2002-08-15
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 7 from His Honour the Administrator advising assent to proposed bills passed by the Assembly during the June 2002 and July 2002 sittings.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Optus Contract to Provide E-Learning to Remote Students
Optus Contract to Provide E-Learning to Remote Students
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, and I am pleased to report to the House on the success of Optus in winning an $8m grant from the Commonwealth National Communications Fund to provide interactive distance e-learning for remote Northern Territory and New South Wales rural students. I am pleased to advise the Northern Territory government will contribute more than $3.6m to this exciting initiative.
It will see interactive distance e-learning teaching studios set up in Darwin and Alice Springs and two-way satellite communications infrastructure established for rural communities and isolated homesteads across the Territory. Distance education will be delivered by 150 two-way satellite receivers located across remote areas of the Territory. The final selection of sites is yet to be determined, but students in remote community education centres, rural communities and the School of the Air will benefit enormously from this initiative.
It will provide students with a clear real time vision of their teacher including lip synchronisation with audio allowing natural communication. Students will be able to re-size their video image of the teacher, allowing them to work simultaneously on their desktop, sharing learning materials between teacher and student, and student and student. Interactive distance learning will provide the opportunity to deliver live lessons that require the teacher to demonstrate skills or learning processes including music and singing lessons, science demonstrations, physical education skills, drama, poetry, reading and art.
Interactive distance learning will place the most isolated and the most disadvantaged Territory students at the forefront of telecommunication services with access to rapidly evolving distance learning pedagogy. Professional development for teachers has also been included as part of the project.
A steering committee comprised of the Department of Employment, Education and Training and key stakeholders will be established to oversee the implementation of the project. The likely target sites for the commissioning of two-way satellite sites include pastoral families as identified by Alice Springs School of the Air and Katherine School of the Air; all small rural communities with a community education centre, comprising approximately 16 sites; and small rural communities in the Territory with a school, comprising approximately 70 sites.
Initial meetings between the consortium partners - the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training and the New South Wales Department of Education and Training and Optus - to progress the interactive learning initiative are scheduled to commence next week. The first learning classes are expected to be delivered by 2003.
I congratulate Optus on their successful bid. It offers great opportunities for the Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, that is tremendous news, and I am sure it will certainly be welcomed by the Isolated Children’s Parents Association. Often, working in these urban environments with all the demands that we have, we can easily forget how difficult it is for families in isolated regions who have responsibility for their children’s education. I sincerely welcome this announcement and acknowledge too the significant contribution of the Commonwealth government in providing $8m to this program.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for his comments. I was probably a bit sceptical and critical of the contractual arrangements years ago between the former government and Optus, but they really have worked as a close partner with both the former government and this one. I congratulate them for this initiative in this program. This is an enormously powerful medium and it will enhance the delivery of learning to these students who are so often disadvantaged by their remote location.
There are so many spin-offs and applications - I think immediately of health but the legal world as well could benefit from this technology. It has been around for a while. One of the real problems has been cost, but as these things evolve, they get better and they get cheaper. I think there are enormous applications to come in the future. I do thank the member for his positive contribution and invite him to come up for a briefing as it unfolds.
Outback Digital Network Project
Dr TOYNE(Communications): Madam Speaker, for completeness today we would like to talk about the outback digital network project and the success they have had in getting $10.3m for the Northern Territory, an additional $400 000 for the Kimberley region in Western Australia. Our government is proud to be participating in a partnership with the Outback Digital Network. This is an indigenous-owned company which has a project evolving over the whole of northern Australia and which is in a unique position and has the expertise and knowledge to work with remote communities to provide the technical tools for sustained economic development in those areas. It will be a creator of real employment opportunities for remotely based indigenous people.
Our role in this partnership with the indigenous company is that we will be their main customer. Government agencies within the Northern Territory will take on contracts for the use of the infrastructure that ODN will install out there. They in turn will act as a brokerage on connecting the people and organisations that operate in our remote communities to government and to our service delivery intentions and programs. We will work hand in hand with this. With the amount of talk we have had about partnerships with indigenous people as a general principle of community development, economic development and social development in the Northern Territory, here is an absolute working example of it where we are looking to indigenous people to provide for us the infrastructure that we in turn need for service delivery.
According to the National Communication Fund announcement that my colleague, the minister for education, has just made in his statement, we are also very committed to bringing together into one strategic approach all of the remote developments that are currently occurring in the Northern Territory. It would be remiss of us as a government if we followed the pathway of the previous government and allowed disparate developments to go out into remote communities that are not connected strategically. We need to have a very strategic approach to the maintenance of these infrastructures. We need to have a very strategic approach to training and to the processes that need to occur in our own agencies to allow for the uptake of these new technologies in our service delivery activities.
All of that is a huge challenge for our government. We are now very keen to tackle this with the current resources we have. I pay tribute, as did the shadow minister, to the input of the Commonwealth government. This has certainly been a way in which the Northern Territory can take full advantage of the attempts at the moment by the Howard government to create conditions under which they can privatise the rest of Telstra. That may or may not happen depending on the politics of it, but in the meantime we are working diligently to ensure that our remote living people in the Northern Territory have equitable access to modern telecommunications and are not left as an enclave from which their urban cousins are moving into the new digital era that is increasingly mediating government business and private sector business.
We have a major challenge; this is a major underwriting of our work to improve service delivery and service delivery outcomes in our remote areas. We look forward to that challenge. We invite everyone in this House to give this full support and to contribute to what we believe will be a great step forward.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I join my colleague, the member for Blain, in congratulating the Minister for Communications, and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training on the roll-out of electronic infrastructure in the bush. Without a doubt, any development, any training that we implement in the bush will require well established communications. It is an increasing phenomenon that more and more people are getting onto this electronic form of communication, particularly people who learn through concepts rather than through language. This is one of the best ways they can achieve the potential that they have.
Congratulations to the minister for realising this project with ODN through the Networking the Nation project through the federal government. I look forward to the government continuing to commit funds to this project and to ensure that the House is fully informed about continuing progress. I look forward to a cooperative approach on this matter.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their public support for our intended action in this area. We certainly will maintain a bipartisan approach to this. It is far too important to play party politics with. We want to see that the efforts being made by our indigenous people and the remote communities are being fully supported in this House and through government.
Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform members of the House that the new management plan for the Casuarina Coastal Reserve has been prepared and adopted by the government.
The new plan details the manner in which the reserve will be managed over the next five to 10 years and replaces the old plan which came into effect in 1991. As the highest visited reserve in the Northern Territory, about 750 000 visitors per year, it is clear that Casuarina Coastal Reserve plays a vital role in the life of the local community.
Despite its urban location and high level of visitor use, the reserve retains a very natural character. Its extensive sandy beaches, tidal flats, estuaries, dune systems, mangrove communities, casuarina forests and monsoon forests provide an important habitat for a wide variety of fauna. Significantly, the reserve contains one of the few beaches in Australia where turtles are known to nest in such close proximity to a major city. The reserve is also an important roosting and feeding place for birds which migrate annually between Australia and the northern hemisphere.
In addition to its significant natural values, the reserve’s social value is of enormous importance. Not only does the reserve provide opportunities for families and individuals to participate in a broad range of outdoor pursuits which have significant health effects, but according to a recent study by Deakin University, places like Casuarina provide important psychological benefits as well.
The substantial benefits that such areas provide means that they need to be managed carefully and appropriately. To this end, the Parks and Wildlife Commission has prepared this new management plan which will guide the care and control of the area over the coming years. Importantly, the plan was prepared with a high level of community involvement with included two public meetings, a survey of almost 2000 park visitors and meetings with individual stakeholders and interest groups. Twenty-eight individual submissions were received by stakeholders as part of the community consultation process. All submissions were carefully considered in drafting the final document.
Issues such as the domestic animal regulations were discussed as part of the consultation process, and a new and unambiguous zoning scheme was developed. The new scheme provides access to dog owners for the full length of the beach, but dogs must be tethered between Dripstone cliffs and the mouth of Sandy Beach. This will ensure that dogs are under effective control in high use areas at peak use times.
The plan acknowledges that antisocial behaviour does occur within the reserve. This is a complex issue which the government is addressing at the broad community level. Much of the antisocial behaviour within the reserve is related to alcohol abuse. For this reason, the plan confines the consumption of alcohol within the reserve to the main picnic areas including Dripstone Cliffs, Dripstone Park, Lee Point and Buffalo Creek. It also restricts the consumption of alcohol between the hours of 4 pm and 10.30 pm week days, and 12 noon and 10.30 pm on weekends and public holidays. These hours correspond with similar restrictions introduced by the Darwin City Council along the Nightcliff foreshore.
The plan acknowledges that the free beach is a popular place for many Territorians and visitors to the Territory, and retains the free beach in its current setting. The provisions of the Nudity Act require that the free beach is located in a secluded area and that appropriate signs are installed. The plan identified the need to improve safety and security within the reserve and proposes the development of a site development plan. The site development plan will take into consideration development of alternative car parking facilities in the vicinity of Dripstone Park and a safety audit and installation of solar lighting in car parks. Other security measures include, upgrading, sealing and realigning the unsealed road leading to Rapid Creek; the development of car parking facilities; upgrading of beach access where appropriate to include disabled access; upgrading of the walking and cycling path network; and the closure and rehabilitation of vehicle and other tracks not required for visitors or management purposes.
Once the site development plan is completed, the proposed work will be placed on the government’s forward and capital works program. Those with a high safety or security component will be given priority over projects of a more aesthetic nature.
It is intended that the new plan will be phased in over a two month period. This will provide the public with time to become familiar with changes to the management of the reserve, such as the new domestic animal regulations, and a period of grace will be afforded to users as the new regulations are put into place.
The new plan highlights the government’s commitment to involving the community in the management of the Northern Territory’s outstanding natural conservation areas through the creation of a Community Advisory Committee. The committee will be comprised of individuals and organisations with a strong attachment to the reserve including, for example, the Larrakia Nation. The committee will provide an avenue for those individuals and groups with a strong interest in the reserve to be involved in the reserve’s ongoing management.
Madam Speaker, I have pleasure in tabling the new Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have to say it is very difficult for me to comment on the proposed plan simply because this is the first time I have seen it. It has just been tabled here in parliament. It is 69 pages long plus appendices and is, from a cursory examination, a fairly comprehensive document inasmuch as the appendices go to the trouble of naming particular species which are of concern to the government and concern to those people who put the management plan together.
However, I have to say it is very difficult for me to give a response of support or otherwise to this particular plan, simply because I have yet to read it, or to absorb any of it. Perhaps the minister could excuse me failing to support or otherwise this plan at this juncture until such time as I have an opportunity to peruse it and can come back to this House at some point in the future to pass comment on it.
However, I do appreciate that the minister has tabled this plan. I am grateful for his efforts, and those people who put effort into it, and at a later date I will make comments, possibly in adjournment debates.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments of the shadow spokesman for the environment. It is a comprehensive document, I agree with that. It took time for me to actually read it. Some of the things were highly scientific. However, what it very important is that it was not a document created by public servants. It is a living document. It went out to the community. We have had a number of public meetings. We have had a number of disagreements, particularly with the dog exercise area. These comments were brought back to the public servants, and several amendments have been made to the document. The important thing is the antisocial behaviour and the measures being taken to address this problem in the reserve. We have also incorporated and have taken into account the comments by the Larrakia Nation that we found very helpful.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I will just seek your indulgence if I could. In relation to this matter, my understanding is that there is a statutory obligation for these plans to be put before the Assembly and to be considered. I think they have to sit before the Assembly for six days. I just wonder if the minister would agree to the member and the shadow minister on this matter being able to continue his remarks at a later date in relation to the debate on this.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have no problem with that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No problem.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, that would be appropriate. I was not entirely sure which is why I did not raise it and referred to it as an adjournment debate. I would prefer very much to seek leave to have these …
Mr Stirling: Continue your remarks at a later time?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Leave granted.
Seniors’ Month – Celebrations for Public Housing Tenants
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to report to the Assembly on a series of events that I am holding throughout the Territory for senior public housing tenants as part of the government’s celebration of Seniors’ Month.
During this month, I have a schedule of morning and afternoon teas for senior public housing tenants planned, and I have already held events at Nightcliff, Casuarina and Katherine. Tomorrow, I will be visiting Nhulunbuy for the Garma Festival, and as a part of that visit I will be hosting a morning tea with the senior public housing tenants in that area. During the last week of August, I will be holding a morning tea at Witchetty’s in Alice Springs. Whilst I will be unable to make it to Tennant Creek this month, my colleague, Elliot McAdam, the member for Barkly, has ensured that senior housing tenants are invited on my behalf to a seniors’ function he is holding on 29 August.
I have enjoyed the opportunity to meet with my department’s senior housing clients in Darwin and Katherine and I am looking forward to tomorrow’s function in Nhulunbuy as well as the events planned for Palmerston and Alice Springs later in the month.
It is important that we recognise the contribution that our senior citizens make to the community. While the Territory continues to have the youngest population in the country, we also have a growing proportion of aged people. This is reflected in the increased demand for public housing by older Territorians. Across the Territory, people aged over 55 now make up 42% of our public housing tenants. This increased proportion is not solely as a result of the increase in the Territory’s elderly population, but also a consequence of policy changes introduced during the 1980s and 1990s - largely driven by the Commonwealth - designed to ensure that the provision of public housing is increasingly targetted to need. As Minister for Housing, that is a focus which I will be continuing to further develop and strengthen.
The growing demand for public housing by older people has meant that Territory Housing has needed to give careful consideration to the design requirements for appropriate seniors’ accommodation. Low density, ground level village style developments are particularly appropriate for seniors, and over 100 units in this style have been constructed in the developments at Coconut Grove, Tambling Terrace and Leanyer Village. The success of these developments was evidenced recently when the architects who designed the Coconut Grove seniors’ village won the urban design award in the Northern Territory Architectural Awards.
We are also committed to the Kurringal redevelopment, which is planned to include seniors’ housing. Madam Speaker, as you are aware, we have the Gillen Place development under way in Alice Springs. We are constructing an 18 unit seniors’ village at the old Gillen House site at a cost of $2.7m, and it is anticipated that it will be completed by December this year. In Katherine, we have no seniors’ village as such, but Territory Housing has sought to group pensioners in the complexes at 41 Victoria Highway and 15 Fourth Street.
As I mentioned at the outset of this report, this month I am hosting events throughout the Territory for all senior public housing tenants. Seven hundred people will be attending in various locations and the costs associated will be modest. This is in contrast to other events that have been held in the past which have only been attended by small numbers at a significant cost per person. I am pleased to be able to make this contribution to the recognition of our seniors throughout the Territory during Seniors’ Month.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Minister for Housing is finally ready to make reparations to our senior citizens in the Territory after his most embarrassing cancellation of the pensioners’ lunch at the Alice Springs Show. I am glad to hear that the minister is now going around the Territory making his apologies to our senior Territorians and supporting them in their life in the Territory.
I draw members attention to the very successful Housing 2003 policy that the CLP government introduced in 1998. It was through this policy that we created low density, ground level housing for senior Territorians. The Leanyer Village in particular was one the minister himself applauded as a very successful complex but was vehemently resisted by the member for Wanguri. I wonder how the minister now feels about his resistance?
I congratulate the government for now recognising the value that senior Territorians contribute to our Territory economy and lifestyle. I would always support any government that looks positively at any project supports senior Territorians. I look forward to the completion of Gillen House in Alice Springs. A seniors village is long overdue in Alice Springs and …
Ms Martin: Then why didn’t you do it?
Dr LIM: We did, we did. We were the ones who started the interest in senior housing in Alice Springs. What is being done at the moment under Housing is a continuation of policies of the CLP government, including the security screening of senior Territorians residents. That is a very good project and I congratulate everybody for following our CLP footsteps.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, the former minister had ample time to make improvements in housing in the Northern Territory. It is obvious that when he sat in Cabinet he was a lightweight. He was told to sit down and shut up, you are not important; even though you can get a white car and a good salary, behave. Now I am having a go and we are moving things forward. To the credit of the former government, they initiated some good stuff. But they did not move things forward as well as they should have and maybe that is because the former minister, as I said, was a lightweight.
We are having a seniors’ afternoon tea. It is coming together really well. We are getting many people there and people really appreciate that. That is what we are on about; looking after our senior Territorians and housing.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Presentation of Papers
Presentation of Papers
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on with government business, we do have on our agenda paper an item entitled ‘Papers to be presented by ministers’. It is an opportunity for a paper such as the minister presented today for him to give a much more lengthy report on it. I would encourage government when they have good reports like this to be presented to perhaps give us that opportunity.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws, none of which reflect substantial changes in policy. I now outline some of the changes to be brought about by this bill.
Sections 13 and 36 of the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act are being amended to remove references to the ‘prescribed person’ and ‘Registrar-General’. This bill rewords these provisions to provide that the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs directly administers that act. As this act is in essence consumer protection legislation, it neatly fits into the portfolio of consumer protection legislation administered by the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs.
Some other amendments worth noting in this bill are the amendments to the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act, Juries Act and Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. These amendments aim to remove to constantly amend certain legislation every time a department’s name is changed. The amendments remove specific references in the relevant legislation to the Northern Territory Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Correctional Services and the Office of Courts Administration. These are replaced with generic descriptions of these agencies. For example, the generic description for the Department of Justice is the ‘agency responsible for law and the administration of justice’.
Another amendment that I would specifically like to explain is in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act. This bill amends section 8C of that act to provide that the relevant penalty is seven years imprisonment. The reason for the failure to specify a penalty in the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2002 was an omission rather than a policy decision that the default penalty in the Summary Offences Act should apply. The standard penalty for these new offences is seven years imprisonment.
