditor-General, Queensland Audit Office, was appointed to conduct the current review. He also appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 29 May 2003 to discuss various issues surrounding the process he intended to adopt.
There were 14 recommendations contained in the annual report, and I do not intend to address each one of them on an individual basis. There are a number that relate to the conduct of audits, others that touch on managerial capacity with the office itself, and there are number which look at the broader issues of service delivery. Looking at the report prepared by Mr Jackson, it is pleasing to note that, in the first instance, he considers the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an effective and efficient manner. With the limited staff and resources available to the Auditor-General, this statement alone speaks volumes for the professional manner in which the office operates.
Throughout previous reviews, the common thread has been the identification of significant operational risks associated with the lack of private sector audit-based companies within the Northern Territory, some of which the Opposition Leader just outlined. This current review has looked outside the square and now poses a question as to whether consideration should be given to increasing the staff of the office to counteract the possible risks associated with limited resources to conduct the necessary audits. An increase in staff numbers is also one way of addressing the issue of succession planning, and the inability to introduce any such plan through a lack of staff numbers within the audit office has been well documented within previous reviews.
Recommendation 1 shows the issue of staffing increases needs to be fully developed and costed and, until such time as the Auditor-General has an opportunity to carefully consider the options, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on this issue.
Recommendation 4 looks at the development of a formal policy on auditor rotation involving authorised auditors and office staff, and this aspect should possibly sit within any consideration of an increase in staff. This will also require thorough analysis by the Auditor-General. Although this matter is a specific recommendation, I note that the reviewer, Mr Jackson, has included the rider that, and I quote:
Practical issues may also need to be considered in relation to the rotation of NTAGO staff, given their
limited numbers.
Recommendation 3 of the report addresses the issue of conflict of interest declarations for the Auditor-General and authorised auditors as it relates to audit independence. While there are current conflict of interest declarations in place for the current NTAGO staff, the issue of this process involving the Auditor-General will need careful consideration. I am advised that the Auditor-General in Queensland signs an annual declaration of conflict of interest which is forwarded to the Speaker, and the details are held in a register maintained by the Clerk. As the Auditor-General is, in fact, an officer of this parliament, consideration could possibly be given to include him in a similar process in the first instance. In the meantime, this matter is not new within the parliamentary process and I would consider that there would be many best practice procedures in other parliaments which address this very issue and, as such, could be considered for implementation within the Northern Territory.
The issue of effective customer service delivery provided by the Auditor-General to members of the Legislative Assembly and the Public Accounts Committee was a specific matter included in the terms of reference. Recommendation 8 of the report specifically addresses these matters. I am aware that the Auditor-General has in place a very detailed program where he is in constant consultation with agency CEOs. He also provides members of the Public Accounts Committee with extremely well detailed briefings which then become tools for the committee to utilise as it enquires into aspects raised in his tabled reports.
I am also aware that the Auditor-General is prepared to sit down with members on a one-to-one basis to discuss their various issues of concern and he uses the opportunity, when it is made available to him, to explain the unique relationship between the position of Auditor-General and members of parliament. Only yesterday, the Auditor-General held a briefing session in the Litchfield Room during the luncheon adjournment to discuss with members issues contained within his current report tabled on the same morning.
Madam Speaker, I put it to you that the Auditor-General is well on track to satisfying the matters raised in recommendation 8. It is pleasing to note that the reviewer advises, and I quote:
- I believe the Auditor-General is providing a sound level of service delivery to senior management and
public sector entities.
In any review there always has to be a consideration of funding, particularly if there are staffing implications. The Auditor-General is in a slightly different category, in that he has to bring in his resources through the use of private sector authorised auditors.
I am aware that it will be necessary to work through all of the recommendations over a period of time and it is difficult for any one recommendation to stand alone as most are linked in some way or another. Notwithstanding this, I believe the warning bell has been sounded and we should pay heed to it and not just allow the report to sit without any form of positive action.
Madam Speaker, as the Public Accounts Committee has been a primary player in the review process it will be closely watching both the time line and the results flowing from the recommendations. I support the strategic review of the Auditor-General’s Office.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, most of the comments I needed to say have been made. I thought it was important, though, to put on the record my confidence in the current Auditor-General. Since his arrival, Mike Blake has shown a very professional interest in this area. He has taken on, in a very robust way, engagement with departments and, given the limitations on his audit responsibilities, he has done a very good job in talking to departments about setting up audit committees, making sure that he has entre and exit audits in departments. He engages with them thoroughly.
I can remember, being a very old public servant from a different era, we used to have a sense of apprehension whenever the auditor came to our place of work. It was seen as a scrutineer-type position; it was seen as somebody who checked off various things. The Auditor-General now has a disposition to help and his disposition is to go to departments and talk about how things might be better. He is focussed more on outcomes and outputs than he is on finances and fiscal records. That is entirely the way of the world and the way to go. It is very encouraging to have a man of the calibre of Mike Blake and his level of professionalism.
I am heartened, too, by the fact that we did think we had a risk there, with the lessening of firms with mergers and whatever, of audit firms that were available for him, and he has several strategies to deal with this. All of them will bear fruit. In the end, what we are looking for is to make sure there is some fairness. He did talk about one of the recommendations, which was a rotation of auditors, and about the difficulties that that posed with complex audits; for instance the TIO, and the necessity to have someone who is trained in auditing organisations of that ilk.
I am a parliamentarian who believes that this officer of this parliament is a very good appointment. I was not involved in his recruitment, but those who were definitely chose the best person. He comes to us with a very open mind and a very powerful disposition to audit for the best interests of the parliament and the Territory people.
Madam Speaker, I thought it important that I put that short contribution on the record.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I also talk to this strategic review report done by Neil Jackson, the Assistant Auditor-General in the Queensland Audit Office.
The importance of the Auditor-General in our parliamentary system of democracy cannot be underestimated. It is absolutely crucial to open and accountable government and a public scrutiny of the public account, and to outcomes that taxpayers are getting from the money that is spent by government. These triennial reviews are very important, and it is good to see that, on both sides of the House, there has been very active interest taken in the outcomes of this review. I would like to add briefly some comments to the review.
The opposition has outlined the terms of reference for the review, and they are quite comprehensive. I will not reiterate them.
It is very heartening, on page 2, to read the overall conclusion of the review, which is, basically:
- … [the] current structure of the Office and operating environment, I have concluded that the NTAGO is operating
in an effective and efficient manner, although some areas requiring attention, and some opportunities for
improvement, have been identified.
I add my voice also to what the member for Drysdale said about Mr Mike Blake. I was involved in the selection panel for that job, along with the member for Greatorex, and there were some very high quality candidates. There was unanimity that Mr Mike Blake was the best candidate. That has been shown to be the fact. I had the impression from him, from his application and also his personal interview, that he is a very thorough person. He thinks very clearly, he steps back and considers things very carefully. That is the kind of Auditor-General we want. I agree also with comments of the Opposition Leader that here is someone who is very, very experienced in this area of public accounts. I am sure that most members would be aware that Mr Blake held a very senior position in Western Australia in health expenditure - very considerable expenditure, and a pretty high powered job. So, we were very lucky to get Mr Blake.
As the overall conclusions flag up, things are going very well but there are some areas requiring attention and some opportunities for improvement have been identified. The major risk that has been identified within the report is the current level of reliance on contracted auditor services. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the pool of companies in Darwin is shrinking and that presents real problems for the Auditor-General in selecting companies so that there will not be a conflict of interest in the various audits that are carried out.
The report says that there are over 12 900 hours of audit work principally done by local audit firms and a further 1800 hours of audit work undertaken by the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. That 12 900 hours is substantial and provides a fairly certain source of income for our local accounting firms, which are top class. Most of us in this Chamber have had to deal both socially and professionally with various principals of the audit companies Ernst & Young, Deloittes, KPMG, TDH Chartered Accountants, Horwaths and BDO. These are all fine companies and doing fine work for the Auditor-General. However, there is concern over the ever-shrinking size of the auditing companies and, may I add, over the number of auditors. It seems it is getting harder and harder to attract, particularly young people, to stay, once they have graduated with their auditing and accounting qualifications.
There was a time when the wider world beckoned to young auditors and accountants – and that is a great thing for people to go overseas and get more experience, both in their professional life and their personal life - but it did have an effect. I believe one of the things the local audit companies are very interested in doing is working with the Charles Darwin University to try to provide scholarships, to provide career pathways for young Territorians, and I commend that. That is a major risk. It has been around for quite some time, but it is one that the current Auditor-General is addressing.
I was very pleased to read about the key achievements of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office in areas of strategic planning, reports to parliament and other initiatives, particularly raising client and public awareness by proactive awareness. That is something that the Auditor-General, previous and current, have been very keen to do.
There are a number of issues affecting the Auditor-General’s Office, and these have been outlined before. They come back to resourcing issues and, basically, asking the question whether there should be an increase in resources, in particular staffing resources within the Auditor-General’s Office. The Auditor-General, as part of this review and its undertakings, will be coming back by 31 December this year with some recommendations in relation to that.
It is also very pleasing to note that the matters previously raised in the 2000 strategic review have been addressed, either in full or in part, and that means that there is an ongoing review process, an ongoing rejuvenation process, within our Auditor-General’s Office, and that is very healthy for this parliament and for democracy.
I close by referring to page 25 of the report, talking about the effectiveness of customer service delivery, to add on to the comments that have already been given. I was sorry I could not get to Mr Blake’s talk yesterday, but I did meet him as he was coming into Parliament House. I am particularly impressed by the way he wants to present his audit findings, either individually to parliamentarians, or to committees like the Public Accounts Committee. It is very important that we are briefed; it is an important part of our work. We are basically clients – well, we are his major customers, if you like - and it is very good to see that level of service.
In closing, I commend the strategic review. In general, it gives a tick, or more than a tick. It is a very favourable review to the Auditor-General’s Office. It does flag some issues. I am sure that, together with the Auditor-General, we can address those issues and point a way forward for the Auditor-General’s Office which is such an important part of our parliamentary process.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Report of Inquiry into NT Electricity Network Access Code
Note Paper – Report of Inquiry into NT Electricity Network Access Code
Continued from 1 May 2003.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks regarding the inquiry in the Electricity Network Access Code, and ask that members note the government’s response to the Utility Commission’s final report on this inquiry.
The commission recommended that the code is the most appropriate instrument to ensure fair and reasonable access to the Territory’s regulated electricity networks. The commission did recommend, however, that the code’s general effectiveness could be improved through various amendments to increase certainty for network service providers and access seekers, and to reduce administration and compliance costs. To this end, many of the issues dealt with by the commission relate to the code’s technical and legal aspects. Accordingly, many recommendations have suggested further consideration of these issues in consultation with relevant parties including PowerWater and legal advisors.
The report’s major recommendations seek to:
introduce a specific objects clause to the code, to provide guidance and certainty to the regulator and
market participants;
introduce a review process whereby interested parties can suggest amendments to the code, subject to
ministerial approval;
remove any doubt that the regulator is to determine future methods of controlling network access prices
in consultation with interested parties, and in accordance with regulatory best practice; and
remove uncertainty as to how the code applies to specific services offered by the network provider.
The next five-year regulatory control period for the regulation of the Territory’s electricity networks commences on 1 July 2004. Prior to this, the Utilities Commission is required to undertake a review of the price regulation methodology that is to apply in the next regulatory control period. This process, which has recently commenced, is referred to as the 2004 Regulatory Reset.
In order to provide a degree of certainty for parties involved, those recommendations of the network inquiry that are directly relevant to the Regulatory Reset, are being considered for early implementation. These include:
recommendation 46: the code’s specific price regulation principles will be broadened to include any other
outcomes that the regulator deems to be consistent with the overall objectives of the codes;
prices are to be set in a manner which provides sufficient revenue to recover the network service provider’s
efficient long-run costs, and to provide a return on investment commensurate with the risk involved;
services which warrant regulation, but which cannot be effectively regulated under the general provisions of the
code, if the parties cannot reach agreement on the provision of such services;
recommendation 50: the length of regulatory control periods will be five years;
periods will be determined by the regulator, in consultation with interested parties and in accordance with prevailing
regulatory best practice;
code will be deleted; and
code’s general network pricing objectives (clause 74), clause 63 provisions will prevail.
The remaining recommendations of the inquiry will be considered further by government and, if deemed appropriate, will be implemented progressively in consultation with key stakeholders and in accordance with legal advice where necessary. I commend the results of the commission’s inquiry to honourable members.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the Treasurer said, most of this final inquiry into the access code is very technical. It is also hypothetical at the moment, because we do not have any competition in the Northern Territory. However, it was an essential aspect of moving PowerWater to become a government business division. This code sets …
Mr Baldwin: Government owned corporation.
Mr BURKE: Sorry, government owned corporation. This code sets up the parameters within which it will work with regards to power, and the atmosphere in which it will work with regards to allowing those who wish to access the system - not now, because there are none knocking on our door, but it certainly could be the case in the very near future.
Reading from the report, it is worth just reinforcing recommendation 1 in terms of the benefits of access regulation and the commissioner states:
Granting third party access to the services provided by essential infrastructure within the electricity supply
industry involves an unbundling of electricity supply into:
generation services (relating to the production of electricity);
of the end-use customer or its retailer via a network infrastructure or facilities, being the system of poles and
wires operated for this purpose).
- The provision of the network infrastructure used to transport electricity forms an essential input into other goods
or services and cannot economically be duplicated. Hence, the owner or operator of network infrastructure,
(‘network provider’) occupies a strategic position in the electricity supply chain, since a generator or retailer
can only supply electricity to its customers if it can transport this electricity via the network infrastructure. To
allow firms to compete effectively in the upstream and downstream markets, all parties – irrespective of their
affiliation with the network provider - must have access to the transportation and other services provided by
the network infrastructure.
I will not go on. It is all in the report. But that essentially, for those who are interested, is the rationale behind this whole access code; that is, that PowerWater has a monopolistic situation in the Northern Territory. That monopolistic situation needs to be opened up to competition. However, in a way, that takes into consideration the issues that are in the interest of Territorians and that particular utility and, at the same time, gaining reasonable access in a competitive way for anyone who wants to access the power system - whether as a generator or a retailer - and emphasise the fact that the infrastructure in place owned by PowerWater will need to be accessed by any generator or retailer. We had a situation where NT Power was attempting to access the code and have now withdrawn.
Whilst there are a whole range of recommendations that the Deputy Chief Minister has referred to, the commissioner does say that there are six recommendations referred to on page 5 of the report that he sees as key and important in their implementation. The report is a very good report on those who made submissions to the commissioner, his analysis of those submissions and consideration of those submissions and his final recommendation.
The one thing that the member for Drysdale might be able to put on the record because I do not think the Treasurer has another turn to talk, but I am not quite sure how this now comes forward. Is it a code that forms part of regulations or is there separate legislation? My understanding in reading this report is that the commissioner says the report has to be fairly flexible, a lot of that flexibility needs to be in his hands but I am not quite sure how it now moves from this report on the code into changes to the code. Someone might be able to illuminate me in that regard. With those few comments, I am comfortable with the report.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that this follows on after discussing the Auditor-General because it is important that the Utilities Commissioner has similar independent style of powers and an oversight at arms’ length from the Power and Water Corporation. It is a good report. It is very hard to read as a stand alone document but if you go to page 9 it really encapsulates what it is about. There are two particular policy outcomes we want. One is the facilitation of competition and the use of networks by electricity generators and retailers. So basically, what we want to do is put the welcome mat out. Even if there is not competition out there, we need to be able to demonstrate to people from afar – and it is highly unlikely there will be local consortia that can just jump up and get involved in an industry like this. It is quite a specific industry and it is very capital intensive. We need to make sure that first policy outcome is met. That is, that people from afar can see that we have a Utilities Commissioner who is able to demonstrate to those potential competitors that they are welcome into this jurisdiction.
The second is the prevention of the abuse of the monopoly power by the owners and operators of electricity networks. The two are obviously hand in hand. We are putting out the welcome mat, but at the same time we are reaping money in through our Treasury system from an enterprise that is making good cash. You can understand that a new entrant to town might think: ‘They want me to compete against them and reduce their capacity to make money.’
It is really important that we are able to demonstrate that we are even-handed with those policy outcomes: we want competition, we expect competition and the monopoly powers of our own government owned corporation, the Power and Water Corporation, will not be used unfairly. It is important, therefore, that we ring-fence certain components of the Power and Water Corporation that could be used to cross-subsidise other less performing arms. It is important that there is someone who sits in a very high profile department like Treasury, and has commissioner status, to be able to do that.
Insofar as the code goes - and I could be educated by the minister on this - but it is actually subordinate legislation that derives from the act.
We are in the very rare situation in this parliament where there is unanimity about the processes that have occurred, once we got past the debate about whether we would sell PowerWater or not. There have been two of us journeying on the road on both sides of this parliament that have agreed with the government owned corporate status and the legislation that backs that up, the transition of this major instrumentality into that category, and the fact that we have a Utilities Commissioner.
I was following as the minister went through and signed off on those various recommendations that are in here. I do not find those contentious, and I agree with his signing off. The ones that he has not, I have no argument about those. I would defer to the superior advice that he would be receiving on this because I know that in the policy environment we are pretty much at one here. The opposition should take some confidence in the fact that we have a position of this parliament that is held by both sides.
I thank the minister for presenting the final report. It has been a very difficult thing for us, as novices in this area, to address. I will admit quite openly, as a former minister in this area, that it is very complex. I am pleased, too, that the minister has such talent as Mr Tregilgas and Dr Vertigan on either side of the fence. In the case of Dr Vertigan, who is on the Board of the Power and Water Corporation, he is a former Treasurer so he has the savvy to understand the operational environment and the audit environment.
This augers well for the future of the Northern Territory. We would like to see competition. Obviously, it is not something that is going to come quickly. In those states where it has, it has come with some pain. The continual progress with caution about some of the pitfalls, and to engage people from other places in Australia who know, has augured well for policy setting for this area. I thank the minister for allowing debate in this parliament.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. It is not just other jurisdictions that suffered pain with the entrance of competition; we did in the Northern Territory with the entry by NT Power, complicated and compounded by the fact that it was a business that could not sustain itself over a period of time, but nonetheless caused some disruption in the industry overall. I expect that at some point there would be competition seeking access to the Northern Territory, but only at a time when there are sufficient gas supplies available on the market in order for them to be able to have a supply of energy in order to produce, retail and distribute power into the network.
In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, third party access to prescribed electricity network infrastructure facilities in the Territory’s electricity supply industry is governed by the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Code, which is a schedule to the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act 2000. Many of these are recommendations, and my understanding would be that they will be amendments requiring legislative change. They will come through all the processes of parliament as they are picked up and adopted by government.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this afternoon I provide a ministerial statement to inform the House of the $600m Darwin City Waterfront Project. I strongly believe that the Darwin City waterfront will occupy an important place in the history of the economic development of the Territory. It has all the necessary attributes to become a landmark in its own way, much the same as we have seen nationally with Darling Harbour in Sydney, Southbank in Melbourne or the Fremantle redevelopment.
Before I turn my attention to the details, I would like to spend a minute providing a quick introduction into how this project emerged. In February this year, I announced the establishment of seven new taskforces, under the stewardship of the then New Major Projects Group, with the primary aim of accelerating the development and facilitation of major projects in the Territory. Of those first seven, two key taskforces were handed the challenge of one, developing the Darwin Wharf Precinct; and two, securing a new convention centre for Darwin. The success of this development model is now readily apparent, with the announcement I made in July of the Darwin City Waterfront Project.
The Darwin City waterfront is a wonderful opportunity to redevelop the industrial land adjacent to Stokes Hill, Fort Hill and the old iron wharves into a place of real importance to the people of Darwin. This is an old, industrial place that has served the economy of Darwin and, indeed, the Territory, very well. Until recently, it has been our focal point for trade, communications and defence. That first economic life cycle is now coming to an end, and the 25 hectares of space on the fringe of the CBD will now serve the community in a new way. It will connect the new Darwin to this wonderful harbour, providing a wealth of new facilities and attractions.
While the port redevelopment is about regeneration, the proposed convention centre is a substantial new investment by government in the infrastructure base for Darwin. It will build on the substantial business tourism base, already a feature of the Territory market. In a modern world where governments look beyond the provision of traditional infrastructure, towards the identification of gaps in the economy, convention centres sit near the top of their list of developments that should be provided. They are a classic case where a private investor would secure a return but – and this is important – but, once constructed, they provide a strong economic boost to a wide slice of the business community. Simply put, that boost creates jobs and, in this case, jobs for Territorians. The Adelaide Convention Centre estimates that, for every $1 it generates, the city of Adelaide receives $9.
I have already mentioned just how important this particular area is to the people of Darwin and the Territory. I want to reaffirm today that my government fully understands our obligation to ensure that the development that occurs over the next 10 to 15 years pays due regard to this responsibility. We do have a vision for the precinct which reflects our desire to achieve balance and, importantly, long term social and economic sustainability.
I can describe this to Territorians in two ways: what we want to see; and what we will not allow to occur. First to what we want to see. That is an integrated development that includes community space and activities, tourist attractions, commercial activities, and residential accommodation, with no one attribute dominating the others. We will demand high quality urban design that works for our special climatic conditions and incorporates our community values. It must have vitality and activity 16 hours a day and seven days a week, from people having breakfast to tourists filling the precinct during the day, to everyone enjoying the waterfront location of an evening. As an important place in our heritage and history, it must also be sympathetic to these values and, in conjunction with building aesthetics, architecture and public art, provide a look and a feel that says ‘Darwin’ to Territorians and visitors alike.
Finally, we went to see new business opportunities developed that extend our services to Territorians and visitors, creating jobs along the way, as will undoubtedly happen with the convention centre, for example.
My government has already been very clear about what we will not accept. We will not accept two key things: first, Gold Coast-style strip development, or second, the development turning its back on the rest of Darwin.
The waterfront development will include a fully master planned urban environment featuring a 2 km promenade around the foreshore; the continuation of Stokes Hill and Fort Hill wharves as working facilities; a direct connection between the waterfront and the mall; an unspoilt escarpment; and, as its masthead, a world class convention and exhibition centre.
This convention and exhibition centre will be one of the first developments to occur within the project, and we expect to see construction commence late 2004 or early 2005. It will have capacity for 1500 delegates in a mix of configurations, as well as exhibition space of 4000 m2. These areas, as well as break-out rooms and logistics facilities such as loading docks, will take the total size of the building to 10 000 m2 or, approximately, the size of this Parliament House.
The site selected not only has the capacity for this but, importantly, will also have scope for expansion to cope with increasing demand as we see this centre positioned in the national and international marketplace. While the scale and positioning of the building will be dramatic, that is only a means to an end. Of far more importance is the capacity it offers to market the Territory and to draw in new business tourism. Our modelling has suggested that, in its early years, it could generate 40 000 visitor nights – which translates directly into many thousands of airline seats, hotel rooms, meals, tours and like services.
I acknowledge that there are some in the business community who feel that the convention and exhibition centre should be located somewhere else. I understand their concern that the Darwin city waterfront project will, in generating new business, run the risk of establishing competition for the existing businesses of the city. What I can say to that is this: the convention centre deal must be constructed to generate the best commercial arrangements possible. Decisions of convenience today will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in ongoing subsidies well into the future. It is a simple but unescapable fact that the convention and exhibition centre must be developed around the best economic model available. On the issue of competition, the market is never static. As we have seen with the Mitchell Centre, an investment only occurs where there is a return. If I was to turn the argument around and say that there will not be any new commercial developments on the waterfront, this government would be rightly criticised and counselled to let the market do the talking.
My government has been very clear about the process we will follow in managing this project. What we want to achieve is a project development agreement with a single development consortium. The rationale for this approach is a simple one: our best chance of achieving the values we want is by entering into one long-term agreement. The alternative, that of a multi-block approach, will see inconsistent development, difficulties in securing quality public assets, and no long-term commitment by the private sector. It is our view that the private sector can deliver real value in its ability to both conceive and deliver a sustainable master plan, from both an economic and social perspective. That clearly requires a long-term commitment and, in turn, business opportunities over the long term.
To get to that point, my government has committed itself to a three-stage procurement process which members would be aware is already under way. The first of those stages is the expression of interest phase. That document, EOI, was released by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development last month, and the period of submissions will close on 20 October. The EOI phase is open to everybody, and it provides the vehicle for consortia to form and to put forward their initial response to the vision as set out by this government. The sort of information we are after in the process is the composition of the consortium; their skills and experience; how they intend to approach the development; their financial capabilities; and a range of commercial issues. Over the period to December this year, our evaluation team will assess these submissions and agree on a short list of groups to move forward to the second stage, the detailed bid phase.
Where the EOI was general, the detailed bid phase will be highly specific, because it is at this stage that details of the master plan and the business case become the main drivers. The bidders will need to address a range of factors in their submissions, including design concept, which incorporates the master plan; project models and site plans; both design and documentation of the convention and exhibition centre; feasibility studies and demand analyses; financial considerations, commitment and parameters; management structure; structure of contractual arrangement; and local industry participation. At the completion of this phase, we will select one consortium as our partner for this great project. The selection process should be completed by mid-2004 and final negotiations leading to the signing of a project development agreement will occur in late-2004.
Madam Speaker, there are many ways to develop projects of this scale. My government is determined to continue to build on the great work of the project task forces, particularly in their speed of delivery, by running the various elements of the project in parallel. Let me assure members that parallel is not code for short cutting. In fact, it is the complete opposite. We will be combining the required resources with innovative approaches, to make sure that the processes behind development are minimised, while committing absolutely to the normal checks and balances. The best example of this is the environmental impact process. The company, URS, already has this study under way. Drilling will commence shortly for geotechnical and geochemical mapping of the entire site. The scope of development includes all possible development scenarios. In this way it is likely that more work than is absolutely necessary will be done. However, it will have no impact on the overall project timetable and sufficient analysis will be in place to meet any challenge that may be thrown forward.
The old way of development was to move forward step by step by step, with the slowest or the most lengthy process acting as a brake on the entire project. Today, the challenge is to compress the timetable by applying large doses of energy, innovation and intellect. This is achieved by one fundamental step: the assembly of a project team that has these key attributes or qualities.
I would like to spend a moment informing the House of the team that has assembled, so that all members can have the same level of confidence as I as responsible minister. First, the senior coordination and management role will be provided by the major projects group of government, as it has done since the beginning of the project. The project team comes under my department through the Office of Territory Development. The project director is Pat Coleman of the specialist project management firm, Savant. Our external specialist advisers include PricewaterhouseCoopers for financial and property advice; Mallesons for legal advice; KBR for engineering, Ernst & Young are our probity auditors, as they have been since May; and John Taylor has been retained to provide periodic external review of the project. It is also anticipated that as the need arises we will secure further advice in the areas of convention centre operations and urban planning. Our internal team includes representatives from the Departments of Chief Minister; Treasury; Infrastructure, Planning and Environment; and Business, Industry and Resource Development. That is a fine team and we will hold great expectations for what they will deliver for Territorians in the coming years.
This government has made a considerable commitment to the success of this project. We will contribute $100m towards the development of the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre and associated infrastructure. We will also provide the full 25 hectares up front as well as normal services infrastructure to the boundary of the project. This is a major contribution and a real incentive to consortia to think laterally and innovatively about their solutions to the development of the waterfront area.
We expect to receive a return to taxpayers in the form of revenue and increased economic activity. At this early stage in the project it is not appropriate for government to be suggesting what form that revenue may take. That is really up to what the market can deliver through the competitive tension between bidding consortia. They have a wealth of options to choose from, and I look forward to seeing what the private sector can bring back to government on this issue.
Another commitment my government has made is to enshrine local industry participation up front in the bid documents. I would like to take one quote from the expressions of interest:
- Our partner will be able to demonstrate a commitment to maximising local industry participation throughout
the life of the project for a range of local developers, contractors, suppliers and workers, including indigenous
participation.
This is a $600m 10 to 15 year project situated on one of the world’s best natural harbours and within the central business district of our major city. We are very conscious of the need to keep the community informed on all the major project issues as they unfold. People will want to know what is planned and, we say, rightly so. We will commit to consultation right through the development process. Already we have released an unprecedented level of project information on all the key major elements of the project. That approach will continue with a mixture of formalised consultation mechanisms and general information activities.
The formal mechanisms will include: two EIS consultative events, one in November and the other around May next year; the release of the draft master plan around October 2004; and ongoing discussions with key stakeholder groups. Our information activities will include permanent and mobile public displays, community information packs and presentations to community and business groups.
Darwin City Waterfront is a new and exciting development that Darwin deserves. It is a place central to so much of the activity that has occurred in this great city. It was, and is, the home of the Larrakia people who for centuries traded with the Macassans. It is where Goyder and his survey team made anchor on the Moonta in 1869. It was the site of the early settlers’ camp.
First, there was the Gulnare Jetty, 1874, then Railway Jetty, 1886, followed by Town Jetty, 1904 and then Stokes Hill Wharf, 1956. While it has been a place at the centre, it has been ever changing and in 2003, the next chapter is starting to be written. This change will take some time to complete, but it will be as dramatic as any of the changes that have preceded it.
The picture will be an interesting one: a world class convention and exhibition centre will stand in the centre of the area servicing a burgeoning business and tourism market. It will also be the conduit connecting the waterfront with the remainder of the city. Parks and promenades will weave throughout the area, with a range of community facilities and, importantly, space for our public art. Both early in the morning and late in the evening, the main promenade will be filled with singles, couples and families out enjoying the waterfront location before they return home to Darwin suburbs or to one of the residential developments that are part of the project. Tourists will visit to learn about our history, culture and to have a little fun in the harbour side location, and new businesses that provide services to residents and visitors alike will fill the commercial spaces that will emerge over time. It is a great picture, and one that should capture the support of all members of this House.
The other half of the picture is less romantic, but equally important: this development, Darwin City Waterfront, will provide real and long-term jobs for Territorians - in construction, tourism, hospitality and services. Some will be in the waterfront development and others will be in the airlines, hotels, restaurants and shops of the city. This spells growth, delivering the lifestyle and jobs that are at the very centre of our society.
Darwin City Waterfront is at its most early stages, but it is already clear that it can offer a great deal to the people of Darwin and indeed, the Territory. It is a bold, exciting and creative project that will deliver a brand new image to Darwin. I encourage all members to keep up with this project.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had a look at this statement a number of times, and I have been trying to figure out how I could respond to it in a meaningful way. I could probably start here and rattle off about 100 questions that I would have with regards to this project, but I do not know whether that would be fruitful because it is clear from the Chief Minister’s statement so far that the answers to those questions are not forthcoming by means of the process that has been put in place at this stage.
What I will say at the outset is that it is a project that we want to support. The concept of a convention centre for Darwin is something that the CLP pursued and pursued strongly. So, do we want a convention centre in Darwin? Will the opposition support a convention centre in Darwin? Tick. Darwin Wharf Precinct redevelopment was a centrepiece of a our previous election platform. So the concept of redeveloping that whole Stokes Hill Wharf area is also - tick.
But we do have a responsibility to ensure that whatever process is put in place, that the end result matches the fine words and the sentiment and the vision that are here in this statement today. Certainly, all of the sentiments that the Chief Minister expresses on what she and the government want to achieve and what the project has to achieve in jobs and amenities for Territorians, is all there. We have no problems with that. We would like to wholeheartedly support the government through this project, providing that we are satisfied that the project, the sentiments, and the information that is being given to us all is correct, and we can have confidence in the whole process.
The Chief Minister made the comment that the public want to know what is being planned, and she said ‘rightly so’. Well, that is all the opposition is saying: rightly so, we should be able to get the information that is necessary to judge this project in its entirety. Certainly, it is not there in the statement. If the information is there, in the hands of officers and others, I would like to get more of it, and hope the Chief Minister might take on board this request; that is, that the opposition stands willing to walk with you on this project, to ensure that your view, your vision, is realised. However, it will be very difficult to do so unless we can get alongside those who are starting to make these decisions, because there is no confidence in this statement and, except for one piece, no more information than I was given some months ago; that is, ‘this is what we want to achieve, this is the process we are going to go through and in due course all will be revealed’.
I say it in this context. Today is October 2003. We have the labour force figures that have come out today. The reality is that in Darwin at the moment we are experiencing a fall in population. Whilst we all hope that the economy improves, and improves well, it is not looking good at the moment. Shops and restaurants in the CBD are closing. Present developments again almost doubled their level of vacant space in the city, and there has been a 7% decline in the number of people employed. That is the situation we are in at the moment.
The Chief Minister says, ‘Take us on trust, that in six months’ time we will decide who the project developer is going to be for probably the most important development that has ever happened, certainly in Darwin. We are going to decide that in six months’ time. However, if you ask me where we are today, I do not have a clue. I have a vision’. It is like saying, ‘I want to build a house, and I want this house to have a roof and a couple of windows. I am not sure how many windows it is, and I would like it to be down by the sea. I would like people to walk past and say it is a great house but, apart from that, I am not all that sure what I want. What I will do is I will go and get someone to tell me what I want, and when they tell me what I want, then I will make the decision. Mind you, I have already told them how much I am going to pay for it. I have already decided, in my own mind, I am not going to own it; I am only going to live it because it is never going to be mine, it is going to be owned by the person who is going to do it for me’.
That, essentially, is what is happening here with this project. To my mind, what the Chief Minister has said is, ‘We are going to take the best piece of real estate in the Northern Territory. We are going to give to a developer 25 hectares of the best real estate in Darwin’. It says in the statement 25 hectares is going to be given up, up front. It was only a few months ago the Chief Minister said that the taxpayers’ contribution to this project was going to be $100m ...
Ms Martin: If you would listened, the revenue return - don’t be silly!
Mr BURKE: We do not know what the return is either. You have not told us what your return is; you do not know. We are only talking about contribution at this stage: we want a convention centre; we want to redevelop the wharf precinct; we have 25 hectares of land to do it with; what are we going to put up front? We do not know what they are going to ask yet but, before they even ask, or tell us what they are going to do for us, we are going to tell them an up-front contribution of ours. And the up-front contribution of ours is now $100m of taxpayers’ money and 25 hectares of the best land in Darwin.
I do not know what the UCV is on that 25 hectares; I am sure it is disputable. It would have been helpful to say: ‘This is the UCV on that land’. I tell you what the sale price was of the latest piece of real estate, a bare block of land, that was sold at Cullen Bay - 104 Cullen Bay Crescent. It was 1120 m2 and it sold for $710 000. That was a vacant piece of land at Cullen Bay. That piece of land was $633 per square metre. We are now going to give a developer $250 000 a square metre. If you apply the same rate as you did to that residential land at Cullen Bay, you are telling me that you are going to give a developer $250m gratis. So, $100m for the land and $250m gratis ...
Ms Martin: No, no.
Mr BURKE: Well, now the Chief Minister says in surprise: ‘No, you know nothing’. If I know nothing - are you going to sell it to the developer or not. Just nod or …
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mr BURKE: Well, why did you say in your statement …
Ms Martin: It is going to be made available.
Mr BURKE: Made available up front. Why didn’t you put in there ‘at market price’?
Ms Martin: Look, this is part of the negotiations.
Mr BURKE: Well, it is going to be part of a negotiations now. This is the point I am trying to make: if you want the opposition to come along with you on this project, recognise that any reasonable person would say this …
Ms Martin: Look, if you do not want to come along with the project, just say it, Denis. Come on, be as negative as you like.
Mr BURKE: Well, I am giving you the offer. I am giving you the offer now because it is such an important project. Now, I recognise that this is the …
Mr Henderson: Did you ask for a briefing?
Mr BURKE: I am speaking now on behalf of many Territorians in the responsible role I have as Leader of the Opposition, along with other members of the opposition.
What you are telling Territorians to do is, firstly, accept the economic climate we are in at the moment, and a process that is going to lock in the best land in Darwin - not under government control, under some developer’s control. You are going to stitch this whole process up from go to whoa - certainly in deciding who the developer is going to be - within six months. Good effort; I hope you achieve it.
We could reflect on some of the achievements so far; for example, the announcement was made yesterday of the multipurpose centre at Palmerston. It has taken two years to find the site …
Ms Carter: Hospice.
Mr BURKE: The new hospice is all over the place, but we have confidence in the government’s ability to achieve it if the process is done properly.
However, I find it very hard to believe that you can go through this process and achieve what you want to achieve, and gain and continue to gain and maintain the confidence of Territorians that you will achieve it.
It is one thing to say: ‘We are going to come out with a flagship election project that is going to be so pretty, it is going to have so many bangs and whistles on it, and it will be so early in its implementation, that it will get us through the next election and we will be voted in’. That is fine; I understand the politics of that, and that that would be foremost in your mind. However, what we do not want is a ‘slam bam’ process that locks Territorians and their kids into what could be a mess forever. That is all I am asking for. I am asking on behalf of anyone who has a concern and interest in this project, that we all be taken along with the process properly, because 25 hectares of the best land available land in Darwin has to be guarded with a sense of integrity for Territorians and their families. You have the responsibility, you are in government. What we ask is the integrity and the process to be open and transparent so that we can go along with it.
The Chief Minister says it will not have an impact on the existing retailers in the CBD, but it would not be logical - and the words in the statement are this:
- If I was to turn the argument around and say that there will not be any new commercial developments in the
waterfront, this government would be rightly criticised and counselled to let the market do the talking.
Well, that is totally illogical. This is not letting the market do the talking. This is providing such an incentive that the market comes to the table. That is the concern of the retailers in the CBD. The retailers in the CBD are saying that the market forces are not there at the moment; the market forces are not naturally progressing down there at the moment. You are going to put in such an incentive with taxpayers’ money that you have the capacity to create three or four new Mitchell Streets down at Stokes Hill Wharf. You had better get it right, because we are the ones that have made the investment at the moment. We are the ones that have not had the government incentives behind us and what we do not want is to be left stranded and isolated. That is the question being asked by the retailers. It is illogical to say to them, ‘This is just letting the market doing the talking’, because the market is not. The market is being embraced. The market is being incentivised to come to the table onto this sort of project. And it is the degree to which the incentives are being provided that raises the questions.
The Chief Minister said: ‘The 25 hectares’, which is clearly in the statement - and I will repeat the Chief Minister’s words in the statement - and is clear in my mind:
- We will contribute $100m towards the development of the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre and
associated infrastructure. We will also provide the full 25 hectares up front as well as normal services
infrastructure to the boundary of the project.
Well, that reads that the normal services infrastructure to the boundary are provided by government - that is a responsibility - and she has thrown the 25 hectares up front. If it is being provided UCV, say it, and say it clearly, emphatically and unequivocally. But the Chief Minister has also said: ‘Oh well, we will negotiate that’. Well, you cannot have it every which way and expect to get the confidence and support of the opposition.
Territorians have a right to know what return they are going to get for this particular development. You are asking them to commit to a development that will take 10 to 15 years to proceed and complete. You are also saying to them that there is no other option, practically, than to give it to one developer. Now, the Chief Minister says if we gave it to other than one developer, you would have a mix-match of projects that are being developed and you would not get any integrity to the master plan. Anyone who has dealt with government and seen some of the master plans that we have been provided by some developers that have been approved, and then seen how those master plans have changed after those developers come back to you and want changes because of so-called market forces, would know, I would suggest, that there is, in many respects, a bigger risk of going to one developer, giving them the whole project and signing it off. We do not even know how this project is going to be signed off. Is it going to be signed off by legislation? Is it going to be signed off in some sort of way that puts penalty parameters on the developer? We have no idea what the process is going to be in achieving the integrity of the master plan as it progresses.
I have said all along that in the development of the Stokes Hill waterfront there should be a government owned corporation or body formed. I would imagine that if you used the same model that the Chief Minister has there and said, ‘I will give a government owned corporation $100m of taxpayers’ money plus I will throw in the 25 hectares as well’, I bet you they could soon come up with a project team and the joint venture partners that would start that development; and the master plan would be held entirely and completely in the hands of government and taxpayer Territorians, as it progressed. The Chief Minister dismisses that as an option as if to say: ‘It is not an option. We are going to give it to one project to proceed along’.
- … a $600m 10 to 15 year project situated in one of the world’s best natural harbours and within the central
business district of our major city.
Yesterday, members of this House debated how important Darwin Harbour was to Territorians, but they are being asked to take on trust that Darwin Harbour will be protected, that the environmental impact on Darwin Harbour of this development will be safeguarded by decisions that will be made by the expert team and they will make them all in six months. Incredible. Incredibly optimistic.
Mr Henderson: No vision, Denis, no vision.
Mr BURKE: No vision. The member for Wanguri says, ‘No vision’. I accept that criticism, but it is also right to turn around and say it is one thing to have vision, it is another thing to have some experience. People who have experience in this business out there are very worried. They are very worried to say, ‘What is happening here? Do you have a developer who has already been given preferential treatment? Is a lot of time and effort being spent by others that is going to be a sham and a waste? What information do you have, the technical information in particular? How is that information being shared?’
I understand, for example, that the Stokes Hill Wharf area, that 25 hectares, requires between two or three metres of fill. I also understand that no one can seem to get any definition as to whether it is two metres or three metres. The difference between two and three metres of fill is the difference between 250 000 m and 500 000 m of fill, and that is a lot of money to someone who is going to submit tender documentation.
Is the probity auditor making sure that all the technical information is going out properly? If the probity auditor is, it would be nice, as I said, if people like the opposition who are interested in this project could be given more briefings, could be brought into the whole project …
Mr Henderson: Have you asked for them?
Mr BURKE: I am asking now. I have asked in the past. I am saying to you that you have the opportunity to get the full support of the opposition on this project. I do not know whether you are right. You might be right, but throwing accusations like ‘you have no vision’ is not the way to proceed with such a massive decision on the use of taxpayers’ land and the amenity of Territorians.
We all have a stake in this and the decisions that this government makes, the project development that they decide on, the commitment of Territorians’ money and land is all in this statement as essentially: ‘Trust us. We have a vision. We are optimistic for the future. We expect some revenue from this project but it is inappropriate for us to say what it is now because it is too early in the project’. Too early? It will be supposedly beginning construction within 12 months! All we have so far is that we are drawing towards the end of the first stage and about to go through into the next phase with no more confidence than the project will be handled in a way that Territorians can have confidence in it.
In some respects it is difficult for the opposition to criticise the project because we all want that sort of project and the CLP has worked very hard to achieve that sort of project. My concern is what is driving the speed of commencement of construction? If what is driving the speed of commencement of construction is the next general election in the Northern Territory, that is not the right way to go with this project. It is too important. You have one shot at it, and we need to be assured that it is done properly and the process is full and open and transparent.
I am quite sure that if our public briefings and pretty plans put out to public that everyone conceptually would like what they see, but we have a deeper responsibility than that. We have a responsibility to ensure that this is something that Territorians can be proud of and the Labor government of the Northern Territory, who proposed it, can be proud of. However, I have no great sense of confidence, given the statement that the Chief Minister presented today, that gives me any more information than we had when this was first released. If the government has the information, the least that should happen is that the opposition be brought as fully as possible into the project.
I would like to have briefings from the project manager, the probity auditors and, probably and possibly from those briefings, a lot of these questions could be put at ease. But until that happens, I will continue to raise questions as to what is happening here. I have a greater responsibility in my own mind, because I intend to live here and die here, that what we do and the decisions we make, the amount of money that we spend on behalf of the taxpayer is spent responsibly and in a way that Territorians can have confidence in the people who are making those decisions.
I appreciate the fact that the Chief Minister has brought forward a statement to the House. It was something that we asked that she did. It is unfortunate the detail that I expected is not there. I offer the Chief Minister the opposition’s cooperation in this project as it moves forward. I will wait to see how that transpires.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak today in total support of the Chief Minister’s statement, and as also part of Cabinet, which has been part of the process that has got us where we are to date. This is a visionary project for Darwin, for the Northern Territory. We live in a great city, with some of the best sporting facilities and amenities of any city in Australia; a lot of new facilities built post-Cyclone Tracy. The opportunity to develop and redevelop this old waterfront site really does give us the opportunity to help develop the jewel in the crown for the City of Darwin, with a focus on the waterfront, as I said in the House yesterday.
The vision that we are striving for, as government, really came home to me during Expo this year when I had the opportunity to host a minister from the Sabah government on a helicopter flight around Darwin, pointing out the landmarks of the city, the development of the LNG plant, the new port and the railway. Flying back to the airport from the new port facility and approaching the old waterfront site, you could really see a huge opportunity to provide a magnificent complement to the City of Darwin, an entrance through to the city from the sea, with a convention centre at its heart. I am no urban planner but you can see that this site is absolutely right for development and the vision the Chief Minister has announced in her statement today and where we are at in the process.
This is going to be a process of many steps, and the details are going to change as that process evolves. There is no certainty of any aspect of a project as complicated and complex as this, from the first step that you take. For the ex-Chief Minister to say – and he understands this, he was part of complicated, commercial discussions in regards to the railway, the previous government had any number of attempts to get a convention centre up for Darwin – he knows full well that you start with a vision. You put a plan around that vision, and the details of that evolve as you progress. You cannot stand here with absolute certainly on day one and say, ‘This is the return. This is what we are going to offer. These are the details of the contractual negotiations’. It is absolute lunacy to have that position from day one, and he full well knows that. We have to start with the vision, and the vision is to redevelop the waterfront precinct with a world class convention centre as the catalyst for that development.
This was not a decision plucked out of thin air by the government. There has been an extraordinary amount of consultation. The ex-Chief Minister fails to recognise that much of the advice that we are getting in government - and we do take advice - is from public servants who previously worked for his administration on massive projects such as the railway and the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Public servants of huge capacity are providing us the same advice that they provided for him. Therefore, for him to come in here and basically say we do not know what we are doing in embarking on this process, is really a slight on those many public servants who are providing us with advice. We are not - and I give the Leader of the Opposition this guarantee - making reckless decisions in regards to this project. There is a lot of advice being sought and being heeded.
The catalyst has to be the vision. I missed the beginning of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution. However, the vision can only be created in the redevelopment of the waterfront precinct with the catalyst development at its heart. That catalyst development we have determined, on advice, will be a convention centre that this government has committed $100m to create and develop. Again, the advice that we received from many people - senior officials of government spoke to world class developers – and who have said to this government, is that if you want to redevelop that area you need a catalyst, you need a heart. The advice was that the convention centre would be a marvellous incentive for any developer to leverage off that $100m commitment to create a world class waterfront precinct. That advice received from numerous developers of local, national, international standing, was unanimous. Therefore, at the heart of the vision is the convention centre at that precinct.
For other opposition speakers who follow, in regards to the half-hearted support that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the project today, what I want to understand from the opposition is: do they support the government’s decision to build the convention centre at the Darwin waterfront? The position that I have from the opposition is a press release dated 1 August from the Leader of the Opposition. And the first sentence in that press release is:
- A CLP government would build a convention centre in the Darwin CBD, not at the Stokes Hill Wharf precinct
as planned by the Labor government.
He goes on to say:
If the Labor government locates a convention centre in the wharf precinct it will be to the detriment of your
businesses and the many others in the Darwin CBD. If the Labor government locates the convention centre
at the wharf precinct, it will result in CBD fragmentation; it will lead to the further deterioration of inner
city business precinct. The convention centre will compete with Darwin CBD rather than complement it;
jobs will be lost in the CBD and many convention centre patrons will not bother with the Darwin CBD
because they will be dislocated from it.
He finishes:
- The CLP recognises the importance of location. We would build a convention centre in the CBD to reinforce
and enhance your existing investment in the CBD.
That is the latest recorded position I have of the opposition’s support for the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront. You cannot support the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront without, at the heart and the catalyst for private sector investment at the waterfront without having a catalyst development - and that catalyst development is the convention centre. It is going to be very clear today, at the end of this debate, whether the CLP supports the convention centre as part of this waterfront precinct redevelopment, or if they do not. If the answer is that they do not, then the CLP opposition does not support this development; it cannot support this development and that is the official position.
They are trying to play weasel words here. They are trying to have a foot on both sides of the fence. They have been embarrassed. They were pretty quiet on this. When the decision was finally made we had the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Territory Construction Association, the Professional and Design Engineers Association, and numerous people in the tourism industry all came out and very loudly supported the government’s decision to locate the convention centre as part of this redevelopment. The opposition is now caught in the previous position which was supporting comments that have been made very audibly through the public media from some people. I accept that there people in the CBD who are nervous and oppose this development.
Our challenge as government and the developer of this project is to ensure that those linkages are built to link the waterfront precinct with the CBD, to enhance, complement and build on the investments, and build on the economy of Darwin. That is the challenge. The advice is that those linkages can be made. I believe we can have win/win. I acknowledge that some people in the CBD are nervous; other people in the CBD I have spoken to are very supportive of this. It is government’s role to make decisions in the broader interest of the community and the economy.
It really is a catalyst in this debate today of the opposition support. They have to say whether they support the convention centre as part of this project, or, as in the press release dated 1 August, in the Darwin CBD. As I said yesterday, we did look at a convention centre in the CBD. We tested that. The size of and the opportunity for the convention centre to be attractive in the marketplace as a destination is all enhanced by having a waterfront aspect, with a wonderful view over our great harbour that we spoke about yesterday. That is really the competitive advantage of this particular location.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about retailers in the CBD being very concerned because they do not get any government incentives and they have made their own investments. And those retailers have. But the reality is that the retail environments in the CBD are underpinned and supported by massive government investments in office space and leasing in the CBD. My colleague the minister for DCIS said something like - and I might be wrong here with the number - but 60% of all office space in the CBD is government leased, and those leases underpin the retail environment. We can just see the Mitchell Street Centre that is open now; that retail space is underpinned by government commitment to office space. That is the incentive the government has put in and public money that is put in to support those retail environments. Those retail opportunities would not be there in the CBD if it was not for government commitment to office space and that commitment will continue. Many of those leases are long-term leases – 10, 15 years. We have in place now open and transparent policy in how office leases will be selected and purchased by government. That is going to continue to underpin the existing retailers in the CBD for many, many years.
For the Leader of the Opposition to throw this notion out there, total contrary to the fact that government is not supporting retailers in the CBD, well, the facts are really are totally opposite to his allegations. Certainly, government commitment to office in the CBD will continue and will continue to support those retailers.
The reason why we have shops opening and closing is more and more retail space is coming on to the marketplace. A lot of those retailers taking up space in the Mitchell Centre have moved from the mall. What this decision of the waterfront redevelopment is all about is growing our economy.
If you were to take the Leader of the Opposition’s position today, under previous CLP administration, they would have never built Yulara. We have many debates, maybe it is the nature of the opposition, over the years about the amount of public money - I forget what Yulara eventually cost the taxpayer; I believe it was something like $400m. From day one, the then Chief Minister of the day would not have been able to answer the very specific and detailed questions that the Leader of Opposition had when that project was conceptionalised as a vision and the journey was embarked upon. That Yulara investment is now a world class tourism facility that employs hundreds of Territorians, brings millions of people to the Northern Territory. It is something that everyone in the Territory now sees as a world class facility to the people of the Northern Territory.
It is the same beginnings we are starting with this development. I would challenge the Leader of Opposition that if he is going to be genuine in his support of this project, be genuine in your understanding of how these projects evolve. I am sure, speaking on behalf of the Chief Minister, that we are prepared to answer any detailed questions you might have on this project to the capacity that we can when we are just embarking on those steps. We do not even have a developer yet, so how on earth would we know what the eventual rate of return on the project is going to be? We do not know. We have to test the market.
You are the people who are supposed to be the friends of business and understand how business works. We have to go to the marketplace and test the market to see what sort proposals are going to be submitted with what rates of return from the competing players. So, all of these issues and the detailed questions are going to evolve, but you have to take your first step. You have to embark on a project and time frame that has been clearly articulated by the Chief Minister. The catalyst for this project, the only way to get this project up - on advice that we have from the same people who used to give the Leader of Opposition advice - is a catalyst development and that catalyst is the convention centre. To support the redevelopment of Darwin waterfront, you have to support the convention centre at that site; you cannot have it both ways.
I am very pleased and excited to advise honourable members that this project, given the fact that it is going to receive significant taxpayer facilitation to the tune of $100m as outlined by the Chief Minister, will require a local Northern Territory industry participation plan. This was a plan that I launched some months ago after much discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the TCA. If members have not seen a copy of Building Northern Territory Industry Participation, it is on the Internet, and I am sure I can get hard copies circulated. I urge members to read it. Under the plan, all bidders will be required to address the following aspects, and bids will be assessed, in part, in this light.
the first thing they are going to have to do is the project description very broadly, obviously an outline of the
project, and an outline of Northern Territory industry component;
the second part is how services, suppliers and labour will be utilised. This should include an outline of what
goods and services will be required; what goods or services industry can tender for; pre-qualification and
tender criteria; how the NTISO will be engaged; opportunities for local participation through all tiers of the
supply chain, including potential subcontractors; estimated local employment during construction and
operation; and proposed work force operations in the Northern Territory;
the third part of the plan is enhancement to business and industry capability. This should include an outline of
the proposed skills development; research and development; opportunities for networks and alliances;
encouragement of international quality standards; use of proven emerging technologies and materials;
and integration of local industry into global supply chains;
There is also a requirement to address regional economic development benefits; proposals for indigenous participation; a communications strategy in regards to how the proponent will inform local industry about particular opportunities; and a reporting methodology to report back success.
Very clearly, whoever is going to develop this project - it is not hands off, give it to a southern developer, walk away from it and see and hope. Developers will have to abide by this local industry participation plan, and there will be real jobs and real opportunities for Territory businesses over many years as a result of this particular project.
I am very pleased to be supporting the Chief Minister in her statement today, as minister for business and industry, and also minister for procurement, responsible for the local industry participation plans. I am looking forward to other members contribution to this debate.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to repeat or amplify the comments which the Leader of the Opposition made, but I wish to add a few things. The concept of the wharf precinct development is not a new one. I suppose governments, to a degree, cannot take complete ownership of projects which are absolutely obvious. It has been obvious for many years that the wharf precinct and Stokes Hill Wharf was going to be developed, and that it was always going to be a part of the grand plan for the future of Darwin. The CLP certainly did an enormous amount of work discussing this project. I recall, prior to the last election, there was, in fact, a launch and the then CLP government produced a plan, a part of a vision which they had for the wharf precinct.
If you look at what occurred, there was a change of government, of course, and there was the much talked about - lots of hype – at the Economic Development Summit which took place in this very Chamber. A number of high profile Territory businessmen, as well as indigenous stakeholders and representatives from all the peak bodies came together. As a result, a number of recommendations were prepared, drafted and forwarded to the government. One of those recommendations was to fast-track this wharf precinct development. It was going to fill the gap between the railway and the gas really ramping up. There were a number of press releases from the Chief Minister and some other ministers talking about the fact that, ‘Yes, we will take on board the recommendations. We are certainly heading down that path. We will fast-track this development’.
What occurred was that the web site which detailed those recommendations effectively came to an end, and those recommendations just disappeared into the wind. The next thing we heard was that the government of the day decided to form seven task forces, and two of those task forces would be looking at matters relating to the development of the wharf precinct. It is a little over two years since the election and, practically speaking, in turning sods of dirt, we are really not much more advanced. So much for the undertaking from the Labor government: we will fast-track this development, we are going to get it moving. It really has not occurred. The average person living in Darwin could be forgiven for thinking that the Martin Labor government has been sitting on their hands in respect to this particular development.
The statement is full of fine sentiment and, certainly, statements of vision. There is absolutely no doubt that a project of this size will have a significant effect on Darwin. It will have a huge effect on Territory businesses, likewise for tourism, and will shape the very fabric of Darwin, for many years to come. The real concern is in the detail; the old clich, the devil’s in the detail. Reasonable questions such as the nature of the land tenure. It seems, at first glance, that the entire 25 hectares is being given to this consortia to develop. How is it being given? Is it going to be some sort of Crown term lease with a number of conditions? Is it going to be some sort of perpetual lease? Is the land going to be held in some sort of trust and, eventually, transferred to this new legal owner?
The reason I ask that - and it may not register on those members on the other side of the House – is, ultimately, what control you have on the land dictates what sort of control you have on the development. We have seen a number of developers - this is historically speaking, both in the Territory and interstate – who do the best they can to strike a good deal. They say they have these grand plans for a particular project - and certainly Stage 1 looks okay. When Stage 2 comes along, they say: ‘Well, it actually does not stack up economically, things have changed for whatever reason’. They come back to government and say: ‘We are going to have to change a few things’. The government is compromised; they are embarrassed, they have an election coming and, of course, that does not occur. Therefore, the developer, by using this commercial leverage, is in a stronger position and gets an even better deal.
We cannot have any meaningful debate about this statement without the detail. The statement does not even specify the parameters which are going to apply to the sale of the land. We heard the Chief Minister interject when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, saying it is market price. Well, of course it is market price. Then there was some other comment on conditions: ‘We will talk to the developer’. What does that mean? Is it market price versus some sort of premium to the developer to make sure that the project stacks up? Of course, the developer is going to say: ‘Look, market price is $250m; that is a bit rich. Because I am taking an enormous risk here, here are all the fantastic reasons why you should give it to me just a little cheaper’. That is how it works, so the developer eventually gets a premium. That is the way business works, and that is the way you do business; you are trying to maximise the profits you can get for your shareholders and the like.