Most of the other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory. However, one amendment which requires further explanation is in relation to the Police Administration Act. The bill provides that section 147A of the Police Administration Act is amended by giving the minister, in addition to the Commissioner of Police, the power to enter into arrangements with the Commissioner of Police or other appropriate authority of another jurisdiction providing for the exchange of information in a database kept under the Police Administration Act. This amendment will remove any doubts, arising from the equivalent legislative provisions in Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales, as to the efficacy of arrangements with those states. The Tasmanian, Western Australian and New South Wales legislation provide that only their respective ministers can enter into such information sharing arrangements.
The remaining amendments are consequential to:
the change in the name of the Northern Territory Liquor Commission to the
Northern Territory Licensing Commission;
the change in the name and status of the Power and Water Authority to the Power
and Water Corporation; and
the change in the name of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants
to CPA Australia.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 2) 2002 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 73)
(Serial 73)
Continued from 20 June 2002.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I signify to the government that the opposition does not wish to oppose this change to payroll tax based on the assurance from the government that they intend to lower the payroll tax rate in accordance with their election promises in the next budget. We are quite comfortable to see that the government does that. We will hold them to it because certainly that is what businesses out there expect.
I never trust Treasurers. As much as I might like them personally, I never trust Treasurers because Treasurers tend to speak in Treasury-speak and Treasury-speak is things like: ‘These changes will be broadly revenue neutral’. In terms of this legislation, the changes to the Fringe Benefits Tax are stated in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech as ‘broadly revenue neutral’. I have not found a business yet - and I would be enlightened if you can give me one because I don’t say that from a position of wishing to fight, simply that I have not found one - that has said to me that this change is neutral to them.
If you look at it in its essence, what the second reading speech and the content of the legislation says is: businesses have problems with some of the administrative difficulties of deciding how much payroll tax to pay particularly relating to Fringe Benefits Tax, so what we do is we will sort that problem out for you. We are a kind caring government so we will tax the lot. That is the way we will help out.
It is interesting to see the Treasury circular which talks about the new rate and also the new issues that will be taxed. If we look at payroll tax, the Treasury circular talks about eligible termination payments that are now included for unused rostered days off; in lieu of notice; for unused sick leave; gratuities or golden handshakes; compensation for the loss of job or for wrongful dismissal; a result of an employee’s invalidity or permanent disability other than compensation for personal injury; bona fide redundancy and approved early retirement schemes in excess of the tax free amounts; payments after death of an employee where such a payment would have been an eligible termination payment had the employee been alive; and then goes on to say that this list is not exhaustive.
These changes have been put in place by other jurisdictions around Australia. I accept that. But the real issue here is, the government is saying for businesses this is broadly revenue neutral. The first thing is we look at some of these businesses that are in the payroll tax threshold, some of them are branches of large companies and some of them are large companies that could do their business elsewhere. I can tell you that in some of those companies, because I have spoken to them, they are making those decisions regularly as to whether or not they stay in the Northern Territory. If you are saying this is not a problem, this is broadly revenue neutral, go to the companies and ask, ‘What is the impost to you as a company?’ And I can tell you one of them - and I will not give the name in the Assembly but I can easily do it outside of the Assembly. They have already been copped with water and sewerage charges going up, they have already copped a HIH levy imposed on them, they have already had to pay an increase of $90 on every vehicle they operate in their company, and now they face broadly-revenue-helping-you-administratively-to-understand-payroll-tax-changes. In one particular company that is a straight $50 000 extra to them, or one employee. That is what they have copped in this payroll tax change.
The government needs to understand that when Treasury says these things are ‘broadly revenue neutral’, take the next step and find out which businesses have benefited and which businesses are hurting. I can tell you there are businesses out there which are screaming because they were promised payroll tax relief and all they have seen in the first 12 months is increases to their costs of doing business. The government needs to deliver on their promises that they will reduce payroll tax and, I would suggest, reduce it significantly. Do not forget also that there are businesses already getting the franchise payments problem in that their franchise stamp duty costs have gone through the roof as well. Essentially, Madam Speaker …
Mr Kiely: Whose legislation was that?
Ms Martin: It was your legislation
Mr BURKE: Well, you are in government. Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister says, it is your legislation. We are not in government. You are the ones that said, ‘We will govern the Northern Territory on behalf of all Territorians. We will be honest and accountable. We will fix these problems. We will help business’. The reality is, whatever rhetoric you employ, as we clock up the first 12 months, you have hit businesses everywhere. You have hit them so hard some of them are stumbling.
With regards to payroll tax, simplistically it is this. Under the old system, the fringe benefits tax was taxed at 6.5%. For every $1000 of Fringe Benefits Tax you paid $65. If you now apply the new Commonwealth grossed-up model that has been applied in the Northern Territory, you apply 1.9417 to that $1000 before you apply the new payroll tax rate. So, if you apply that 1.9417 on a $1000 you end up with $1941.70. Then calculate that at the reduced payroll tax rate of 6.3% and you find that for every $1000 of fringe benefits tax where you paid $65 in the past, you now pay $122.33.
Therefore, Chief Minister, when you say this is broadly revenue neutral, the reality is that for businesses that pay payroll tax, for every $1000 of fringe benefits tax paid under the 6.5% rate in the past, they paid $65; and for the new rate of 6.3%, under the grossed-up model, they pay $122.33. The difference in that sense is $57.33. It is not neutral to many businesses at all. It is an additional impost on those businesses and, particularly, an impost that does not include the superannuation guarantee which has been raised by 1%. If you paid the superannuation guarantee on wages of $50 000 at 8% before 1 July, you would have paid $260; now you pay the 1% extra at 9% of $283.50, an additional $23.50.
It might seem small money when you take those figures individually, but add up what has happened in the last 12 months to businesses which are struggling. Some of them are branches of companies that are making decisions as to whether or not they stay in the Northern Territory. One company I know has 17 vehicles – that is $90 per vehicle additional registration, and that $90 additional registration is $1530 straight off. And as I said, increased water and sewerage charges. And you now make patronising statements such as, ‘We are going to make it easier for you administratively. The way we will make it easier for you is, we will tax the lot. And by the way, we are really helping you out because we are going to drop 0.2% off the payroll tax so it does not hurt you’. Well, it does. I can tell you $50 000 extra – and you can go out to businesses yourself and talk to them - is one employee. The way they compensate for those changes is get rid of the employee. That is what is going to happen in some instances. Go out to those large car dealers out there and ask them if these payroll tax changes are ‘revenue neutral’ to them.
It is one thing to bring in administrative measures that are being applied in other states, but remember that we are in the Northern Territory. We are in a jurisdiction that is difficult to do business in. It is a jurisdiction that has a high cost of living and a high cost of doing business anyway. In the first 12 months of this government all business has seen so far is higher taxes and charges on a whole range of issues and now a government that promised that it would reduce payroll tax in their first 12 months - whichever way you spin it - has increased it. That is your decision. I would have thought that you could have gotten around that by being honest with them and, rather than dropping it to 6.3%, you should have dropped it to about 6.2% or 6.1%. Then you might have been revenue neutral and maybe there is a net/net to the businesses. But you cannot go out there and say to a business, ‘This will not hurt you at all because we have taken 0.2% off your payroll tax’, when they can do a calculation in five minutes just on vehicles and air fares alone to know that the increase in FBT and the application of the 0.2% - that is it, gone, finished; everything else after that is a cost to them.
I can tell you that in the case of at least one business, the overall result - because I have spoken to the accountant - is $50 000 extra in payroll tax on their bottom line. That is something the government should be concerned about. It is something the government needs to realise is the fact out there. From the opposition’s point of view, not only will we look forward to but we will hold you to your promises of significant decreases in payroll tax in the next budget.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Act. At the outset of my speech I would like to repeat the statement made by the Treasurer in her second reading speech, because I am aware that there are some in the community who may mischievously attempt to misrepresent the intent of these measures. I quote from the Hansard of Thursday, 20 June 2002, where the Treasurer said:
- … while consistent with this government’s commitment to reducing payroll tax, these measures are
not directly related to it. They are about … equity by removing certain biases from within the
… payroll tax arrangements.
As outlined in our position paper on employment released prior to the last election, payroll tax in the Northern Territory is on a par with larger industrialised states such as Victoria and New South Wales, but substantially higher than our nearest competing states such as Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. In her June speech, the Treasurer made it plain that this government is on track to deliver our election promise of reducing the burden of payroll tax on Territory business in the 2003-04 financial year. Whether this is to be through raising the threshold for payroll tax, or the rate, or a combination of both, is yet to be exactly determined. As has been the hallmark of this government this will occur after adequate consultation with employers, the peak bodies, and other interested parties.
By contrast, the CLP had nothing in its election manifesto, that I could find anyway, about reducing payroll tax. While it had reduced payroll tax from 6.8% to 6.6% in 1999-2000, and from 6.6% to 6.5% in 2001-02, the CLP appeared to be content for Territory businesses to continue to pay much more in payroll tax than our nearest competitors, that is Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. So, unlike the Labor Party, they appeared to have no strong commitment in their election platform for further reductions in payroll tax over the term of this Assembly.
We made it plain in our position paper that we consider payroll tax to be a tax on jobs. I have already spoken about our commitment to significantly lighten the burden on Territory business in the 2003-04 financial year. In the meantime we are moving the current amendments to make a level playing field prior to these changes. In all cases, the method for calculating payroll tax has been brought into line with Commonwealth taxation legislation and is already in operation in a number of interstate jurisdictions. This complementarity will assist businesses to reduce administrative burdens.
I would now like to talk specifically about these changes which essentially reduce the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.3% as specified in the amendments to clause 6 of the act. Amendments to clauses 5 and 6 also ensure that fringe benefits and eligible termination payments paid to some workers are treated equitably with the way in which the majority of salaries and wages are treated. Currently, there is a minority of businesses who pay fringe benefits to workers. Amendments to clauses 5, 8 and 9 of the act ensure that the total grossed-up value of these fringe benefits is used when calculating payroll tax. Because the grossed-up value represents the actual value of the fringe benefit as if it were a cash benefit prior to paying income tax, this latter measure will ensure that there is consistency between firms which pay fringe benefits and those who do not.
As the Treasurer pointed out in her speech on 20 June 2002, good tax practice means that there should be no differential treatment under the law depending on whether some firms choose to provide remuneration to employees through salary payments of fringe benefits. The government has acted fairly by redistributing any increased revenue obtained through including the grossed-up value of fringe benefits in payroll tax calculations by decreasing the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.3%. We have also reiterated our pledge to reduce the overall burden of payroll tax on Territory businesses in the 2003-04 financial year.
I commend these amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Act to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in general we support the legislation on the basis that the government will proceed to reduce the payroll tax as they have committed to. That is to say we will not be opposing the legislation. I must pick up a couple of points made by the member for Johnston. In the first instance he told the House that this would reduce the level of payroll tax, that is inferring that it was going to be a direct benefit for those who have to meet this commitment. Then, of course, only towards the end of his contribution did he indicate that that reduction in fact would be offset by other impositions. So, let’s be quite honest about this in that it is not a reduction in payroll tax per se, but it is an adjustment to take into account other issues and that the net result for many may not be an increase, but for some it will be and it is appropriate that we recognise that fact.
I also correct the honourable member in as much as we did, as a party, indicate that we would continue to reduce the burden of payroll tax on business wherever possible in the future in relation to our election commitments last year, and beyond the reductions to which he referred, that is, reductions in the imposition, the amount of payroll tax in percentage terms that would be applied. I also remind the honourable member, I hope that he did not conveniently overlook the fact that there were circumstances in years past where we also altered the threshold so that not as many businesses would be captured by payroll tax under former CLP governments.
Payroll tax is the largest single income for Territory revenue and in that regard it is very significant to the government. That is recognised by the opposition. We, on the other hand, also appreciate that it is an enormous burden on business and a constraint, indeed, in relation to their operations. We acknowledged that regularly, as a government, and looked for ways to reduce that burden wherever possible. It might be argued that the reductions we authorised were minor. They were, nonetheless, effective reductions and they did benefit those on whom payroll tax was imposed at the time. We have a very clear record over a number of years and have demonstrated, as a former government, our desire to reduce the burden of payroll tax by implementing those changes, recognising that it was a burden and that we would reduce it wherever we had the ability to do so.
The opposition - as I say, and as the Leader of the Opposition said - will not be directly opposing this legislation. We do have some concerns, as eloquently portrayed by the Leader of the Opposition. We are concerned about the fact that members like the member for Johnston are portraying it as a reduction in payroll tax when in fact it is not. It is virtually ‘an amount in equals an amount out’ – a cost-plus effect – with the unfortunate impact that there will be some sectors of those who pay payroll tax disadvantaged, and they will be disadvantaged considerably, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution.
Nonetheless, that is the government’s intention at this time. They have a right, and indeed a responsibility, to apply their election promises and we will keep a close eye on future government initiatives in this regard. Certainly we will keep them to their election commitment which, as I recall, was going to be a substantial reduction. Without having the promises directly in front of me I seem to recall some public commitment that it was going to be in the order, over a period of years, of 50%. It was a dramatic increase. It was certainly bench marked to the extent that it was going to be less that some other states, and I think the direct comparison was …
A member interjecting.
Mr REED: Sorry? Less than Queensland and …
- Ms Martin: Never!
In terms of being less than Queensland, on whatever basis, then we will see just what the performance of the government is in that regard as time passes, and no doubt the business community will be keeping a very close eye and scrutinising very carefully.
Both the remarks made by, and the promises made by, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay and now Treasurer, in relation to the commitments that they made and the promises that they made to the business community, and what they in fact put in place as a government, it will be our duty and responsibility as an opposition to ensure that those promises are met, and that the likes of the member for Johnston are not allowed to portray this current amendment as a reduction in payroll tax, because if there is one thing for sure, it is not.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I find it incredible that the former Treasurer should have the temerity to question what we are doing after the terrible, deplorable state he left the economy in, and the whole fabric of the last budget that they presented which led this Territory into the terrible and deplorable state, and that he should stand there and then criticise in some sanctimonious manner is beyond belief.
I rise today in support of the Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill 2002. In her second reading speech, the Chief Minister and Treasurer clearly outlined to this Assembly that the main purpose of this bill is to make the payroll tax system fairer by removing certain anomalies that impact unreasonably across employers who pay this tax. That this bill is before the Assembly does not come as any surprise, indeed that the Martin Labor government would move so quickly is to be applauded.
In our July 2002 position paper, Labor Means Business, which has been available on the Internet at www.nt.alp.org well before the demise of the opposition, Labor committed itself to introducing a tax regime that will not penalise business, but will encourage job creation. Business and government in the Territory have to work together successfully. Business provides many of the goods and services government requires, while business benefits from the infrastructure provided through government policies. Business is also affected by the regulatory and administrative requirements, including revenue, of government. Those arrangements are often crucial in determining where industry is located around Australia, given the differences that occur across our states and territories.
In the lead-up to last year’s elections, and since being mandated to govern the community, Labor regularly conducted wide-ranging discussions with many businesses and business leaders across the Territory. Labor recognises that businesses are not demanding a revolution in business policy by government, but they do have genuine concerns over a range of issues. Unlike the way previous CLP administrations dealt with business, Labor listens to these concerns. The Martin Labor government is meeting its commitment to business. Best practice current policies are kept in place, and the problem areas, like payroll tax, are being addressed.
In my electorate of Sanderson, we have many hard-working people who have followed their vision to own and operate their own small business. The citizens of Sanderson are to be found across a great breadth of Territory small business enterprises such as construction; engineering support for mining, construction and defence; retail/wholesale trade; tourism and hospitality; heavy transport and vehicle sales, maintenance and repairs; property and real estate; IT communications; and tertiary services such as legal, accounting, financial advice, medical, education and employment services.
Mr Burke: What’s the payroll tax threshold?
Mr KIELY: These people, with their motivation, are prepared just to take business risks.
Mr Burke: Come on, tell us, what is it? $100 000, $200 000? What is the payroll tax threshold? Come on.
Mr KIELY: What’s that, corporal? You know, that article in the paper the other day summed it right up, didn’t it? Anyway, these people with their motivation, their preparedness to take business risks, which will benefit both themselves and their community, have the rightful expectation that they can rely on government to help, not hinder their operations.
Assembly members and constituents will remember the Martin Labor government’s approach to Territory taxes and charges should be commensurate with competing jurisdictions comprising the neighbouring states of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. I will mention that – commensurate – do you understand that word? Commensurate with competing jurisdictions. Labor will gradually lower payroll tax to rates comparable with neighbouring states. This bill is not about us moving forward our commitment to lower the payroll tax from the 2003-04 financial year as promised in the lead-up to the election. This bill is about positioning us to be able to smoothly carry out that commitment when the time comes.
When the GST was introduced by the Liberal Party not a murmur of concern for the administrating impact this would have upon small business was heard coming from the Country Liberal Party of the day.
Mr Mills: What rot.
Mr KIELY: Not a word. So much for the CLP’s assertion they are an independent political party with the concerns of Territorians being forefront in their thinking and actions. Indeed, the introduction of the GST was a real eye-opener for the electorate. For the first time they could clearly see the CLP as being bereft of its own economic direction, relying solely on the supposedly external political body albeit one which shared the same disregard for small business aspirations. The CLP was blinded by the thought that they would benefit from additional revenue raised by the GST. They ignored the impact the introduction of the GST and other tax reforms happening at or around the same time was having on small business.
With total disregard, the CLP refused to conduct - or was so lazy as to think it not necessary to conduct - Territory specific modelling of the impact of the reforms, either on business or consumers, but simply took their political master’s figures as gospel. Well, the Martin Labor government is about redressing some of this unjustly imposed administrative burden on small business. By reducing the rate of payroll tax and removing current anomalies small business operators will see a reduction in their compliance costs. It also brings us into line with most other jurisdictions reducing the complexity of payroll tax for those firms who operate in various states and territories. This is good tax practice. As the Treasurer clearly stated up front and unambiguously, while the changes in this bill do broaden the payroll tax base marginally, the government has acted with integrity by returning the additional collections to Territory business by a reduction in the payroll tax rate.
The bill resonates with sound fiscal management in that the total value of the payroll tax collection will continue to increase in line with forecast wage and employment growth. I am sure that small business owners and operators of Sanderson are pleased to see such sound financial management and fiscal integrity in a Territory government - it is unique, isn’t it? - something that was hard to identify under the previous CLP regime. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank you members who contributed to debate on this amendment bill.
I recognise that the two speakers from the opposition are not opposing the bill, and I welcome that. This is about effective policy. If you look through comments that have been made by me or by government about this, you will see we are not trying to pretend this is anything other than a revenue neutral measure. We find that it is bringing consistency to Territory businesses. We said quite clearly there are some businesses that are winners and some businesses that are losers. However, in the overall context, the assessment from Treasury - and the Treasury has good figures - is well more than 70%; maybe up to 76% on last year’s figures, that Territory businesses will be better off under these measures. Okay, there are some businesses that are not going to do as well, but overall, we think more than three-quarters will be better off.
This is not a money grab from government. This is about bringing consistency - in line with other states and Commonwealth legislation - in how we look at fringe benefits and eligible termination payments. It is a reduction in compliance costs for businesses.
I will pick up on a couple of statements made by the opposition leader. I might add that it is disappointing when he opened his comments that he said. ‘I do not trust Treasurers’, and by implication, ‘I do not trust Treasuries’. Maybe this is the reason that the opposition did not seek a briefing on this bill, which is disappointing, because we did have the opposition leader running to the media trying to make calculations on the run about what this would cost. The figures were way off, and some of the figures that he has brought in here this morning are again way off. If he made less rhetoric about not trusting Treasurers and Treasuries and actually sought a briefing, and in seeking those briefings the opposition leader might have been able to test some of the detail of the assertions that he was making against the facts, and find out there was a discrepancy. It is disappointing when you use this place or use the media to make statements about amendments that are not accurate and never ever seek - and we would very quickly give you a briefing. Welcome, in fact, giving you a briefing about this. Inaccuracies are not good for your arguments when you come into this House.
I make one point and that is if you want to criticise Treasurers and Treasury, fine; but at least do it on the basis of having had a briefing and testing all the arguments that you want to put. That is fine. But get those briefings first.
Let’s just look at one argument that the opposition leader put. He was arguing about the new rate, 6.3%, and did some calculations - I don’t know, back of an envelope calculations maybe - on the impact on fringe benefits. This reduction in rate is not just about on fringe benefits. It is about on all wages, so employees get benefits across all wages in a reduction on rates, not just on fringe benefits. Don’t calculate it on that. Fringe benefits form about 5% to 10% of the overall wages bill. The arguments the opposition leader was running were not accurate in terms of the picture for businesses. If you had come for the briefing and understood it, then you would not be making comments like that, that are skewing the arguments.
This is a measure to do with compliance, to do with consistency and an equity issue, and because this is not a grab for money by Treasury or the Treasurer or this government, fairly saying that if we have expanded the payroll tax base then we are reducing the rate, and it works in the figures we have currently, it is an increase of 2.7% on one end and a reduction of 2.7% on the other. So, it is revenue neutral for government. It is not a grab and more than three-quarters of businesses will be better off. Three-quarters of Territory businesses will be better off. This is outside the commitment given by this government to bring our whole payroll tax regime better into line with our neighbouring states of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. We have the opposition Treasury spokesperson trying, on the run, to make up what that policy is. I say very clearly that is what our policy is; we will do that progressively. If you go back to our last budget, the mini-budget, then from next year, which was in our Access document saying from the year 2003-04, we would progressively bring that into line. This is not part of that commitment. It is a tidying up mechanism. It is a compliance mechanism bringing us into line with Commonwealth legislation with what happens in other states.
But we have made that very solid commitment about payroll tax. We listened to business about the impost, and we looked at what our thresholds were, what our rates were, and they were not in keeping with our immediate neighbours. We will be doing that and $3m has been identified from 2003-04 as a reduction in revenue to keep that promise. It is there in our mini-budget and, unlike budget papers we have seen from the now opposition, we will keep that promise, it is there in writing. And it is real writing, it is not just for presentational purposes.
I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate and despite the comments that went with the original statements of support from the opposition leader and the Treasury spokesman, thank them for their support too.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
STATUTE LAW REVISION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
(Serial 64)
(Serial 64)
Continued from 23 May 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I can indicate that having considered the bill, the opposition will be supporting it. The bill relates to changes concerning the regulation of the financial sector. There is a new class of financial institution referred to as an ADI, an authorised deposit taking institution, and that includes banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Though the bill is lengthy in terms of the number of references in seeks to change, ultimately all it does is change the terminology and replaces references to banks etcetera with the new terminology ADI. It is supported by the opposition.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of this bill which is consequential amendments to a number of Northern Territory acts including the Audit Act, the Debits Tax Act, various other acts and regulations, rules and legislative instruments. In Australia, there have been massive changes in the banking industry over the past 50 years. In summary, these amendments seek to redefine a bank in broad terms.
How simple it was some 50 years ago - probably a bit less than 50 years, but close - when I was a school child. In our schools - in Queensland, anyway - we all had our Commonwealth Bank tin piggy bank and we would make regular deposits through the banking period in the class room, the teacher recording it all in a ledger. What was a culture of saving following the Great Depression and World War II has now become very diversified. The medium has become plastic rather than tin and, unfortunately for many, credit has become a pseudonym for debt. The deregulation of the banking industry, mergers between giant financial institutions, the rise of credit unions and building societies have all necessitated broadening the definition of what was traditionally called ‘a bank’. This follows redefinition of regulations governing the financial sector through the Commonwealth, state and territory financial sector reform acts in the late 1990s.
The multitude of institutions offering banking and financial services has prompted the need to redefine such institutions as ‘authorised deposit taking institutions’, or ADIs. This bill seeks to so redefine references to banks, building societies and credit unions in various Northern Territory acts, regulations, rules and legislative instruments. I commend the Statute Law Revision (Financial Provisions) Bill to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for support of what is a pretty uncontentious bill. It is a consequential amendment to our legislation following on from changes elsewhere in the country. Particular thanks to the member for Johnston; what an erudite summary of the bill. It is good to see.
Dr Burns: I did write it myself.
Dr TOYNE: Excellent! There is probably no point in prolonging the debate on such a simple change, so we will move along.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.1 standing in my name which is an item relating to the Financial Management Act to omit the whole item.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.2 standing in my name which is an item relating to the Financial Management Regulations, where it will omit the whole item.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Note Statement – Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the Building a Better Territory economic development strategy announced by the Chief Minister provides a real vision for the Territory’s future; a future with a healthy expanding economy and a population almost double its current size by the year 2020. It is often said that a robust economy where people are meaningfully employed, the rule of law applies, and the future is assured, cannot be sustained without a substantive foundation in health and community services infrastructure.
Health and community services infrastructure includes the physical infrastructure incorporated in the Territory’s hospitals and clinics, its medical equipment and technology. Our capital expenditure commitment for the upgrading of the Territory’s health and community services infrastructure is vital to the wellbeing of the health sector and the local construction industry.
We came to government with a commitment to spend a minimum of $100m over our term of government on health facilities and equipment, and to upgrade our hospitals. We are delivering on these. This $100m will also cover other election commitments, such as the construction of an oncology and radiotherapy unit for Royal Darwin Hospital.
I assure members and the community that this government is addressing the problems of indigenous health. In fact, we have allocated more that $10m to services in non-urban areas, including the implementation of the initial five primary health care zones in Central Australia; funding for the Central Australian remote health development services, which provides Aboriginal health worker in-service training; and funding for medical specialist services outside Alice Springs.
The investment in the Territory by Health and Community Services includes the professional skills and knowledge, soft infrastructure, available to treat and support Territorians in need. In a much broader sense, the Territory’s health and community services infrastructure also includes community organisations, individuals and families, their knowledge and skills and their capacity to manage and improve the numerous factors which affect their own health and wellbeing. It is in this area that our investment in community infrastructure will return the best outcomes for long term sustainable gains in community health and wellbeing.
Last week, I announced a $2.5m increase in funds for the non-government sector. This means we are investing more than $64m in the non-government sector to ensure the continuance of robust services which provide for the wellbeing of Territorians. This funding will assist non-government organisations in facing the demands placed on them by escalating public liability and professional indemnity costs. This is not a government which separates the economy from the community in its thinking. That is why, for example, the progressive development of primary health care zones finds its place in our economic development strategy.
As I have previously announced to the House this initiative, in partnership with the Commonwealth, local government and indigenous communities, will make a major contribution to the development of local community capacity. It empowers communities to take on the planning, management and overall control of health services, and substantially increases the potential for local employment. The establishment of partnerships with indigenous communities and the Commonwealth to develop regional zones for the planning of primary health services for indigenous communities is a landmark change in social and economic policy approaches. We know the potential this initiative holds for improving service delivery, for attracting additional funds, and determining priorities most relevant to local communities. This pursues the whole-of-government whole-of-community approach to supporting indigenous participation in economic growth as outlined in Building a Better Territory.
We are also investing in other forms of infrastructure, planning, research, and ideas development, that are equally critical to our economic future. Bringing research on proven results - and even more importantly - on approaches that are effective for getting those proven results into policy and planning, is a substantial part of securing the infrastructure that underpins a robust economy.
This government places a high priority on research and development and, as indicated in the economic development strategy, government supports the Cooperative Research Centre in Aboriginal Health to become Australia’s largest indigenous health research centre. This research capacity is augmented by our continuing support for the Menzies School of Health Research and the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs.
A key economic fact often overlooked in relation to health and community services is that this sector represents the single largest employment area in the Northern Territory. Through this sector we attract into the Territory professionals of the highest calibre: researchers, practitioners, industrial staff, administrators – the list goes on. In its own right, this sector makes a significant contribution to overall employment figures in the Territory. This government is substantially increasing the number of nurses, child health professionals, and family and children’s services workers.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the economic development strategy to members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysale): Madam Speaker, I shall possibly be a little longer than the previous speaker, but I, too, will be brief. There is a good reason for that: there is very little in this document relating to health. Despite the rhetoric we just heard about health being a high priority, it does not feature in such a way in this document. That is a little disappointing because, if you go back to the Foundations for Our Future documents, there was a significant amount of data in that. Indeed, my contribution if I recall, needed an extension of time just to get through the contribution that the health sector made in each one of those plans.
It is disappointing, and it was the same yesterday when we talked about population. This seems to be an economic rationalist approach; the social and health and other sectors seem to be definitely taking a back seat and when you see the plan, do not seem to have the priority that one hears about in some of the rhetoric.
I was interested that it is foreworded by the Chief Minister who quotes from T S Eliot:
Between the idea
- And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
We are in the shadow land now. What we have is a series of ideas that have no bearing on reality at the moment. They have no measuring devices. Some of them have not even started. What we have been talking about to this government is: you now have to move from ideas to action. If this document is the illuminating device that is supposed to do that, it sadly falls very short. There are a number of areas where there is a cause for some alarm, and there are a number of areas by the fact that they are not mentioned, that would cause some concern to many contributors.
It also has some curious things in it. It talks a lot about Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities and community development. I was very interested to see the map; it is a map the like of which I have never seen before in the time I have been in the Territory. It is on page 63. I am sure the members for Nhulunbuy, Arnhem and Arafura will enjoy this map because it hardly has any of their communities in it. In fact, two of the largest Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, Wadeye and Maningrida, do not feature on the map. When you look at some of the communities that do feature, we have Rabbit Flat, Wycliffe Well, Wauchope, the Barkly Homestead and Roper Bar - not Ngukurr, but Roper Bar. This is a very strange map for ministers to be carrying to Aboriginal people to talk about how we are going to develop the economics in this place, particularly with their participation.
I am disturbed for instance - and I am sure the member for Arnhem would be too - that none of the communities on Groote Eylandt are mentioned. Two get a mention on the Tiwi Islands, but Milikapiti is not there. A map like this where Rabbit Flat and Wauchope and Roper Bar get a mention but major Aboriginal communities do not, is a very difficult document for ministers to be taking to Aboriginal people to talk about this stuff. It has communities that are paraded largely that have possibly two votes in them; and communities like Wadeye - that we hear much comment about how important they are - are completely deleted from this map. So let us get past the rhetoric as T S Eliot is trying to intimate with his quote and let’s get out of the shadow and into reality.
In regard to matters relating health, I was pleased to hear the minister put on record that there is $100m for health infrastructure. I was pleased to hear her say that that would continue to make a contribution. It does however seem to fly in the face on page 25 of the priority action which is: ‘by October 2002 complete the $65m redevelopment of the Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals’. The completion of the $65m is stages 1 and 2 for Royal Darwin and there are stages that have to come after that. I hope they are still on the agenda. It is a much more economic proposition for government to continue with that work at the Royal Darwin campus because you already have project managers on-site, they already have compounds for their work, there is already the elements that go with the disturbance of construction on-site. I implore the minister to make sure that those further stages are completed and that they roll-off the stages that are already under way and will be complete in October. I seek an assurance at some time from the government on that, that the works at Royal Darwin will indeed be complete and not just stages 1 and 2.
The Cooperative Research Centre: the minister did pick up that we have some wonderful ideas people and we should be putting more effort into this. In her speech she mentioned Menzies and the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs. I was pleased that she did mention them, but they are not in this document. The Menzies School of Health Research is indeed an eminent institution and I would have thought that it would have featured in the priority actions of government. It is one of those things where if you are going to start talking about selling ideas out of this place one of those fine institutions like Menzies would feature very loudly in a document of this type.
At page 41 there is a curious health strategic approach in that we want to ‘Maximise opportunities for sustainable employment for indigenous Territorians’, and health is there loud and clear. But when you look at the priority actions they are to do with building houses. Whilst I will be the first to admit that there is a connection between housing and health, it would seem that there are a number of other health priority actions that could have featured there, particularly training of indigenous people and some of the things the minister has been talking about such as the opportunities for employment for Aboriginal people in the bush other than housing.
The priority action on page 45 right at the top has me intrigued because it seems to be a typo or just not following. On page 44, the strategic approach is to:
Progressively upgrade essential physical infrastructure including roads, utilities and telecommunications
to support regional, social and economic development.
The priority action to upgrade the physical infrastructure is to:
- Encourage the development of non-government and community based organisations employing a local work
force to deliver a wide range of health and community services.
Most health and community services are not physical infrastructures so it would seem that the priority action of that particular target has somehow by electronic computer error, or something, found itself in the wrong spot.
I applaud the inclusion of one of the Learning Lessons report recommendations in the Education, Employment and Training area where they talk about:
- implement four indigenous education pilots in remote schools in collaboration with Health and
Community Services in 2002 …
That is a great initiative. It is something that previous Education Minister Lugg and I had talked about and had actively done in visiting communities where, in conjunction with him, I would visit the school and he, in conjunction with me, would visit the clinic. The linkages between these two departments have to be driven. There are some good sites where you could start the pilot projects, for instance, at the top of mind would be a community like Elliott where the school and the clinic are in close proximity and where there are a number of issues that overlap. I look forward to hearing further on that initiative which would be applauded on this side of the House.
At pages 53 and 54 we go to issues of employment and education. I agree also with health featuring largely in the employment outcomes for indigenous Territorians. I applaud that as well.
At page 60 in a general comment, the document deals with the importance of the health sector and that was echoed by the health minister, and I quote:
- The mining industry again provided the largest contribution to the Territory GSP as it has done over the
last decade. After mining, the largest industries were all services: government administration and defence;
property and business services; and health and community services.
So it should be at the foremost of our minds at all times that this is a sector that makes a big economic contribution. It is largely seen by many economic rationalists as a spender and has to be contained because it is a potential out-of-control spender, but it is a massive contributor to our community. That is why I expected that it would have featured more largely that it has.
Turning to power and water. This is a very important area and it will be discussed later on today, but it features right through our economic growth. If you look, for instance, at page 12 where we deal with the mining sector, it says:
- Facilitate the development of new mining projects.
Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing mining operations and the development of Territory-based
mineral processing activities.
These are very power hungry industries. They are great consumers of power. When you are talking about the commodities market, particularly minerals, you need to be mindful that there are other places in the world that can produce power cheaper than us and it might be that one factor alone on which hinges whether a mine gets a go ahead or not. In many cases it can be the factor that is a deal breaker.
So the Compass Browns Polymetallic project and Mount Grace Batchelor are high consumers of power. The Alcan alumina expansion and a potential smelter development use massive amounts of power. Those three or four projects I just mentioned have the potential to require as much generation as we currently have for Darwin, for instance. So the priority action has to be the augmentation of our power supply and initiatives to keep that power cost as low as possible and certainly comparable with our international competitors. Yet it does not feature there. I would suggest that the minerals minister, when talking to these prospective - not just mining - but processing people, makes sure that in the foremost of his mind is some capacity to negotiate to give them the cheapest possible power.
Power also in pastoral and, particularly in water, I guess, but power in pastoral is a major feature. Page 16 deals with retaining the Pastoral Water Enhancement Scheme. I commend the government on that. It is a good scheme. In the Northern Territory we have 25% of Australia’s groundwater supplies and this is an area that has great potential to provide more horticulture with the advent of the road-sea land bridge into Asia and it is driven by that commodity: water.