In this statement at page 6, there are a number of politically very saleable-type comments, but I am not sure how you can practically translate these into reality. It talks about the government demanding: ‘We want to see a number of things’, and about demanding ‘… high quality urban design that works for our special climatic conditions’. Well, that sounds reasonable and we can probably do that. But then it goes on to say: ‘… that incorporates our community values’. How do you quantify our community values? What sort of safeguards do you inject into this project to ensure that government is able to demand that this particular design incorporates our community values?
Dr Burns: Because the research has already been done. Focus groups have taken place.
Mr MALEY: Well, let us see it; present it. Well …
Mr Dunham: Oh, it is easy then, isn’t it?
Mr MALEY: Okay, if it is that easy, we can look at the detail now.
It goes on to say at page 6 - these are the demands that the government says they will ensure the developer complies with. We are talking about building aesthetics. Well, okay, I suppose we can all look at a building and decide whether it is aesthetically pleasing and public art. We are going to have some sort of constraint or condition on a developer to say: ‘It is an important place and we want you to be sympathetic to these values’, which include this reference to public art.
It might be okay for a press release to persuade some poor journalist that this government cares and it is making all the right noises. Well, we have heard all the right noises being made for some time but, once again, it comes down to a complete lack of substance. You cannot say, ‘These are the fundamentals of the project’. Every developer who looks at this will say: ‘Oh my God, another government we are dealing with, with absolutely no idea’. The reality is, this is a project which is going to go for 10 or 15 years. Territorians will almost definitely see the end of this - or this government will not exist. There will be changes in government, invariably and, in 10 or 15 years’ time, there will probably be a couple of changes in government in that time, and people will look back and think: ‘Oh, the Martin Labor government, the first Territory Labor government really had absolutely no idea’. If anyone ever reads the Hansard or ever looks at these statements again, they will look back and scratch their heads and think: ‘You just cannot be serious’.
One of the very sensible proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was the need to be, for example, perhaps a government owned corporation. The government owned corporation would be involved in this ongoing process over the next 10 or 15 years to ensure that people and values as they change are given some weight. One of the other comments which is, I suppose, aimed politically at the media and the like - and probably is politically palatable - is, of course, that we do not want Gold Coast-style development, or strip development. However, on the other hand, there are some aspects of the Gold Coast which are great, and there are a number of lessons that can be learnt. To just say that we do not want anything to do with that type of development and we are not going to pay any regard is fairly short sighted. I know from a friend of mine who was a developer on the Gold Coast that they have learnt a huge number of lessons from mistakes made there. The Gold Coast is absolutely massive. There are some portions of it, some newer portions, which are very well done and very well put together. Certainly, the old strip development did receive a fair bit of criticism 20 years ago.
The components of the project, particularised at pages 7 and 8 of the ministerial statement, are described as ‘the development will include …’ and it goes on bang, bang, bang. I will not repeat it, but once again, I do not see any vehicle which can properly enforce those constraints and those key points on a developer. We need to look at that. That is really what this debate will be about. We are setting the parameters upon which this project will continue. To merely make these motherhood statements without saying this is the way that we are going to do it, is fairly meaningless.
In relation to the convention centre, the member for Wanguri stood up and read out a press release from the Leader of the Opposition. He made some comments about the convention centre being the fundamental catalyst to this project. Well, I am not convinced that is the case. Let us see the evidence. He is saying, from what I understand, that without the convention centre this project could not proceed. That just cannot be the case. There are number of potential catalysts. There are number of potential options and I am sure there are options for the development of the wharf precinct which do not include the construction of a convention centre. I must say, I am in favour of a convention centre being constructed in Darwin. It is long overdue and credit where credit is due. It is good to see. At least the government has made a decision. Now, there are certainly some quarters of the business sector saying, ‘Gee you have abandoned us by moving out of …’ – well, it is still in the CBD, but for what the average Territory person thinks as the CBD, you have moved it away.
One of the fundamental prerequisites of a convention centre is that it is within easy walking distance of the cinema, of restaurants and the like. A convention centre at Stokes Hill wharf will not be within easy walking distance of the cinema and a number of restaurants at that end of town. That is a complaint which does have credit, but at least it is going to proceed. We would rather have a convention centre at Stokes Hill wharf, than not have one at all.
I do not believe, and I do not accept for a moment, the premise that a convention centre is a fundamental catalyst to this particular development. I do not accept the word from the member for Wanguri. Unless he produces some credible material to support that, he should be very careful before he makes those sorts of assertions. I can say that Darwin does need a convention centre, and I would rather have one now at Stokes Hill than not at all.
The community consultation aspect of it – and I am coming back to that point; that is the second point I made in this address - is crucial. As a parliament, if we are to properly represent the interests of the taxpayer, who are fairly significant financial contributors to this project, we need to look at the mechanisms, what type of independent statutory authority, the terms and conditions of this Crown term lease, and what sort of control we are going to have, as members of the public and taxpayers, over this project. It is something that is going to affect not only this generation, but the next generation of Territorians. I know there has been some work done by the previous government by examining the structure that was used in one of South Africa’s foreshore developments which apparently is worthy of consideration.
Let me indicate that potentially this is a very exciting project for the Northern Territory. It has an enormous amount of potential and is a project on which I look forward to working closely with the government of the day to ensure that Territorians are not short-changed, and have their say, and that this project and the development will serve not only this but future generations of Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to admit that in the beginning I was very dismayed with the member for Goyder’s tone about the wharf precinct and the convention centre. However, the closing paragraph encouraged me to believe that the opposition will come to the party and will work together to develop the wharf. As the member for Goyder said, governments come and go. If we stuff it up then the next government is going to inherit it and it might be you, but it might be us. So let’s work together to make sure that this development goes ahead and becomes a showcase not only for the Northern Territory but also for Australia.
Let’s face it: the wharf precinct is the last big parcel of real estate close to the water anywhere in Australia. Everywhere else, real estate like this has already been developed. I do not have to remind you of the Melbourne docklands, or Darling Harbour, or some of the developments very close to the Swan River or in Fremantle in Western Australia.
I have to admit that when the CLP developed the idea of the wharf precinct, I thought it was a very good idea, an excellent idea. I did not like the plan, the vision, the layout, but that is very personal, very subjective; some people like something and others do not. Personally, I did not like the big, brick-paved, open space and the avenue of the nations. However, the idea of redeveloping an old industrial site to something modern, something that will actually put Darwin on the map was very important to me. To be frank, if you look at a photograph of Darwin, you cannot put it on the map. It could be anywhere. There are other tropical cities in Australia, Asia, the world and, unfortunately, the recent trend in architecture is to build glass cubes that look the same whether they are in the United States, Europe or Asia.
Darwin needed something. The newly elected member for Katherine knows that Katherine has a landmark; it has the gorge. Alice Springs has the MacDonnnell Ranges and the Gap. You can tell immediately where you are by looking at the natural features of the area. It is very difficult, especially if you do not know Darwin, to point out where you are in Australia or the world. We need a landmark development that people will see and say, ‘Yes, this is different. This is something unique in Australia and in the world. This is Darwin!’ That puts us on the map.
I come from Perth, Western Australia, where they went through a very significant period of redevelopment and urban renewal, starting first with the East Perth redevelopment, then with Subiaco and Northbridge and, of course, now completing it with the convention centre. I am pretty sure some of you have travelled to Perth and have seen some of this development. The East Perth area was the old gasworks, and it was a place that you would not want to find yourself after 6 pm. Subiaco was divided in two by the railway line. Northbridge was a very old, run-down group of houses that the then Western Australia government decided to upgrade. East Perth was initiated by the Liberal government of Western Australia, a conservative government, and then the Labor government came into power and took over Northbridge and Subiaco. Some of them have now been completed. I will come back to them.
I will go to Melbourne Docklands and the significant development there. The old Docklands area now has entertainment areas, stadiums, and has completely changed the face of the Docklands and the harbour in Melbourne. One place I visited, because I heard a lot about it, and the controversy, was Darling Harbour in Sydney. I have to admit, I was astounded by the quality of the development and the opportunities that offered to people, both locals and tourists, in the harbour.
The wharf precinct redevelopment is very significant to the Territory, not only because it will put Darwin on the map, but because it is a $600m development in a 25 hectare area. It will include a world class convention/exhibition centre, to the value of $100m - government money - but at the same time it will provide many benefits to the Territory. There will be over 1000 jobs within the 10 to 15 year development period, and these jobs will be significantly locally based or locally sourced.
When we started looking again at the wharf precinct a year ago, I, with some of my colleagues, visited other states to find out about similar developments. I was also invited by a company in Sydney to speak to them about this redevelopment. I was astounded by the significant interest of people interstate who already knew about the wharf redevelopment, obviously from the previous government’s attempts to redevelop. These people were so advanced that they had developed their concept plans, they were even putting on their finance, obviously because they wanted to base themselves in an advanced position so when and if expressions of interest were called, they would be first in the door. It was very interesting to hear people in Western Australia, in South Australia and in New South Wales talking about the wharf precinct. They were well informed about the wharf precinct, and talking about how they could actually be part of this exciting redevelopment.
The Leader of the Opposition asked what we are going to do and how we are going to put all this new development in Darwin when the economy is not doing very well, with shops and businesses closing down. I would like to ask the question: if the economy is doing so badly, why in the past few months have we seen a significant boom in real estate, with real estate prices going through the roof, and a significant interest from interstate, putting money and their faith into Darwin? I recently had discussions with real estate agents and construction people. They were telling me that they are selling houses and units off the plan before they even dig the soil on the block of land. One developer told me, out of the 24 units that he is going to build - he has not started the actual construction - he has already sold 16 of them off the plan, and he refuses to sell the other eight because they are for his own use.
Another big development recently completed in McMinn Street was sold before it was finished. There were only two units left and he was negotiating with three different buyers to sell the units. So, there is significant interest in Darwin, a significant demand. Many people have realised that there is a boom in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, with the advent of the gas and the railway; certainly with the gas from Blacktip going up to Alcan, and the significant investment in industrial processes and projects. Not only Alcan but the LNG plant, the Darwin Business Park, and with Toll arriving in Darwin, putting its foot in Darwin to position itself in the right place and at the right time to take advantage of the export and import opportunities that the port of Darwin, in combination with the railway, will bring to Darwin.
We understand you cannot isolate one factor that affects the economy; it is a combination of factors. The same combination of factors affects the closing and the opening of shops, restaurants, and job opportunities. But let us not forget that, for a long time, Darwin and the Northern Territory had been a government town and a government-driven economy. Most of the projects that took place in the past years were government-driven. Even the Yulara Resort and other projects in Darwin were driven by the government. The building of multi-storey buildings with office space were actually driven by the government, and government demand to establish government offices. The Defence Force’s houses, the Defence Force’s camps, were government-driven, albeit by the federal government, but they were still government driven. One of the problems we had is not enough industry - or not any industry - in Darwin, apart from the service and hospitality industries.
The Chief Minister was also asked questions about what the government is going to contribute. How much are you going to give the developers? If you are going to give the land, what is the value of that land? The Opposition Leader compared them; he actually said that a block of land in Cullen Bay costs $700 000 for 1000 m2. How much is the wharf precinct, or what value do you put on the wharf precinct? The reality is they are two different things. In one, you have a very well developed area at Cullen Bay, it is already built, so the available land is not there - well serviced. That, of course, affects part of the land that is available in the area. The wharf precinct is an old industrial site that has to be examined; has to be assessed. In some areas, it has to undergo remediation, and so we have to put this consideration into the value. Again, what we have to remember is that this land is government land, it is one of the assets we have in our hands in order to negotiate with the developers.
A developer is not going to come here and put all the money in to buy the land, and then hope that he is going to make a profit in 10 years. Most developers would most likely want to go into partnership with the government. However, until we receive the tenders on the table and find out what the conditions or the proposals are, we cannot say we are going to go this way or another way. Everything will be driven by the tender, the conditions of the tender, the proposals and, certainly, the rate of return for the government, because the rate of return for the government will be the rate for return for Territorian taxpayers.
The Leader of the Opposition has also asked why we did it like that; why we did not appoint a management committee, give them $100m and let them redevelop. It is a very interesting notion that, here we have a conservative party that advocates a government-run economy. On the other side, we have the Labor Party that advocates a free economy and open-minded approach. As an example, in Western Australia, the Liberal government, when it was developing East Perth, which was a significant development for Perth, subdivided into blocks no bigger than 400 m2. Because it is a waterfront area, each one of those blocks sold for in excess of $200 000 or $300 000. The Liberal government did not appoint a government management authority to develop it and sell it to make profit. What they did was appoint the East Perth statutory authority in order to facilitate the project, to overcome difficulties with planning and other issues; to specify design roads, town planning, what could and could not be built there, to the extent that they could actually direct what colour paint you could use on your house and what design your house would be, and what colour your roof would be - rather than providing the money for them to run it. The East Perth authority did such a good job in the area that the Labor government that came afterwards, re-employed the same concept and the same people for the re-development of Subiaco. They have done a good job there and they have moved them to Northbridge to use them there.
The statutory authority that the governments in Western Australia appointed had the role of looking after the development from a different point of view - from a planning point of view, from facilitating the process rather than working as a government agency. They are a government-owned corporation as a developer. That it is something that the government here is going to consider when we start receiving expressions of interest and when we start receiving the information about it. We want to find a way that development is not going to be uncontrolled. There is going to be a level of control of the development by government. We have to make sure that there is going to be a concept, and that the concept is going to be followed rather than a piecemeal approach as has happened in other areas.
Another example was mentioned by the member of Goyder and that was his friend on the Gold Coast. They made mistakes many years ago with the strip development. Of course they do not do strip developments anymore; they have canals now. Here is another disaster. Everybody has now realised that what they are doing in the Gold Coast is not such a good idea; you are not allowed to swim in the canals, not because of the stingers but because of sharks there! On the other hand, you can argue that they have created a niche for wildlife under threat of extinction with the sharks, but that is a different point.
Apart from Western Australia, we can go to New South Wales. The New South Wales government established the Darling Harbour statutory authority, with the same role again: to oversee development in the Darling Harbour so it will be orderly development, rather than a piecemeal approach. It did not just give the money to the statutory authority and tell them to go and become a development developer. Usually when governments gets involved with this kind of development, they burn their fingers. The last thing we want to see here in the Territory is NT Inc, like they had in Western Australia. We would prefer that it be a very good partnership between government and private developers, and under the control of a system that the government is going to put in place, and we will put in place, because we would make sure that it will happen.
Coming now to the convention centre. There is a long debate about the convention centre and if it should be built. Everybody said yes, but the biggest debate was where it was going to be built. I attended the Property Council meeting a few months ago, and a number of people with vested interests in the CBD, other people who had interest in tourism, and the Leader of Opposition also attended. I recall very well that some people said it should be built in the centre of Darwin. The Lord Mayor of Darwin had a bright idea of putting it underground, which is a very novel idea. But the Leader of Opposition was saying not to put it on the wharf, because it is not a good idea, it will be too far away from the CBD, and all convention centres are usually within walking distance of the CBD. I beg to differ. If you go to Brisbane, you will find out that the newest convention centre are outside the centre of the city. The same thing applies in Melbourne. Similarly, the same thing applies to Western Australia, where it is actually nearer the Swan River and far away from St Georges Terrace, which seems to be the commercial centre of the city.
Certainly, it might be walking distance if you want to walk a couple of kilometres, but the reality is that the convention centre on the wharf is the same distance from the mall as the Carlton Hotel is. So the difference is none. If people want to go to the convention centre at the wharf, it will be a good idea walking through the city. It would be a very good idea having 1000 delegates moving from their hotels to the convention centre, either by car, taxi, by foot or by bus, going through the city to see what else Darwin has to offer, rather than living in the hotel, getting lifts to the 5th floor to the convention centre or to the auditorium, then going back to the restaurant, and then to their room.
The other thing I want to point out is that, when I had a look at the plans drawn by the CLP with regards to the development of the wharf precinct, there was a very large building in their plan marked ‘special functions building’. That is a different name for a convention centre, but they are not game enough to come up and say: ‘Well, that is a different name for a convention centre. We were thinking about it, but now we play politics, and we want to go back to all the dissatisfied people in the CBD, and see if they want to get the convention centre back nearer their properties, so that their properties get higher values’.
We really need the convention centre in a location where it going to offer benefits to Territorians, and also be attractive and provide some benefits, not only during the construction period, but during the running as a convention centre. The government employed PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an assessment of the convention centre with regards to location, and to analyse the potential benefits. PricewaterhouseCoopers gave their report and it specified that, if we put the convention centre at the wharf precinct, the wharf precinct would become a living precinct of Darwin. Darwin people would be proud of it, and would move down there. There will be direct and indirect jobs during the construction, during the operation of the convention centre and an estimated increase of $190m over 20 years in total expenditure from the convention centre, especially if there were large areas of open space and it was close to the water.
On many occasions when people attend conferences in convention centres say that the reason they go back to the particular convention centre is because of location, location, location. During the research, PricewaterhouseCoopers spoke to people who operated convention centres and in the Adelaide Convention Centre, 60% of the people who attended conventions there preferred to go back because of the location and the scenery. So putting something facing Woolworths in the mall, will not be such an attraction.
Dr Burns: Or even underground, for that matter, for the cave man.
Mr VATSKALIS: Or even underground, in a bunker. But something that faces the Arafura Sea with wonderful Darwin sunsets will be something that tourists would like to come back to.
The public art was another interesting comment. The member for Goyder had difficulty understanding how the government can influence public art in the new convention centre or in the new wharf precinct. For his information, next time he gets a trip at taxpayer expense, perhaps he should go to Perth and have a look at some of the new redeveloped areas and the plethora of public art exhibited in the open spaces, in the parks and in the squares in those redeveloped areas. It is not only Perth; the same applies to the Docklands in Melbourne and Darling Harbour in Sydney.
On my part, my department will play a significant part in the wharf redevelopment and will be the proponent of the environmental impact statement. We have given $870 000 …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. An $870 000 contract for the EIS was let to a local company and the contract includes the level of geotechnical survey that is necessary for design infrastructure work for the site. The EIS will take about 12 months, will be complete in August 2004, and will involve two periods of public consultation: one for the public to comment on the draft guidelines and another for the public to comment on the draft EIS report itself.
The EIS will examine any kind of development, potential dredging, potential land filling and will incorporate the two wharves even if the two wharves are not incorporated in the area under development, but because they might in the future be redeveloped. The EIS will take into account the widest range of development options. Because the wharf precinct is old industrial site, it will examine if there are any contaminated areas and will explore the opportunities and options for remediating the area.
The wharf precinct is a great project. It is a project that this government is very keen to see off the ground and, despite all the allegations, it is has not yet been decided where it will go. The process will be open and transparent. There is probity audit already in place to ensure that the process will be followed and everything will be above board to avoid any allegations or any complaints that the project has already been decided and that the successful tender has already been decided. This is not the case. If that is what you think, I suggest that you speak to the Probity Auditor or to other people involved in the project.
It is a fantastic project and I commend and support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Port Darwin, I can tell you all that I am delighted that the convention centre is going to be built in my electorate. Obviously, I had very few doubts that it would not be one day, but it is great that it is coming on board sooner rather than later.
Years ago, I had a job which involved having to organise a convention and I cannot tell you the frustrations that people who organise conventions in the Darwin area face trying to get something off and running in the very limited accommodation that we have here. Certainly, in my experience in the mid-1990s, it was desperately needed. It is going to provide a huge boost to this town and to the Territory. People all around Australia and around the world, people who go to conventions are looking for exciting and different places to go. They go for up to a week. They are there to spend money. They are there to have a good time and learn something at the same time also. I am sure we will find that, like Alice Springs, the convention centre in Darwin is going to be a real plus for us.
I made a submission when submissions were called for with regard to the convention centre, and I put my submission in as a preference for an inner CBD site. My preference would have been somewhere on the Esplanade. Having been someone who has been to conventions from time to time, it is always great if your convention centre is right in the midst of a range of hotel options so that people who cannot afford flash ones can get to the less expensive ones, and if you can afford a flash hotel you go to that. Also, with your convention centres in the midst of restaurants and other entertainment, it is very convenient for out-of-towners who usually do not have transport, often do not have a lot of money, and need to do a fair bit of walking. I have concerns that one of the aspects of putting the convention centre within the wharf precinct area is that, certainly on a steamy afternoon, it will be quite a struggle for some people to get up physically into what we now know as the CBD.
However, as the Chief Minister has said, this is a long term project, and perhaps the whole structure of the Darwin CBD will change over the next 10 to 15 years as we grow and spread. The tank farm is going, all sorts of things are going to happen here in the CBD over then next 10 to 20 years. I suspect that at some point we will find the fact that the convention centre is at the wharf, in a built-in area, will not be a big deal at all because there will be heaps of other support facilities there, such as restaurants and a range of accommodation. So this initial problem we have with concerns over the siting of the convention centre will be a thing of the past and we will all enjoy and welcome its presence there.
At a more local member level, because it will be me getting the complaints about these things in the years to come, obviously I would certainly encourage the government to undertake very careful planning over the convention centre. My personal preference is that the whole centre of the convention centre and the wharf precinct has some sort of a theme; hopefully it is a tropical theme for Darwin, to capitalise on that, so that it is not bits and pieces all over the place. Not one sort of architecture next to another sort of architecture, that it has some sort of theme flowing through it, that it blends and it complements each of the structures and each of the activities that are happening at the wharf area.
I did a submission with regard to the wharf precinct in the last year or so. There has been a sort of draft drawn up of how the wharf area could look with roads and things like that. I notice there are some roads that would sweep right through the area. I hope that the planners look at traffic controls in that area. We do have a problem in the inner city with the hoons, bless their hearts, who come in here with their boom box cars and want to do rat racing and things like that. I hope the planners take that into consideration, that we do not have a situation that is like a semi-speedway at 2 am going through the wharf area. It is a very complex bit of land, if you look at it geographically. I am sure quite a bit of care will be given looking at the roads and taking into consideration some of the behaviours that do go on in places like that. I know, because they happen there right now.
For the pedestrians, we need wide footpaths. Certainly, there are some riverside developments in Brisbane and Melbourne which would lend very good indications as to how you can prepare your pedestrian area, Southbank being one of those. They are just great projects that are happening down south, and I am sure that we will see something like that here in Darwin over the next 10 years.
All of the local members, I am sure, are aware of the problems we face with regards to people’s concerns about safety. Here in the inner city area, we have a fabulous park called Bicentennial Park, along the Esplanade. The Esplanade Action Group meets in my office every month, just as many of the other northern suburbs have community groups in their area. One of the key issues is the lighting of public areas in the night time. My plea to the planners is that area is well lit so that it will be a place that people feel safe; that they can go out at night time and stroll along the foreshore, which will be fantastic.
I note that part of the concept will be that you will have a mixture of residential in with business and commercial at the wharf, which is great. In the development of the residential buildings, another plea is that the planners take into consideration modern noise control, and the fact that they are going to be building - I would assume - high rise developments, or certainly high density developments, within a small area packed in with commercial and entertainment activities. These buildings, nowadays, need to be built in a way that people can, if they feel the need, close themselves in, put on the aircon, and get away from the noise. Those things need to be thought about. We are not going to be able to rid of noise in a precinct like that, so people need to have some option in the building to take that into consideration.
Obviously, at the start of the project - it is going to be a high density area, I suspect, with the accommodation that is in there - there needs to be good infrastructure going in to allow for future growth. That will be water, power, and IT connections, so that we are not digging the roads up every five years to bump up the ability of it to cope.
One final plea, of course, to do with the huge success down at Cullen Bay, is the view to not have take-away alcohol outlets. There is one place that only sells a certain kind of alcohol which does not attract people who enjoy antisocial behaviour. I would put in a plea for the wharf precinct to have a similar policy; that we do not have a bottle shop anywhere there, because you all know what will happen then. Here is hoping that will not happen.
I just close my supportive comments with a few ideas. It is a wharf precinct area; the convention centre will just be one part of it …
Dr Burns: No, it is a waterfront development.
Ms CARTER: It is going to be a waterfront development, and it will have a convention centre in it. However, other things can go in there as well, and I am sure they will. Some of the things that we need here in the inner city, I believe, is some sort of appropriate recognition of our namesake, Charles Darwin. Many tourists and locals alike would be very interested to know more about Charles Darwin; why his name is used to name this city. We do not really have much along those lines here. Perhaps it could be some sort of plaque and memorial. You could even call one of the roads Charles Darwin Drive or something like that.
Something else you could have down there - and it is going to be something that I am going to probably push over the next decade or so - is that Darwin really needs to have some sort of a substantial commemoration to the bombing of Darwin. As members all know, the wharf area was very heavily bombed in the war, and it would be a great opportunity to have some sort of a commemoration there to the bombing of Darwin. I have not been to Pearl Harbour - and I dare say we will not have something similar, as I gather they have a fantastic memorial there. However, there are memorials around the world that commemorate bombings and similar events, and we could do something really quite spectacular there because people are very interested in this aspect of Darwin’s history. That is something that could be done.
Another idea - of course, we are down at the wharf area, so it would be a place where you could capitalise as other cities have done, in a maritime museum of some sort. To conclude, the Chief Minister said at the end of about two years we will start to see the turning of the soil, basically; but that is for the convention centre. Can I suggest that the site is cleared - anyone who takes a stroll down there can see it is not a particularly attractive sight at the moment. The buildings that are there incredibly industrial and do not have much aesthetic value to them. The site could be cleared. There has been mention that we will have to have some substantial top soil put on it. Why not grass it and put a few trees in, so that we can have a fabulous grassed area? We have heard it is going 10 to 15 years to complete. Have a beautiful park down there for the interim period.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have some concerns with the Chief Minister’s statement and they basically go to - it is a bit of a ‘trust me’ statement. The statement says we need these various things and people do not argue against them. People do not argue against singles, couples and families strolling in the balmy, tropical night, along the promenade, and they do not argue against the fact that we need jobs. They do not argue against the fact that we need a convention centre. They do not argue generally against the fact that the site is right for development. The concern really is, ‘can you do it?’ I guess the Chief Minister has said: ‘I think we have the goods to do it’, and then you have to define what ‘it’ is because if ‘it’ is building something, that is pretty simple.
It is very simple for convention centres. They are pretty much just big air conditioned sheds and you have break out rooms and places for people to park and that sort of stuff. They are pretty simple. The trick is running it. That is the trick. It is a bit like building a port; you can build a port, but running it is the trick. You can build a railway; running it is the trick. You can promise to build a hospice, but running it is the trick. You can promise to build an oncology facility, but running it is the trick. You can promise to build a birthing centre, but running it is the trick.
So what we need to do is not talk about plans and engineers. We need to talk about whether this thing works because someone is going to have to run it. It is going to have to run for a long time and if you muck up at the architectural, engineering and siting end, it makes the running end hard. So, that is where the problem is because this ‘trust me’ statement is saying ‘Yes, we can build it’. I believe you can. There are probably 200 convention centres in the world - plans everywhere, they are not that hard to build. But if you go around and talk to those 200, they are damn difficult to make money from. I notice that the Chief Minister has mentioned the Adelaide one in her statement. The Adelaide one by all reports is the best run in Australia. It derives most of its income from parking in the CBD. So, these are not simple things to do. The building which is where this is all focussed on is very simple stuff.
We are going to do this because we have a team and it is a really good team; and they probably are. We have all sorts of people on the team. We have financial property advice, legal advice, engineering advice, probity auditors, some chap here I do not know, Mr Taylor, and we have departments, various government departments, Chief Minister, Treasury, Infrastructure, Planning, Business, blah, blah. Who runs convention centres out of them? Which one of them runs convention centres? That is where the problem is going to be. This mob have shown us time and time again that it is not the plan, it is not the building of it, is not the siting of it. It is the capacity to make a buck out of it. If you look back over the last two years you can see why people are a bit worried about it. You can see why people have some level of scepticism.
I was in Cabinet when one convention centre was built in Alice Springs. I was there when we decided not to build another, and that is the problem because what this mob have said is: ‘We were going to build this thing, by hook or by crook we will build it’. It is a bit like someone taking off and saying: ‘I am going to buy a car today’. Well, when you get to the used car yard, they are rubbing their hands together because they know you are going to buy a car. You are not going to get there and say: ‘Well, gee, I really wanted red and you have only got blue ones’ or ‘I wanted something a bit cheaper’ or ‘I wanted something that had four doors and not two doors’ because they know you have turned up to buy a car. And this is what this mob have done. They have said ‘We have the cash, we have $100m, and we are going out to buy a convention centre, by hook or by crook’. I do not think that is smart because in the business environment you are in, you are a captive purchaser. You will have to buy a convention centre.
They belittle the step-by-step approach in part of this statement where they say, ‘The previous thing was to go step-by-step’. You go step-by-step because somewhere along the line you might have to push the abort button. You might find you set off in this brave new world and private enterprise and Aboriginal people are going to get involved, and everyone is going to win jobs and all the rest of it. But what if you get halfway down the line and you find that is not the case? That could happen. It could happen that they say ‘Well look, it is not $100m, it is $200m or it is this or it is that’, because we do not know yet. These are just grab figures out, and people are saying: ‘It looks good and it is stacks’. Well, you do not know whether it is stacks or not, the same way as the purchaser when they say, ‘I would really like to buy that house in Nightcliff’, and then goes to the bank manager and he says ‘I am not going to give you the money’, or ‘He wants too much’, or whatever. That is where we are.
We are taking off with our $100m in the pocket. We have a nice asset that we can barter, but we do not know how much that is going to be bartered for. We have gone out to the business community and said, ‘If you blokes build us a convention centre, we will all live happily ever after’. Don’t you reckon they are rubbing their hands about this mob? I mean, these are like babes in the woods. They are wandering off. We know the end point. The end point is they can not renege. You have put yourself over a barrel because, at the end of the day, you must have a convention centre. The potential there with the political realities is you will say: ‘Well, gee, we are just going to have to go ahead’, and you will trade off on engineering and getting the building out of the ground functionality and efficiency and making the it effective.
If you look at the key components of the project, at page 7 of the Chief Minister’s speech, you will find very little argument:
- … a fully master planned urban environment featuring a 2 km promenade …
Nobody is going to complain.
… the continuation of Stokes Hill and Fort Hill wharves as working facilities …
There might be some complaint, but certainly not from this side of parliament where we have talked about this in plans before.
- … a direct connection between the waterfront and the mall …
No complaint. ‘Unspoiled escapement’, which is supposed to be ‘escarpment’. ‘… as its masthead. World class convention …’. No complaints with it. The detail we want is as you take off with your money in your pocket, your $100m, and your free land - or maybe it is going to be paid for; maybe it is not - whatever that bartering chip is, it ain’t your cash. It is the people’s cash, and you have to make sure you turn it to best advantage.
One of the issues in town, and it is the issue about site, is: will it integrate with the mall? Will it be symbiotic? Will it be of mutual benefit to both players? You have a facility there that is dependent on existing business, existing businesses dependent on that to drive it. That seems to be how it argues. If you go to page 7 of the Chief Minister’s statement, she makes the statement that she will not accept two things: Gold Coast, obviously because that is a nice bogie man to throw around; but ‘the development turning its back on the rest of Darwin’. Okay. When I read that, I assumed she meant it has to be integrated with the rest of Darwin. I do not know how you then reconcile that with what she said earlier:
- It must have vitality and activity 16 hours a day, seven days a week ...
There are a lot of activities in the CBD that do not go that long.
- … from people having breakfast to tourists filling the precinct during the day, to everyone enjoying the
waterfront location of an evening.
The word ‘precinct’ will give you an idea that maybe this is not as integrated as we think. Maybe there is some suspicion that this is a stand alone government-subsidised precinct that will compete against those already in business. If the ‘precinct’ word means ‘this has its own identity’ - you have already said that we want it to generate all this activity in the precinct for 16 hours a day, seven days a week - I can see why some of the commercial operators who are not government subsidised in other areas in close proximity might be a bit jumpy.
Why don’t we talk about this integration factor and the symbiotic relationship? Why don’t we put some of those things to bed early? I was interested when the member for Wanguri said we should take the first step, and the Chief Minister describes the first step as her brave efforts to set up some committees. She said:
- In February of this year, I announced the establishment of [these] … seven [committees] …
Well, it did not. This has emerged from a lot of work over a long time. It has emerged from work that has talked about a blueprint for how we might lay out our city. It has emerged from work that was done on a previous effort to look at a convention centre. It has emerged from all of those things that have been sitting there, in some cases dormant, but certainly the work was done.
If your intention is to put a brand on it that says: ‘The Clare Martin thing’, okay, do that; I can live with that and swallow my pride on that sort of stuff. If your intention is to say, ‘We need to do something quickly before the next election’, I plead with you: don’t. That is crass, to rush in and put up some black plastic, buildings getting knocked over, like happened straight after announcement. The announcement has been made, we have to go, and this shed is doomed, because this shed is going to be symbolic of our great impatience to get cracking and get on with this thing. And so, over goes the shed.
If you look at what is going to make this thing work, you can see why I am a bit jumpy. In it, the Chief Minister is looking for a range of commercial issues, and does not say what they are. She says it is going to work because there are people out there with large doses of energy, innovation and intellect. As I said, it is no good claiming those things for yourself if they have not happened in the past, so why have we not put energy, innovation and intellect into the Oncology Unit at the hospital and built that, that is overdue. It is a similar thing, it is not that hard to make them; once you have the cash, you just make them. Running them is difficult, I concede, same as hospices. It is no good promising these things are in your repertoire of skills and you are savvy if it is not there.
The matters relating to environment were interesting. They seem to have some sort of sign-off, which is a pretty good sign, I guess. The environmental impact is already on foot. Later on, it says, ‘No matter what they find, it will have no impact on the overall project timetable, sufficient analysis will be in place to meet any challenge that may be thrown forward’. That is not bad.. So you are saying, we are going to have a look what is out there, we do not know what is out there, but whatever it is we can fix it up in time to meet this timetable. You might find …
Dr Burns: Can-do attitude.
Mr DUNHAM: The can-do attitude is good, but you cannot do the hospice, you cannot do the oncology, you cannot do the birthing centre, you cannot make the railway work, you cannot make the port work, you cannot create jobs. I do not mind you saying ‘can-do’, and that is the worry here. You are saying, ‘We can do this’, and your history shows you cannot. It is like saying we can win Wimbledon. Well, I have seen how you play tennis; you cannot. The problem is not going around saying, ‘We can do this’, because if you do not have that in your CV, people do not believe you. You have a problem with credibility. Our confidence in this is a bit shaky, I have to tell you, but anyway, back to environment.
What they have said is, ‘We are going to do a environmental impact, and we do not care what we find, because it will not throw the timetable out’. You could find unexploded ordnance. The previous speaker to me told us what had been bombed out of this place. You do not need to look at many photos to see where they were bombing them, so you can find some of them. You might find some toxic materials that are very difficult, hazardous, dangerous to move; it is a working port. You might find some human remains. You might find all sorts of things, you might find some anthropological things. I know in the case of places like Dublin, where they have a pretty gung ho attitude to development, they found the remnants of probably the biggest Viking site in Ireland. They went ahead, but that thing went to the international court.
I am not saying you are going to find a Viking site, that would be pretty silly. But do not assume that the people you talk about here, the Macassans or Aboriginal people, or some of the Chinese who came into this place, did not leave some little markers behind. And do not assume and say, ‘Well we have picked this and whatever we find, we are going ahead regardless’, because you might not have that luxury.
Let us assume that happens. You still have not done an EIS. All you have done is a site clearance to say no one is going to get killed, poisoned, or whatever, and we are not going to have any great impact on the anthropological or archeological values of this place. That is all your clearance does. Do not pretend you are doing an environmental impact statement. An environmental impact statement is a little bit different to that. If you are going to have these people 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 25 hectares of human habitation, they are going to be doing number ones and numbers twos, and it has to go somewhere. And I tell you, you have big problems if you think you can run a metal detector over it, find a few bits of shrapnel, pull the bulldozers over it, dig up maybe a couple of plumes of oil, or some other noxious fuel that is there, and put some top soil on top. You have not finished.
You are nowhere near finished because EISs are a bit more critical than that. They talk about the waste product you make, they talk about visual and other aesthetics. They have to give the community confidence that this thing is in the right place, doing the right thing, and not having impact on that thing we talked about last night: the Darwin Harbour. Last night, we all put our hands on our hearts and said: ‘Oh, gee, it is really good we are not going to muck the harbour up’. Twenty-five hectares of high density human habitation is going to be plonked right on the harbour. So, do not pretend that you can bring in a statement about the pristine wilderness of the Darwin Harbour last night, and tonight say: ‘We are going to drop this great big thing next to it’. You have to remember, this is not a firewall. There is no great firewall there. We are all going to be looking out on the harbour, and you have to remember that they are linked, and that link is an EIS.
Therefore, if you want to take my position, it is cautious support because we would agree with the elements. There is no doubt that we agree with the elements. Our problem with it is, you can have the best, latest car from Holden that we are all a passenger in, and we just do not like the driver. We do not like the driver because, if you look in the rear vision mirror, you are not that flash really, are you? You have trotted in here and said, ‘Trust us, the business community are going to love us; $100m convention centre; we will integrate with town. Oh, but it is a precinct, with all this stuff going on down here. We are going to go ahead, no matter what we find down there. We are going to go ahead, no matter what the finances stack up to be - because we do not know what those are yet; they are just listed as financial considerations’. You can see why we are a bit jittery.
I also think you are babes in the woods when it comes to this stuff. I do not think you have enough grunt to argue. Somebody with $600m in their pocket is a pretty formidable negotiator. You are going to go out there and find these several consortia with $600m and send in Kon - or whoever you send in - and he is going to be taking it right up to them. The person who is the head negotiator - it could be the member for Wanguri, he sees himself as a bit of a head kicker. So, he is sitting at the table with these dudes - I tell you mate, they will eat you up; you are not in the hunt. Yes, you can make it …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about the powerlines. There is a good deal.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, you can make it. You would like to know about the powerlines? I am quite happy to talk to you about the powerlines, but this is probably the wrong debate.
The issue we have here is that it can be done. The issue is that we have signed off on the critical elements - as you have because you have mostly plagiarised what we have written anyway, and there is a lot of that going around.
The other issue is that we think some of the component parts can be made to work. This is an issue of making sure that the long-term benefit of this place is not jettisoned in the hunt for some short-term gain. That hunt for short-term gain is: ‘Let us do something quickly; sign bits of paper in the next two years because that could win us an election. Oh, and by the way, this thing has a life of 50 years or 100 years but, certainly, it is 15 years to build it’. The little trite comments from your member from Casuarina about the great irony of the socialists out there fighting for the capitalist cause, and how we are shying behind some sort of a government thing; that is all nonsense. You would find we would sign up on pretty much the fundamentals of this. If you really ran an analysis over it, you would find that it comes down to a lack of confidence in your capacity to deliver on such a project, given the things that are in the past.
We can quickly change it. You can quickly turn the port into something that is doing better; you can quickly turn the rail into something that is doing better; you can quickly turn your Access Economics fully-funded promises into something that is doing better. We think that would probably give you some runs on the board. So, you do not actually need this. Do the things that you were going to do and, if you do them well, you will find there will an upswell in community confidence for you.
We think when you talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, that that is merely platitudes unless you actually create jobs, jobs, jobs. If you do 8000 jobs cold, you can see why people are starting to worry. They are thinking, ‘This is a mob that said they had a jobs plan, and they have only had one in the last couple of months - they went to South Australia to get it done, but before the election they said they had one. If they do have a jobs plan and if they did have one before the election, they must realise that it should not have been something that causes us to lose 8000 jobs. That would have been a pretty silly jobs plan’.
I would ask that some of those things be mulled over by those opposite. If they want to run some vindictive thing about our philosophy or theirs, you will find that there is great similarity in the things we are signed off here. Maybe they should be trying to look at the differences and trying to accommodate those.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to respond to the waterfront statement from the Chief Minister. I also think it is a good idea. I should make it clear that after listening to some of the comments, that just because somebody has some concerns about it, does not mean that one does not support it. The idea that one goes down the path of being Blind Freddy regardless, no matter what happens, is a silly way to go. I support it, but that does not mean I should not ask questions and delve into some of these issues a little more deeply. I am certainly no expert on the economic side of it but I certainly have some queries on some of the other matters.
I would like to thank the member for Port Darwin. Not only was her reply succinct, it raised many good ideas that were well worth noting. I hope the Chief Minister takes on board some of those ideas because it showed that the local member is ticking over, if I can put it that way, thinking about options for the CBD, for the city waterfront project. I mean this sincerely. I hope the Chief Minister takes on some of those ideas and I might come back to them later.
As everybody has said, this is a great project. It will help the economy, help employment and, with the state of the economy in Darwin, it is certainly needed. The Chief Minister mentions style and design being something that would fit in with the tropics and I certainly support that. It would be great to see, as the Minister for Lands and Planning said, that we have something that is special. I have written down here, ‘something that is unique and something that is Darwin’. Members have heard me speak previously about my concerns about the new township of Weddell, that we need to have vision. If we are going to develop a city like Weddell, let us see what it would look like in three dimensions. Put out some tenders, or put out a competition to say this is what the city is going to look like. The only thing that I can really think of in the Darwin region is not in Darwin at all; it is the water tower at Palmerston. It sticks out there, you might say like the proverbial, but it sticks out there and you remember Palmerston because of the water tower. We could have done a lot of better with the Palmerston CBD but one does remember Palmerston for that.
Certainly this building, I suppose, today is probably the closest to remembering what Darwin is like. When I first came to Darwin there were two or three buildings. There was St Mary’s Cathedral, there was the Supreme Court which was knocked down, next door, and there was the old Reserve Bank building which is the United Nations building. Those buildings certainly reminded me of Darwin. People, to some extent, have gotten old and we have forgotten they exist. I certainly support the Minister for Lands and Planning saying we need something special, we need something that we can remember the city by.
I hope we would also look at trying to have an energy efficient building. We are going down the path of having a fully air-conditioned city. We talk about black outs and we talk about more generators, but our design is going down the path of high energy. That goes against what I would have thought were the government’s own principles on greenhouse gases and using less of our useable resources. I would have thought it goes all against that. I see a key element in this design being a low energy design and I hope that is taken into account.
Mr Bonson: Which I am sure it will, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Millner. There are a number of issues I would like to talk about. One of those that comes up is the need to be connected to be CBD. A number of people have mentioned it. I do also have to laugh that at this time of year, October-November, and the convention people knock off for lunch and say: ‘You can come back at three o’clock. You can go and do some shopping in the mall’. I reckon a walk from the convention centre to Rourke’s Drift, maybe go and take some photos of St Mary’s Cathedral, or you can go further down to the cinema to watch something at midday. They are going to be totally exhausted and literally dripping. This is one of the key factors that has not really been looked at. I brought it up at the briefing and they said it is not in their bailiwick. But the connection of the convention centre to the CBD by something more substantial than a footpath is an essential element of this project. We live in a hot, tropical climate and we should be looking at a way of transporting people who have just arrived from Melbourne, have never been to Darwin, all white and lily-skinned and suddenly – if you remember coming off a plane at the old Darwin airport – you collapse. The heat is oppressive. We have to look at ways of moving lots of people quickly from the harbour to the city. I have asked before why we don’t look at some sort of monorail or sky rail. Some people have suggested we could go under and use the tunnels and come up near the reserve bank building.
A member: Free shuttle bus.
Mr WOOD: Yes. We have to look at something a little bit different. I asked why we couldn’t have a monorail that went right down the Esplanade to the MGM Grand and linked everything up. Those possibilities should still be looked at. One of the concerns of business people in the CBD is that this will take business away from the CBD. If that is the case, we should be trying to address it by having modern, cool transport systems so people can go into the heart of the city.
The member for Drysdale raised an issue about the EIS. I know there is an EIS. During the briefing, I asked what happens if you find something pretty terrible under there. The answer was, ‘We will be able to fix it’. I hope they are right, but I wonder what would happen if something terrible was found underground. People are telling me that such a discovery will not be made, and I will accept their superior knowledge. I wonder if we are going to have an EIS done when the design of the building is completed. I hope there will be normal planning processes and this won’t be a case of this is a great process, so we will circumvent the planning processes. I hope this goes through the Development Consent Authority.
This is such a large project, 25 hectares, and could impact on the escarpment and possibly on the sea. There is going to be waste, noise, landscaping and all those issues normally involved in planning and they will need to be looked at before it goes to the planning process. The way to do that is for the minister to ask for an environmental impact statement to be done before it gets to that stage. It is all very well to say we have all these processes running along in parallel, but the public – and we cannot leave them out; we have everyone else in here – should have a say on how this development will turn out and what effect it will have on the community.
There are issues like transport. The member for Port Darwin mentioned a really important issue and that is car parking. It was mentioned by the member for Drysdale that car parking helps pay for the Adelaide Convention Centre. That was a pretty good idea. Most convention centres are pretty light on for car parking during the day. Most people do not use their own transport because they are visitors. If we are going to include car parking, one thing we should definitely do is cover it. I don’t say put a cover over the whole lot, but you can landscape it so that it has shade. One of the problems with car parking in Darwin is it is primarily shadeless. If you go down to Woolworths at Coolalinga, you will see a new design. There is well designed shade for vehicles. We should be thinking about that and not have acres of bitumen. Perhaps we can generate some income from that car park to help run the convention centre. After all, try to find a car park around this part of the world. You have buckley’s at times. The Supreme Court car park is nearly always full.
Mr Bonson: You have to pay for your parking, too.
Mr WOOD: Yes, maybe, but it may be as done in Adelaide: they obviously pay for their car parking there, too. It may be a way of having ongoing income to help run it. These are the sorts of ideas that we have to think about.
On the issue of whether the land is being given away, I understand where the Opposition Leader was coming from because the terminology used in the Chief Minister’s statement is ambiguous:
We will also provide the full 25 hectares …
‘Provide’ could mean we will provide it for sale, or we are just going to provide it to the developer. The Chief Minister did leave it, again, a little ambiguous, because she said, ‘You know, this is sort of subject to negotiation’. So we have this $100m the government is going to put in; the public should be told how much of this land will be given, or how much it will be sold for and, if it is going to be sold, at what price it is going to be sold. I must admit, if I was a developer in Mitchell Street who did not get any money for his block of land to help him along, he would be saying, ‘Hey, how come they are getting a bit of a deduction down there which has the risk of taking business away from me?’ That is a fair argument.
I will be keeping an eye on the land, and I will be interested to know whether taxpayers - because they own the land to some extent - will be subsidising the company by giving some of that land away, or at reduced cost.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned things like memorials, and I thought that was a great idea. When we are talking about visitors, they go looking for those sorts of things. The problem is, as locals we tend to forget. I sometimes go back to Melbourne, where I came from originally, and look at places I never bothered to look at when I lived there. The same happens in reverse. We probably do not look at some of the memorials around the place, but I certainly know tourists do, and the idea of memorials in that area would certainly be good.
The member for Port Darwin also mentioned hoons. That is a topic that I have been talking about for a while and I suppose I am a little bit disappointed that, at these sittings, a certain bit of hoon legislation which I hoped would surface at these sittings has not. I am told it is going to be in November. I would like to put on record on now that, if it is not put up by the first day in the sittings in November, I will certainly reintroduce my own legislation. It does not take, I do not know how many months, to put this bit of legislation together because I had it pretty well altogether in the first place. Hopefully, if that legislation comes through, member for Port Darwin, we might have a way of solving some of your problems.
Mr Baldwin: A hoonless society.
Mr WOOD: Oh no, I do not think you will have a hoonless society, but you might have a quieter society, member for Daly.
On a final note, this book talks about - and I cannot resist this, Madam Speaker, so I will probably get into strife for it - the wonderful harbour on page 3. It talks about the world’s best natural harbour. Then I heard the member for Wanguri say: ‘The opposition has no vision’. I had to chuckle, because it is the member for Wanguri, it is his department that is ripping the guts out of the harbour. We say it is the world’s best natural harbour, and yet we are taking literally tonnes of gravel under the vision of his department. It is crazy. There is no vision. That is the problem. I am not saying this does not have vision, but if we are talking about the best natural harbour, let us be real. It is not, I am afraid, ending up that way, and it is very sad. And when I hear the Opposition Leader say - or the member for Drysdale or someone said - there will be fill required for Stokes Hill to a certain height, and I shudder, because where is the fill going to come from? It certainly will not come from Darwin, I do not think. They have finished their days cutting hills down because they are putting houses on what is left.
Mr Baldwin: Stokes Hill.
Mr WOOD: Oh yes, I realise that, but there are also some tanks still there that belong to …
Mr Baldwin: They will go.
Mr WOOD: No they will not, that is still Commonwealth land. I would shudder as to where some of this fill is going to come from, and if it comes from the centre of the harbour again, I would say it is like fill one hole in, in one place, and dig a hole in another place.
My vision is, yes, we want to have a good convention centre, we want to have places there where people can enjoy the harbour, but I would hate to see the last thing is, when you look straight across the harbour to the left of the LNG plant, you see all these orange lights. Why? Because the member for Wanguri’s vision is industrial. Their documents show ‘industrial’, so what will you look across the world’s best natural harbour at – the lights of industry. You will see the little plumes of air conditioning steams and that coming from the dry cleaner. Yes, you will see the steam rising from the bottle factory that has to clean up that. That is all going there, it is not gas, it is nothing to do with gas, because we are not putting gas things in the middle of the harbour. We are putting just industry. Therefore, when people look across at the world’s best natural harbour, they will be able to think of the member for Wanguri’s great vision: mining and industry.
Hopefully - I do not want to finish up on an entirely negative note, Madam Speaker - this is a great project. It will be great for Darwin. I just hope that one day when we will all go down there and enjoy it, we still enjoy the world’s best natural harbour.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few points on the public record in relation to this statement. I also think it is a great project, and I want to make it very clear that the CLP is supportive of this project. I listened to the member for Wanguri, who was trying to divide and get an answer out of us that was definitive about this project. Well, I can give you a definitive answer: the CLP is very supportive of the development of the wharf precinct as a project. Why? Because we did the planning. We did the planning and the concept that has been talked about by the Labor government is no different from this document here. It is exactly the same as this document here. If you talk about monuments to Charles Darwin or to, indeed, Stokes, it is all in here. You only have to read the document: you have Charles Darwin Avenue and Stokes monument. If you talk about walkway linkages to the mall, this talks about using the World War II tunnel that comes out just near the Reserve Bank. It also talks about using the World War II tunnel that comes off that one and comes out where the Deckchair Cinema is. We are supportive of this development, because we have had the vision to lay down these plans.
The statement, talking about the development of the waterfront, is predicated on these plans which, as the member for Wanguri said, were produced with the assistance of many public servants who are now advising the Labor government. They have not moved from that. In fact, in the paraphernalia that comes out with the project statements by the Chief Minister when they announced this previously, they talked about all sorts of things going there, including perhaps a town beach. At one stage, the Chief Minister bagged the idea earlier on about a town beach. However, I noticed in their paraphernalia that a town beach is not excluded, which is a good thing to see. It is one of the dominant characteristics of waterfront development here in Darwin that will provide, once and for all, not only an attraction for tourists but a safe playground for Darwinians in the harbour that we would love to be able to swim in all year around. It is critical that that becomes part of it.
When this concept document was delivered in the House, the member for Fannie Bay at the time said nothing about the plans in her first speech – I have just been reading it - but said, at the front end - at the beginning of her contribution and at the end of her contribution, ‘The devil is in the detail’. That is exactly what we are saying here tonight. We are supportive, but we have some concerns and we will be watching.
The member for Wanguri said: ‘This development cannot go ahead without a convention centre being a part of it’. That is just utter nonsense. What he means is: this development should not go ahead, or probably could not go ahead, without a major catalyst. He is saying the only major catalyst can be a convention centre. Okay, that is his opinion; that is government’s opinion. They have made that decision on all the advice - wherever it came from - that they received. However, it is not the only catalyst that would make this development work. There are other catalysts that would make it work. It could be a major maritime museum, for instance; I do not know. There are other things that could make this development work and, particularly, if you were prepared - like the government said - to put in $100m up-front cash towards such a catalyst. That has been proven, not only on waterfronts around Australia, but in Cape Town which we went and had a look at.
The two concerns that I have - and they are concerns only – is, as the member for Fannie Bay said, the devil will be in the detail. We will be watching for that detail so that we can assure ourselves of these concerns, that they have been taken care of. What they found in Cape Town - and I still think, and this is a personal opinion and one of the things that I differ on from this government - my one major concern is that the government is proposing to give, sell or whatever, trade, 25 hectares of the most significant - as the member for Casuarina said - piece of waterfront development land anywhere in Australia that is left. They are going to trade this land to a single consortia. That is a travesty. It is a travesty that we are going to live to regret and if we do not, certainly our children will.
I say this, not through any great knowledge, because who knows, perhaps you are right, but it is a travesty. Why would you give away 25 hectares of the most valuable and important piece of land in Darwin, when you have the option of leasing that land? When you have the option of leaving that land in public ownership. You could give 100 year leases, similar to what we do with pastoral leases. Make it 150; I do not care.
This is how London is built. London is owned by a few people who date back a lot of years, but it is owned by the public. I say to the government, please, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, do not sell this 25 hectares to one private consortia. I know what will happen. What we will get is a nice model and, yes, this is what we want here and here and here, and it all looks beautiful and here is the land, and let us hope they have to buy it if you do insist on giving it over to one consortium. Let us hope they have to pay market value at AVO valuation because this land would be worth a fortune in anybody’s terms. I do not care whether it is $50m, $100m or $250m. But, what will happen at the end of the day is when government ticks off on the development and we start the development, the first thing obviously is going to be a convention centre and that is great. Ten years down the track when this land is half developed or a third developed or whatever, that consortium is going to walk through the door to the government of the day, whoever they are, and say: ‘We have spent $300m to date, and we need to develop further but we cannot do it unless we change this or that, or we want a casino there, and we want something different there’.
It happens all the time. Ask any government about private developments that take place over a long time frame. It will happen. What you start with is a concept, and I do not care how you try to lock it down, it will not be what you finish with 10 years or 15 years or 20 years down the track. It is a grave travesty to give this piece of land into private ownership.
I am Darwin-born and this is the worst thing you can do; give it to somebody who is going to have private ownership. What if, in 10 years time, the government of the day, whoever they are, decides to lock down that you cannot on-sell that land. When it happens in 10 years time, the government of the day says you can on-sell that to some other consortium, or a portion of it, three hectares? Now we have two consortia. Can they on-sell it? How many times can they on-sell it and what will we end up with? That is the fundamental mistake that the Labor government in my opinion - my opinion - is making. I hope I stand corrected. I hope my kids and their kids do not say, ‘I wonder who did that job’, in their lifetime, and are ashamed of it. This is the single biggest mistake that can be made.
I would prefer to see an option which has been suggested, of a government business division or a statutory authority, as the Cape Town Authority has been established. They receive government funding. They have to work on a completely commercial basis, and they are ongoing under legislation. In the legislation is all of the parameters of what can go in that Cape Town harbour precinct, and it cannot change without a lot of public comment. This will be able to because it will be under private ownership. The beauty is that the ownership stays with the people, whereas this will not: this will go to a few people, 25 hectares to a few people. That is my first concern and it might grow in the eyes of the community of Darwin.
My other concern, apart from all of the planning principles – they are easy enough to take care of – is, as has been mentioned by the member for Nelson, the environmental process. I have looked through all the paraphernalia that coincided with the announcement. I have read the statement, and I know we have an environmental impact study going on at the same time as going to expressions of interest, selecting a proponent, having them work up the detail. However, I agree with the member for Nelson, and this is a very important point. When government finally says, ‘You are the winner. We like your model’, it is incumbent on government to say, ‘Now we want a full EIS on the detriment or otherwise that this 25 hectares will have on the surrounding harbour, environs and land habitats’. Surely that has to be compulsory when you have a development of this magnitude in such a sensitive area.
You would have to, Minister for Environment and Heritage, be obliged to carry out a full EIS, not a parallel one that is not going to take care of the impact at the end of the day. In the case of whether you need to raise the Stokes Hill area – going beyond the tanks where the old power station was; that is part of all of this – what are you going to do? You are going to take the tanks out of there and demolish the hill and fill that area. That would be one of the proposals. Those tanks have been there since World War II. I remember the member for Wanguri trying to stir up the media about a so-called ‘massive leak of oil’ there.
Mr Henderson: Oh!
Mr BALDWIN: And he knows what I am talking about: snuck through the fence, took the photos.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Snuck through the fence, he did, took the photos. Who knows what has been spilt there? These were bombed. Once you have a picture of what is going there, it has to be incumbent on government for a complete EIS. I bet, because I know you are a betting man – a losing betting man – that at the end of this process, the community will be calling for a major impact statement to be done before the development proceeds. However, it is not in your time frame.
They are the only two points I wanted to raise. Three, really: do not ever suggest that we are against the development of the wharf area and the waterfront precinct. Do not ever suggest it, member for Wanguri. I know where you are going.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I know where you are going because you have priors on all this. You have priors on all this, I know, and I have put it firmly on the record that we had the vision; yours is predicated on it. There is no doubt about that.