Tourism features on pages 18 and 47. Again, if you talk to tourism establishments in town the cost of air-conditioning a room is a big factor in the amount they are able to charge. Many of these hotels are configured in such a way that it is very difficult to decommission air-conditioning in one or two rooms and it has to be done virtually on a floor by floor basis. It is a big cost and the opposition is disappointed with the costs that have been put on to the tourism sector, and particularly the large hotel sector. They are costs they have to incorporate into higher costs of room charge. The water, sewerage and power costs that came down in the mini-budget is a significant amount of money. I am sure that they will be looking at a continuing increase in those costs in future budgets from this government. It flies in the face of some of the initiatives in tourism and certainly some of this rhetoric in this document about - I go now to page 47:
- Minimise the costs of doing business with the Northern Territory government.
Ensure that aggregate taxes and charges are comparable to the average in other jurisdictions.
That is a fundamental with the Power and Water Authority and I hope that that is a direction that we will see articulated in the Statement of Corporate Intent which will be tabled later on today.
On page 29, I was very encouraged by the bullish attitude of the government, because there we see that the government has a priority action of ‘ensuring that Sunrise gas will come onshore by 2007’. That is a worthy goal and I commend them on being so complete in their optimism that Sunrise gas will indeed come onshore. I would like to share that optimism, but I can say that the dot points they have there will not ensure Sunrise gas comes onshore so they are going to have to come up with a few more priority actions. The priority actions that are listed there are good, and they are priority actions that will assist decisions about Sunrise gas coming onshore, but by no means will they ensure that. I hope there are a few more dot points to go there if their ambition is to make sure Sunrise gas is ensured for coming onshore.
All in all, it is a fairly soft document. The glossy nature of it is intended as some sort of a diplomatic pack-type handout. The large portions of plagiarised material from Foundations for our Future is probably a form of flattery and we probably should not be too sensitive about. I am disappointed that some of the key planks of government do not feature in this document. I am also grateful that the Chief Minister has the frankness to admit that there is a shadow between their ideas and the action, and I hope that we move out of this shadow land that we are currently in and move to a place where action becomes first and foremost what this government is about.
I am curious to see how they are going to engage with Aboriginal people with this document given that 90% of Aboriginal people in remote communities have not had their community even listed in this document. There is no way that I, for instance, if I was a minister who had to use a document such as this would have the temerity to go to these communities and say, ‘We want to engage with you, and here is a map that you are not on’. Interesting that the road to Wadeye finishes at Peppiminarti, so I suppose the people at Peppiminarti might like this document. I am sure the people of Maningrida, Ramingining, Umbakumba and many other communities would be surprised that ministers of the ilk of the Minister for Community Development would have the temerity to parade around with a map such as this.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the minister parading this as a new document, or a document that has the vast hopes and aspirations of Territorians appeased and somehow placated by this document. It is a document that is a charade, but at least it is a first step. I hope that the dates that they have put in here are met, and I hope there is a reporting mechanism, given that many of them have actually passed. Indeed, I would be skeptical whether many of them could be met.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about the Martin Labor government’s economic development strategy for the Northern Territory. Before I do, I would like to take the opportunity to digress a moment to pick up and clarify some of the constant diatribes that happen in this House at various times whenever there is a discussion in relation to Aboriginal people and their land.
They keep holding up their document, Foundations for Our Future, and when we look at our economic development strategy, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition in their document:
- Aboriginal Territorians are not a minority group as Aboriginal people may be in other parts of Australia.
Here they are major stakeholders. They represent over a quarter of the Territory’s population, have strong
representative organisations, have direct political representation and influence, and they are substantial
landowners.
They should remember this part because we keep hearing insults about empty vessels and there are a whole lot of empty vessels on the other side.
During the course of the continuing debate on the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory, a number of opposition members let rip with some ill-informed and divisive attacks on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
These attacks were not responsive to any issues or information raised by the current government, and I can only assume that they reflect a policy decision by the CLP to return to their old tactics of bidding for the non-Aboriginal vote by playing to the unfortunately widespread ignorance that exists, both in the Territory and in Australia generally, as to the nature and importance of the attachment that Aboriginal traditional owners have to their respective dreamings and the land associated with them.
I want to touch on some of the statements made by the member for Macdonnell, but the comments I am about to make are intended to apply to what was said in a similar vein by the member for Goyder. First, I should place on record that I am not speaking today on behalf of, or with a view of defending any of, the four existing land councils established under the Land Rights Act. The land councils are quite capable of looking after themselves and, in any event, I have my own criticisms to make about some aspects of the operations of some of the land councils. But such criticisms are very different from the misguided criticisms expressed by spokespersons for the opposition, and the nature of the difference is worth pointing out because it reveals just how superficial the understanding of the members opposite actually is.
My criticisms relate to delays and inadequacy in service delivery in respect of the carrying out of the land councils’ statutory functions. I would make the same criticism of any statutory authority. Apart from running land claims the core functions of a land council under the Land Rights Act is to field and process land use applications by applicant groups and individuals, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. The processing of the applications involve consultations with the traditional owners of the relevant land area, and also with Aboriginal people who have traditional interest in that land. The traditional owners plus these other Aboriginal people with traditional interest in the land constitutes the beneficiaries of the land trust for that area of land.
The job of the land council is to effectively and comprehensively outline and explain the land use proposal to the Aboriginal people to be consulted, and to obtain and implement their instructions. Where the land use application comes from outside - for example, government or commercial applicant - the instructions given by the traditional owners will frequently require the land council specialist staff to undertake vigorous negotiations with the applicant with a view to maximising the position of the traditional owners.
Where the land use application is made - as is frequently the case - by an Aboriginal organisation which either substantially represents or has the support of traditional owners, then the consultation process will usually be a very quick one, which will result in formal and legally enforceable expressions - usually in the form of a lease - being given to the arrangements that the traditional owners are endorsing.
What land councils do not have a statutory function to do is to themselves initiate land use proposals in such a manner as to place them in a position of de facto applicants. That would be tantamount to a conflict of interest, and would undermine the legitimate aspirations of community-based Aboriginal organisations to take the running in relation to such proposals. Whether a land use proposal relates to a large mining project or a request for permission to dig a gravel pit, I expect any land council to respond promptly and effectively to land use proposals in accordance with the procedure set out in the Land Rights Act. Where there are failures in this regard, the land council concerned deserves criticism.
In some cases, the failures are due to staffing problems or to funding shortfalls. Issues like that need to be addressed quickly. It is in the interest of all Territorians that land councils carry out their statutory functions properly. What is not needed is the pressure on land councils to reinvent themselves as would-be land use entrepreneurs and wheelers and dealers to the detriment of their core statutory functions, and to the ultimate detriment of the beneficiaries of the various Aboriginal land trusts which hold land granted under the Land Rights Act throughout the Territory.
Land councils are supposed to be the gatekeepers and administrators, not land developers. So what is it that the member for Macdonnell is saying? Here is an extract of what was said yesterday:
- Resting quickly on the matter of indigenous development, there is, unfortunately, an environment in
which the structure of the legislative framework over indigenous lands here in the Northern Territory
is something that the CLP could not do anything about. The truth of the matter is that it is something
that the government cannot do anything about because those legislative structures are still vested in
Canberra, which means it is a federal act which deals with the development of Aboriginal lands here
in the Northern Territory, and the land councils themselves are a statutory authority which carry the
responsibility for the development of those lands. Some land councils achieved it. In fact, all land
councils have achieved some development.
The member for Macdonnell is labouring under the misapprehension that the Land Rights Act is legislation which deals with the development of Aboriginal lands here in the Northern Territory. It is not. The Land Rights Act is silent on how Aboriginal land is developed. All it does is provide the formal mechanisms and procedures for land use applications to be processed. What land use …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, you should listen to this because the diatribe that comes out and the misinformation highlights your ignorance, like I said yesterday, and you should listen to this very carefully.
Mr Elferink: I am listening to this very carefully.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The member for Macdonnell doesn’t seem to like that arrangement. He says that the current legislative framework is something that neither the CLP could do anything about, which raises the alarming question of what the CLP would do if it was something they could do anything about.
The member for Macdonnell is also mistaken in thinking that the land councils themselves are a statutory authority which carry the responsibility for development of those lands. As I pointed out, the land councils have no responsibility for the development of any area of land. This is important to bear in mind because the land councils are only funded to carry out their statutory functions. For example, if a successful land claim is made over a pastoral lease it is not the job of the land council to run the land as a cattle station, although it will of course do everything in its power together with other relevant supporting bodies, like ATSIC, to assist the traditional owners in pursuing whatever economic enterprise operations may be available to them.
The next extract I want to refer to relates to the story the member for Macdonnell seeks to share with us about something that he says happened in my own electorate of Arafura, and I quote:
- I am immensely impressed with what has happened on the Tiwi Islands …
Well, I can also say that I am not only impressed, I am also proud as a Tiwi Islander of the ventures that my people have been able to achieve over time with projects such as the forestry project with Sylvatech and the aquaculture project with Marine Harbours. But you lose the plot there a little bit. I mean, of course if you look at Tiwi - Tiwi one people, one language, isolated from the mainland - the Tiwis have never had to go through the land claim process. In terms of development happening and fast tracking on the Tiwi Islands, that process over there is a lot more simple when compared with the dynamics that you have on the mainland.
But let me continue with the member for Macdonnell’s quote. He goes on:
- … and I get a sense of real control when I talk to people from the Tiwi Islands; of people who know what is
going on and of a little economic acumen coming out of that particular area. A classic example is the police
station. When they wanted to build a new police station, the Tiwi Land Council said: ‘We will build it for you
and then we will lease it back to you for a period of 20 years’. It is an excellent little project because it is going
to make an income for the people who own the land. Good for them.
Well, we just need to back track a little bit to put this story into context. Many years ago the main police station for the Tiwi Islands, together with a pair of well appointed houses for two police officers and their families, was built at Garden Point, or Pirlangimpi, on Melville Island. It was anticipated at the time that the main population centre on the island was going to be Garden Point. The forecast was very wrong. The main population centre on the islands is Nguiu on Bathurst Island with about 1600 people. Ranku is the other community on Bathurst Island with a fluctuating number of up to 120 people. Naturally, it is easier for police to look after Ranku from Nguiu than from Garden Point. There are about 250 people at Milikapiti on Melville Island and a similar number at Garden Point. The large population at Nguiu had to make do with occasional visits from the Garden Point police officers and an ACPO stationed at Nguiu.
Mounting domestic violence, substance abuse in particular alcohol, and youth suicide problems meant that the ACPO was placed in an impossibly difficult position. This was compounded by the appalling holding cell facility that the Northern Territory police and government maintained at Nguiu. A suicide death in custody in this place led to the end of the career of that Aboriginal Community Police Officer concerned, a respected and well liked member of the community. This resulted in legal action against the Northern Territory on behalf of the deceased man’s family and renewed calls from the community, through the Nguiu Community Government Council, for a permanent police presence at Nguiu.
Despite the obvious need, the then CLP government still did not regard the establishment of the police station at Nguiu as a sufficient priority to justify the allocation of necessary funding. So what happened was that it was not the Tiwi Land Council but the Nguiu Community Government Council that raised and spent money on building a police station at Nguiu. It should be pointed out that Nguiu Community Government Council was not the owner of the land where the police station was built. The land is owned by the Tiwi Aboriginal Land Trust. As far as I am aware, Nguiu Community Government Council did not obtain a lease in respect of that land, and that is something that is now in train under the Tiwi Island Local Government.
The police station building is a fixture, and it is owned by the Land Trust. The Nguiu Community Government Council does not exist any more having been replaced by an entity called the Tiwi Islands Local Government or TILG. It may be that police is making some kind of ongoing payment, not to the owners of the land but to TILG. I was very interested when I heard what the member for Macdonnell said about a lease in relation to the police station because in my view such an arrangement would have, indeed, been a very positive one.
The previous CLP government was implacably opposed to acknowledging Aboriginal ownership of land. To enter into any such lease arrangement was not the done thing, and was an ideological policy position that was adopted due to the CLP’s unwillingness to acknowledge the full implications of ownership by Aboriginal people of their own traditional country under Australian law.
In my view, paying for the construction of police stations in Northern Territory communities, including on Aboriginal land, is a responsibility of the Northern Territory government and should not be foisted upon any local community. We do not ask people in Darwin or Jabiru, or Katherine or Alice Springs, or any other major town to contribute to funding essential services such as police or having to build the police station.
Putting mining agreements to one side, which are covered in a separate part of the act, the mechanism for leasing land granted to an Aboriginal land trust pursuant to the Land Rights Act is set out in section 19 of the act. Section 19 leases can provide for real and substantial economic returns for traditional owners and can likewise deliver legally enforceable certainty and security to leases. A long term section 19 lease is, in itself, a significant asset which, when held by a group of traditional owners or by an Aboriginal community-based organisation, can be used and taken into account for the purpose of raising investment finance. This brings me to the next extract from the member for Macdonnell, and I quote:
- The problem is that that land cannot be used as a source of income or as a source of development for the
people who own that land. I passionately look forward to the day when Aboriginal lands provide income
for Aboriginal people, the way it always did. Even before Europeans arrived on this continent,
Aboriginal lands providing income for Aboriginal people.
There seems to be some internal discrepancy between the member for Macdonnell’s story about the Nguiu police station on the one hand and his earnest expression of longing in the latter extract. The land can be used as a source of income or as a source of development for the people who own that land. The confusion or ignorance of the member for Macdonnell when it comes to section 19 leases and the Land Rights Act is of less concern to me than the pious and misleading suggestions that underlines what he is saying here which is to the effect that there are a number of economic opportunities and options that are knocking on the door of every Aboriginal land trust in the Territory which would be making traditional owners a fortune if only the red tape barriers set up by the Land Rights Act could be removed. That suggestion is offensive and false.
The reality, as we all know, is that economic opportunities for remote Aboriginal communities are few and far between. Ironically, one of the few as yet untapped sources of land-derived income is lease payments in relation to the occupation of buildings by governments or agencies on Aboriginal land. But such income is not the sort of income that traditional owners are really interested in. What they are interested in when it comes to my electorate is the establishment of commercial ventures that are in harmony with their traditional environment, in particular, when it comes to the marine environment. They need support and assistance in setting up fishing and aquaculture and agriculture ventures. They need clarification of their rights and entitlements in relation to their traditional waters, but land tenure is simply not an obstacle when it comes to economic development.
The problems that my constituents face are remoteness, poor education and technological skills base, and dysfunction within their own communities, much of it related to substance abuse. The sooner we start tackling these problems rather than wasting time tilting at the sword of ideological windmills raised by the member for Macdonnell the better.
The Martin Labor government is about doing this. And despite all the rhetoric and empty words - I tell you I would not even comment in terms of empty words of the CLP’s blueprint for Foundations for Our Future. Our blueprint, Building a Better Future is about moving forward. It is progressive and inclusive. It is about real and meaningful partnerships with indigenous people. We will move forward. After all, partnerships and negotiation is better than litigation, which is what we ever expected from the CLP.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Northern Territory Labor government’s Building a Better Future, the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory. A strategy, by the way, which is for all Territorians, and I have heard that said in this Chamber on both sides about Territorians. Indigenous people, as the Leader of the Opposition said, are major stakeholders here and the biggest landowners in the Northern Territory. Our blueprint is for all Territorians and not just the fortunate few.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Anne McEwan, Branch Secretary, Australian Services Union, and Andrew Dennard, Branch Assistant Secretary, Australian Services Union. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
MOTION
Note Statement - Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Note Statement - Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the government’s recently released economic development strategy. Our strategy, Building a Better Territory, consolidates the Territory’s achievements of the past, and sets out our plan for the future of the Territory over the coming decade and beyond. Our strategy is a blueprint for the future development of the Northern Territory. It has been guided by the views expressed during the Economic Development Summit, and has been developed in partnership and through consultation with key stakeholders across the Territory.
Building a Better Territory adopts the key strategies of:
building on past success and creating new industries;
improving economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians;
encouraging skill and innovation;
developing the Territory’s regions; and
creating an attractive investment climate.
Underpinning and linking these strategies is the need for a modern, targetted and responsive employment, education and training system in the Territory.
As a government, it is our vision to develop educational and training opportunities that provide all Territorians with the skills and qualifications to gain employment, to re-skill and re-train where necessary, and provide Territory business with a skilled and flexible work force. This vision will be achieved by the development of a framework for the long-term improvement of education, employment and training outcomes for all Territorians, no matter where they live or what stage of the lifelong learning road they are at.
As the minister with portfolio responsibility for Employment, Education and Training, I will focus on strategies in those portfolio areas within the overall economic development strategy.
There has already been significant activity and progress in implementing many of the strategies and priority actions outlined and time framed in the Employment, Education and Training section of the Building a Better Territory document. This government has already announced in the House a major priority is to improve educational outcomes of all students in schools. Of particular urgency and the immediate focus of efforts, will be improving literacy and numeracy outcomes. Without the appropriate level of literacy and numeracy, access to vocational training, higher education and employment opportunities is severely restricted. In the wider context, numeracy and literary skills are essential in most aspects of everyday life and, for example, can impact on enterprise and community development and the effectiveness of health services and the legal system.
The development of a comprehensive Northern Territory literacy and numeracy strategy to ensure all Territory students achieve or exceed national English literacy and numeracy benchmarks has been finalised, and will be in place in all schools by the end of 2002 for implementation during 2003. Each school will have its own literacy and numeracy strategic plan and, where appropriate, these plans will be consistent with the DEET indigenous education strategy and the Learning Lessons recommendations relating to literacy and numeracy.
The implementation of recommendations from Learning Lessons commits this government to improving education outcomes for indigenous students and, in particular, a focus on increasing indigenous participation in decision-making. To this end, four indigenous education pilots in remote areas have been introduced in 2002. The pilots involve the establishment of local education advisory boards and provide community control over education decision-making processes.
The enrolment, attendance and retention strategy focusses on increasing student retention rates to Year 12, or in alternative pathways to training, higher education and employment. The strategy includes initiatives to provide alternative programs for those students who would not normally complete traditional schooling and to address the issues of truancy and student behaviour. Statistics on labour market outcomes and education pathways will be collated from January 2003.