Madam Speaker, I make the point again: the biggest travesty in all of this - and we will all live to regret it if they go down this path - is that they are going to turn this land over to private ownership and take it out of public hands. I do not care whether you give it or sell it. It does not matter at the end of the day. And the people who were born here, like the member for Karama, should be utterly disgusted with the concept of giving up this. You will find a swell in the community when you propose to do this that you are going to regret. I see the member for Karama shaking her head and disagreeing with me, but you are going to give away our future. Well, good on you. Let us see how it goes.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, with the exception of the member for Port Darwin, whom I thought gave a very worthwhile analysis and made some very good suggestions on this issue, all I have heard from the remaining members of the opposition just reminds me of what I think was in Frank Hardy’s book: ‘“We’ll all be rooned”, said Hanrahan’. We will all be ‘rooned’ - either its raining, it is going to flood, or it is a drought, or …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has to quote to the right author. It was John O’Grady.
Dr BURNS: Oh, I do not think so.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, Hanrahan is well known and that was his key saying, ‘We’ll all be rooned’. Much of this goes back to the fact, particularly with the member for Drysdale, that they are not calling the shots anymore. They do not want to see this Labor government go forward, on behalf of Territorians, and build and construct a very successful convention centre as part of a waterfront redevelopment. That is what really gets up their nose, because they think that they are the only ones in the universe that can ever do this sort of development. Well, they are wrong, wrong, wrong, Madam Speaker, because, as a government, we have ideas, we have vision, we have energy and, I believe, we have the skills to plan, organise and complete this very special project for and on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory.
Much has been made about the EIS statement and, you know, it is going parallel and if it is adequate. I give the guarantee in this House that our EIS project will be adequate. It will address all the environmental issues. We are running to a time frame, but I am very confident that, with the Office of Environment and Heritage and the whole process, environmental and heritage values will be protected in that very special part of Darwin. I am prepared to stand here tonight and give that guarantee because I am confident. I know the Environment Centre of Darwin gave its approval to the project and the process. We will be consulting the community and community groups, such as the Darwin Environment Centre, on the development of this convention centre, because it belongs to everybody and it is going to be a great asset to Darwin.
Tonight, I particularly want to speak about the advantages for tourism in the waterfront development. I call it the waterfront development because that is what we are calling it. That is what it is. The opposition can do all that it likes; pull up plans and say, ‘We had this plan before the election and you are just stealing our plans’. They had a plan but they did not have a convention centre. Their plan was different from our plan. We are putting a convention centre down there. There is going to be development down there. This will be a great asset for the Territory and the people of Darwin. It has this government’s stamp all over it, because we are doing it in consultation with the public. We have already held a range of focus groups on the issues. We know what the public want to see down there and what they do not want to see down there.
As a government, we will move forward, in consultation with the people of Darwin, and I believe it will be very successful. It amuses me that a few weeks ago, or months ago, in this place, we had the opposition absolutely rabid about siting the convention centre in that precinct down there, in that waterfront area, and now it was always their plan to do it. In their plan they might have had a special function area - as they called it - but it was never a convention centre. It was very glib of the member for Drysdale to come in and say, ‘Oh, it is just a big shed, there is not much to it’.
I know they call it Jeff’s Shed; I went and saw Jeff’s Shed. Even though Jeff’s Shed is called a shed and might resemble a shed, there is a lot more to a convention centre than just four very large walls. There is a lot of logistics involved in it, technical aspects to it, and to demean it and say it is just a shed and anyone can build a shed - well, I will leave the member for Drysdale in his little world with his relevance deprivation syndrome, and may it continue. We will listen to what he has to say. We will listen to genuine concerns of the opposition but, as a government we have set a course now. If we had tried to expand the time frame, people would have said, ‘It is taking too long because the economy is in trouble, we need employment, we need tourism development’ But as soon as the time frame becomes in any way compressed, it is wrong. With the opposition, it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. A lot of them can never be pleased. However, I would have to say the member for Port Darwin gave a very good speech on this, and she also made some very reasonable suggestions, and ones that I am certainly willing to take on board.
In relation to my tourism portfolio, this waterfront development is anticipated to act as a catalyst for tourism and infrastructure development in the Top End. Infrastructure underpins most tourism development in the Territory, and appropriate planning and investment in tourism infrastructure is essential in ensuring the Northern Territory maintains its competitive position. Attractions, including the development of tourist precincts, enhance visitors’ travel experience, and are absolutely vital to the success of tourism in the Territory. While the NT currently offers a diverse range of natural man-made or human-made historical and activity-based attractions, it has been some time since large-scale tourism development occurred within Darwin - or for that matter, within the Top End.
The new waterfront precinct will add value to the marketability of Darwin as a destination, and add to the range of tourism product available in the city. Its development is entirely in line with the NT Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07. Importantly, this development will provide a real impetus to expanding the share of tourists that the Northern Territory can attract, and increased opportunities for all tourism operators. The development will provide a new focus point for our city, which can be translated into images and new angles for tourism marketing. The precinct will become a defining, iconic representation of our vibrant city in the same way the Sydney Opera House helps define the Sydney waterfront area.
I turn to a specific component of the development that has additional and significant tourism benefits: the convention centre. It will be a world class convention centre with seating for 1500 people and 4000 m2 of exhibition space. Over 20 years, new tourism spends of $193m is expected, over and above already forecast tourism expenditure, with associated impacts on GSP of an estimated $139m over 20 years. These are very impressive figures, and it shows just how important a convention centre is in tourism and attracting guests to Darwin.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the convention centre estimated it would provide 68 incremental convention events. These are new events that would not otherwise have been held in the Territory. These incremental events would generate over 39 000 new delegate days. Intra-Territory visitors have been excluded from these calculations because they are not bringing new money into the Territory economy, although I suppose we would welcome a few Alice Springs people up here to walk around the new precinct and spend a bit of money. Of course, we would, just the same as they welcome us in Alice Springs. Well, we do all the time, but it would be good to have a few more swaps.
Based on Tourism Commission estimates of that average delegate expenditure of $250 per person, per day, this means an extra $10m per year directly into the Territory economy, with a smaller amount expected indirectly. Business tourism is an important growth market for the Northern Territory. Convention visitors are very high yield, spending over $200 per day, compared to $150 per day for holiday visitors. Conventions offers excellent opportunities for expanded pre and post touring options, including in our world heritage listed Kakadu National Park and other areas around Darwin, such as Litchfield and Nitmiluk National Parks.
Business tourism has an important role to play in attracting visitors to the Territory, in non-peak periods. A purpose built convention centre is expected to increase visitation to Darwin during the traditional low season in the Wet, attracting national and international visitors. This will assist retailers, accommodation providers and tour companies and spread that visitation through out the year. This will improve overall profitability of businesses and is also consistent with one of the government’s core tourism objectives of improving seasonalities. Along with the Ghan extension to Darwin early next year, the waterfront development offers key opportunities to overcome one of the greatest impediments to tourism development in the Top End.
The Darwin convention centre is expected to create 161 full-time equivalent tourist jobs for Territorians by year 4, growing to over 200 new full-time equivalent jobs by year 10. Tourism is by nature, a labour intensive service industry and as such has a larger employment multiplier effect than most other industries including mining and construction. The construction phase of the Darwin Convention Centre and Exhibition Centre and Wharf Precinct will result in a value added impact in the Northern Territory construction industry of $85m in present value terms, and 950 full-time equivalent nett construction jobs or 70 new jobs per annum. These are impressive figures. They point to job growth. They point to growth in our economy through visitors who will be attracted to this Convention Centre and Exhibition Centre, and it is a fantastic development.
Significant flow-on effects to the community are expected from the project, both from a social and lifestyle point of view and from a more practical perspective. For example, it is anticipated there will be an additional airline capacity attracted into Darwin, potentially increasing direct links with major southern destinations, such as Melbourne. This will have obvious flow-on effects and benefits to the local community.
We should never underestimate, in Darwin, our ability to attract conventions, not only nationally within Australia, but also internationally, particularly in the Asian regions - with all our fine facilities here, we are safe destination, we are within easy travel distance to major centres to our north. That will be part of our marketing strategy to market Darwin, and the convention and exhibition centre into Asia. There will be many professional groups, many different groups, which will be very interested in having convention and exhibitions in Darwin.
The convention centre will assist to build the Territory business case for increased direct air linkages with the Asian region. Darwin will be marketed throughout the region in addition to domestically as an alternate world class convention destination. Increased demand for business travel, point to point, from Asia to Darwin, will critically improve the yield on the Darwin route. Along with other major developments, such as the oil and gas and Ghan extension, the convention centre will add greater weight to the Territory’s claim for increased direct schedule air links with our Asian neighbours.
The Northern Territory Convention Bureau, a division of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, is an impartial bureau that provides information on tourism and business services. Its principle role is to facilitate bids for bringing business events to the Northern Territory, the local business tourism and incentive operators. The Northern Territory Convention Bureau markets the Northern Territory as a business tourism destination through a dedicated web site, brochures, advertising, trade shows, direct marketing campaigns, newsletters, and public relations on a national and international basis. It is well placed to exploit the opportunities offered by the new Darwin Convention Centre.
If I can digress slightly for a moment, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to advise that a new Manager for Business Tourism began with the Northern Territory Tourist Commission on Monday. Ms Kym Cheatham has 14 years experience in the tourism industry, most recently in the business tourism sector as Brisbane-based Manager, Tourism Whitsunday Conventions and Incentives. She has an extensive network of contacts and, importantly, has experienced the challenges of attracting business to a regional destination that is not all at dissimilar to that faced by the Territory and Darwin. Kym, therefore, has an appreciation of an industry sector in a formative stage of development from a business tourism perspective. She will be travelling around the Northern Territory in the next few weeks meeting industry representatives and exploring the opportunities presented by the recently completed, highly successful Alice Springs Convention Centre and, of course, the prospect and completion of the Darwin Convention Centre. I welcome Kym to the Tourist Commission in her new role during this exciting time.
I should also add that Maree Tetlow, the Managing Director of the Tourist Commission, also has very extensive experience in this area. She was Deputy CEO and Director of Marketing with the Melbourne Convention and Marketing Bureau. So, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission is well equipped to impart considerable knowledge and experience and make a very valuable contribution from a tourist perspective in the decision making process for the development as it proceeds.
I am aware that the Northern Territory Tourist Commission Board has been following, with considerable interest, the Darwin Convention Centre. The board has expressed its support of the development proposal including its location within the CBD precinct. This development will see what is currently a fairly unattractive and under-utilised area transformed into a visionary project linked to existing CBD areas which the people of the Northern Territory can be proud of over the long term. It will provide a new facet, a new element, to the city of Darwin, and to our life. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members, some more fulsomely than others, for their contribution to this debate.
I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by members of the opposition, but to note while they are raising these issues that not one member has recently asked for a briefing. For example, it was disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition. This is a wonderful project. It is visionary, it creates jobs, it certainly will enhance tourism and lifestyle. To hear the opposition led by the Leader saying, ‘We do support this, but …’ on the basis of ignorance is very sad.
The Leader of the Opposition said very early in his response that he had hundreds of questions he would like to ask. I said, Well?’, and he did not have them. If the Opposition Leader has hundreds of questions to ask, then this was the time to put them on the record if he had not had time for a briefing - just to be charitable. Have the briefing, understand the detail that you want has to be appropriate to be given at this stage, and we will do it.
This is the same process that we had with the railway. We certainly recognised from the past government that those briefings were always forthcoming. The railway project and the detail of how it was run had our support. There are great similarities between the way this project is going to be run and the way the railway was run. For the opposition to be saying that somehow or other government is hiding information is simply absurd. If the opposition want specific details, all they have to do is ask. The opposition has Question Time, they have opportunities in response to statements like this, to put on the record the specific information they need. The Opposition Leader said, ‘There are hundreds of questions that I need to ask’, well, he did not indicate what they were in this debate, and he certainly just touched on a couple of different issues that he has chosen to misinterpret from information that is already on the public record.
One of the Opposition Leader’s statements was virtually that government is giving the land away for nothing. We have been very clear, and I have been very clear in this House; the details that are available, either through publication or on the Internet, are clear about that. The land is subject to negotiation. My statement today said the 25 hectares are part of the negotiation package. Of course it is. However, that does not mean it is for free. What he said was, ‘You are putting $100m in for the convention centre, and you are giving the land away for free. What are you getting back?’ You could draw a comparison with the railway, where we put $165m in, we acquired the land, and we are not getting any revenue back, but we are recognising the nature of that railway project. Certainly this is different in that the land will be made available to the successful bidder, and we will be looking to get revenue back. How that happens is subject to negotiation. We are hoping for the most competitive process. Therefore, when those bids come back in, we will be looking for what is a competitive process, and what will get most advantage back to the Territory taxpayer.
The land is available to develop, and will be provided as a development lease, most likely Crown lease term. The land will be converted to permanent title when the stages are completed, consistent with the agreed master plan. If you want to look at some of the issues about revenue, there are a number of options that we anticipate the market may consider in their bids. Again, I say, regarding revenue which we are looking to get back to taxpayers, Territorians: we are looking for that competitive process. We have undertaken our own business model on that. We are in advance of the expressions of interest process, but we are not going to flag what it is. We want to see how competitive it is when it comes back from the private sector. There are a variety of options. There is an up-front payment for land on the mixture of unimproved capital value and some development profit. You can go for the top line revenue model over time from the sale of development activities, or you can combine them in some other way. You can get a combination of the two. But, if the Opposition Leader had cared to be interested in that, rather than just coming in here and say you are giving the land away for nothing, then we would have more respect for the contribution he made in this debate.
The Opposition Leader raised another issue he has raised in here in previous sessions: is there a developer who has been given preferential treatment? No, no, no. I do not know how many times you can say no. Not only do we say no, but we say how we have managed the process. Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, a probity auditor will oversee the process and provide an independent assessment that the selection process is going to be done fairly and equitably. It is an integrated development and requires a long term approach if we are to achieve the values we are seeking from the land.
We want to get the best value for the Territorians. We want to make sure that it is a long term development. We want to make sure we have the most competitive bid that will bring the most value to this very important project. We are going to be tough. We are going to be very tough on that. We want to make sure that there is a real commitment to local industry participation. We want to make sure that Territory subcontractors are in there with work, that suppliers are there, that the jobs that are created are for Territory jobs. As the Deputy Leader today said, the calculation is, over the time of that project, we are looking at something like 5500 jobs on the development of the waterfront.
It is very disappointing when you have the Opposition Leader simply trying to raise unfounded issues about this project. We can say with confidence, when we were in opposition, that we trusted the probity auditor in the railway process, and believed that government had put in place those appropriate checks and balances. These are the same checks and balances on this project and, yet, you have such suspicion and unnecessary questions about this from the opposition. Let us just put it clearly for all those here who are interested: there is a probity auditor in place and we want no preference for any developer. What we are looking for is the best proposal for building what is a visionary project, and to get most local content.
The Opposition Leader was also very critical and negative about many aspects of the development, especially the current process that is under way. I say to the Opposition Leader: the process that has been followed has been arrived at on the basis of excellent advice from our very expert public servants, who are serving this government exceedingly well, and served the previous administration. Again, I am sure that this process that is put in place is an excellent one and they are very committed to that. To slur the process is to slur those public servants who worked for the previous administration, and are doing that same excellent job for this government.
The Leader of the Opposition - and there are other members of the opposition as well - said his preference for the wharf project was to be run through a government owned corporation. We recognise that is one option available but, if you are going to look at a model like the railway, that was a successful major project and that was achieved through a public/private partnership. It is a model that has worked well and it is the kind of model that we are going to use to deliver this project. We looked at those different options and, just because the Opposition Leader said: ‘Brrrr!’, finger up to the wind, ‘My preference is for a government owned corporation’, it is not the only way to go. In light of our public/private partnership policy and the success of the model for the railway, that is what we are going to pursue.
In the early stage of the project, the project development is being managed by the Department of Chief Minister, then the project will move on to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment which monitors and manages all government developments.
The Leader of the Opposition was also concerned at what fill would be required on-site. There is no doubt about it; this is an old industrial site and it has been long used for housing aspects of industry that related to the wharf and shipping, so there is going to have to be a thorough environmental impact process. We are having those geochemical and geotechnical surveys starting already, so we will understand what the composition of the site is, and we will be dealing with it. However, that process will be done comprehensively and it will be done in an open and transparent way. Any implication that we will not is a real slight on the company that is undertaking it now. We recognise that it is a former working site - it still is – and there have been things like bitumen plants there, it has been a bulk materials wharf, so there has been a lot of activity over many years. As the statement said, it has been a wharf for a long time, and that has been an associated wharf area. We recognise that there is probably a lot of work to be done on the site. However, it would be no different from the sites that have been managed around the country as wharf redevelopments have been done, and probably nothing compared with the Homebush site where the Olympic development was done in Sydney, which was a challenge.
Looking at some of the criticisms the member for Goyder raised - again, rather like the Opposition Leader - he gave begrudging support of what is a great visionary project which will create Territory jobs. He was critical, as was the Leader of the Opposition, about what they say is the haste with which this project is being done. Balance that against the criticism we have been taking over the last six months, particularly from people like the Opposition Leader, who said: ‘Just get ahead and build the convention centre now’. We were criticised roundly for having PricewaterhouseCoopers do a thorough assessment of what kind of a convention centre we would need, where it could best be positioned in the market. We wore the flak from the Opposition Leader who said, ‘Do it now, stop going over the process again’. It was one of the things he added spend, spend, spend for and now he is joined by the member for Goyder. And when we make the decision and set what is a realistic but not a slow process, then we get criticised for doing this in haste.
I stood here for question after question today, about the state of the economy, and ‘What are you doing,’ was coming from the opposition. When we are doing something, we are getting criticised for doing it too quickly. I do not understand the logic. In fact, there is no logic and I believe with this process, this important development, we need to make sure it is done properly. We need to make sure it is done openly and transparently, but that does not mean that we should not set an achievable time frame that is one that does not allow too many delays in it. That is the kind of time table that we set with the railway. It was a very tight time table and it was achieved. What an inspiration! If we can do it with the railway, which is such an enormous infrastructure project, we can certainly set an achievable time frame for this project which will be over 10 to 15 years, but let us get it going.
Let us get jobs created, let us get the opportunities for tourism and let us get that roll-on factor in the Territory economy. As the Adelaide Convention Centre shows, every dollar that is spent in the convention centre, nine times that goes into the wider economy. How good is that for Territory business? How good is that for Darwin businesses, from your local florist, through to your hotels, through your tour operators, through to your dry cleaners, through to everybody, through to the restaurants? It all flows on to our Territory economy. We need to get that convention centre up and running and taking what will be an important part in the market for convention centres and exhibition spaces as soon as we can.
The criticism from the opposition is not only illogical but it is hypocritical. Let me look at other criticisms. The member for Goyder also accused us of a lack of detail in the statement. Again, I say to the member for Goyder, if you are interested in the waterfront redevelopment, then ask for a briefing. The Opposition Leader and the member for Goyder, and any other member of the opposition who is interested, can ask for a briefing. The opposition has decided that the only way to run this - because again the member for Goyder reiterated this - is that it needs to be a government owned corporation that you set up to run this. Again, I say to the member for Goyder: public/private partnership worked well on the railway, and it will work well in this project.
The contributions from this side of this House were constructive, visionary, positive, and looked at the contributions that this project will make to the local economy. I thank this side of the House for their positive contributions to this statement.
Turning to the member for Port Darwin, the member stated her preference for the convention centre to be built, as she describes it, in the CBD, despite the fact that the waterfront is the CBD as defined by the previous government. The member for Port Darwin is still saying it should be built in the CBD and, again, it is an illogical argument because as even the members on the other side recognise, there needs to be room for expansion of this convention centre and exhibition space, and there is no space in what she is closely defining as the CBD for anything of that size to be built.
As I said in my statement, what we are planning initially is the size of this Parliament House, and that is just a first stage. If you look around the country, exhibition spaces are the ones that are being expanded. We are starting with 4000m2, but when you look at what is happening in Perth, or Brisbane, or Sydney, they are expanding those exhibition spaces by vast amounts of square meterage and we are starting very modestly at 4000m2. Perth is starting at 16 000m2 and if you want to be really big and look at the Hong Kong model, then it is 65 000m2 of exhibition space. I think the member for Port Darwin has missed what this project is all about. This project is about building the capacity of the Darwin city. It is not about a project that will do for the next five years; this is about projects for our future. When you are looking at expenditure of $100m of public money, what we want to see is really significant returns on it. Our investment of $100m for the convention centre and some associated infrastructure development will realise a project that can be $600m to $700m, so the benefits are there because of the site we have chosen. The 25 hectares of prime land on our waterfront is a most magnificent site. This project will see the aspirations we have for that site realised.
The member for Port Darwin said she hopes the waterfront redevelopment will be tropical in nature. I note also that the member for Nelson said that. Yes, yes, yes, it is certainly one of the requirements. Being tropical in nature means we are looking at things like energy efficiencies, appropriate design - and that will be one of the criteria by which to measure the winning tenderer. There is no doubt about that. This is a project for our future, not a project that has buildings facing away from prevailing breezes, or does not have appropriate tropical design. We want it to be innovative and we want it to have appropriate public spaces. We want to make sure that those who use it, Territorians and visitors alike, can enjoy the public amenity.
One of the things that I am keen to pursue in the waterfront redevelopment is good use of public art. When you go to developments like this, public art enhances what is there. If we look at all those elements – vegetation, the way buildings are going to be designed, meeting the tropical challenge, public and recreational spaces, and public art – we are going to have a magnificent tropical design, and that is what we are after.
Convention centres need to make a statement in themselves. When you visit Adelaide and look at how they have made a statement overlooking the water with their convention centre and made it a very pleasurable place to visit, they get a 65% return from those who go to conventions and use the exhibition spaces. What we want is a building that says to people, ‘Come back!’ We want a building that shows them the harbour, and one that meets tropical design requirements, and we will get there.
Member for Nelson, I have not deal with all the matters you raised, but come and have a briefing and we will talk to you more about it because I have run out of time.
Mr Wood: I have had a briefing.
Ms MARTIN: You have had a briefing?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: Well done! Ten points. I thank everyone for their contribution. This is an important project for the Territory. It means jobs and new opportunities. To have a convention centre and exhibition space as the centre point of this waterfront development will really give it the go-ahead.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURMENT
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
This year’s Alice Springs Festival was a wonderful celebration of the energy and talent of this community. Over 15 000 attendances were recorded at 54 diverse events that made up the festival. Only three years have passed since the first festival in 2001 and, in that time, the program has grown immensely in volume and quality.
There is something in the Alice Springs Festival for everyone. It involves a huge range of sectors of the community, from kids to fine artists, from remote Aboriginal people to gardeners. The festival cultivates local talent as well as bringing in outsiders. The St Cecilia Chamber Orchestra from Tasmania was a real coup for this year’s festival, but so was the involvement of our local kids in the Deadly Digital Photographic Online Gallery at the Gap Youth Centre.
Aboriginal performers and artists played a major role in the festival, strengthening Alice Springs’ position as the hub of a strong but accessible indigenous culture. Desertsong, a concert for remote indigenous choirs, is held in the Todd River each year, and this year it attracted an audience of almost 2000 people. The Desert Mob Art Show attracted over 3500 people, and the Janganpa dancers, almost 100 people. The festival forms a springboard for the development of new talent in the visual arts and crafts, performing arts, music, literature and even new media. It also has the important philosophy of bringing art to the community, with multi-art activity happening in the Todd Mall throughout the 10 day event.
The arts in Central Australia are not just about cultural expression, they are also about the strategic strength of Alice Springs. They are a significant contributor to the economy and an area of future economic growth, both directly through employment and marketing and sales, and indirectly in providing a visitor experience. That is why our government is keen to get behind the arts, for example, with its recent backing of indigenous arts with a $3.2m three year development program. It is also why I am personally keen to get behind the Alice Springs Festival and see it grow into the future.
I am sure the festival organisers are immensely grateful to Loraine Braham for providing free rent in her office during the renovations of the old Repco Building. I gather she thoroughly enjoyed it, and the parade of creative people constantly challenging her photocopier! However, it is important that the festival continue to grow, and I look forward to meeting with them once they have drawn their breath, to plan for next year’s festival. I congratulate Di Mills, the Festival Director; Ingrid Laguna and Tiffany Manning, the Project Managers; Clive Scollay, the Festival Chair; and the team of volunteers who had dreams and worked hard to turn them into reality. The enthusiasm and energy of the group is just truly inspiring and a great asset to Alice Springs.
One of the highlights of the Alice Springs Festival was the performance of the Aboriginal dance troupe, Janganpa Dancers, at the Araluen Theatre. Janganpa is a group of Warlpiri and Anmatjere traditional artists, singers, performers and dancers who have been performing for many years, including performances in Germany, New Zealand and Korea. They are particularly known for their film work, with members of the company performing in Tracker, Rabbit Proof Fence and Kings in Grass Castles. However, this was the first time they transformed traditional dance into a format suitable for a western theatre. It is not an easy task. You cannot change Aboriginal law; authentic dance has certain restrictions and rules, such as the need to dance in a certain geographic direction, which is difficult on a stage which has a fixed orientation. There is also a very different atmosphere to develop without the smoke and flames of a campfire or the dust from stomping feet. The director’s notes say that it is a bit like trying to fit a game of football into a lounge room; the goal posts have shifted dramatically.
However, Janganpa wanted to do this to prove to the tourism industry that they can adapt to different locations that may be more suitable for some markets. For example, there is a whole new potential market with the convention centre’s business tourism clients, who may not want to go out bush to experience traditional dance. They sought the assistance of Tracks, a renowned Territory dance company, to help transport their dance into a western theatre. Janganpa and Araluen together took the initiative to invite members of the tourism industry to a free showing, and gave each person a survey to fill out with their comments on how appealing the show would be to different tourist markets. The results were honest but positive, with a generally very high level of satisfaction and interest, and some good suggestions on how to make it suit the industry.
Congratulations to Peter Yates, the Manager of Janganpa, and to Andrea Lehman from Araluen, for putting together this survey. Special congratulations to the dancers themselves for their initiative and dedication in getting this potential new tourism product happening. I will name the dancers: Noreen Nampijinpa Robertson, Lydia Nangala Sampson, Ida Nangala Granites, Pamela Nangala Sampson, Audrey Napanangka Martin, Judy Nampijinpa Granites, Topsy Napaljarri Dixon, Maggie Nakamarra, Johnny Possum Japaljarri, Ted Egan Jangala, Jimmy Jangala Collins, Charlie Jampijinpa Brown, Albie Jampijinpa Morris, Frankie Japanangka and Derek Egan Jampijinpa. Amongst that group, there are both very senior people from the Anmatjere and Warlpiri communities, but also some young people who are starting to be inducted into the ceremonial knowledge. This is very much an extra incentive for the young people to learn this very important knowledge from their elders. Just as we have seen in the visual arts, often this contemporary application of culture is a way of reenergising, I guess, the desire to learn culture amongst the younger generation coming through.
I really hope that we will see a successful fusion of western theatre with ceremonial dancing; one that retains the integrity of the ceremonial knowledge and dancing but, at the same time, provides a very important new product to the tourism industry.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a number of functions I attended over the last month, since last sittings. The first of these was the COTA gala dinner dance on Saturday, 30 August. COTA stands for people over 50. It is a member of the COTA National Seniors Partnership. Carole Miller OAM, is the executive director. Carole is also one of my ward members on the Darwin City Council, and I have had the pleasure of working with her for the last two years. She has been a nothing but a joy to work with and is a very professional operator.
The membership officer was Mrs Kit Holtham. I was contacted by COTA and asked to sponsor a table. I gladly did so, as I have a number of seniors in my electorate, particularly around Hazell Court/Reynolds Court area and, in particular, the seniors hall in Coconut Grove. The people I invited were Kevin and Betty Gould - Kevin is the President of the seniors hall at Coconut Grove; Maureen Hack, Janet Roe, Pat Bonson, Dot Daby, Nancy and Arthur Cox and, of course, I and my wife, Mona-Lisa Bonson. A fabulous night was had by one and all. It was held at the MGM Grand and over 200 people attended. Everyone danced the night away. I left at around 10.30 pm to attend another function, otherwise I would have stayed there all night, no doubt, dancing.
On Saturday, 4 October 2003, I attended the media awards. These awards were held at MGM Grand. It was an interesting event. George Negus was the guest speaker and gave an hilarious speech, and a very interesting one, during part of which every politican in Australian copped a jovial jibe in the stomach. Winners included ABC radio current affairs journalist, Anne Barker, who won the 2003 Telstra Journalist of the Year Award; Best news story, print - Edith Bevan, Northern Territory News; Best news story, radio - Mark Bowling, ABC; Best news story, TV - Mark Bowling, ABC; Best TV news camera work - Wayne Hylard, Channel 9 - Wayne does a bit of filming in the Chamber during Question Time; Best photography or camera work in a feature story - Terry McDonald, ABC - he also does some work during Question Time, and did a fantastic story on his experiences in China; Best photography - Clive Hyde, Northern Territory News; Best sports journalist - Richard Earle, Northern Territory News; ATSIC award for best coverage of indigenous issues - Heather Stewart, Anne Barker, ABC - that was presented by none other than Kim Hill, Yilli Rreung Council member and Northern Territory Commissioner for ATSIC; Best regional journalist - Glenn Morrison, Centralian Advocate; TIO award for best feature - Anne Barker, ABC radio, Heather Stewart, ABC TV, produced by Murray McLaughlin. The big prize of the night was Channel 9’s Allison Langdon who received the David Marchbanks Award for best new journalist. Northern Territory News reporter, Chris Carter, was highly commended; in other words, he ran close second.