Our recruitment, retention and development strategy for teachers aims to enhance the status and the professionalism of teachers. To provide a quality teaching service we need to be able to train, recruit and retain teachers with the qualifications and skills to meet the challenges of education delivery in the Northern Territory. The government is committed to increasing the number of teachers by an average of 25 per year from 2002. It means an increase of 100 over the first term of government. Twenty new positions have been allocated and 17 of those have been filled.
We have introduced a scheme of student teacher bursaries to encourage high achieving local students to train as teachers in Northern Territory tertiary institutions. Twenty of these bursaries were awarded in 2002, with priority given to students who indicated a willingness to teach in remote areas and in one or more of the following specialty areas: special education; English as a second language; information and communications technology; and maths and science. The establishment by July 2003 of a nationally recognised Teachers Registration Board will enable the profession itself to determine registration standards and enhance the quality of teaching practice and improve education outcomes for students.
On Tuesday in this House, I made a statement about the progress already made by the government in relation to employment and training, and I outline the key elements of the government’s Northern Territory Employment and Training Strategy 2005. I will briefly touch those key elements again because they are fundamental to the success of the economic development strategy:
the development and ongoing revision of a dynamic Northern Territory employment and
training strategy which will incorporate a Northern Territory indigenous employment and
training strategy;
collection and analysis of labour market information that will provide ongoing direction and
focus to the Northern Territory employment and training strategy. The analysis will be done in
conjunction with advice from industry, small business and community stakeholders;
vocational education and training system understand the benefits and value it provides;
maintain a system of quality training providers, both public and private, and increase the number of
people who undertake vocational education and training, for example, through group training companies;
expand the range of VET in Schools programs and other pathways from school to work such as the
training for remote youth program and part-time new apprenticeships;
work with industry and training providers to promote new and innovative approaches to training delivery
and employment support to ensure that training and skills development is targetted to meet Territory
business and employee needs;
collaborate with the Northern Territory government, local government and the Commonwealth
government to ensure resources are utilised effectively;
to enhance public sector recruitment and training practices and increase the uptake of school leaver
trainees, graduate recruitment positions, indigenous cadetships, the employment and training of people
from disadvantaged groups, and to maximise the use of accredited training throughout the Northern Territory Public Service.
The Department of Employment, Education and Training also recognises the fundamental importance of workplace safety and has the responsibility to promote world’s best practice occupational health and safety practices across both the private and public sector workplaces in the Territory. The standard of occupational health and safety practices is not only about protecting workers, it is also essential for employers in order to become and remain nationally and internationally competitive. If our businesses do not attain the highest possible standards of OH&S they will not be able to even compete for contracts in what is becoming a global marketplace. The local building and construction industry, for example, would simply not win contracts to participate in the construction of gas facilities unless they meet the standards laid down by head contractors such as Bechtel.
These employment, education and training strategies have and will continue to assist existing Territory industries. The strategies will also position the Northern Territory to maximise economic and employment benefits arising from new and emerging industries. Programs and initiatives implemented from these strategies will recognise that the Northern Territory private sector is made up predominantly of small business, and will also recognise the special needs of regional and remote areas of the Territory.
Economic development and new industries will require skilled workers and I am confident that these strategies and other initiatives being implemented by the Department of Employment, Education and Training will put Territorians in a sound position to make the most of these employment and career opportunities as they emerge.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak in support of the Chief Minister’s statement on our government’s economic development strategy for the Northern Territory, Building a Better Territory. In my maiden speech, I said:
- In this speech I have spoken a lot about social justice and equity. Economic development must be
underpinned by these principles. Nevertheless, without economic development, these principles are
merely concepts. The Territory stands at the threshold of great economic developments. We are also
faced with profound social issues. I will work hard to ensure that the Territory benefits from these
crucial economic developments, while at the same time ensuring that issues related to social
disadvantage are effectively addressed.
The mining and minerals processing sector provides by far the greatest contribution of any sector to the Territory GSP. From my recollection it is somewhere in the order of between 17% and 20%. Correctly, our statement builds on the situation. As the strategy document foreshadows, we will build on past successes and create new industries. In terms of advancing the mining and minerals processing sector, we have undertaken to advance mineral prospectivity to discovery – a simple but effective strategy to advance this sector.
I have spoken previously about the way in which this government has facilitated this strategy through beginning to work effectively with indigenous landowners and their representatives. Over the past 12 months this government has made great progress in building partnerships with Aboriginal people. These partnerships have had substantial and immediate benefits to the mining industry and to Aboriginal people. I refer, of course, to our efforts in clearing up the log jam of 900-odd mining exploration licences which had been piling up on the desk of the previous Minister for Resource Development. agree with the current mines minister when he attributed the reason for this log jam under the previous government to the failure of the previous government to sit down and constructively negotiate, particularly with Aboriginal organisations such as the Central Land Council.
In February 2002, Minister Henderson announced 178 licences had been cleared for granting over a massive 100 000 km. The minister also foreshadowed a further 150 000 km of land across the Territory being opened up for exploration due to the negotiation between companies and land councils.
Apart from the aforementioned strategy, the statement also lists other effective mechanisms by which this sector can be further developed. First, to develop known resources and promote value adding, and second, ensure a safe, environmentally responsible mining industry.
One of the areas of the economic strategy that I find particularly exciting is the pledge to develop and encourage knowledge and innovation. Two major areas that this strategy proposes to develop and capitalise on are desert knowledge and tropical knowledge.
Most members would be aware of the Desert Knowledge Project which grew out of the Alice in 10 project which was, I am aware, a project of the former government. However, I think our economic strategy outlines the way in which we are going to strongly support the progress of this particular project. The Desert Knowledge Project has entailed a survey of the various domains of knowledge in relation to the desert environment. This is especially important since one-third of the world’s land surface is desert, and these deserts are inhabited by about one billion people, or about one-sixth of the world’s population. This has created strong international demand for knowledge about developing the economies and living sustainability in desert regions.
Approximately 70% of Australia is desert, and as a consequence a considerable body of expertise and research capacity has already been developed regarding habitation and ecologically sustainable management of arid lands. Nevertheless, Central Australia has a unique caucus of knowledge in relation to desert. Apart from the priceless and extensive knowledge held by Aboriginal people, there is also a broad range of scientific and technical expertise available with considerable experience in issues including: facilitating the interchange of knowledge between Aboriginal and western cultures; sustainable development and land use; appropriate design including architecture; and managing distance delivery of services.
The overwhelming success of the Yeperenye Festival is testimony to the national and international interest in desert knowledge, particularly indigenous cultural knowledge. The challenge is to appropriately integrate this interest into our economy with tangible benefits for all. Another strategic area within knowledge and innovation is the area of support for research and development. As a researcher in the Territory over many years, I am well aware of some of the world-class research that is carried out within the Territory. Much of the health and medical research carried out through the Menzies School quickly springs to mind. I acknowledge the presence in the House of a colleague of mine, Alan Clough, who is working on a number of projects in East Arnhem through the Menzies School of Health Research. Similarly, the unique work carried out through the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health. Moreover, NTU is extremely well placed to support a unique research effort, particularly in the area of oil and gas.
We are a party that is committed to research and development. We recognise its value. We will support knowledge and innovation in the Territory. Another crucial aspect for economic development in the Territory is to manage our natural resources and to protect our environment for future generations. It is reassuring to see the commitment within our strategy to protecting and preserving Darwin Harbour. This government is mindful of the precious and priceless asset that we have in our harbour. I was heartened to recently hear the minister give assurances about a Plan of Management for Darwin Harbour. I am confident that this government can find the balance between having a working harbour that is adjacent to two large urban areas in Darwin and Palmerston, and preserving its beauty and ecological integrity.
Finally, I return to my previous statement about the need for economic development to be underpinned by social justice and equity. I was heartened to read the Chief Minister’s foreword in the statement where she said, ‘… we live in a community, not just an economy’. She also highlighted the need for economic and social opportunities to be equitably extended to indigenous Territorians.
I also enjoyed reading the quote used in the Chief Minister’s foreword to illustrate how her economic statement illuminates our vision for the economic and social advancement of the Territory. The quote that she used is from T S Eliot’s poem, The Hollow Men:
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
It so happens that T S Eliot has been one of my favourite poets for a long time, and I would like to quote from his play Choruses from the Rock, which is another big favourite of mine, to further illustrate that having the target of economic development just alone is hollow. I quote from Eliot:
The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
- Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
- Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
Similarly, I believe our economic statement recognises that there is more to the life of the individual and the community than mere profit.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement on Building a Better Territory, the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Power and Water Corporation
Power and Water Corporation
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the Government Owned Corporations Act came into operation on 21 December 2001. The Government Owned Corporations Act adopts the shareholder model of corporate governance. This model replicates, as far as possible, the model that applies to private sector businesses.
The Territory’s former Power and Water Authority became the Territory’s first government owned corporation on 1 July 2002. The Power and Water Corporation is the Territory government’s largest trading enterprise. It is known, from 1 July 2002, by its business name of PowerWater. As Treasurer, I am the shareholding minister for the Power and Water Corporation, as provided for in the Government Owned Corporations Act. The Minister for Essential Services is the portfolio minister. I also hold a separate role in relation to the corporation as the regulatory minister.
Under the Government Owned Corporations Act, PowerWater is expected to perform at least as efficiently as any comparable business, and to maximise the return to the Territory on its investment in this business. There were a number of matters that required my approval or agreement under the Government Owned Corporations Act for the Power and Water Corporation to become a government owned corporation. Some of these matters required tabling, and it is these matters that I rise to speak about today.
The first of these is the Statement of Corporate Intent for the Power and Water Corporation. Under section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister, I must table in the Legislative Assembly a copy of the statement of corporate intent and any modifications of it within six sitting days after the commencement of the financial year to which the statement relates, or after the date agreed between the board and the shareholding minister for its delivery.
For PowerWater’s first such statement, I agreed that the board could deliver the completed statement of corporate intent to me by 9 August 2002. This was to allow the corporation some more time to finalise its projections for the next three years, after consultation with me. The Statement of Corporate Intent is the annual performance agreement between the government owned corporation and myself as shareholding minister representing Territorians as owners of PowerWater. The Statement of Corporate Intent replaces the accountability framework imposed through the budget processes for government agencies, and articulates the owner’s performance targets and expectations placed on the corporation. The statement of corporate intent will be negotiated annually, and includes projections for the next three years to 2004-05.
In line with the Government Owned Corporations Act, the statement of corporate intent also sets out:
objectives of PowerWater and the nature and scope of its activities;
material risks faced by PowerWater and the strategies to minimise those risks;
strategies to improve financial performance; and
capital investment plans of PowerWater that I have approved.
As a result, the SCI provides a comprehensive consideration of the activities of PowerWater and its key objectives, its corporate governance structure, the key risks faced by the corporation and the ways in which these risks will be dealt with by the corporation. This statement is a new development for the Territory and explains that PowerWater is committed to environmental management and the delivery of its services to the Territory community.
PowerWater’s Board will report on the corporation’s performance against performance targets and expectations outlined in the statement of corporate intent. The statement of corporate intent tabled today understandably does not include commercially …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not actually have the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Ms MARTIN: I will be tabling it, Madam Speaker. I was going to do it at the end of my speech.
Mr DUNHAM: I have the words here: ‘the statement of corporate intent tabled today’, so I assumed it was in the past.
Madam SPEAKER: So you are going to table it? Would you like to table it now?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will table it now. I have a number of documents to table. I was going to do it at the end of my speech. If that is okay with the member for Drysdale?
Mr Dunham: Just gives me an extra two minutes to read it, that’s all.
Ms MARTIN: Well, you waved one around before; you already have it.
Mr Dunham: No, I did not wave that around.
Ms MARTIN: I thought you did. Excuse me.
Mr Dunham: I will explain that when I get a chance to …
Ms MARTIN: As a result, the SCI provides a comprehensive consideration of the activities of PowerWater and its key objectives, its corporate governance structure, the key risks faced by the corporation and the ways in which these risks will be dealt with by the corporation. This statement is a new development for the Territory and explains that PowerWater is committed to environmental management and the delivery of its services to the Territory community.
PowerWater’s Board will report on the corporation’s performance against performance targets and expectations as outlined in the statement of corporate intent. The statement of corporate intent is tabled today - which I will do shortly – understandably does not include commercially sensitive information. As I indicated earlier, the objective is to put the corporation into a position as similar as possible to an equivalent privately-owned business, and it would not be sensible to disadvantage PowerWater by making public commercially confidential information that no private sector business would release.
Nonetheless, as parts of PowerWater’s business constitute monopolies, the government has established a Utilities Commission to ensure that PowerWater does not take unfair advantage of monopoly power to the detriment of customers.
The statement shows that the corporation projects the following headline information in 2002-03:
total revenue of $383m;
earnings before interest and tax of $50m;
profit after tax - this is projected -- of $26m;
net capital expenditure of $42m; and
a projected dividend to government of $13m which would be paid in the year 2003-04.
The financial projections have an increase in water and sewerage charges of 2.5% on 1 January 2003 reflected in them. This increase is necessary to ensure that the business remains viable.
As shareholding minister, I will be monitoring the performance of the Power and Water Corporation against its targets, and will require the corporation to explain differences to me on an ongoing basis. These differences are to be explained in PowerWater’s annual financial statement that will be tabled in parliament.
The second matter that requires tabling is the constitution of the Power and Water Corporation in accordance with section 11(9) of the Government Owned Corporations Act. On 29 June, under section 11(3) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, I approved the new constitution for PowerWater. This document sets out the rules for the management and corporate governance of the corporation and mirrors, as far as practical, the operation and effect of a commercial entity’s constitution has on the operation of that entity. Together, the Government Owned Corporations Act, the constitution and the statement of corporate intent introduce accountability mechanisms which will assist the board of PowerWater to achieve the objectives of a government owned corporation.
Madam Speaker, as you are aware, a government owned corporation does not have the overall backing of a Territory guarantee. The reason that such a guarantee is not provided is to ensure that the corporation operates on a level playing field with the private sector. Nonetheless, the act does make provision so that if required, a Territory guarantee can be provided in limited circumstances. The Territory was required to provide a guarantee to the Westpac Banking Corporation to allow the Power and Water Corporation to continue to bank with the Territory’s bank under the Territory’s banking contract. This is a transitional arrangement. It seems likely that PowerWater may decide in the future to establish its own separate banking arrangements.
The granting of this guarantee under section 43 of the Government Owned Corporations Act is appropriate as it allows the corporation to continue using the government’s banking arrangements until such time as the corporation builds up in-house expertise to handle complex funds management and investment operations. The guarantee is only in relation to the Territory’s banking contracts and not in relation to the corporation’s operations.
The performance of government businesses and the Territory’s first government owned corporation have a significant impact on the cost of providing government services and on the Territory economy generally. Improving the operating efficiency of government businesses is an important element of overall reforms aimed at reducing costs and freeing up government resources for other expenditure priorities.
The government has taken the initiative in establishing the Territory’s first government owned corporation. The first year of government owned corporation status presents the beginning of a new era for the corporation and for the Territory. Over time, the monitoring and establishment of performance targets for the corporation will be improved and the board is responsible for ensuring the corporation has the right direction to improve its performance.
The board of the corporation is now accountable for the performance of the corporation. I look forward to being advised by the board of the corporation’s performance against its projections and in setting future performance targets for the corporation. Of course, it must be recognised that the board is subject to ministerial direction. The board cannot be held accountable for any such direction and each board member has been provided with an indemnity from the Territory where the directors act in good faith on ministerial direction under the Government Owned Corporations Act. On public policy grounds, I will also table a copy of the form of indemnity provided to directors of the corporation from 1 July 2002.
Madam Speaker, I hereby table the constitution of the Power and Water Corporation; the first statement of corporate intent of the Power and Water Corporation; the guarantee to Westpac Banking Corporation; and the form of indemnity provided to the directors of the Power and Water Corporation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be done on the basis that I have yet to see the statement of corporate intent. Indeed, I do have some briefing papers on it and I have had a briefing this morning from officers of Treasury, the minister’s office and the Power and Water Corporation. So, without seeing the actual detail of it, I am aware of the issues relating to the banking - and that is certainly fully supported by the opposition - the issues related to the indemnification of directors and some of those other issues that the minister has spoken about.
The first thing I would like to make clear is that it is our understanding that, in this transitional year, PowerWater will be available for scrutiny during the Estimates Committee processes. Although not fully enshrined yet, I understand the finances of PowerWater will be made available to the scrutiny of that committee. That is a good transitional arrangement because, obviously, it is going to take us some time to digest these figures and to look at them and it gives us a month or so to be able to come back and ask questions on this. It is a good idea to remove Aboriginal Essential Services to the Department of Community Development and all those etceteras that go with it. You have broad support, pretty much, from opposition on those matters.
I was pleased also to meet the new Managing Director, Kim Wood, who appears to me to be a very straightforward person and ably suited to the helm of this new emerging corporation.
We do have some difficulties with some of the things that the Chief Minister has said of late. In the first place, there seems to be a nexus between the necessity to raise water rates by 7%, an enormous amount, and in answer from the Chief Minister it would appear that that is to improve reliability. Those figures are available to parliamentarians. I suggest that they may be available prior to Estimates Committee so that we can look at system average outage durations and failures in the water and sewerage system. I would also like to see historical data on improvements to reliability, remembering that these are not just reticulation issues. Certainly, in my case, I was fortunate to open the new power station at Tennant Creek and it is my understanding that those generators were put in place primarily to improve not only efficiency but reliability. Likewise Yulara. We also commissioned set seven at Channel Island at a cost of some $30m.
So the discussion about the neglect of the system when it comes to issues relating to reliability, I suggest that the shareholding minister demonstrate to the shareholders including myself - that is Territorians - rather than by rhetoric because I would say that the R&M budgets and the budgets put into power augmentation and system reliability would more than stack up with the budget that is available now. Some of the smoke and mirrors relating to the necessity to increase these water charges by such a large amount has not been made obvious in this statement or in any of the other utterances.
The maths is something we have a significant problem with in that the Chief Minister has told us that variously it is $4 on a PAWA bill, and on a quarterly power bill would give us $16. She has told us it is 40 a week which would be $20 per annum, and she has also claimed it is $20 week which would confirm the latter computation. Assuming that the 2.5% on an average domestic bill will cause an extra $20, one must go back to the mini-budget and wonder why those figures are irreconcilable. If you go to the mini-budget - and you certainly have some financial boffins over there who should be able to do this stuff for you - you would see the impact increase of sewerage tariffs on the average domestic customer – don’t forget this is 5%; this is double the increase they have just dropped on us - would yield $15.
That being the case, one wonders how half that increase can yield $20. The answer is quite simple, really. What they have done is they have chosen a very low consumption rate of 299 per annum and they have extrapolated that. I suggest that the average consumer is now paying $60 extra per annum under this government, given that the 2.5% is worth $20 and the previous 5% they hit us with must have been worth $40. So my quick and dirty maths would say that this is an extra $60 that has been put on consumers. I do not believe the argument that it is entirely R&M driven and that this is to increase reliability. Neither do I believe that if the Power and Water Corporation had these very necessitous works that had to take place, they would yield a profit of $26m. If those works were necessary to carry the functions of the Power and Water Corporation into increased reliability, the profit margin should not have been $26m, which on a five year extrapolation averages $20m, anyway. So it is an anomalous year.
This year has yielded a large profit, half of which has been tucked into the pocket of the government, and at the same time they are trying to cry poor. Those concepts I cannot reconcile. What you have done is you have pretended that you are short of money, therefore you have raised the bill. The bill that is being paid is merely making contribution to the bottom line, to the profit. I would like to see that business well understood, and I would like to know whether there are any other numbers either in the mini-budget, which we know has some significant holes in it, and in this statement of corporate intent where we can have very little confidence in the figures that have been provided.
I was interested when my colleague asked a question about how much of this, the profit, would yield to the government and the Chief Minister claimed that this was a matter of commercial-in-confidence and then went on to a statement that told us the answer. There was going to be $26m worth of profit and half was going to go to the government, ergo, $13m. There are a couple of problems we have here. The first is she may not understand her act and her responsibilities. The second is she may not have understood the question, which is entirely possible. The third is that in Question Time she did not want to canvass this matter other than to look over her shoulder and claim there had been an era of neglect which she had inherited and she was in the unfortunate position of having to slug the consumer.
Well, let us be frank about it. The consumer is being slugged to provide for a fat bottom line, to provide for a generous cheque to the government. That is the equation. Until we can see something different to that, that is the way it will be paraded because that has much more proximity to the truth than what we heard in the statement.
The matters relating to undergrounding power, and power to Dundee, and those sorts of issues, must be very transparent community service obligations. They must be available to us for interrogation, so that if we have a situation where the Power and Water Corporation says water must go up by 7.5%, you would expect that in an operating environment where they are providing only a couple of products, perhaps power should be an increase of about the same amount. In other words, there has been a political decision and Percy Allen has been quite eloquent on this, and all those documents are available for the opposition, there has been a political decision to interfere in the commercial operations of this corporation to say, ‘Please peg power’.
Last time we talked about this there were several interjections and public pronouncements that Dunham has got something wrong with you pegging power; I have no problems with pegging power. But it should not be somehow concealed in the finances of PowerWater. Whatever the figure is that the power should have naturally escalated by, that figure should be provided by way of a community service obligation, and that figure should be made available to the parliament. The undergrounding of the power in Nightcliff is a government promise and should be funded out of Treasury coffers; the power to Dundee likewise, and any other political promises that intrude on what would otherwise be sound commercial decision making by the PowerWater.
It is not my intention to speak for long, on the simple basis that these documents have only just been placed on my desk as I speak. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date. I understand that we will have an opportunity in both estimates and in this debate at some later time to make further contributions.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, honourable members would be aware that Power and Water has been reforming its business over the past three years. This has involved a focus on reducing costs across the business and restructuring it along business lines. A board was appointed in April 2000 and has only recently been reappointed for an additional two year term. Over the past three years, the board has examined how to improve the reporting relationship with the Power and Water’s owner, the Northern Territory government, and strategies for improving Power and Water’s competitive position in the electricity market. We have a board with tremendous experience and can feel confident that they are extremely well placed to provide government with advice and guide Power and Water over the next period.
Honourable members will remember that in November last year, this parliament passed the Government Owned Corporations Act and the Power and Water Authority Act Amendment Act. The Power and Water Authority, PAWA, became a corporation on 1 July 2002. The purpose of this shift is for the Power and Water Corporation, as the Territory’s largest non-mining business, to report to government as a company would report to its shareholders.
The Government Owned Corporations Act is designed to provide a governance structure which will allow the Power and Water Corporation to perform at least as efficiently as any comparable business, and maximise its returns to the Northern Territory. The dividend payable by the corporation will be used for providing other services to Territorians. It is not going into the pockets of the government. It is going to be used for providing other services to Territorians. Whilst the corporation’s charter is to act commercially in order to deliver returns, the organisation will continue to develop its programs in consultation with government. These are detailed in the statement of corporate intent, the negotiated contract between the shareholding minister and the corporation. Ultimately, government has the power, under the Government Owned Corporations Act, to direct the Corporation.
Honourable members will be aware that the Power and Water Corporation has two ministers: a shareholding minister, the Treasurer, and a portfolio minister, who is the Minister for Essential Services. I am the government spokesperson for Power and Water, administer requests for community service obligation funding, and am responsible for the Power and Water Act. This act has been amended to establish Power and Water as a government owned corporation, and to achieve consistency between the Power and Water Act and the Government Owned Corporations Act.
As the portfolio minister, I am also responsible for ensuring that PowerWater meets its service obligation, the target for which I have set out in the statement of corporate intent. The PowerWater Board has already signalled in the statement of corporate intent which has been negotiated with government, that there will be a stronger focus in a number of areas which have always been important.
As I have outlined, PowerWater has restructured its business and focussed on reducing costs over the past three years. In all areas of PowerWater’s business, business rules have been applied to create an organisation more able to perform as a business, increasing our efficiencies, operating like a business, performing like a business, signing agreements like a business - not agreements as a result of political pressure, as we have seen in the past. Some of them refer to power generation in Alice Springs, the Brewer Estate in Alice Springs; but some agreements have resulted in a loss of millions of dollars, as advised by PowerWater.
On 2 April 2002, PowerWater went live with a new financial management system. This will greatly improve the shareholder, board and the management’s ability to monitor PowerWater’s financial performance. Obviously, customers have always been important, but PowerWater is seeking to improve performance in this area and will be asking customers how to better tailor services to meet their needs. We are already spending a large amount of money undergrounding power, but we are also spending a large amount of money equal to the amount we are spending in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek in the rural area. Compared to the previous government, we have spent $900 000 in 2000-01; this financial year we intend to spend $2m in the Darwin and rural area to improve services.
This represents a major shift in the organisation culture for the organisation. It is the first time PowerWater has published a document detailing its service commitment to customers. To quote from that document, the customer charter lets customers know: ‘Who we are’, and ‘What we can do, so that we can serve you better’. The charter is being included in all bills as they are issued. PowerWater will be seeking to actively engage the community in a partnership to deliver quality services to all Territorians. The corporation encourages feedback from customers in order to tailor its services more appropriately.
We acknowledge that power supply reliability in Darwin’s rural area has not been as good as it could be. This has been due, in a large part, to factors outside PowerWater’s control. However, a solution has been found; a solution which has provided excellent results in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. PowerWater staff have commenced a program replacing deteriorated wooden cross-arms and old pin insulators with post top insulators in Darwin and rural areas. The longer post top insulators provide greater protection against both lightning and wildlife. Our rural residents in Bees Creek, Darwin River, Berry Springs and Southport should derive benefits from this work by the coming wet season.
Honourable members will also be aware, of course, of the Chief Minister’s recent announcement of a program to underground powerlines in the older suburbs of Darwin. This program will commence in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek which experience the most reliability problems. Poles will start coming down at the beginning of the next dry season. In the meantime, the high voltage feeder along Trower Road will be replaced underground, delivering immediate reliability benefits by this wet season.
There has been much speculation about the introduction of late fees for late payment of PowerWater accounts. Approximately two-thirds of the corporation’s customers pay on receipt of a final notice, the pink notice - sometimes I have done that myself. In addition, many thousands of agreements to pay are processed. This costs over $1m every year to administer. There is obviously no question that effort needs to be made to ensure bills are paid on time. However, after careful consideration, it has been decided that the introduction of late fees is not the way forward on this issue, so there are not going to be any late fees. Instead, other ways of encouraging payment of accounts on time will be developed.
Minimising the impact of its activities on the environment has always been a keen business driver for PowerWater. An environmental strategy is currently being finalised for publication early in the financial year. PowerWater will be seeking to engage environmental groups and the community in examining ways of improving its environmental performance and the associated options available.
Power Water and its board recognise, as a large Territory business and a major purchaser of goods and services from other Territory businesses, the corporation and the board will be seeking to engage the business community in order to strengthen the relationship.
And finally, supporting the community. PowerWater has always considered its role in supporting the community through targetted sponsorships and that role is important. This support will continue as PowerWater recognises that supporting the community is an essential part of developing a relationship with that community. However, PowerWater will continue to give careful consideration to its community support program to ensure that its sponsorship will link PowerWater with the community and will become an important tool in creating a strategic advantage in the competitive electricity industry.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the board and the staff of the Power and Water Corporation for a smooth transition to corporation status on 1 July. It has been made possible due to the genuine belief by all involved that this is the best way forward for the organisation. The governance arrangements will provide greater focus on customer service and on financial and operational performance. How PowerWater performs against published targets will be reported against in the statement of corporate intent next year.
I stress once again that this is not a precursor to privatisation. Corporatisation is a natural progression for PowerWater’s business - the essential values of customer service, environmental performance and support for business and the community will not change.
In conclusion, I look forward to a bipartisan approach taking PowerWater forward as a government owned corporation. I congratulate the Treasurer in tabling the Power and Water Corporation’s first statement of corporate intent and constitution.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s tabling statement presented this afternoon. I want to make one important comment on it. I was very pleased to see in the statement that the new board is going to be responsible for setting performance targets and monitoring those targets. Setting targets is a very important thing to be doing so that we will all know where the Power and Water Corporation is heading and we, as a community, can make decisions and give direction as to how we think they should be going. I do hope though - it has not been noted in the statement - that the findings of that monitoring will be made public and we will have a good idea and good feedback as to how the corporation is going.
There are some concerns out there with regards to the provision of power and water, and some smarties in my neck of the woods have made the comment, ‘Labor’s in, lights are out,’ and that is a real issue here in the inner city. It is a fact that a number of street lights are out from time to time. As I have reported to this House in the past, roughly about eight to 10 weeks ago, I had a problem with my electorate, Port Darwin, with a number of street lights which were out. In a one hour survey, I found 71 lights out on the major arterial roads as opposed to residential areas in particular. Street lights are vitally important as I am sure all of you as local members are aware. They are important for safety, not only for traffic which is fairly self-evident, but also for pedestrians, for business houses and for private residences. It is in that sort of light, and that is meant to be a pun – that we have concerns – thank you, member for Araluen – we do have concerns with regard to street lighting and the provision of that.
My particular concern is arterial roads. These are roads that are not necessarily where people live. The advertisements encourage people to report street lights that are out. My concern is that as you whiz past these areas at 70, 80, 90 km an hour, you really do not take a great deal of notice as to where a particular light is out. Your motivation to ring in and advise that a light is out on a particular arterial road is probably diminished as the night wears on and by the next morning, you may well have forgotten it. I am concerned that there does not appear to be a routine, regular monitoring and fixing of outed street lights by an agency such as the Power and Water Corporation.
For example, two nights ago I drove on Dick Ward Drive, and as I came from Nightcliff into Fannie Bay I lost count of the number of lights that were out. In one section, it was every second light. I am guessing that something like 40 to 50 lights were out. As I went along the back of the racecourse, this is two nights ago, people were actually using high beam because all of the lights along the back of the Fannie Bay racecourse and near the sewerage farm were out; and it was pitch black. It is very dangerous. There is a cycle path there, pedestrians use that area, and cars; it was incredibly dangerous, the fact that it was so dark on such a busy high-speed - 70 km/h - road. I am not sure of the electorate that would fall in, possibly Millner, but I would encourage the local member there to have a look at those lights over the next few nights. If it is in your electorate, you will need to make contact with the Power and Water Corporation. That is what I have had to do because apparently there is no routine, regular surveying of these areas that happen frequently enough to be able to pick out huge outages such as that. I do know that from time to time these outages are caused by something specific and that perhaps those lights have already been fixed. I certainly hope that is the case. But if not, it is a large stretch of public road with very high traffic usage, and we need that to be picked up.
To conclude, the provision of adequate street lighting is a very important issue. I believe that the Power and Water Corporation should have some form of regular monitoring of arterial roads. It is fine to have residents make notification to the Power and Water Corporation on those residential areas. It is that high risk, public area where no one actually lives and I am not convinced that there is the motivation for the public to report that large number of lights that are out. I believe that is a slip-up in the system and that there should be steps taken to correct that by having people routinely monitor those high use areas of road.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak on a few matters regarding today’s statement on the Power and Water Corporation. Listening to Question Time in respect of CPI and inflation, the total amount of charges going up, I found it quite a complicated debate and I do not think there has been sufficient time for one to look at the effects of what the government is doing. I am certainly not an expert in these areas and will need to talk to people who are before I made comment on what the effect of these changes will be. I am not going to concentrate on that section.
However, I do feel that there is one thing that is missing and that needs to happen, and that is that there has to be a charter. I did open this book which has just landed on my desk but have the problem of not having enough time to read it. It has a vision:
- We will create long-term value for our customers, our community and our shareholder by delivering
multi-utility services at highly competitive rates, providing the impetus for attracting new business and
people to the Territory.
And the Mission Statement:
- Power and Water delivers power, water and sewerage services to the community in a competitive,
efficient and environmentally friendly manner.
First, to be honest, in the rural area, it does not do that. Second, if it wants to attract new business, especially in the rural area, it is going to have to show that it can deliver power. If we are going to have a Mission Statement, I believe it has to be much more specific.
I have had, since the middle of the Dry Season - and I thought when the Dry Season came, I would not have phone calls. I had plenty in the Wet Season, and you do expect that; we have lightning, wind and trees hitting powerlines and so you do have problems with the power. But this Dry Season, I have been continually rung up, e-mailed, run into on the street and told: ‘We have problems with the power’. People are getting up in the morning and finding that the old microwave is flickering and saying: ‘The power must have been off during the night. Why?’ On Tuesday of this week, I had a mango grower ring me and say: ‘The power went off on the weekend, off on the Monday, off on the Tuesday and now my bore has burnt out’. Last week I spoke to another mango grower, and anyone who knows mangoes knows that at the moment they need a lot of water continually because they are flowering and in fruit. They need water a fair bit of the time. When the power goes off, it throws the automatic watering systems out and although they might come back with the right time on, they do not bring the water back on.
The local nursery at Howard Springs, same problem. During the night, he is trying to run a watering system for his nursery; off goes the power. When it comes back on, the water does not come back on - the timer might, but the water does not. So, he has a problem there; he gets up and finds that his plants have not been watered. You also have the problem where the power goes off in the local bakery, it might go off for two hours in the middle of the night. Well, the guy is up there getting all the dough ready for the morning’s work and he is now two hours behind in making that bread, and that is two hours business he loses.
These are important reasons why the power has to be reliable, and I do not think at the moment it is. I am not satisfied with the answers I have been getting about that. I find it really difficult to understand what is going on. The government has said they are spending $2m on improving the electricity service – very good, I applaud that. But they are spending it down at Darwin River – great idea, and Berry Springs – terrific. I am not knocking that at all. But the problems are in Howard Springs and Girraween and Humpty Doo – that is where it is occurring. I know they are on two substations; part of Howard Springs is in the Palmerston substation, and the other part I think is in the Bees Creek substation. Those areas are getting power off. I am getting complaints about computers burning out, of whitegoods burning out, because there have been fluctuations or just the power goes off, comes back on, goes back off – the answer I get is ‘bats.’
The proof of whether there are bats is usually my white car, and this year I cannot remember any bat pooh on my car. I always get cranky because you have to try wipe it off the windscreen and get it off the paint before it makes a mess. I have not seen a lot of bats around this year. I live in a mango area, and normally you go out at 8 o’clock at night and bats are everywhere, squawking away – and possums, yes, but they do not seem to be around.
There is one question I would like to ask the minister if I could, and I cannot seem to get an answer. Originally, there was a gentleman in Power and Water who had a great cheap idea for reducing the number of outages – he got lengths of polypipe about this long and placed them over the wires close to where the poles are. Now they have put the big insulators in, but the polypipe has gone. I don’t know why it has gone; I don’t think it was doing any harm. I would still like to know, did that system work? It was very cheap. What was wrong with it? I do not have a satisfactory answer over that.