It was a fabulous night. Over 300 people attended. I had the opportunity to meet, depending on what you think of journos so this is my kickback to the journos there, the infamous or notorious or famous Nigel Adlam of the NT News, and spent 20 minutes speaking to a man who spends many hours reporting on the events of politicians throughout the Northern Territory. I found that quite interesting and I met his delightful wife as well.
I also had the opportunity late last month to attend the Central Australian Football League Grand Final for 2003. It was a great event. It was the first time I had attended the grand final there and the chair person was a great host, Mildy Raveane. The co-captains for Pioneers were Graeme Smith who is also a co-coach of the Pioneer Football Club and Vaughn Hampton. The co-captains for South were Kelvin Maher and Bradley Braun. Kelvin Maher is a two times Nichols medalist in the Northern Territory. South was coached by Greg McAdam, from the McAdam family, related to the member for Barkly, Elliot McAdam, and also a AFL player in his own right. The coach of Pioneers was Roy Arbon, who is a famous football coach in the Territory; and his sons, Joel Campbell and Matt Campbell played for Pioneers. Joel Campbell may have an opportunity to go to the AFL.
It was a fantastic day. It was one of the most exciting matches that I have had the opportunity to see in the last few years. South hit the front and were leading most of the day. Pioneers fought back in their last quarter and were, I believe, 15 points in front with about 10 minutes to go, and there was an almighty collision on centre wing, which stopped the game for a couple of minutes. South was able to regather under the play of Gilbert Fishook who kicked nine goals and they came back and won the game.
Players for Pioneers were: Aaron Kopp, Daniel McCormack, Matt Campbell, Standley McCormack, Nathan Pepperill, Nathan Flanigan, Geoff Taylor, Peter Donoghue, Eric Campbell, Richard McCormack, Geoffrey Gibson, Wayne McCormack, Joel Campbell, Daniel Craig, Joe Cole, Martin Hagan, Ryan Mallard, Ricky Mentha, David Kerrin, Vaughan Hampton, Graeme Smith, Craig Turner, Jethro Campbell and Gordon Mallard.
The squad for South was: Edwin Cooke, Kelvin Maher, Jeremiah Webb, Charlie Maher, Lloyd Stockman, Bradley Braun, Kasman Spencer, Shane Hayes, Darren Talbot, Albert Tilmouth, Gilbert Fishook, Donny Schaber, Malcolm Ross, Richard Morton, Ali Satour, Aaron Reid, Shaun Cummings, Trevor Reid, Shaun Cusack, Brenton McMasters, Sheldon Liddle, Ben Abbot, Nigel Lockyer and Wayne Braun.
It was a fabulous event and I thoroughly enjoyed the day. The broadcast of the event by CAAMA Radio was fantastic. I thank all Alice Springs people for their hospitality.
I also attended and spoke on behalf of the Northern Territory government at the 20th Anniversary of the Litchfield Times. It was a great pleasure and it was an indigenous celebration. Parliamentary colleagues who also attended were Peter Maley and Gerry Wood representing the Goyder and Nelson electorates which largely cover the circulation area of the Times; I am reminded that Gerry’s presence was brief as he had some vital family business to attend and I believe that there was a birth of a grandchild …
Mr Wood: Yes! Number four.
Mr BONSON: Number four. That has been confirmed by the member for Nelson.
It was a small but congenial group that gathered at the Sonsie Restaurant in Parap. I was honoured to be there to offer the government’s congratulations to Val Smith and her staff, both present and past, who have been part of the Litchfield Times for the past 20 years. After all, it marked a significant milestone for both the Litchfield Times and for the Northern Territory.
It is fair to say that the newspaper history of Darwin is littered with failure. To my knowledge, there have been at least six attempts to establish independent newspapers in Darwin and Palmerston in the past three decades. Only the Litchfield Times survives. Until the Humpty Doo and Rural Area Times came on the scene, the most successful alternative to the NT News was the Darwin Star started by Kerry Byrnes.
It is no coincidence that Val Smith was a stalwart at Star Printers, publisher of the Darwin Star. It was the sale of the Darwin Star to South Australian businessman, Alan Scott, its brief status as a tri-weekly publication and its subsequent demise that prompted Val to set up a newspaper in her own right. She had as a partner another former Darwin Star employee and gifted artist, Shaun ‘Spud’ Murphy, who not only worked on the layout of the paper; he also drew cartoons and did artwork for advertisements.
In its earliest days, the paper was laid out in a tin shed on Val’s property at Humpty Doo. For the first few years the ‘HD RAT’ was published in a similar format to the old Darwin Star; that is, roughly half the size of the current tabloid layout. I really enjoyed seeing examples of those first papers on display for the anniversary celebrations.
The Litchfield Times is a rural area and Territory success story. It has succeeded where others, as I mentioned, have succumbed to the economic pressure the NT News has demonstrated it can apply to squeeze out competition, even if it is not direct competition. For 20 years, the Litchfield Times and Val Smith have given the people of the Darwin’s rural area a strong local voice because Val Smith and those who have worked for her over the years have lived in and been part of the rural community.
I was reminded at the anniversary celebrations that the Litchfield Times had given extensive coverage to the machinations surrounding the formation of the Litchfield Shire. There was considerable antipathy in the rural area to the idea of local government, and we were reminded that it took amendments to the Local Government Act to limit the level of council rates before it was finally accepted.
It might have followed a conservative line, but the Litchfield Times has sought to be politically even-handed, and has always taken an independent line, reflecting the fact that for much of its time, it has covered the electorate of at least one independent local member.
Reflecting the essentially rural nature of its circulation area, it has always given strong coverage to agriculture, horticulture and other primary industries, providing plenty of room for difference of views. There was a heavy emphasis on reporting news that mattered to people of the rural area, and has given those people a voice through Letters to the Editor and a variety of columns. It has always given good coverage of local sport and has delivered a healthy dose of humour.
For many, the Croc Rot gossip column is a must-read starting point and, before that, it was the column ‘Round the Green Ute’, which referred to a ute parked at the Humpty Doo Bush Shop on a nightly basis and, for many years, was the focus for a group of locals who liked to sink a green can and swap yarns. A colleague has reminded me that candidates seeking election to the first Litchfield Shire Council back in 1985 had to make a mandatory appearance at the green ute and buy at least one round!
Working for the Litchfield Times has helped expand or perhaps test the journalistic skills of a couple of the well known locals, among them Jack Ellis, who went on to work for the NT News and ABC, and Leonie Norrington. Leonie, a third-generation Territorian, is the author of a wonderful book on tropical gardening and has the first two books in a children’s trilogy published to warm acclaim. She still writes a regular gardening column in the Litchfield Times.
The current crop of employees of the Litchfield Times are: advertising reps, Lynda Francis and Caroline Koole; reporters, Bill Meyer and Ian Dudgen; layout artists, Sue Dibbs and Caroline Tapp, and Lorraine Milsom in accounts. They continue to publish a well regarded local paper.
I cannot say I was surprised to hear that Val Smith was easing back her workload in favour of more golf, after all, she is a first class player. It is an open secret that the Times is up for sale. I am sure I join with local residents in hoping that if ownership does change, the Litchfield Times will continue to offer the rural region an alternative and independent local news source.
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the night. We enjoyed the food, the wine, the conversation and left a definite impression on the Litchfield Times staff. On the front cover the next week was the member for Goyder and I. I do not know if that is a good look for both of us, kissing the top of the baby’s head! Any politician knows that that is always a good way to come across. I thank those who attended the night. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. On 24 September, I had the great honour to be invited to a very important ceremony near Yuendumu, where a commemoration was held to mark the 75th anniversary of what has come to be known as the Coniston Massacre. It was a commemoration a long time in coming, but one that developed into a day of remarkable reconciliation. The day was held to honour the families from the Warlpiri, Anmatjere and Kaytej nations, whose lives are still marked by the tragic events of three quarters of a century ago.
At the same time, we were there to remember the old kartiya man who was killed at that place. The place is known as Yukurru, but is also named Brooks Soak, after the dingo trapper who was killed there. It was the spot that marked the start of events that led to the deaths of perhaps 100 Aboriginal people. They were the ancestors of the many families who attended the anniversary ceremony. It was a day of remembrance and mourning.
It was not so long ago in the history of the Australian nation that this terrible thing happened . It happened only 22 years before I was born, only 11 years before the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard was born. Indeed the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, was two years old at the time. It is within historical memory, part of the social political and moral fabric of Australia. It is a part of Australian history we cannot ignore, let alone forget and, for the Warlpiri people, it is a history of irreplaceable loss.
It must be remembered that the late 1920s was a time of major drought and therefore, in the context of what was still very much the frontier of black/white relations in Australia, the conflict over resources was intense. It was a conflict between the land and its people; and the cattle, and those who had brought with them the guns and diseases that followed. What is often misunderstood is that the Coniston Massacre was no single event, but a series of punitive raids that occurred over a number of weeks as police parties killed indiscriminately. Even Keith Windschuttle, one of the great deniers of frontier violence, acknowledges the savagery and disproportionate nature of the Coniston reprisals. Even he, albeit based only on the unsubstantiated writings of a journalist, agrees that many more died than the official record will admit.
For the Warlpiri, the consequences of that savagery continue to this day. It is no accident that the diaspora that followed Coniston is still a reality for the Warlpiri. Despite enormous commitment to the Jukurrpa, the source of the law of their land, no major Warlpiri community is located today on Warlpiri traditional lands. This is a direct legacy of their flight and dispersal after Coniston to centres such as Yuendumu, Lajamanu, Ali Curung, and Tennant Creek. It is only since the protection of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act came into be being in 1976 that Warlpiri people have been able to move back on to their country to outstations, and the re-invigoration of their connections to country through traditional law.
The day at Yukurru, through the Yawulyu danced by the women, demonstrated that renewed commitment to country that had been so badly damaged in 1928. Yet, the day at Yukurru was not a day of bitterness and rancour. As I mentioned before, it was a day of remarkable reconciliation. We were joined by a descendant of Constable Murray, the man who led the raids. Lisa Dale-Hallet, a great niece of Murray’s, spoke very movingly of discovering a part of her family heritage that is not pretty, but a family legacy that had to be faced up to as a part of an understanding by all of us of the history of the last 215 years. It was gratifying to see at Yukurru, Commander Gary Manison of the Northern Territory Police service based in Alice Springs, and his acknowledgement of this past tragedy. Both were there on that day to remember the past, in brotherhood and sisterhood with the descendants of the Aboriginal people whose lives intertwined with that of, respectively, their ancestor and predecessor, on such a violent frontier three-quarters of a century ago.
It was not a time for recrimination or pay back, but a time for our collective memories, nevertheless. Despite the tragic and disproportionate suffering of the Aboriginal men, women and children who lost their lives over those awful weeks of 1928, we were all there at Yukurru that day in friendship and solidarity. Just as at the Wukidi ceremony at the Supreme Court in June, we were there to look to a future where our histories are acknowledged; not as a stick to beat each other up with, but to learn from - and that must be the lesson of Coniston.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also congratulate the organisers, the Central Land Council, for being able to organise, as they have shown in the past, these types of gatherings where people can come together. Their staff also need to be acknowledged for the great work that they contributed in ensuring that the commemoration ceremony was a really fantastic event.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a recent happening at Fogg Dam, which neighbours my electorate. Fogg Dam happens to be a place famous for its file snakes, fish and wildlife. There is a group of scientists - the NT News calls them ‘boffins’ - from the University of Sydney who have been studying Fogg Dam for quite a number of years. In fact, I am told that Dr Tom Madsen, who is out there full-time, has been there for quite a number of years and just about knows personally every goanna, children’s python, and just about everything else that moves out there. He has put radio transmitters on most of the goannas that live there, and he is studying the biodiversity of that area. I do not think I am giving any trade secrets away, but anyone who was at public meetings of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, would know that one of the things that the Territory appears short on is definitive data on the biodiversity.
One of the problems we have with the cane toads coming is that we do not really know what effect it has on our biodiversity because, except for a study by the Conservation Commission in Dr Bill Freeland’s time round near Borroloola, there has been very little work done on establishing what baseline biodiversity we have in the Northern Territory.
Sydney University has been working for quite a long time on this particular project. Dr Rick Shine works out of Sydney and visits Fogg Dam on occasions; Dr Greg Brown works at Beatrice Hill farms, and Dr Tom Madsen and his wife, Dr Beata Jvari, live at Middle Point village. They also have a number of other visitors come from Sydney University such as post-graduate students who come up and work from time to time.
The reason this has come to my attention is not only because I knew about this from the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, but I had a phone call from Dr Rick Shine a couple of weeks ago asking if I knew they wanted to knock the flats out there where his scientists work. He showed me a copy of the letter to the Chief Minister and he sent a copy to me asking that something be done about this because it certainly would interrupt the work they were doing.
I waited a couple of weeks and again I get another phone call and I find out there has been a group of people going out there tapping the walls. What they were doing was working out how best to knock these flats down. I also got going on the pen and paper and sent a letter to the Minister for Lands and Planning, and the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and sent a copy of those letters to the Chief Minister, saying basically: ‘Whatever you are doing, you should rethink it’. I travelled out there and had a look at these flats where Dr Tom Madsen was doing his work and it was very hard to believe that these flats, even though they were built before the cyclone, were worthy of being knocked down. They were in very good condition. They were being used continually. The Sydney University people were paying rent on them. They were also using it as part of their laboratories. So it was of great concern that these people were basically being asked to pack up and leave when not only were they paying to do work in the Northern Territory, they were doing work for the Northern Territory that we really should have been supporting wholeheartedly.
I must admit it did disappoint me that there was not an immediate reaction to say hang on, these people are working for something that the Northern Territory needs, that is, it needs baseline data, especially with the movement of cane toads across the Northern Territory. I would have thought they would really get up and go but I received a letter from the minister the other day, dated 6 October, in which he thanked me for my letter and politely told me that the land and buildings at Middle Point are the property of the Northern Territory Land Corporation, not the Northern Territory government. I must admit I felt a little bit disturbed at that because for many years I believed the Labor Party had no time for the Land Corp. It was that secret body out there which gathered land in to make sure it was not susceptible to Aboriginal land claims. Yet, when I ask the government to give us a hand to help make sure these flats were not going to be destroyed, I was told to go and see the Northern Territory Land Corporation, which I did. I did not see them but I rang up Peter Blake and discussed the issue with him. Peter Blake is a pretty good bloke and I am told today that he actually went out there and had a look.
It seems that the story was that the Housing Commission used to operate these flats and they were passed over to the Land Corp. The Land Corp were particularly worried that these were not up to code. Well, anything built before 1975 or 1976 would actually not be built to code. They said if you are going to bring it up to code you are going to have to do some changes to the building. One of the changes would have been to knock out the ceilings and the ceilings were made of asbestos. They must have thought that knocking that out was going to cost more money than upgrading the building so why not knock the whole thing down. But luckily, I received good news this afternoon. Dr Tom Madsen had rung me this afternoon to tell me that Peter Blake and one of his staff had been out there today, and it appears they have recognised that the buildings are very good buildings.
Even though they do not come up to code, Middle Point is a fair way from a cyclone. I doubt whether you are going to get very much of a blow-out that far. It appears that there are options for either Parks and Wildlife taking over the building, or Sydney University taking over the building, or even someone privately taking over the building, so this essential work can continue. It is essential work. They have probably only have about one more year before the cane toads have reached Fogg Dam. I was talking to Dr Tom Madsen about it, and he believes the cane toads will just devastate the goannas. In fact, they are going to do another study after the cane toads have gone through because he believes that there will be so few goannas left they will then study the gene variations in what is left, and they will see whether there is enough gene pool for the goannas simply to survive. He said you might have 290 goannas out there at the moment, there is enough of a gene pool to make sure the goannas will survive. However, if you only end up with four goannas, that gene pool is diminished quite a bit. He will be doing a study to see whether such a low base of genes can enable these goannas to survive into the future and build up a new population.
They are very important studies because even Dr Bill Freeland admitted that whether goannas have survived in Borroloola or not - possibly they have, possibly they have not - and perhaps this is the sort of information we need. In the end, even though a little bit disappointed, the government perhaps should have jumped in there and shouted from the roof tops that these buildings were not going to be knocked down.
One other point: someone rang me the day before yesterday and mentioned the Leprosarium at East Arm. Through my wife, I have had connection with East Arm Leprosarium because my wife’s mother lived there for quite a while. She had leprosy and eventually she died from leprosy. I remember many years ago going down a single lane bitumen road, having to stop at a gate where there was a house, because it was also the road to the Quarantine Station, and then you travelled down to the East Arm Leprosarium, which was on the hill, on the right hand side. If you are going down there now, you will see the tracks that lead to it, and that is all you will see. Sadly, one can say this is progress, that this is development, but with the development of the East Arm Port and the railway, East Arm Leprosarium has been totally demolished as far as I can see. There is not anything there now and I presume the hill will be flattened and used as fill.
This person said how sad it is that all that history is gone. I wonder whether the government would consider putting some sort of memorial there. Many Aboriginal people went through there, a lot of nuns - in this case, because it was a convent – who helped Aboriginal people went through there. The word was that during the cyclone, the convent was blown away and the only thing the nuns had for shelter was a table and they all held one leg of the table until the winds died down. That was their only protection.
Of course there is a very famous person who worked there - I presume he was not the only doctor, there would have been other doctors and nurses - Dr Hargraves who I have said before is a living saint, not only because of the work he has done at East Arm and amongst lepers, but also the work he has done in Timor with people with facial deformities. Even in his ‘retirement’, this man is a giant of a man in the Northern Territory. He continues to do great work. I believe it would be very appropriate if something could remain there, even if it was the entrance that went up to some sort of plaque that recognised when the Leprosarium started and when it finished.
The history of leprosy in the Northern Territory is a tragic history. Leprosy, especially in the early days, was treated as ‘the unclean’ as in the Bible. That is why people originally lived on Mud Island, which is the island in front of Wickham Point, if you can call it an island - it is just a strip of sand and a bit of mud. People lived there and they were put there to keep them away from the rest of us. Eventually, they moved to Channel Island and that was not much better. There was no connection to the mainland, so everything had to be shipped in. Sandflies and mosquitos were abundant, so eventually Channel Island was abandoned and East Arm Leprosarium was established.
There is a very long history which revolves around some very brave people. There are many Aboriginal people - and I would say there would be some alive today - who would have spent some of their time there. It is because of all those people who worked there that, eventually, we have been able to get on top of leprosy. Drugs are now much better than they used to be, and the care is much better. Leprosy is just about a dying disease if we can call it that - as we know, it has killed people - but hopefully it is a disease we will not see around much longer in the Northern Territory.
I put it to the government that progress is great, development is great, we need the port, we need the rail, but let us not forget some of the past. I hope the government and maybe the minister for Health might put it to the government for a memorial and perhaps a small ceremony there would be fitting for everything that has happened there in the past.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): It has been a long day, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would like to talk on a couple of issues tonight. First, following on from my colleague, the member for Arnhem, and his contribution to adjournment tonight on the Coniston Massacre and the reconciliation, essentially, that took place a couple of weeks ago between the families of those people affected and the Northern Territory Police. It just goes to show that the Territory is moving on, and we can address issues, such as Coniston and history, and move forward - and a big step forward - in reconciliation. I place on the record my congratulations to the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Police, particularly Gary Manison, in coming together to honestly appraise the history of what happened at Coniston, not that long ago, and actually come together in the spirit of reconciliation. It really does go to show that the Territory is moving forward when we are seeing things like this happening.
In some ways though, things never change. In parliament and the argy-bargy that goes on here, we have certainly seen a bit of robust debate in the last couple of days on the issue of alleged plagiarism. I would like to speak tonight, not so much in the defence of my colleagues - they capably and ably defended themselves - but of some of the hypocrisy from members opposite who throw the stones.
The member for Macdonnell, in his statement last night - I was upstairs, I did not see it - but there was a bit of a double act going on here regarding alleged plagiarism by the member for Sanderson. Obviously, we have had a good look at this alleged plagiarism overnight. When you go through the quotes that were used in this debate last night by the member for Macdonnell, the vast majority of those quotes were actually attributed by the member for Sanderson, absolutely the vast majority of them. We have been through with the highlighters. The member for Macdonnell is at it again. He is back on the front bench, he is out to make a name for himself. He is being very deceitful in what he is saying. In fact, there was so much of that work that was actually attributed, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, by yourself, it was really hard to find bits that possibly were not.
In the whole hoo-ha of this particular debate, I would like to advise honourable members, as Leader of Government Business, I have had look at the standing orders and there is certainly nothing in standing orders that says that there is any crime for quoting text, or commentary, or anything that is being researched; there is nothing in standing orders. Much of the member for Macdonnell’s diatribe last night was complaining about members not complying with the rules of footnoting. Well, there are no such rules of footnoting, certainly within standing orders. The member for Macdonnell has demanded strict compliance with these rules.
As my colleague, the member for Sanderson, said in his explanation this morning, all of us, as members of parliament, it is a bit of a different life as a minister, you have people who do the research for you, and present you with materials, but I have done my time in opposition as well, and sat upstairs on the 5th floor until two, three o’clock in the morning, researching responses to statements and what have you. But you do use material from all over the place in compiling responses. We all get made ministers or shadow ministers, or backbenchers, and are asked to contribute in areas of debate that we have no background in, that we have no history in, that we have no particular academic knowledge of. So you have to source material and use that material in contribution to the debate. That is part of the job of being a politician.
Certainly, in all cases, if you were using substantive slabs of material, yes, that should be attributed; it is just the natural thing to do. In the work that we have been through today from the member from Sanderson, he certainly does a lot of attributing, going through all of this. But, let us look …
Mr Elferink: No, he does not; he mentions. He leaves a couple of smoking guns and that is it!
Mr HENDERSON: … at the member for Macdonnell. He has been too smart - too smart by half here. According to the member for Macdonnell, if one does not do this, he or she is guilty of plagiarism and should be ashamed of themselves. There was language used by the member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: Come on, bring it on!
Mr HENDERSON: … ‘parasite’ I believe was one of the beautiful adjectives he used last night in this colourful language that the member for Macdonnell sometimes uses. This is the man, if you pour water, you are an instant expert on everything. I will certainly acknowledge that the member for Macdonnell works hard and does a lot of research, but he is an instant expert. On every topic that you wish to draw breath on, the member for Macdonnell has some informed opinion on.
However, obviously, since the member for Macdonnell’s comments last night, we have done a bit of research, as you would, to review some of the contributions the member for Macdonnell has made in this Chamber. We did not have to go very far, actually. It was somebody up on the 5th floor, a lawyer, said, ‘I remember last year in February – no, in February this year - in amendments to the Bail Act’. We have a few lawyers who work amongst our staff. I am certainly no lawyer, and the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General brings things into Cabinet. It makes my eyes glaze over, in the way lawyers think and what have you. We need lawyers, but I am not a lawyer. It certainly is not a world that I have ever moved in.
In came the member for Macdonnell with a very polished speech in regards to amendments to the Bail Act. He stood up like a bush lawyer, quoting and contributing very fulsomely to debate. Well, there are people upstairs on the 5th floor who are also lawyers and read the law journals and knew exactly where he was coming from in this particular debate. To say that the member for Macdonnell’s arguments were inspired by an article written by David Kell in the Australian Law Journal in 1994 would be an understatement. The entire arguments that the member for Macdonnell proffered in his contribution to that debate, theme by theme, was exactly the same as David Kell, with no attribution that these are the opinions of David Kell: ‘These are the opinions and I am going to rearticulate them because they form much of my own opinions’. No, no mention of that. He stood up here saying: ‘This is my great wisdom - my wisdom. These are my words, my thoughts, my contributions to this debate’. The entire presentation of the themes, even in the orders that Kell argued, were the same as in the member for Macdonnell’s statement.
However, it was worse than that. Not only did he follow the theme and the sequence of the theme of this great contribution to the amendments to the Bail Act - I wish they would work out on the other side who is the shadow Attorney-General. We have at least three of them over there. Two of them are actually qualified lawyers and one bush lawyer, wanting to contribute in detail regarding legislation. They still have not sorted out who is the shadow Attorney-General.
Not only was the actual theme and the arguments of Kell entirely replicated in the member for Macdonnell’s contribution to the debate - so he absolutely plagiarised the intellectual property of David Kell in forming his article - but he also lifted in parts, word for word - five sentences and 150 words copied word for word into the debate. So, not only did he steal the intellectual property of Kell in his arguments and the way he presented them, but he also took those words. After his contribution, the member for Macdonnell bounced back into this Chamber and said, and I quote:
- 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 before I quoted McPherson J of R v Watson. I want to state that article
was written by David Kell. I did read two sentences out of his article which were the original work, two sentences. I
wanted to place that on the record for the sake of being completely tidy regarding the work and the research that I
have done.
So one small mistake and wants to be completely tidy. So, I am not going to take issue with the fact that …
Mr Elferink: See, I came in here realising I’d made a mistake. I corrected it!
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Macdonnell and the arguments were stolen directly from David Kell, stealing his intellectual property of contribution …
Mr Elferink: This is the best you can do. This is so sad, mate!
Mr HENDERSON: We are not going to take argument with that. We are not going to take issue with the fact that he lifted 150 words word for word and then said, ‘Oh, it was only a couple of sentences’. I am going to take issue with the member for Macdonnell having complete double standards ...
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate! You are outrageous.
Mr HENDERSON: … and a level of hypocrisy in this debate. He preaches strict adherence to the rules of footnoting, to the concept of intellectual knowledge and capacity, and attributing that intellectual capacity into debates, yet he plagiarised entirely …
Mr Elferink: Oh, rubbish! You are full of it, mate.
Mr HENDERSON: Plagiarised entirely the work of David Kell in this report, Consent to Harmful Assaults Under the Queensland Criminal Code – Time for Re-Appraisal, and presented that as his own position. He lifted 150 words directly …
Mr Elferink: And attributed them. And attributed them by your own statements …
Mr HENDERSON: … but says oh no, you have to be holier than thou and present everything as your own work. When he does it himself it is a small mistake and we are just doing a bit of a tidy up. Yet when my colleague does this, ‘You are a parasite. You should be ashamed of yourself’. Now, what hypocrisy and absolute double standards by the member for Macdonnell in this particular instance. We chew up a lot of oxygen in this place, and my colleague, the Treasurer, has actually calculated how many thousands of dollars an hour it costs to run parliament. We spend a lot of time debating many important and serious issues ...
Mr Elferink: This is so sad.
Mr HENDERSON: Important and serious issues, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. But the nonsense that has been run in here is absolutely pathetic by those members opposite. And if this is the best you can do …
Mr Elferink: No, it is the best you can do.
Mr HENDERSON: If these are the most important issues facing the people of the Northern Territory, well, you are very much mistaken. I thought you got it right this morning. Finally we had a Question Time on something of substance. It took a while but you got there in the end. Those are the issues that Territorians are going to be interested in. If you are going to come in and play the man not the ball, well, you will get it back in spades.
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate!
Mr HENDERSON: So, this is a complete slump in the bush lawyer, the member for Macdonnell, coming in and saying: ‘I have this great opinion on reform of the Bail Act’. His whole argument is lifted from …
Mr Elferink: Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: Sequences of what was presented are listed in there, quoted word for word there, 150 words …
Mr Elferink: And then attributes it!
Mr HENDERSON: … and it is just a couple of words, a bit of a tidy up, an absolute hypocrisy from the member for Macdonnell. The words that were quoted last night by the member for Macdonnell, we have been through it, I am not going to go here word for word through it. But virtually everything there was attributed by the member for Sanderson …
Mr Elferink: You are a goose.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Macdonnell should go back to his electorate and take aim at the camels and instead of coming running in here …
Mr Elferink: Oh yeah, yeah, next!.. Maybe it is time to go for the goose season.
Mr HENDERSON: … with this type of rubbish. We know what his constituents are saying about him out in that part of his electorate …
Mr Elferink: You’ve been there?
Mr HENDERSON: Actually I was, I was out there just recently …
Members: Where? When? Was it Docker River? You should know where it is!
Mr HENDERSON: Not out in the Docker River region but I was certainly out in Hermannsburg just recently and had a chance to talk to some of his constituents.
But people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and for the member for Macdonnell to portray his position on the Bail Act as being his work, well, he has been caught out.
Mr Elferink: This is the best you can do! This is your best shot!