I still believe there are some issues regarding the supply of power. What I am asking the government, and I have said it recently in a press release, is that we need an independent auditor who is qualified in the area of electrical infrastructure and delivery, who comes in and has a look. I can give you names and address of people who have rung me – I keep a list of the phone numbers when people ring me and say, ‘I have power problems.’ A bloke recently rang me from Howard Springs saying, ‘In two weeks the power was off five times,’ and he wanted to know why. No-one could really give me an answer except ‘bats,’ and the problem is that Power and Water have been putting these advertisements in the NT News for the last three or four weeks, saying:
- The rural area has experienced more power interruption than is normal for this time of the year, mostly
caused by flying foxes. Parks and Wildlife have confirmed that more flying foxes are moving through the
rural area this year in search of food and water due to the poor wet season. The flying foxes have mostly
moved through Howard Springs to Humpty Doo, and are moving on toward Adelaide River. When an
interruption occurs, Power and Water crews are committed to locating the fault and restoring your power
as quickly as possible.
Mr Henderson: I saw them last night in my paw paws.
A member: There are heaps around at the moment, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Obviously, they have it wrong and they move from Howard Springs and Humpty Doo to Darwin, not to Adelaide River.
But people cannot accept that the power is going off this often.
Ms Scrymgour: In Katherine they are swarming.
Mr WOOD: Well, I can only talk for my area, and it seems that the power is going off far more often than is normal.
The point I am getting at is that if you are trying to run a business, if you are trying to run a nursery, if you are trying to run a mango plantation, especially at this time of year, if you are trying to just live – luckily we have a pretty cool dry season so we don’t have to have too much of the old fan going. It is not so bad, but for these people trying to run businesses, then it is difficult to see how they can. The vision that PowerWater says they will be providing the impetus for attracting new business from the people of the Territory. At the moment they would be attracting business to buy themselves their own generators.
If PowerWater are going to bring out a vision and a mission statement, and they are a government owned business, and they are now in the big corporate world and are competing, in theory, with some other electrical company, then written within their charter should be that they will provide 24-hour 240 volt power and, if they do not provide that - except in exceptional circumstances - then I believe that customers are entitled to discounts on their quarterly charges. Also, if they are a business I think they are entitled to some compensation for loss of production. If people have equipment that is burnt out, then they should be the ones paying for that burnt out equipment - not TIO but the company that is meant to provide the power. They are now saying: ‘We are a business’. Well, if you are a business, you are in the business world, you act like any other business. If you do not deliver what you say you will deliver, then there is an opposite side to that: ‘Well, we will have to pay until we get it up and running correctly’.
I know I am making what you might say is a song and dance, but if it was only one person telling me this I would say: ‘Well, it could be just a fault’, but I am getting this continually. I know the Chief Minister knows exactly what it is about because she received a phone call late at night. I have met that lady as well and she is certainly pretty forthright, but she is concerned. Electricity for people in the rural area is very important.
I will give you another case - I might have mentioned it the other day. Most people in the rural area require electricity for our water. I am lucky; I pump it into a tank and I have about a week’s supply in the tank. Other people pump water straight into their house; they run a couple of sprinklers when they have a shower - the sprinklers are going and the shower is going. That is when they get their water. When they have no power, they have nothing. That can be a bit of a nuisance if you get up at 6.30 am to get ready for work and you find you have no water. It is all right for blokes; we can go out and see the citrus trees, but it is not a good thing for families. It is important. What I would like to see - and I repeat it again - we need an independent audit of what the service is. I make note here - and I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I will read it first. This is an advertisement in an NT News one day last week. It is with regard to the position of senior maintenance officer for PowerWater. PowerWater want a ‘highly motivated and experienced applicant for the position of senior maintenance officer in our network maintenance group’. The successful candidate will ‘apply his/her extensive experience and technical knowledge of electricity distribution assets to refine existing maintenance plans and achieve electricity network reliability targets …’. When they put that in, I started to think that maybe they are not too sure about how reliable the electricity supply is at the moment, because they are actually advertising for someone to do that. That is great but, really, in this case it would be nice to see someone else come in from somewhere else and have an independent assessment of the power situation.
I do not have much more to say on that. I am hoping that somewhere else we can have more time to read this document, the statement of corporate intent, which has popped up. I also gather we have - I must have ducked out for a minute - the constitution of the Power and Water Corporation. We do not have enough time to debate that today, but I will leave you with those thoughts and hope the minister will take them on notice.
Reliable power, especially in the rural area, is very important. I do not have a problem with undergrounding power, although maybe my reasons are slightly different. Undergrounding power makes the city look much better and it will reduce the problems in cyclone periods. However, if the supply is not right - you can put the whole lot underground - but if there is still problems with the supply, then you are not fixing anything. Fix the supply then talk about putting it underground or spreading it further out.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Management of Conservation and Natural Resources
in the Northern Territory
Management of Conservation and Natural Resources
in the Northern Territory
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to draw honourable members’ attention to new management arrangements to address conservation and natural resource issues within the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The Martin Labor government is strongly committed to the protection of our environment and its natural resources. This is clearly outlined in Building a Better Territory. The vision, as outlined in that document, is simple and powerful: managing our natural resources and protecting our environment for future generations.
This government believes that the vision can be achieved within the framework of sustainable and responsible development supported by good scientific knowledge and an understanding of the Territory’s natural systems. Members will recall that I recently foreshadowed continuing structural changes in my department. The focus of the recent changes has been on the management of the Parks and Wildlife and the Natural Resource divisions of the new department. The government is committed to the development of the Territory in a way that creates genuine economic opportunities for all Territorians but which is balanced with a goal to conserve our precious natural environment and ensure that the value of our natural resources is sustained for our children.
This means that not only do we need to foster the continuing development of our national parks and reserve system for conservation purposes, but we also need to pay greater attention to the way in which we manage the environment outside of these areas. Increasingly, there is a view that the protection of our biodiversity and natural resources cannot be achieved through the concept of a park system alone. While it is important to provide representative areas in key protective zones, such as parks, it is also vitally important to manage the Territory’s biodiversity and natural resources outside of those areas.
‘Off Park’ conservation holds critical and equal importance with ‘On Park’ conservation and it is an issue that this government will pursue with vigour, but in consultation and cooperation with the Territory landowners and land managers. It is important that the conservation and development decisions that we take today and in the future are based on the best available scientific information, and that we create the right process for the community to have a say in where and how the landscape of the Territory is modified over time. It is not unrealistic to say that a healthy landscape will result in healthy people - both physically and emotionally.
At this stage of the Territory’s development, it is vital that we ensure that our best natural resource and environmental scientists are working collaboratively with the community to develop integrated natural resource and conversation plans for the various regions of the Territory. Not only will this provide the policy frame work for managing and protecting these resources, it will also provide essential input into development and land use plans aimed at strengthening the social and economic growth of our regions.
To meet the government’s strategic priorities and to facilitate this process, the Chief Executive Officer of the department has decided to implement a number of refinements to current management and operating arrangements within the Department of Infrastructure, Planing and Environment. Specifically, this involves the establishment of an integrated conservation and natural resources group led by a single Executive Director. This replaces the previous situation where two Executive Directors had responsibility for this vital area of government administration.
However, before I detail these changes I would like to advise honourable members of the extensive consultation process that was undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer and his staff in arriving at the new structural arrangements. This process involved a series of openly reported meetings with staff at all levels, from both the Parks and Wildlife and the Natural Resources Division of the department as well as opportunities for direct feedback from all staff to the Chief Executive Officer.
Broad directions for the new structure were developed and refined over a period of two months with the final arrangements being released on 2 August 2002 after consultation with the relevant unions. Further fine-tuning of the structure will continue to occur as the department’s officers review the success of the new arrangements. The most heartening aspect of this open consultative process has been the genuine desire of all involved to work together to put forward options to develop the best possible system within government to pursue and support the conservation and natural resource management aspirations of the Territory community.
I now turn to details of the new structural arrangements. The new Conservation and Natural Resources Group within the department will comprise four divisions: a Policy and Planning Division; a Natural System Division; a Natural Resource Management Division; and a Parks and Wildlife Service. In creating this group, specific care has been taken not to just lump together all operating divisions and rebadge the whole as has been the case in other states. In fact, there has been a clear intention to bring together the resources of government in a new way that will not only provide for better internal working arrangements, but will make more sense to the community in general and Aboriginal Territorians in particular.
One of the new ways of operating is a series of six key cross-divisional committees that complement and guide the strong and experienced executive management team. The committees have been deliberately identified to drive the agenda on issues such as indigenous engagement and the promotion of scientific excellence. This will ensure that we harness the real power available to us in this multi-disciplinary environment and ensure that we capture the conservation and development aspects of all issues, and consider them in a balanced and informed manner for the Territory.
Within this new arrangement, the previous Parks and Wildlife Commission is to be replaced by a Parks and Wildlife Service with a strong emphasis on high quality management of the Territory’s superb system of parks and reserves and unique array and diversity of wildlife. The service will take responsibility for management actions related to maintaining threatened species and supervise the sustainable use of wildlife in the Territory - an emerging and strategically important area for the Territory. An important part of these duties will be to improve enforcement of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, and issue and police the necessary permits under the legislation.
The new Parks and Wildlife Service is also responsible for the management and development of commercial operations on our parks and reserves. It will continue to monitor the Territory Wildlife Park and the Alice Springs Desert Park with a view to enhancing the experience for visitors and residents and improving their financial performance. The service will also maintain the important role of our park rangers in the day to day running of our wonderful parks and reserves and working closely with indigenous Territorians and pastoralists in existing joint management arrangements. They will also continue with their skilled and respected role in feral animal control programs, both on and off the park estate.
For time being, until we have the necessary legislative changes in place, the Parks and Wildlife Commission will remain in place and the statutory functions of the Director of Parks and Wildlife established under the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act will remain with Mr Barry Chambers, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. Honourable members will recall that Mr Chambers has also been Chairman of the Parks and Wildlife Commission since November last year and will continue that role until the Commission is formally abolished.
At this point, I need again to remind members opposite, in particular, of the clear distinction between a statutory office created by legislation and a public service executive who may be nominated to exercise the statutory functions embodied in that legislation. They are distinctly different roles which must not be confused. Notwithstanding any change in personnel within departments or the structural arrangements, it is vital that the continuity of a statutory office is maintained. Full details of the proposed legislative changes will be brought before the House in the coming months. These changes will be designed to ensure that decisions, both strategic and operational, for park and wildlife management can be taken quickly and implemented effectively in concert with sound natural resource management decisions.
One of the more significant changes I can foreshadow is that, in keeping with our commitment to a higher level of community involvement and consultation, the Parks and Wildlife Commission Board is to be replaced by an advisory council with a wide representation of community interests and expertise. This council will report to me and will be used to provide advice to government on matters pertaining specifically to the management and conservation of wildlife throughout the Territory, and the establishment and management of parks and reserves. It is also the government’s intention to use the advisory council as a sounding board for new ideas and initiatives for parks and wildlife management.
I now turn to the other three operations divisions of the new Conservation and Natural Resources Group. The first of these is the Natural Systems Division which will be staffed by scientific, engineering and technical staff drawn from the existing staff in Natural Resources and Parks and Wildlife. This will effectively merge the department’s scientific resources to achieve better understanding of interactions of water, land and vegetation resources in supporting economic development while maintaining the Territory’s biodiversity. This division will build on the corporate and individual achievements of some of the Territory’s best scientists and will continue to be recognised at national and international levels for its expertise.
The Territory’s tropical savannas and desert landscapes are different to the rest of Australia and, contrary to popular belief, are changing through both natural processes and man induced change. Existing studies have already confirmed that our biodiversity has declined and that further work is urgently required to understand why this has occurred and what we need to do to maintain what we value most.
It is therefore crucial that we have our best scientists working together and developing effective, external, collaborative arrangements so that we can properly understand the health of the landscape and how it works. The Natural Systems Division will be working closely with the CRC for Tropical Savannas and the Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management, both based at the Northern Territory University. It is also envisaged that close ties will be established with the proposed CRCs for Desert Knowledge and Earth Observations.
The division’s main functions include:
to assess, measure and model our ecosystems and natural resources and the impact of processes
which threaten them;
to develop recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity throughout the Territory which
take into account the sustainable use of wildlife,
to develop recommendations on resource capability for the sustainable use of our water and land
resources to support economic development; and
to provide herbarium and botanical garden services.
The second new division is the Policy and Planning Division and it is led by three of the Territory’s most experienced senior natural resource and conservation managers who will draw on the expertise of a wide range of staff throughout the group. It is crucial that the Territory develops properly researched and integrated natural resource and conservation management policies and plans so that the government and community can make informed decisions about the balance between resource use and protection. The division has been charged with the specific responsibility of bringing these sometimes conflicting aspirations together. Its main functions are to:
develop policies and strategies which meet Territory, national and international objectives and
commitments for conservation and natural resource management on all land and waters through
the Northern Territory;
prepare integrated regional land use and resource allocation plans which reflect biodiversity
conservation, land and water capability and economic development objectives; and
coordinate the group’s engagement with indigenous landowners and land managers.
Finally, there will be a Natural Resources Management Division to manage the way in which people impact on the landscape and to provide advice to landowners and managers in regard to best practice use of land. This division will largely consist of staff drawn from the existing Natural Resource Division, the Bushfires Council and the former Weeds Management Branch who, in another initiative of this government, have recently joined the department from the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. This will bring together for the first time the intellectual and financial resources of government to assist the government and the community in making sensible and sustainable decisions about the management of fire, weeds, land, native vegetation and biodiversity.
It also provides the platform for a more integrated government effort in supporting the various community and industry groups, individuals and local governments and councils and research institutions in understanding, managing and protecting our resources. Importantly, it will bring together for the first time the leading edge scientific capability the Territory has developed in the use and interpretation of satellite imagery. These techniques help us to understand the extent and nature of the change occurring to our landscapes over a large scale, as well as providing an increasingly valuable tool to assist in the real time management of bushfires, native vegetation clearing and pasture utilisation by the beef industry.
Through this division, the government will be seeking to bolster its presence in the regions, particularly so that there is a more streamlined and better integrated delivery of services where they are most needed. This has already commenced with the recent relocation of the department’s Pastoral Management executive to Katherine from Darwin. The main functions of this division include:
monitoring and reporting on the impact of development on our natural systems;
provision of regulatory, advisory and education services to all Territory landholders;
assessment of land development and subdivision proposals;
assessment and control of land clearing and water abstraction;
supporting the operation of regional natural resource and indigenous land management groups; and
supporting statutory bodies such as the Bushfires Council, Landcare Council and the Pastoral Land Board
which will continue with its important work.
The new Landcare Council also has an extremely important role in assisting the community make the transition from an uncoordinated project-based system under the Commonwealth’s old Natural Heritage Trust funding arrangements, to a more strategic approach based on the implementation of properly constructed resource management plans. Their task, and that of my department and the community itself, has not been made any easier by the inordinate length of time the Commonwealth government is taking to finalise and communicate its requirements in that regard. I am aware that my department is working with the Landcare Council and the Territory community to prepare us to be able to take immediate advantage of the Commonwealth’s funding packages once they are made available, but I am concerned that valuable time is being lost and this will impact on the resources available to our more remote communities.
Most of the new arrangements I have described are now in effect and will support a number of new initiatives of this government across the Northern Territory including:
the development of integrated regional natural resource and conservation plans;
a plan of management for Darwin Harbour supported by a community-based advisory
committee;
Aboriginal descent and which now shares its Chair with the Landcare Council;
introduction of native vegetation clearing controls which are clearly linked with the land use
planning process;
Territory in fulfilment of the government’s commitment to greater community liaison and
Aboriginal advancement; and
Aboriginal traditional owners, of a new master plan for parks and conservation across all Northern
Territory lands. This will provide the community with a clear strategy for the development of system
of parks and reserves to maintain our biodiversity while enabling sustainable economic development
and supporting our important tourism industry.
Consistent with this government’s intention of providing equitable opportunities for indigenous Territorians to participate in economic growth, the new Conservation and Natural Resources Group is well placed to contribute significantly in this area. The new structures within the department provide the basis for enhancement involvement of Aboriginal people in the management of the Territory’s natural resource and parks.
The government’s intention here is clear. The aim is to establish a departmental structure that gives the community comfort that their natural resources and parks are being cared for and managed efficiently, and to fully engage the community in that process.
I would like to reassure the highly valuable staff in the department that there will be no jobs lost as a result of the restructuring process. In fact, there are new and rewarding opportunities for all to make a meaningful contribution to the way in which the Territory manages its present and plans its future. From my travels around the Territory I know that the dedicated and skilled staff of the new Conservation and Natural Resources Group are looking forward to tackling the problems facing them and to delivering to the Northern Territory community much enhanced management of their parks and natural resources. They are now part of the most integrated conservation and natural resource management organisation in Australia, and will assist the Territory in achieving its rightful recognition as a place where conservation and development can occur without undue conflict and without damaging our environment.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the minister’s statement about the restructure of the parks and wildlife process through the Northern Territory government. I have already made some of my concerns known to the minister through various means. I have risen in adjournment debates in the past to raise some concerns about the process that has been engaged in by the minister’s department through the restructuring process.
I understand that the government wanted to restructure under their new administrative arrangements through their ministries. However, I have some concerns. My first concern comes from the minister himself in the statement today, as well as some of the concerns I have based on information provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment in going through this restructuring process. I can clearly understand what the department is attempting to do. I understand what the minister is trying to do today in explaining what is happening.
However, I have some concerns. If we visit pages 4 and 5 of the statement from which the minister read - which I was provided a copy with last night - I am curious about comments such as, and I quote from the second paragraph on page 4:
- To meet the government’s strategic priorities and to facilitate this process, the Chief Executive Officer
of the department has decided to implement a number of refinements …
It is the hallmark of the Westminster system that there is a doctrine of responsible government upon which the whole system that we adhere to depends. Responsible government is a doctrine, it is something that has volumes written about it. The general thrust of it is that those people who are the keeper to the Crown’s commission, that is the ministries, are responsible to the parliament for what happens inside the executive. It is through this system that the parliament as a body has supremacy over the executive. We are the legislating body and it is rightful, fit and proper that ministers of the Crown are indeed responsible to this Chamber and thus through us to the people of the Northern Territory for what they are doing.