Mr HENDERSON: It was the work of David Kell in an article written in 1994.
Members: Table it! Table it!
Mr HENDERSON: We have not even started to have a look yet, so if that is the best he can do ...
Mr Elferink: Table it! Put it on the table!
Mr HENDERSON: We will table it. I have no problems tabling that whatsoever. But the member for Macdonnell is a hypocrite. It is an absolutely pathetic debate. He has been caught out, and I am sure we will have a theatrical response.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind members that I am aware that there has been a meal in progress to welcome the new member to the House, but I would temper all contributions in the knowledge that some people have been at this meal.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have heard some desperate things in this House in the past, but that is outrageous. The only thing that I did was that I said something in a debate and so concerned was I about the fact that I had used a quote and had not attributed it, at the next available opportunity, I entered this parliament and corrected it, so concerned am I about those sorts of issues.
It is astonishing that with 50 researchers upstairs trawling through probably every speech I have ever given in this place, the best they can do is that there might be a similarity between something that somebody once wrote in the terms of the order that they wrote upon an issue, which, by the way, has a certain logical progression to it, that I am suddenly some sort of plagiarist. Well, I will talk to you about attributing by the member for Sanderson, and I would care to have the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services listen to this. I quote the member for Sanderson:
- I would like to continue with my contribution as over here, we on the backbench are given the opportunity to
research our own work and write up our own contributions. I would hate to see my labours cast away as such.
Having introduced his own work, the member for Sanderson then goes on to plagiarise in the most outrageous terms from the Holmes O’Malley Sexton solicitors’ web site in Ireland. It is as simple as that. That is act of being a parasite that I referred to.
I said in my speech last night that on occasion, the member for Sanderson had left a smoking gun in the speech in the sense that he mentions the author, mentions the report and then goes on to lift whole blocks. It must be also remembered that the member for Sanderson is sent a copy …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! By the member for Macdonnell’s own definition of plagiarism that he tendered here last night, it necessarily involves a student. The member for Sanderson is neither a student or anything related to a student. The member for Macdonnell should be very careful with a serious allegation of plagiarism by his own definition which, under Standing Order 62, is imputing all sorts of improper motives and conduct to a member of this Assembly.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Macdonnell of Standing Order 62 and the inference to members in the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have this member plagiarising this directly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Here we have the member for Macdonnell again making an allegation of plagiarism, a very serious offence, which, by his own definition, could never apply to anyone within this House. Besides that, he should be aware that copyright does not apply to debates within this House, so the allegation of plagiarism is completely misplaced. It is absolutely pernicious and he should withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, he did not mention anything to do with students. He mentioned plagiarising and he did so on the basis that the member for Sanderson actually apologised for that offence. So, if a matter has been before this House …
Dr Burns: Speaking to the point of order …
Mr DUNHAM: … there has been an apology tendered, so the case has been rendered. All he is doing now – no, no, no – and I would ask that the clock be stopped if these frivolous, vexatious points of order are going to continue.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are the one who jumped. I am not stopping the clock.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night in the debate - and I am looking at page 54 of the Hansard rushes - the member for Macdonnell defined plagiarism as follows:
- Plagiarism is the presentation of the work of another without acknowledgement. Students may use information …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale! Before I rule on this, member for Johnston, member for Macdonnell, are you aware of the convention for copyright in the House?
Mr ELFERINK: I am fully aware of parliamentary privilege, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: But as it applies to copyright, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, do I have a ruling?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the ruling is that under section 62, you can’t - I do not have the book in front of me, but, well if you could read that out to me, member for Macdonnell. Do you have 62 there?
Mr Dunham: No, make a ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I am running out of time …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Do I have a ruling from you?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will make a ruling. Withdraw the term ‘plagiarism’.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will make a ruling.
__________________
Dissent from Ruling of Acting Deputy Speaker
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling, under Standing Order 220. I request that the Speaker be brought back into the Chamber forthwith. I also request, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that the clock be stopped whilst we deal with this dissent motion.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Stop the clock.
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Well, he has not given a ruling yet.
Mr ELFERINK: I am dissenting from the ruling, he just gave one. You clowns come in here, you think that this Chamber, which is a democratic place where people are allowed to talk, is somewhere you can shut down debate. Well I am dissenting from the ruling.
Dr Burns: No one said that; he has not given a ruling.
Mr Dunham: He gave a ruling that plagiarism was not allowed. That is the ruling he gave.
Dr Burns: He did not.
A member: The Speaker has left the Chair.
Dr Lim: The Speaker has left the Chair. You cannot just walk out …
The DEPUTY CLERK: Can someone take the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: I have a motion here from the member for Macdonnell dissenting from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. Is that correct?
Honourable members, we have a motion of dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. We have had it seconded by the member for Drysdale. The question is the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion ...
Mr Henderson: It can be debated.
Madam SPEAKER: It can be debated. Leader of Government Business, sorry, do you want to speak to the motion?
Mr HENDERSON: That is what I was seeking clarification on because I was unclear as to whether the Acting Deputy Speaker had actually made a ruling at all.
Dr Burns: He had not made an order.
Mr Wood: Yes, he had.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned as to what is the motion that is currently before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, I am sorry to be coming in on this. Did the Acting Deputy Speaker make a ruling on the point of order that was made?
Mr Dunham: He asked that the word ‘plagiarist’ be withdrawn.
Mr Kiely: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Who moved the point of order?
Mr Henderson: The member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, the member for Johnston. Did the Acting Deputy Speaker then say there was no point of order? He said there was a point of order?
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a minute, let me hear from the Deputy Clerk.
The Acting Deputy Speaker actually made a ruling that it was out of order and asked you to withdraw. The member for Macdonnell then refused to withdraw. Is that when you moved the motion of dissent?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I was directed by the Acting Deputy Speaker to Standing Order 62 and told to withdraw the word ‘plagiarism’. I dissent from that ruling.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I based that ruling after asking the member for Macdonnell whether he understood the terms of copyright …
Mr Elferink: It was not your job to cross-examine me, sunshine!
Mr KIELY: … and plagiarism. I made the ruling that the word ‘plagiarist’ should be withdrawn, as had been requested by the member for Johnston, on the basis – and this is from the Parliamentary Library Service – in regard to a background paper on copyright:
- Freedom of speech by a member or Senator in the parliament is, of course, a fundamental privilege recognised
by the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1987 and section 49 of the Constitution. That privilege was received from the
parliament of the United Kingdom where it was derived from article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689. This privilege
means that a member or Senator, or a witness who appears before a parliamentary committee, is immune from legal
action or anything said in the debate or in the proceedings of parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: The way I read it, what we are talking about now is that the Acting Deputy Speaker made a ruling and the member for Macdonnell has moved dissent against the ruling …
Mr Elferink: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and that is exactly what we are debating at the moment.
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Is everyone quite clear? The motion is that the member for Macdonnell dissents from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker - regardless of what the ruling was or anything like that, all he has done is dissent from the ruling. Quite clear on that?
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. It has been seconded by the member for Drysdale.
Mr Kiely: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: The question I am putting to you is: is the dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I dissent and have chosen to move this motion of dissent because I am no longer confident that the member for Sanderson, when sitting on that Chair which you now occupy, is able to be a fair and open arbiter in this House. There has been a trend, unfortunately, in the last two years where that Chair has been used by people who sit in it as a way of manipulating what happens in the House, and having the effect of reducing the ability of members to speak freely and openly in this House.
This House is a parliament; the root word it comes from is the French ‘parlez’, to talk. This is a place where people talk. It is a fundamental of democracy that people be allowed to speak their minds in this House. Yes, there is always banter; yes, there is often argument across the floor. However, at the end of the day, surely members should be allowed to talk. Frivolous is the only way that I could begin to describe the points of order that were being called by the minister for primary industry. The fact that the Acting Deputy Speaker allowed those points of order not to go on for moments but for minutes, and the refusal by the Acting Deputy Speaker to hold the clock, thus allowing the minister for primary industry to take up my speaking time on frivolous points of order - shutting me down - is an outrage. It is an outrage and it is a breach of trust of Territorians. That is how serious this issue is, Madam Speaker.
To then finally come forward and make a ruling, telling me that under Standing Order 62, that I could not use the word ‘plagiarism’ is for me absolutely astonishing. ‘Plagiarism’ is a perfectly good English word. It is a perfectly acceptable word. It is not offensive in the sense that other words are offensive. The words I refer to are expletives and unparliamentary language, like ‘liar’ and such things. What is being allowed to occur by make such stupid, short sighted rulings, or the effect is, is that I and other members on this side of the House are not being allowed to speak.
This is an affront to this parliament. It is an affront to the people of the Northern Territory, and if the accusations of arrogance that used to get levelled at the former CLP government are anything to go by, these guys have learned nothing from what they used to accuse us of.
Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that I have been asked to withdraw that word. I am dismayed under the obtuse use of standing orders to achieve that, and it is for that reason that I have chosen to move dissent.
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chair was vacated in the course of this debate. I seek the guidance of the Chair and the Clerk to advise me on the continuance of this parliament tonight on the matter of this because the Chair was vacated for some time. In fact, there were calls from the floor for the Chair to be occupied, for some minutes. I call your attention to the fact that the Chair was vacated by the Acting Deputy Speaker, of his own volition. I am merely asking where this parliament stands on rules of debate from here on.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order. The Chair was not vacated, Madam Speaker.
There was an exchange of Deputy Speakers from one Speaker to the other Speaker to the Chair. Now, that is standard behaviour in this House, as people move from one to the other. If the opposition want to debate this tonight, let us debate this issue, not bring in some red herring when there was a transfer from one Deputy Speaker to the other, that somehow the Chair was vacated because it was not the case.
Madam SPEAKER: My advice is that the member for Sanderson stood down from the Chair and the member for Barkly took the Chair over.
Mr Dunham: He did not take the Chair, Madam Speaker. He refused to take the Chair.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber and I saw the member for Macdonnell approach the Deputy Clerk to hand him his written notice of dissent which was then duly handed to the Acting Deputy Speaker. He read the document. He got out of the Chair. He walked toward the rear exit at which time there were calls from the floor to say, ‘Take the Chair’. When he looked quite perplexed and unsure of where he was going, some of us yelled out, ‘Elliot, take the Chair’, at which time the member for Barkly approached the Chair, declined to sit in the Chair, motioned to the Deputy Clerk for advice, at which time you then entered the Chamber. The member for Sanderson was missing from the Chair for quite a protracted period of time …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point?
Dr LIM: The Chair was vacated. We are asking, as the member for Drysdale has asked, what is the decision on that when the Chair is vacated for a significant time.
Madam SPEAKER: I did receive notice that I was needed in the Chamber and I came, as you know Leader of the Opposition, when that was indicated to me. I seek the Clerk’s guidance. The fact was that there was a change of people in the Chair, but there was no adjournment of the House. There was no motion to adjourn the House or suspend sittings. I am now here so carry on.
We now have a motion before the Chair that the member for Macdonnell has dissented from a ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion, I was the one who raised the issue in respect of Standing Order 62, which I will read:
- No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or any member of the Assembly or
against any House or member of another Australian parliament or against any member of the judiciary or
against any Northern Territory statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal nor shall a member …
And this is the crucial part:
- … attribute directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives …
Over the past couple of days, the word ‘plagiarism’ has been bandied about this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: The motion is about dissenting from the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling, and I would like all members who speak on this to stick to that point.
Dr BURNS: I am sticking to the point, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Then make it quickly.
Dr BURNS: I raised this standing order because plagiarism is a very serious charge. It has been bandied around this Chamber for a number of days now. The charges have been unsubstantiated. They continue to be levelled. The member for Macdonnell defined plagiarism in the context of educational institutions and examinations within educational institutions, yet he wants to apply plagiarism to this Chamber and offerings within this Chamber.
I have looked at the offerings by the member for Sanderson, which have been allegedly unattributed, and the majority of them have been attributed. In my own case, the allegation …
Madam SPEAKER: Stick to the subject, thank you, which is the dissent.
Mr Burke: It was a down right lie in your own case.
Dr Burns: I beg your pardon?
Mr Burke: It was a down right lie.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask the member …
Mr Elferink: This place is becoming a circus under your government and you are not concerned.
Mr Stirling: You are making a circus, you goose.
Mr Elferink: No! You guys are making it a circus by putting that clown in that chair and you know it, Syd.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Drysdale to withdraw the allegation that my colleague is a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you make an allegation, member for Drysdale?
Mr BURKE: It is withdrawn, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I did not, Madam Speaker. He is mistaken.
Dr Burns: The member for Brennan, it was.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear it, but, member for Johnston, you are on your feet. Remember what the motion is. It is about dissent from the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. I would like to get this cleared quickly. Do you have any more comments to make?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, in essence, the member for Macdonnell has been attributing conduct and motives to members regarding plagiarism, which I believe are unsubstantiated and, on that basis, I raised that standing order. I do not think he has substantiated any of those claims, particularly in relation to the member for Sanderson or, in a wider sense, in relation to me. These are serious charges that have been made flippantly. That is why I raised Standing Order 62 and I believe there is substance in the point of order I raised in relation to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Elferink: Then why didn’t you raise it when that clown was making the same allegations?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here he is again, calling people clowns!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, did you do that? Withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Withdrawn, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I believe we should wrap this up.
Madam SPEAKER: So do I.
Mr BURKE: The point that the member for Johnston gets so upset about – he really should think about the reason he is so aggrieved. The reason the opposition has made comment is that in a ministerial statement that you made, part of the statement was that your department had met with the Central Land Council over the last year or so in two separate locations, which was similar – absolutely, word for word – to a statement from former minister Palmer. You have not admitted at this stage whether or not that paragraph was totally fanciful. You have not admitted that it was a lie.
We would not have this aggravation tonight if you accepted the fact that, first, in the case of your ministerial statement, you should be at the very least embarrassed. From an academic point of view, you should be humiliated.
In the case of the member for Sanderson, I would submit that on any case, prima facie, it is plagiarism. You can object to that, but I would let the average person decide.
There are two issues here tonight. One is dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy Speaker. Obviously, the government will win that on the numbers so we should not labour that any longer.
There was also an issue of vacancy of the Chair. You have resolved that. I move that the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: We have a motion on the floor.
Mr Baldwin: The ayes have it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the ayes have it that we put the motion. That is what the Leader of the Opposition moved. So the question now is that the dissent moved by the member for Macdonnell be agreed to.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what the motion was: the motion be put. I am putting the motion, the dissent motion. Do you understand? So we are now voting on that the dissent motion moved by the member for Macdonnell be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
___________________
Madam SPEAKER: Let me just say that a motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling, particularly a Deputy Speaker’s ruling, is highly irregular. It is something that you should think seriously about in the future. It is most unfair when you come in at a late hour like this throwing things around, and I am very disappointed that the Acting Deputy Speaker has been put through this ordeal.
The matter is now closed. We are back to the Adjournment debate and the only people I will accept to speak are those who have not spoken in the Adjournment tonight.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As a result of this particular ruling, do I understand it that the word ‘plagiarism’ is now unparliamentary?
Madam SPEAKER: No, that was not what we just voted on. We just voted on dissent from Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. So get it right. The Acting Deputy Speaker made a ruling, and that is what you objected to. The next round of when it is raised, whoever is in the Chair can then make their own judgment accordingly. As you know, Deputy Speakers or Speakers tend to make decisions depending on the situation and the circumstances. Tonight, that was not acceptable, and that was the Acting Deputy Speaker’s ruling. Another time, it may be different.
Now, why are you on your feet, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I wish to continue with my adjournment debate. We have just seen, in this House, the extraordinary business of this government now trying to change the rulings, or affect the rulings of the Chair, so that they are effectively silencing members.
What I was basically saying was that the member for Sanderson had plagiarised work from the Holmes O’Malley Sexton solicitors’ web site. The defence that the Leader of Government Business chose to run was that I had spoken in a debate in relation to the Bail Act. They could not find anything in that, other than some words which I had used. So careful was I about this particular issue, that I came back into this House at a later speech to correct the mistake I had made. I have no problem with making mistakes in this House. I came into this House to correct the mistake I had made, and have done nothing wrong.
This is just a sordid, little attempt by a government to cover for somebody in their ranks who simply lifted material; to lift the material, plagiarise, whatever. But at the end of the day, the member stands up in this House and says, ‘I would like to continue with my contribution, as over here, we on the backbench, I, I, I, we, we, we. This is my piece of work’. So, misleading were those statements, that if memory serves me correctly, the Attorney-General spoke after the member for Sanderson spoke, and the Attorney-General used the term ‘statesman-like’, in the speech that he delivered.
There is nothing statesman-like in relation to what the member for Sanderson had done and said. The fact is he did not attribute, anywhere in his speech on that day, anything to Holmes O’Malley Sexton, Barristers and Solicitors in Ireland. That is the fact. What is the government’s response? Well, oddly enough, the member came into this House this morning and apologised for something that he had not done, according to the Leader of Government Business. Why would the member for Sanderson be apologising for something he had not done, unless he got hammered by his own people last night? All they want to do is engage in some little muckraking exercise to try to cover their own shortcomings. Well, that is going to fall well short of any mark they have tried to set. That is the very best they can do. All that staff to do all that research, and the best they can do is that.
The fact is there is a hierarchy of responsibility, which is now clear. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries said that plagiarism, according to my definition, only applies to students, therefore I cannot use the word ‘plagiarism’ in this House. Well, I use the word ‘plagiarism’ and I use it directed towards the member for Sanderson and the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. However, in the hierarchy of plagiarism, if you are a student, you are failed in the Northern Territory. If you are a government backbencher, you are made to apologise and, if you are a government minister, you can plagiarise to your heart’s content and you can simply blame it on a public servant.
The hallmark of this government is to blame it on the public service. We have seen it in the minister for Police, and now in the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Well, hell, what do you know? The minister for Police was given an opportunity to back up his most senior public servant and failed to do so. The moment there is a bit of trouble for the minister for primary industry, it is a public servant he wants to blame.
Madam Speaker, I also want to finish tonight with some comments about what happened in here tonight, and what has been happening in the Chair in your absence. I have to put on the record that I am dismayed at some of the antics of Deputy Speakers in the Chair over the last two years …
Mr Henderson: You are a sanctimonious windbag!
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. What is so sanctimonious about having my right to speak in this Chamber?
Mr Dunham: Nothing, mate.
Mr ELFERINK: Nothing. This government, by allowing its backbenchers to behave in such a sordid, tawdry, poor, ineffective, biased manner in that Chair, is cheapening this place in a way that is just astonishing. I have never heard a Speaker of any parliament in any place demand from a member a lecture on copyright rules in an effort to interfere with the member’s speech. What an extraordinary thing to do! I have never heard a point of order go on and on and on in the fashion that a point of order was allowed to go on and on and on by the Acting Deputy Speaker.
We should put on the record that the Acting Deputy Speaker tonight was the member for Sanderson. I put that on the record because he has a vested interest in how this debate goes - he has a vested interest. Because of the fact that he was behaving in such a fashion, it shows that he is prepared to undermine the very fundamentals …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker!. The member is reflecting on the Chair and, at the time, he is a person appointed by this Chamber to sit in that Chair. To say that the member for Sanderson has a vested interest in the debate is something that I find highly disgusting and out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to admit it was unfortunate that the member for Sanderson was in the Chair when such allegations were being made. I believe, though, that we have accepted that it happened and we need to move on. Member for Macdonnell, conclude your remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the sort of problem I have. Every time somebody says something on this side of the House that that government does not like, they call points of order …
Madam SPEAKER: It happens both ways, member for Macdonnell. Both sides tend to do it. Keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, every time somebody says something they do not like, the effect from the Chair - other than when you are in it - is just outright interference. They deliberately interfere in the way that debates are run. Madam Speaker, you are aware that I have raised this issue outside this Chamber on several occasions with you. I am fully aware of how serious a dissent motion is. I felt I was now being pushed into a situation where I had no choice. The point of order was going on and on and on. I simply asked for the clock to be stopped. The response to that was, ‘Give me a lecture on copyright law in Australia’.
It is just astonishing that this House is being corrupted in that fashion in your absence. It concerns me deeply. And now I put it on the record loud and publicly that this Chamber is being abused in a horrible fashion by this government. This Chamber is a place where I have earned the right to speak on behalf of Territorians in my electorate as has every other member in this Chamber. To allow cheap shots and the stunts that have been pulled to continue, Madam Speaker, is to me a great, great loss. The members opposite are now laughing and joking and they think it is funny.
Members interjecting:
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that these members sitting here think it is funny, they think it is a joke, is a reprehensible indictment on this government. This government came to power with certain promises and they have failed to live up to their contract with the people in the Northern Territory. Now the very institution of the parliament itself is being eroded by a government which sees it as nothing else than an impediment on how they do business.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a couple things tonight. One that has arisen is an issue that I raised in the context of the debate from the minister for primary industries on 7 October. Members may recall that I sought confirmation from the minister, or advice from the minister, as to whether the horticulture section at the Alice Springs Gaol had been closed. In his later reply on 7 October and I quote, he said:
- I am informed that she …
… is incorrect in claiming that horticultural program at the Alice Springs prison has been closed. The extensive
horticultural area for low security prisoners is still functioning at the Cottages along with the chook farm, but
the farm outside the prison wall is also functioning.
The following day in a ministerial report, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General commented that he was at the gaol - I think it was a couple of weeks ago and his words were he was ‘up to his arm pits in vegetable and chooks’. I obtained further advice from a person who works at the prison and I now invite, on a subsequent occasion, either the minister for primary industries or the minister for justice to confirm whether it is the case that the horticultural section within the gaol that operated in the management zone and was manned by Aboriginal prisoners has been shut down, and whether the horticulture officer who worked in that area has been relegated to other duties.
I will flag that because I actually really do want an answer to this, I might put the question on notice. But in the context of a couple of debates it is important for me to pursue the matter on the Parliamentary Record. That was the first matter I wanted to deal with.
The next one was to thank the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed. It is the case that many members of the opposition over the course of next week will be having a word or two to say about Mike Reed. I would very much like to contribute to providing a bundle of speeches which Mike Reed will probably never read. In fact, I suspect that what we will do is bundle them up and give the speeches to his wife because it is very unlikely that Reedy will read them. That is what makes him fundamentally different from anyone else who has occupied a place in the Chamber. Even if we would not publicly admit that we read speeches that were made about us, we might in a quite moment sit down and read those speeches. Well, I am not sure that Mike will ever read the speeches. I am fairly confident that Anne will and no doubt she will pass on the sentiments that members of the CLP will and have expressed.
Obviously, I am a newcomer to the parliament, and a relative newcomer, I suppose, to the CLP. Not long after I was preselected, I knew that the time would come when I would have to work with Mike Reed. He was not a man I knew at all well. I was a bit fearful of him because I had heard all of the dreadful stories. After my preselection, I met him officially at the turning of the sod of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. I had heard a lot about Mike Reed. I understand that a member of his family was sick at the time of my preselection, so he was not there, and he did not know me from a bar of soap.
However, to his great credit, he came bouncing up to me at the site of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, extended his hand and said how much he was looking forward to working with me. I was greatly relieved because I had heard that he was everything from a pain, an aggressive man – I suppose the word I am looking for is ‘bastard’, which, in the context of this speech, I am sure will be permitted.
I then got to know Mike and became very fond of him, and respected him ...
Mrs Miller: You’re right. You’re doing good, doing good.
Ms CARNEY: I respect him a great deal. Who would have thought that something like this would happen in the context of having a chat about Mike Reed?
I have to say that as a new member, he was really very good to me, notwithstanding all of the horrible stories about this bloke. He was very good to both the member for Goyder and me, always a man who never held back with his advice, never fearful of providing it to anyone about any thing. The member for Katherine always showed great integrity, great commitment, and what was most interesting was an incisive political mind.
It is really quite funny. When the members for Drysdale and Daly were talking yesterday, it sounded as though Mike Reed was dead, but clearly, that is not the case. Perhaps this is a taste of things to come when he finally does move on. He was held in great esteem by many people - across political fences, I might say.
The most fascinating part about Mike Reed is that as I got to know him better, I used to go home and tell all sorts of ‘Reedy’ stories. I would need a couple of days of debriefing because Reedy is the funniest person I know, by a country mile, and I would tell some of my friends - some of them are good Labor voters, I should say – and they would say to me: ‘You realise you are talking about Mike Reed?’. I would say, ‘I know! I know I am talking about Mike Reed, but he’s a really good bloke. He’s very funny’. And I would tell all sorts of stories.
He is something of an enigma. He is something of a caricature of himself. His public image, it is fair to say, is appalling. People think that he is a red neck, sexist, racist pig. As I got to know him, I learnt that that just was not the case. I have heard him give quite passionate speeches about Aboriginal people. Despite his humour, he is good to women in that general, small-p political sense. This demonstrates that he really is not the man who the public might think he is.
What is also interesting about Mike Reed is the way he conducted himself in the parliament. He knew all of this was a complete circus, yet he knew when to take it very, very seriously. What I thought was really very sweet was the relationship that he developed with the member for Nhulunbuy, and it really was a very sweet arrangement. It is fair to say, on any analysis, that the Rottweiler on this side of the parliament was Mike Reed and the Rottweiler on that side of the parliament is the member for Nhulunbuy. I respect both of these blokes enormously. What is quite delightful is the respect that these two have for each other. It was very quaint that they could be screaming at each other at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning. By 4 pm, one of them would, I gather, say to the other, ‘Should we have a drink?’ They would go to a room out the back and talk about all sorts of things, which I always understood was their own cone of silence. It was never the case that Mike Reed came into us and said, ‘You will never guess what Syd said’. They obviously had a very sophisticated arrangement and understanding whereby they appreciated the funny side of parliament, the serious side of parliament, but the need for members to develop good working relationships. I suspect, although neither of them would admit it - although they might, you never know – that they are actually quite fond of each other. As a new member, that was really delightful to watch.
I wish Mike every success in his retirement. When he came in here the other day, it is fair to say that he was beaming; a happier man I have never seen. A man who takes his bird watching, his interest in parks, and his family incredibly seriously. I am sure he will pursue those interests with continued vigour. He will do so in a way that will make him happier and more balanced. He will have time to pursue those things without the public gaze or the pressure of work, whether it is in government or in opposition. I wish him the very best.
As a new member of parliament, I would like to thank him. He was very generous with his time, always happy to answer questions, and to assist in what ever way he could. I would like to thank him for that. He was always incredibly frank with his advice, as I am sure you would well know, sometimes too frank, sometimes brutally frank, but it is fair to say that you always knew where you stood with Mike Reed. Which is great. In this day and age, and perhaps more so in this job than many others, you do not always know where you stand with other people. But you do know where you stand with Mike Reed. So I would like to thank him, I would like to wish him well, and we will miss him.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): First, a little tribute to you, Madam Speaker. I am glad you intervened when you did. I have been associated with this parliament for some time and we are on the verge of, well not the point of no return, but we are in a period where it needed control in the Chair. I thank you for doing what you did. It is a difficult thing when you are in a combative, robust situation like that, and the Chair is vacated. For you to be vigilant about what was happening, come in and restore order, is a tribute to you, Madam Speaker.
I now want to talk about the Katherine by-election. With the Katherine by-election, we saw some of the good things and some of the bad things in politics. I have fronted for the CLP in many elections, both bush and town, Katherine, for myself even, in 1990, one of my booths was at the Katherine Town Chamber, and I won that booth, thankfully, but lost the election. I know a bit about Katherine, and I know a bit about politics, I know a bit about the CLP, I know a bit about the ALP.
However, this last election is something that really needs some analysis. Labor would believe that the difference is that they are now in government and had access to resources. Certainly, when I spent some time with their candidates, they were quite incredulous about the fact that they went out in their ones and twos at the last occasion. On this occasion, they went out in force. Darwin came and helped them, and they had all these resources of publications, smart polling, analysis from the HQ down south, and all that sort of stuff that they had never seen before. They were pretty buoyant about it. They were saying thing like, ‘Gee, I hope this happens next time’. Interestingly, the president of the local branch was in Darwin on the day of the election, because what had happened was, the machine rolled up, the machine turned up in Katherine, and it turned up totally armed. They had every armament for an election that you would want.
They had the big guns, little guns, covert agents, the whole lot - they had the works, and they lost. The spin on it is: ‘Well, we did better than last time’. I try to do a bit of analysis for elections and I can tell you they got 26% last time. There was a bloke, Mick Pearce, who stood for them. When you look at what happened when Labor won government, virtually, if you were a member the Labor Party, you got a job. I believe that 90% of the membership of the Labor Party got a job somewhere in the system, except Mick Pearce. You have to ask why. The reason is that, while Mick is a pretty straight sort of bloke, he is not particularly attractive to the voters or even his own party, as was evidenced by the fact that he was among the very small percent of them who did not pick up a job. So, there is Mick who gets 26%. That is an environment where the CLP was supposed to be in its ascendancy and all that sort of stuff. I would have thought if you were an analyst, you would look at that and say, ‘Mick Pearce, the week before the election, went out into the Daly … - he never even canvassed Katherine, I do not think he even doorknocked – ‘… not a particularly candidate attractive politically …’ - or aesthetically or in any way really – ‘…but he gets 26%. The incumbent, Mike Reed, gets 52%’.
The people up on the 5th floor would have said: ‘Hey, we are in with a chance here; we have got rid of the incumbency. We must have a baseline of 26% surely. Surely, we have to improve on that’. So, in they came with their apparatchiks, the machine, the sweaty people from down south who really did not understand what being in Katherine in October was going to be all about - in they came. So, you doorknocked the house - I did not doorknock because you would realise it was obviously empty, and the letterbox would be full of all of the stuff with Clare’s face on it, how you could not trust the CLP and all that sort of stuff, just jammed in about that high. We had one or two items amongst that mail, I will admit, but it was pretty serious stuff - glossy, fold-out, colour, all that sort of stuff.
Doorknocking: I am quite happy to say I went doorknocking for Fay, and I enjoyed it. People in this House know I am a native of Katherine. I love the place, and I do not need an election to go there. I would be happy to doorknock next week, regardless of an election. I would be happy to go anywhere in Katherine next week and talk to people regardless of the election, because I love the place, the people interface with you, and their frankness. So, I went out.
What Katherine people saw was a sweaty, florid person, obviously from out of Katherine, who did not know anything about the place, pushing a case that they knew that they could parrot, but knew nothing about the place. The interesting thing was - certainly from the people I spoke to, and I probably spoke to hundreds - they did not ask us what our policy on this was or that was; they wanted a person. They knew they had a strong, competent, former Cabinet member in Mike Reed, and they wanted someone who could replicate that. Not another Mike Reed look alike. but someone strong, definitely Katherine focussed, definitely ultra-jingoistic about the centre of the universe.
I am tempted to give the Labor Party some hints here, and it might backfire on us because they might actually take them up. However, I will give you a couple. The business about putting Clare’s photo with your candidate is probably a good idea if your poll said: ‘Pete, she has high recognition’, but I was a bit worried on the Saturday when you pulled her photo off the bottom of the NT News. All the way through it was like Siamese twins - we are voting for people with two heads, or one person with two heads’. Come election day, on the Saturday banner down on the bottom of the paper – whoops! - one of them was missing in action. They had pulled the Chief Minister.
We thought: ‘Gee, they must be hearing the same stuff we are hearing’. This is not a clever thing in Katherine to say: ‘Vote for me because I will do whatever Clare tells me’. It came home to roost. There were people who talked to us and said: ‘The Chief Minister doorknocked us last night and she had that lady with her’. We said: ‘What lady?’. ‘Well, the lady who does not talk, but who is with Clare’. It was a very dumb move - pretty dumb. There is one little hint.
I can give you a couple of others. All those sweaty Darwin people who do not like being in Katherine - do not bring them. If you do not like being in Katherine and you are trying to convince people to vote for you, do not bring all these people from the 5th floor. Leave them up there; they are so used to airconditioning, leave them there. They were uncomfortable there, they let everyone know how hot it was. So, if you really want to run a Katherine campaign, there is hint No 2 - I will not give you any more, there is probably about 50 of them - pick Katherine people. Get Katherine people on side and they will help you.
One of the reasons we were successful is that our successful candidate, Fay Miller, had an army of helpers – an army of them. Even the people who came from Darwin, and there were a few of us, we had a connection with the town. We had a connection with the town. We loved the place.
Mr Vatskalis: Some of us like Katherine.
Mr DUNHAM: We love the place. Well, it is not evident. It is not evident.
Mr Vatskalis: I was there quite a bit.
Mr DUNHAM: So, you might like the place. The Chief Minister said, ‘Yes, of course we filmed locally. I had to stand out in 34 degree heat and get a camera put on me in Katherine’. How terrible! Well, would you believe people actually work there, live there, recreationally, they love the place. So, the fact that the Chief Minister found it hard to do a photo shoot, you have to say, well, wrong call really. No, I will not give you any more, but you understand the theme.
You are the wrong people bringing a big city campaign to a small town and they picked someone they knew. They knew all the candidates. Jimmy is well known to all of them. Now we get to the business about win at any price, whatever it takes. It is the name of a book written by a bloke called ex Senator Richardson and it is offensive to some of us politicians because they are lines. You cannot just go in and just do whatever it takes to win. That is what Labor did. They said: ‘Whatever we need to do, we will do. If we need to poll, push poll, run subversive campaigns, run allegations that are defamatory and untrue on the radio, through the ABC …’ - and I may as well say it in parliament – ‘… one of our allies on the air, two days before the campaign, we will do it’. They had three how-to-vote cards. This is unknown in Territory politics. I know there are a few students of politics and the Electoral Office helps them because they make sure that some of this paraphernalia is gathered up and put in the State Library and I agree with that - eventually you have to come back and have a look.
The last election we were pilloried for putting One Nation before Labor. So we said, ‘You have us and you have our enemies, Labor, and in the middle you have a rabble’. Now some of that rabble in some sense was One Nation. So, they ran a campaign saying, ‘Aha, CLP are preferencing One Nation’. We saw when we had this little intrusion on parliament, they preferenced the Social Democrats, the fruit bats and all these other people who are out there running smoking for peace gunga parties in Raintree Park. But okay, leave that alone. Let us talk about Katherine. You have to preference everybody. So, to say they preferenced One Nation is a fact of having a formal ballot paper. You have to preference everybody. But who you preference above us was the push poll technique that they used at the last campaign.
The push poll technique was, ‘We are Labor and we are nice and One Nation is above us, therefore the CLP like Pauline Hansen and all that goes with it’. Now that is almost actionable legally and I actually have a legal opinion on it, but we thought not to run. In Katherine, we had three how-to-vote cards and in typical Labor fashion it was duplicitous; we had a two faced party with a two faced card. On one face, they had Jimmy Forscutt. I know Jim and I hope what I say does not worry him too much, but he is very close to the Nats and he is very close to One Nation. He is very close to some of the stuff that they found offensive at the last general election. So 1, Labor; 2, Jimmy, we love you. Kiss kiss, both cheeks, okay. So, that was Jimmy.
Other side, Labor; Carl Bader. Now, Carl - Markus Bader, sorry. Carl Bader was my next door neighbour and his parents are known to me. All the Bader family are known to me and I treat them as friends from Katherine. However, in politics you would have to say Markus had a chequered background. If you were going to go to polls and say a man who confessed to going to jail for assaults and all this sort of stuff, is our second preference, you would have to say that you were taking on exactly the mantle that you tried to put on us, the cloak you tried to put on us about One Nation. You are either very lose to Jim Forscutt, whose background is definitely close to One Nation, or Markus Bader, whose background he divulged of his own volution and everybody knew, or you have got a third option. The third option is a Labor person standing in front of a booth saying do not vote for Labor. Because if you do not put Labor 1, you are saying do not vote for them.
We had Labor apparatchiks stripping off their Labor livery and putting on some sort of mufti to pretend that they were incognito, saying, ‘Psst! You want to buy a naughty post card?’. But in this case, what they were doing is holding up a card saying, ‘1 - Jim Forscutt’. These are Labor people handing out a ‘Vote 1, Jim Forscutt’ to our candidate.
These three how-to-vote cards also went against them. How can you make a decision about the railway, a convention centre, how many specialists you should have in your hospital if you do not even know who your second favourite candidate is, for God’s sake? If you cannot make the basic decision to win the campaign and that person should be second on the card, if you have to make a decision that maybe Jimmy should win the campaign and we should be second, or maybe we should and Jimmy should be second, or maybe we should and Markus Bader should be second – three how-to-vote cards, all written and authorised by the Labor Party. I have never seen anything like it in my life.
I do not know what poor old – what’s his name? The third bloke.
Mrs Miller: Peter Byers.
Mr DUNHAM: Peter Byers had done to them, but you’d reckon they could have come up with a fourth card. I do not know how many permutations there are – I can’t remember my maths – but there has to be 20 permutations, and they came up with three cards.
The other thing I have to say – and this is something I will pursue – is the allegation that was made about illicit activity on the part of our candidate two days out from an election is absolutely astonishing. I have never seen it. Laurie Hughes went on the ABC, made an allegation, was backed up by the various producers and reporters there, and the allegation two days out from an election about illicit activity on the part of our candidate, I will pursue myself. Nothing CLP, nothing Fay Miller. Dunham - it is that serious.
If you want to run stories about what people do with little kids and goats or selling alcohol to drunken Aborigines, you want to be pretty careful in the heat of a campaign. I was absolutely offended by it. It turns out that the allegation that Fay Miller had bought didgeridoos for alcohol was not only untrue, but she had not sold a didgeridoo for five years. If Laurie Hughes, ex-policeman, wants to make allegations of that nature that are five years old and coincidentally come up two days before a poll, I suggest he start to seek some legal counsel. I am going to pursue this. I am absolutely astonished. I have the transcripts, and I know that the Labor Party were in bed with this bloke. I know that members of the 5th floor, who are close to the Chief Minister, rang media outlets and asked for this allegation to be perpetuated, and that some of them chose not to do it.
That is as much as I have time for, Madam Speaker, but I will finish on my absolute anger and contempt for such action.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, your time has expired. Member for Daly, are you sure you want to do this?
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Yes, Madam Speaker, I might pick up where my colleague left off because I also want to talk about the Katherine by-election. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Drysdale regarding the allegation about the now member for Katherine and what she was alleged to have done in respect of didgeridoos and the peddling of that story by Labor – not apparatchiks, officers, Labor officers employed by government. Apparently that allegation will be borne out in the future.
I would like to talk about the paraphernalia that was printed and produced in Queensland. We have seen today that the Chief Minister has admitted that the Labor Party’s banners were produced in Queensland. That is a terrible thing to have to admit, that while they are in government talking about jobs and growth, they have to go to Queensland to produce banners that can be produced here by Territory businesses and that they have abandoned Territory business to have those banners produced.
I would like to particularly talk about the television ads. The Chief Minister was asked by the member for Katherine about the television ads which, in yesterday’s reply, she conveniently skirted and said that the ads were done here, in Katherine, in 38 degree heat, by Simon Manzie, son of Daryl Manzie. It is my understanding that they were given, that is the NT News, was given an assurance by the Labor government, or officers of the Labor government, that that was indeed the truth. Today, in answer to a question from the member for Katherine to the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister again referred to the television ads, and said - and I quote, because plagiarism is a bit of a burning issue at the moment. Certainly, I will attribute this to the Chief Minister, and quote part of what she said yesterday, because yesterday’s question was about:
- You had your campaign ads made interstate.
And when I said to her:
- No, I stood in the street of Katherine with a fine local cameraman, Simon Manzie, and she simply got it wrong.
Well, if I could remind the Chief Minister that the question that was asked of the Chief Minister prior to this question was, in fact, to do with the production, not the filming - and that was made very clear, and Hansard can be checked on this - the production of the ads was done interstate.
Conveniently, in her usual smarmy way, the Chief Minister side-stepped that. She ducked and weaved, and that is something she is very good at doing. In fact, I am thinking of getting her to give my son, who plays rugby for Sydney City Roosters, some tips on ducking and weaving so that he does not get so hurt. However, let me say that it is my understanding that the ads were actually made in Queensland. There is no doubt. And the Chief Minister made a smart remark about how, when we went to do our ads, we could not find a cameraman.
Let me assure the Chief Minister that the cameraman and the soundman was not a problem. In fact, I would say, and I am sure even Simon Manzie would agree with me, that we had one of the best in the Territory, who did a fantastic job, and I will not name him. He and the soundman did an excellent job filming for the ads for the CLP. It is my understanding that the production of the ALP ads - and whether they went through their great media company, Hawker Britton, who would know, but I suggest they would have - it is my understanding that they ended up with the Cutting Edge Group, which is based in Brisbane, Sydney, and on the Gold Coast. The Cutting Edge Group produced them; that is - and the Chief Minister knows all about this stuff because she has been in journalism - they did the editing. They put together the raw footage, filmed by Simon Manzie, it appears, and edited it and turned it into ads. Then, I assume, they would have probably gone back through Hawker Britton, and gone off down south to get their fax numbers, then sent to Channel 7 and Imparja to be played.
So, it is very convenient for the Chief Minister to come in here and try to side step the issue in the way that she did. But we were very succinct in the question we asked: ‘Where were they produced’, and she still has not confirmed that they were made in Queensland. It is incumbent on her to do so, because not only was the TV ad produced there, but we know now that the banners, that could have been produced by Territory businesses, were produced in Queensland.
We also know that some of the corflutes that were used by Labor in the election were printed in Darwin, but a very, very small amount. It is our understanding that the rest of them - and there were a great many of them, were produced in Queensland. What is it with the Labor Party that says Territory businesses are just not good enough to spend your money with? Why do you have to employ Queensland companies to produce your paraphernalia? What is it about Territory businesses that you do not like? That is a question that needs to be answered by the Labor Party and, particularly, by the Chief Minister.
The member for Drysdale mentioned - and it was an issue today mentioned by the member for Nelson - this extra how-to-vote card that had on the bottom, ‘Printed and written and authorised by the Labor Party’ with the logo ‘Labor Party’, but it was asking for you to choose Jim Forscutt as No 1 and, if you did choose Jim Forscutt as No 1, please put the Labor Party second. That was a very deceptive move on the people of Katherine - and the member for Drysdale mentioned it but we have to make a point of this. I saw it with my own eyes, so nobody can deny it. Well, they can try to deny it, but I know what I saw. That is, you had 15 or so Labor Party people in Labor Party T-shirts handing out their two Labor Party cards and saying: ‘Vote for Sharon Hillen; she is the one. Get a voice in government’, all that sort of stuff. Then you had this other poor little fellow at the booth I was on who was there saying, ‘If you are voting for Jim, put us No 2’. You thought: ‘All right, they are doing that’. But it came time to give that fellow a break. That was the funny part, because what you saw was somebody step out of the line of the 15 Labor Party people, take the yellow T-shirt off, walk up to the bloke and say: ‘Here is the T-shirt, give me the cards, and now I am the non-persona person. I am not a Labor person. We will call it; do not worry, we know what is going on’. They were swapping in and out, pretending to be some individual who had this passion to get Jimmy up and put Labor No 2.
What a contempt for the people of Katherine. Labor should be ashamed of the way that they treated the people of Katherine. I know, and we all know, that the Chief Minister - or was it the Deputy Chief Minister – said: ‘Yes, we were trying to maximise our vote’. What a deceitful way of trying to do it. I know when it came to the count, that the Labor Party people were quite happy with themselves that Jim Forscutt’s second preference votes went 50:50, because they knew that usually they would probably go 60:40 CLP. They are usually conservative people who vote for Jim, as my colleague said, because of where he has been; he has been with the Nats, and he has been closely associated with One Nation, and so forth. They were trying to maximise their vote.
But what a downright deceit to do that to the people of Katherine. Thank goodness, they did not fall for it; they did not fall for that sort of trick. Jim’s vote, at the end, nullified itself and history will show that one Fay Miller for the CLP won the seat. It was pretty disappointing for Labor because their polling was saying: ‘Do not go trying to get Jimmy up. Try to maximise on his No 2 vote, because he is not going to be second. If you go all out, Labor is going to be second and we need the preferences - we Labor need the preferences - to get across the line’. That is what their polling was telling them and they went out and tried every trick in the book, including dressing up the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The other issue that I want to take up tonight is the issue of plagiarism. We have had a case here this week where the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries read an almost exact speech of minister Palmer from some three years hence, in 2000. We know it is exact in at least 12 or so of those chunks of the statement. There is no doubt that in anyone’s terms it is plagiarism.
The issue that I want to talk about briefly is the minister’s response. The minister came in here and said: ‘I do not know how this happened, but it is my understanding …’ and ‘I am informed …’ – they are cute words, ‘my understanding’ and ‘I am informed’ …
Mr Dunham: In the fullness of time.
Mr BALDWIN: … that, in fullness of time, we have worked out that it was the same public servant who wrote my speech, as it was who wrote Mick Palmer’s speech three years ago. Thank goodness, got out of that’. So, they blame some poor public servant. Someone in the horticulture section of what was the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, that is now the Division of Primary Industries in some other department where they have all been lost, is very angry. I will tell you why: because there is no way that I can personally believe that a public servant who is passionate about his job and about the horticultural side of the agricultural sector, would sit down and write a speech that is exactly the same as a speech three years ago, without amplifying what had changed in that time. Can you believe that? Can you believe that there would be somebody silly enough - and this is no reflection on the public service, because this is what the minister is saying: ‘Believe me, there is somebody silly enough in the public service who would write the same speech, three years later, that he did for a minister, three years ago.’ Come on, that is just outrageous!
He owes an apology to the public service, because he is digging himself a deeper hole. There are many things that have changed in three years in the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. The most passionate people who would want to amplify that to the parliament and to the people of the Territory, are the very people who work in, and have to provide information on, the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. You cannot tell me that we have been asked to believe that they would write some speech that has remained the same and static for three years, to the point where the speech by Mick Palmer said, in the year 2000: ‘We are working closely with the Central Land Council to have workshops in two weeks time, to look at the horticulture industry, and move it forward with Aboriginal people’. Then, three years later, that he is going to write the same thing: ‘We are working with the CLC to have workshops in two weeks time.’
What is he asking us to believe? This is just outrageous. This minister owes an apology to his department and division, and the horticultural section that he is supposed to provide leadership to. He has no leadership. All he has done is turn around and blame the people he purports to represent. It is just outrageous, and to ask us to believe that, as a puny excuse for plagiarism, is just beyond belief.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about what happened tonight; not so much of the actual events that took place – although I may make some brief comments about that. It is about the quality of the behaviour, the process, that has occurred in this Chamber. I noticed over the last couple of years that it has continued to deteriorate.
Tonight’s behaviour by members, particularly the Acting Deputy Speaker – first of all, he should not have been in the Chair when the debate was about him. I thought he enjoyed the contribution that the member for Wanguri was making in support of himself. He sat in the Chair and revelled in the praise that he received and the defence that the member for Wanguri was putting to the Chamber. When the tide turned and the member for Macdonnell was making his speech, the feeling that the member for Sanderson, who was then in the Chair as the Acting Deputy Speaker, was then starting to take its toll, and through many interjections which became quite confusing if you are not experienced, he just lost track of the debate and was caught up in the heat of the debate himself while he should have been impartial. He then started taking sides, particularly his own side, thus making the decision that he made.
The fact that he vacated the Chair, I could also say was in the heat of the moment. He should have stayed there and sought another Acting Deputy Speaker to take the Chair before he left the Chamber. It was not until we yelled out that he should return before the member for Barkly took the Chair that someone attempted to go near the Chair.
What it highlights is that there is insufficient knowledge about the process of this Chamber by the newer members. Not only that, but the new members have not been conducting the duties of the Chair in an impartial way. I was terribly surprised last night, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, when you were in the Chair, that you found in my favour when the Leader of Government Business called a point of order when there was no point of order.
Unless you start to understand the process, you allow the process to be bastardised, particularly by more senior members or members who yell loudest. That will bastardise the process. Why do you think I resigned as an Acting Deputy Speaker? Early this year, I chose to resign as an Acing Deputy Speaker because there was a lot of discussion earlier this year about how it was seen that opposition members are not favouring the government and therefore they should not be in there, the fact that opposition members were not acceding to some of the ministers’ demands on points of order.
It was after much discussion with my fellow members on this side of the House that I wrote to the Speaker, and I quote from the letter:
- I understand that the rationale for the decision was that opposition members of the Legislative Assembly are not
seen to be impartial in their decisions while in the Speaker’s chair. I consider that an affront to my integrity as a
senior and long-serving member of the Legislative Assembly, with my understanding of standing orders and the
conventions of parliament under which we operate.
In another paragraph, I added:
- I had volunteered, as part of the Country Liberal Party team, to undertake some of the duties of Deputy Speaker
as a gesture of goodwill and conciliation during this term in opposition.
When I was told about the things that were happening, I really felt that it was not tenable for me to stay as Acting Deputy Speaker.
Again, I come back to the point that members need to understand standing orders properly, do not try to abuse what is in the standing orders, observe convention or at least understand the convention – talk to the senior members of your own party. The Deputy Chief Minister has been here a long time. He is the most senior member in years of service in this Chamber. He is the most senior of all of us. Ask him. Learn from him. Do not just make decisions in the Chair about how you feel you should be in a partisan manner. It does not help things; it does not help the smooth flow of work in this Chamber.
If someone did plagiarise – and the evidence so far as I have heard definitely tells me that the member for Sanderson has committed a very serious error of judgment and has committed a serious act of plagiarism, he got up, he apologised. His apology was qualified. He said: ‘If I have offended or plagiarised, I apologise’. While qualified, it would indicate to me that he, in his own mind, believed that he had done something wrong.
However, the great intellect, the member for Johnston, he is the one who tells us he is the doctor, he has done a PhD. He has done heaps of research and he knows what it is all about, writing dissertations and academic papers. When he then started articulating a speech that was written for a previous minister, and was caught out, he declined to accept responsibility. That is where it all goes wrong. We in the Chamber are fairly forgiving. We are all humans and we all do make mistakes from time to time. If somebody is strong enough, brave enough, and manly or womanly enough to accept that there was an error made and apologise fully to the Chamber, nobody takes any umbrage.
However, this minister, after three full days, continues to defend his indefensible position. He has done what no academic would ever dare to do, or if they did and were caught out, would have their academic qualifications stripped from them. That is what it is like. I wonder whether the university which awarded his PhD - I think it is the NTU, I believe he did his at PhD at the Menzies School of Health Research; I might be wrong there. If he did, it might be worthwhile for the university to check his doctorate thesis to see whether there is anything there that is unbecoming. Probably not, and I wish there is nothing there that could be found, because that would be a tragic chain of events for the minister. However, the minister has done something wrong, and it is time he came in the Chamber, maybe not tonight, but if he wants to that is fine, to apologise for what he has done and remove that odium from the public servant who was asked to write the speech for him. The member for Daly explained, in quite clear terms, what could possibly be the reasons for how things went wrong, and so it is up to the minister now to get it set right.
In my closing few minutes, I would also like to speak about the former member for Katherine, Mr Mike Reed. I met that man in the early 1980s when he was then a backbencher. I met him, not only through the party, but I got to know him a bit better when we both shared Roger Vale’s flat at Hudson Fysh Avenue. That was at the time when Roger was a minister or Speaker of this House. Roger Vale only had two bedrooms in his flat, so Mike and I used to share one bedroom, through my occasional visits to Darwin, when I had to attend the Northern Territory University Council meetings or some other party matters.
The next time I noticed Mike Reed, I was in the political system as a member of the party, and on the executive of the party. I noticed him because he had become the health minister. I thought he was one of the better of the ministers we have had in the Territory. He has always taken great interest in many portfolios that were given to him, and health was something he was quite interested in. His greatest influence on me was when he became the Deputy Chief Minister, with the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone. It was in his capacity as Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer that I related to him most. By that time I had been elected to this parliament, and it was through those roles, me as a backbencher and he in his capacity as a deputy chief.
I remember the long debates we had on euthanasia where he and I had a similar position. However, most of the interaction between Mike Reed and I has always been the distance between the Deputy Chief Minister and a backbencher. I am sure some of you in the backbench in the government at the moment would understand. I found Mike Reed to be a very astute politician, very incisive in his ways, in his thoughts; the way he could articulate many points in politics with very short sentences. Basically, when you would design a question to ask in this Chamber, he would come along and dissect it fairly quickly and say: ‘This is what you are trying to say. How about we make it in these few words rather than the verbose way that you have constructed your question?’. That is the way he was. He was quite sharp at that in his thoughts. Then again, he was also very sharp with his words. If he did not like something, he was very prone to tell you without any fanfare and without pulling any punches. He would just tell it to you straight: ‘This is what I think and if you do not like it, well, that is too bad’.
That was how Mike Reed contributed to our political process. He helped me think more clearly about the processes that we have here, and the issues that we have to debate in this Chamber. However, the one thing that I found Mike Reed was most impatient about was when debates dragged on. He had this little pencil which he use to swing around and, when he had enough of your debate, he would point the pencil at you. This was particularly used very effectively with the member for Goyder, who took much notice of the pencil that Mike Reed had.
I wish Mike and Ann and the children well in Mike’s retirement. I am sure he has retired only from politics. His life goes on with his interest in bird watching. He has a huge block of land in Katherine that he will have lots of time now to tend and look after the huge mob of kangaroos that frequent his backyard. I wish Mike and Ann and the children well in the years to come, and I am sure our paths will cross from time to time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I speak on the Corrugated Iron Youth Arts. This group is based in Nightcliff Community Centre and it runs an exciting program for young people in the wider Darwin community.
Corrugated Iron started life in the mid-1980s as a program of the Browns Mart Community Arts, providing skilled training and performance opportunities for youth. Corrugated Iron eventually incorporated in 1998. The focus was on the performing arts, as it is today. Its charter is about young people, and the young people are very much involved in the management by being involved in decision-making at all levels.
Its current home at the Nightcliff Community Centre has an office and a large rehearsal space, and now has three permanent staff and also has a project staff from time to time. The current team includes Artistic Director Jeremy Rice, Administration Manager, Raechel Browne, and Bookkeeper, Clare Corfield. Corrugated Iron is recruiting an Indigenous Project Officer.
Corrugated Iron receives funding from Arts NT, Australia Council and ATSIS. It also receives funding for specific projects from time to time. An example would be Just Us Dreaming; Dreaming Justice, that received assistance from the NT Police and the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Other funding sources include membership, participation fees and the box office.
In June this year, Corrugated Iron put on a major theatre production, Living Here, that was staged at the Fannie Bay Gaol. It was about the lives of young people in Darwin. More recently, during the school holidays, they have been running the 2D, Darwin and Dili dance and drama workshops for 12-year-olds to 25-year-olds featuring dance, Capoeira and drama. This program was targeted at Timorese and African young people, many have only limited English.
Corrugated Iron has had notable participants. Anna-Lise Philips, star of the television series Young Lions and films Walking on Water and Wilful, started her acting career with Corrugated Iron. Corrugated Iron Youth Arts has contributed much to Darwin’s community arts over many years and continues to do so. Nightcliff is very lucky to lucky to host this group and benefits of the persons for this dynamic youth group.
I also talk tonight about the solar car challenge and the Nightcliff Primary School. It is two years since the last solar car challenge and the next one heads out of Darwin on 19 October. This event has had special involvement with one of the schools in my electorate. Two years ago, Nightcliff Primary School hosted a team from the Netherlands by providing them with a workshop and other facilities in the lead up to the race. The team, the Nuon Solar Team, went on to win the 2001 event in their car, Nuna. The team is back with Nuna 2 and they have taken up residence in Nightcliff Primary again. They are preparing and fine tuning the car for the 2003 World Solar Challenge. The team members are Anke Kempin, the only female member, who is involved with ergonomics and mechanic; Okke Bronkhorst who is involved with aerodynamics; Henk Jan Kinds, is with contracts, finances, insurance; Jan Verdaasdonk, logistics, safety officer; Sten Swanenberg, mechanic and driver; Raphael Janssens, telemetry; Eric Trottemant, strategy; Martijn Hinderdael, computer design, solar array and driver; Mark Olsthoorn, structural design and driver; George Arkesteijn, electronics; Koen Koster, marketing and communication; Diederik Kinds, team leader; and Wubbo Ockels, former astronaut and team adviser.
Mr Ockels, who is a former astronaut from the European space program and the only member of the team from the 2001 race, recently gave a talk to the Nightcliff Primary students on his space adventures which, I believe, was very well received. He is also the only member of the team who is not a student. All the other members of the team are studying at the universities in Europe and come from a range of disciplines, both technical and non-technical. It is a diverse group for a complex and sophisticated project.
However, this is not a university project. It is a group of young people who run their own foundation to finance the venture. One of the fantastic things about this involvement of the team with the school is that it gives the students a close up look at scientists working on the latest technologies. The team members have been happy to show off their car to students and teachers and talk about the developments they have made. It really is a unique experience for students.
There is another development at Nightcliff Primary School which I would like to share with members. Steve Marshall, the principal, has now moved onto a new position within the Department of Education. Nightcliff Primary School will certainly miss Mr Marshall very much. He has had a very positive effect on the school in the three years he has been at Nightcliff. He was recruited to Nightcliff from Whyalla in South Australia and quickly made the transition to the Territory. Mr Marshall has overseen the implementation of a Lighthouse project into the school. Nightcliff Primary, together with Nightcliff High, are becoming leading schools in the Darwin area and providing working models of the thinking and learning approach to education. I congratulate Mr Marshall on his promotion and wish him well for the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016