For the minister on this occasion to attempt to place distance between himself and his own CEO in the process of, for argument’s sake, disposing of CEOs of departments which are going to be abolished and wound up, is a little bit cute. It shows a desire to try to place as much distance between themselves and the day to day work of government which does not necessarily mean it is a pleasant work. What we see now is a developing culture in this government where the ministers, the ministry as a whole, are trying to almost abandon their responsibilities and say, ‘It’s them mob over there doing it, it’s those folk. We are just letting them get on with the job’ – well, that does not wash. The reason it does not wash is because the buck stops with the ministry. That is the principle of how government should work and those ministers are accountable to this Chamber. So when I read comments such as, ‘… the Chief Executive Officer of the department has decided to implement a number of refinements …, my question to the minister is, what did you do? How were you involved in this process? How did you engage yourself in making sure that you were across what was happening in your department?
The reason I ask those questions is because the minister on today’s date, which is 15 August, is now nine days past the new arrangements being in force inside his own department – nine days ago, and in fact according to the minister here the decision to go ahead with it was made finally on 2 August, but nine days ago, these new arrangements were in place. However, when questioned in his role as the minister by Julia Christensen on Monday 12 August, fully three days after the new arrangements were in place, the minister still was reluctant to talk about the arrangements in his department. The fact is that the department had already made it abundantly clear publicly what the new arrangements were. In his answers to Julia Christensen, who pressed him on the issue repeatedly, he simply obfuscated and said, ‘Wait for my statement in parliament’.
Minister, this leaves me with the impression that you are playing catch-ups with your department and this a very worrying trend because, once again, we see this distance being built between minister and department, so much so that one is left with the distinct impression - especially seeing that the department was already publicly advertising its structure - that the minister is really not aware of what was going on. Once again, we see it reinforced with comments such as:
- The Chief Executive Officer and his staff, in arriving at new structural arrangements …
in the third paragraph on page 4. Now, the chief executive should or was, I imagine, talking to his minister. Or was he? The question is: who signs off on this stuff? Because if we have a minister who clearly does not know what is going on underneath him, who is signing off on this? Who is putting these new arrangements in place? At what point does the minister discover what is going on his department, and is it too late? I am certain that the people in the department do a fine job, but it would concern me that unelected people are restructuring government basically unabated or unchecked by their own ministers.
I now turn to the new structure of the department itself, and under the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment there is a division called Conservation and Natural Resources. This is what the minister has outlined in his statement today. Parks and Wildlife Service then becomes a subdivision of a division of a department and a lot of the traditional roles of the Parks and Wildlife Commission have now been taken over by other subdivisions such as Policy and Planning division, the Natural Systems division and the Natural Resource Management division. Ultimately, the Parks and Wildlife Service, once the legislation is changed, will operate as a normal subdivision as outlined by the minister here today.
There is, in the former construction of the administrative arrangements of the government, a constructive tension built between ministers. The former government believed that the management of parks and wildlife services was of such importance that it deserved its own government department. That meant that there was a tension from time to time, a constructive tension, between departments such as Lands, Planning and Environment which, under the former arrangements, also had a minister, but quite a separate minister. Sometimes between those departments, from the various levels of expertise in those departments, there was an expectation in Lands, Planing and Environment that something would happen to a particular piece of land and there was an expectation within Parks and Wildlife that something else should happen to that land. Owen Springs Station might be an interesting case in point.
Indeed, once the government bought back the lease of Owen Springs Station from the pastoral lease holder, that lease was then divided up - and we are still waiting on some results - but I am certainly aware that Parks and Wildlife had its dibs on part of that pastoral lease. Indeed, completion of the Larapinta Trail is part of that property being returned to the parks estate.
Under those old arrangements, differences between those departments would filter up through their various CEOs and then ultimately end up as an issue for the two ministers to discuss between themselves and, from time to time, those issues would also have to be dealt with in Cabinet. It is in Cabinet where I would hope that lands issues such as what becomes a national park, what becomes freehold, what becomes a pastoral lease, are reconciled.
Under the new structural arrangements, I am deeply concerned that the process that is being outlined by the minister today will mean that those sorts of decisions could well be taken at a departmental level rather than in a ministerial level, let alone a level in Cabinet. The natural tension that used to exist between those departments has dissipated. We now have Parks and Wildlife not represented as a separate government department, but rather as a subdivision of a government department. This is a very important point because, all of a sudden, I am uncertain, Territorians are uncertain, as to what process is going on inside the department which is going to secure the community comfort that the minister refers to in page 16 of his statement.
I have grave concerns about the way that that process is heading, and I would seek reassurances, if not a revisitation to the whole structural process, to once again recreate that tension. Land issues are probably one of the most important issues in the Northern Territory. They create a great deal of passion amongst many groups of people, and I am unconvinced by the minister’s statement today, or anything else that the minister has said, that the processes are going to give the community the comfort that the minister suggests.
I now go on to another matter which has been of some concern to me, and that is the matter of the structure of the new department as a whole. It is, specifically, the vacancies which occur inside that department. I listened with interest on the radio this morning, and again during Question Time today, where the minister suggested that there were only 26 vacancies in the division. The division I am referring to is Conservation and Natural Resources. I have before me a print out of the Intranet site dealing with the Conservation and Natural Resources Division, which outlines a flow chart of every individual who works inside that new division, and there are some 533 of them.
Unless I am mistaken, I have gone through this process, and there are 65 positions, which have their classification number attached and the title of the position, which are marked vacant. That is 65 positions which, according to the department itself, posted on 31 July 2002, have been left vacant. I would be very interested to hear where the District Weeds Control Officer, Technical 3, I presume that is, position 12999, is, and where that person’s job is going to go. I also have another 64 vacancies from the minister’s own departmental records, posted well before he made any announcements in the Chamber, which outline those 65 positions. Inside those 65 positions, then the question begs, firstly, are you going to fill all of those vacancies? All the vacancies that the department says exist, I am curious to see if the minister is going to fill those positions, or whether those positions are going to be cut as part of the government’s ongoing slash and burn policy towards public servant management.
The positions that are outlined as vacant, including rangers positions, were outlined in the question from the member for Nelson this morning, where he demonstrated quite clearly there was one ranger, who, short of having a big red S on his chest and a pair of blue leotards on, is being asked to do an almost immortal piece of work in terms of what requirements are demanded of him. The minister himself said that that was not good enough.
There are 65 positions from the departmental records themselves. If the minister is struggling to keep up with his department, then I would like to know what advice he is receiving in relation to all of the 65 vacancies listed by his own departmental Intranet site. This is of grave concern because this means 12% of this division’s staff is not there – 12% according to this. That is of grave concern to me, because the minister tells me in his ministerial statement what a terrific job these folk are going to do protecting the natural heritage of the Northern Territory.
There are not enough people in his own departmental records to do the job effectively. Those few good people who are there doubtlessly work very hard. In fact, I know many of these rangers myself, and I have often been left with the impression that people with their skills and talents could probably make a great deal more money in other areas. But it is their passion for the job they do for the people of the Northern Territory which means that they live in some of the remotest places in Australia, on a reasonable but, at the end of the day, not a huge wage, because they want to see the natural heritage of the Northern Territory afforded protection.
This government has created a position where there are these vacancies, and I would like to hear from the minister reassurance and words that the people of the Northern Territory can find succour in, to assure Territorians that these jobs will be filled - these vacancies, each and every one of them, will be filled.
The minister has obfuscated often enough in relation to this. Indeed, during the adjournment debates of Tuesday, 18 June 2002, the minister said to this House, and I quote from page 1710 of the Hansard record: ‘… nobody will move from the commission. The rangers will be rangers, the scientists will be scientists’. If nobody is moving from the commission, then what on earth is he doing? He is winding up the commission. This is the problem with the information that has been coming from the minister; it has not been accurate, he has not been correct in what he has been saying, and it has been all too often delayed. There are people who have been leaving this department because of the processes that the minister placed in place. There are 65 vacancies. If nobody has been sacked, that means that those 65 people have left; they have packed up and gone, they have chosen to move on. This process of restructuring the department has taken eight months and, during that period, there have been many unhappy public servants.
This minister’s cuts mean the telephone lines have been taken away from ranger stations, in efforts to cut expenditure at ranger stations in the bush. I see no reference to those savings in the minister’s statement. In the jobs that the rangers are supposed to effectively do, tell me how can they hope to operate in such circumstances, when departmental cuts mean that they are taking telephone lines away from them? These people have a job to do. The minister can walk into this Chamber and say, ‘We are going to give succour and comfort to the people of the Northern Territory’, but the mechanisms that he is putting in place has meant that people have left that department because they have just become so frustrated with the whole process that they have been exposed to - up to and including the former CEO of Parks and Wildlife.
This is of grave concern, that people of such experience are walking away from a job that they have done with dedication and passion over years. The high quality management that the minister refers to in page 7 of his ministerial statement - we heard this morning from the member for Nelson what a furphy high quality management is. And did the minister deny what the member for Nelson had to say? On the contrary. The minister confirmed it. I am worried that if that is the minister’s opinion of high quality management, how does he expect the rest of his statement to be taken seriously by the staff of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and Territorians as a whole. The minister’s approach has been entirely hands-off, and the result has been fear throughout his department, and grave concern raised with me by people.
The advisory body that the minister intends to establish will replace the board which was established by the former government which was a creature of legislation. However, there is on the strength of what the minister had to say no legislative arrangement for this advisory board. We have no idea how long he intends to keep it. We have no idea of how they are going to advise the minister. The minister has basically said there will be an advisory board that reports to me. But there is no real structure or form to this advisory board and it exists, including its membership, at the whim of the minister. Considering that the Parks and Wildlife Service as a department is now a subdivision of a division of a department, I am concerned that the expertise that is available to this advisory board might be limited; and the power that the minister is drawing to himself through this process leaves the principles of responsible government floundering in the wind.
I also ask the minister for some clarification regarding the first paragraph of page 7 where he refers to:
- The service will take responsibility for management actions related to maintaining threatened species
and supervise sustainable use of wildlife in the Northern Territory - an emerging strategically important
area for the Territory. An important part of these duties will be to improve the enforcement of the
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and issue and police the necessary permits under that
legislation’.
That is fine. This is more an inquiry as to what sustainable use of wildlife in the Territory that the minister is proposing. I am curious to know if that means that he is intending at one point or another to engage in the commercial taking of crocodiles for argument’s sake, or bird life for argument’s sake from the wild. I would like him to expand on those comments because it is certainly unclear as to what he is referring to in terms of sustainable use of wildlife in the Northern Territory.
I also ask the minister to give us a time frame as to when he is going to introduce legislation which will have the effect of abolishing the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I am aware that the minister, after the removal of Dr Freeland from the chair has placed Mr Chambers in that chair in an acting role until such time as the legislation is to be changed. But what the minister has not said to the members or people of the Northern Territory is when he intends to finally and formally abolish the commission - a matter for legislation as I understand it.
The other issue that I would like the minister to expand on is the comments that he made in relation to the Commonwealth taking an inordinate amount of time to finalise requirements in relation to some of the projects that the minister has on the boil. I would like to know what the stumbling blocks are and how long does he anticipate that these processes will continue to take in terms of providing that funding.
The rest of the statement is pretty much a comment on the continuation of the work which was already and traditionally done by the Parks and Wildlife Commission in the past. Much of that work was already done. Basically, what the minister has engaged in on this occasion is reshuffling the positions for the sake of administrative continuity, or so he claims. I do not see anything particularly new in his approach or the department’s approach on this occasion than it had in the past. I am sure the minister will highlight those things again which are new. But I still return to my major criticism of this process and that is the elimination of what I term the constructive tension between departments that has operated so very well in the past to make sure that these issues are fleshed out between departments and the intent of departments properly in the public arena as well as between ministers thus ensuring that the highest levels of government get to review those decisions taken by government in relation to land tenure here in the Northern Territory.
Without that particular form of protection, I am concerned and I am worried that the minister’s new structures will not protect the integrity of that process. I am concerned that the highest levels of government will not look at the competing land uses over bits of land. I invite the minister as a matter of urgency to make public those approaches which are necessary so that he can ensure that the best possible results are dealt with at the highest levels of government in the Northern Territory.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Macdonnells’ contribution can only be summed up by him acting in the capacity of shadow minister for doom and gloom because it was just whingeing and whining and carrying on. Really, he needs to understand that he has to get use to being a good shadow minister and not be frightened to give some credit where credit is due.
But I digress. I rise to congratulate the Minister for Parks and Wildlife for a statement that provides us with a blue print for the proper integration of our natural resource management here in the Northern Territory. It is an issue in which I have had long involvement from the days when the Jawoyn people of Katherine commenced their land claim over what is now known as Nitmiluk National Park. The land claim processes was long and controversial, just as with Kenbi. There was an attempt by the then government to extend the town boundaries of Katherine, in this case to include the national park within the town and thus precluding Nitmiluk from claim.
Pushed by those who wish to provoke division and bitterness in the community, many people were led to fear what might happen when Aboriginal people took over the management of Nitmiluk. These fears, as history teaches, us were unfounded. During my time at the Northern Land Council, once Justice Kearney had recommended the return of Nitmiluk to its traditional owners, I was involved with the negotiations with the then Northern Territory government over the lease-back arrangements of the park to the then Conservation Commission.
The Jawoyn traditional owners, led by the late Raymond Fordimail worked hard in the negotiations, finally ending up with what are still the best arrangements for an Aboriginal-owned national park in Australia. It was a credit to the then Chief Minister Marshall Perron that he put a stop to the antipathy which the Jawoyn had faced over many years from successive Northern Territory governments to strike a deal with the Jawoyn people. Since that time the Nitmiluk National Park has gone from strength to strength under the guidance and leadership of the Jawoyn-majority Board of Management at Nitmiluk, working alongside dedicated Northern Territory government parks staff.
Such was a success of the Nitmiluk project that when the Mt Todd Native Title deal was struck in 1993, the Jawoyn people devoted much of the land they won through the Mt Todd deal to the Nitmiluk Park estate, increasing the size of Nitmiluk by almost 50%. Significantly, the western half of the former Eva Valley Station was included in the park, thus incorporating most of the Katherine River catchment in the park for the first time. So, far from being a threat to national parks, Aboriginal control of a park has led to the increase of lands under such protection and administration in the Northern Territory.
The sad thing is that previous CLP governments learnt little from the model set by the Jawoyn people at Nitmiluk. The vision outlined by the minister today finally places the necessary emphasis on working with indigenous Territorians, both on and off national park lands. Large tracts of land in the Northern Territory are under Aboriginal ownership. Indeed, almost all the wetlands of the Northern Territory are on land owned by Aboriginal traditional owners. Where previous governments saw that as retrograde and threatening, this government sees a creative challenge in working with Aboriginal people to preserve the environment and cultural values of these lands.
Despite poor resources, Aboriginal people are undertaking a wide range of exciting and important projects on Aboriginal lands to protect and enhance these values. I will run through some of these in the Top End, and for greater detail, I commend the NLC website for such information:
since 1992, the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation at Nhulunbuy has been
managing 19 recreation areas being used by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the region,
as well as tourists. Dhimurru is nationally acknowledged for its work in protecting marine resources,
especially rare and endangered species facing threats from the marine pollution;
the Jawoyn Association Land Management team is working with non-Jawoyn groups residing on their
lands on a sustainable development strategy for their region. The land care work they carry out in the
region also links in with collaborative projects in the surrounding region;
one of the most important of these is the Western Arnhem Land Fire Project being carried out by the
Northern Land Council Caring for Country Unit, the Bushfire Council and the Jawoyn Association.
This project aims to reduce the number and impact of hot, late dry season fires which threaten
environmental viability of the Western Arnhem Plateau by reintroducing traditional burning practices
into a region that has been depopulated over the last 50 years;
associated with this is the work of these groups with Dr David Bowman in the Fine Scale Collaborative
Research into Aboriginal Fire Management. This three year projects aims to document fire practices
from the relatively intensively settled areas through to depopulated areas;
fourteen rangers working with the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation based at Maningrida are involved
in intensive work in the Liverpool and Blyth catchments in weed management, wetland inventory,
sustainable wildlife use, cultural and natural resource GIS databasing, feral animal control and erosion mitigation. Formal training is linked to the Northern Territory University;
the Djelk Rangers in Maningrida have established a crocodile egg incubation program; research into
trepang population dynamics; and are working with the Environmental Institute of the Supervising
Scientist in collation of wetland data to be incorporated into a wetland management plan. They are
also involved in detection and containment of mimosa outbreaks on the Blyth and Tomkinson River
floodplains and the Western Arnhem Land Fire Management project;
other Aboriginal ranger groups are doing much to protect the Arafura Swamp - both from Ramingining
where CDEP workers are working on a joint Cooperative Research Centre for Savannas, and Environment
Australia program funding. And also to the south, six community based rangers – the Rittharngu Rangers
- are working on mimosa outbreaks on the Arafura Swamp as well as traditional fire management practices;
the Arnhem Watershed Management and Planing project, funded by the Natural Heritage Trust, is based in
Bulman. It is designed to prevent the spread of weeds into relatively pristine areas of Arnhem Land and
also works informally with the weed management work of the Rittharngu Rangers at Gapuwiyak;
Territory Park staff, NLC Caring for Country unit staff and Greening Australia are also working on
the Ngukurr/Numbulwar land management projects, which involves developing broad scale management
of fire, weeds, and feral animals in that region. Mimosa work is also being carried out by the White Eagle Corporation across a 160 km2 of land in the Wagait region. There is also a larger scale project funded
through the Indigenous Land Corporation, with assistance in kind from Fisheries and Primary Industries staff
of the government, monitoring the spread of mimosa across the Top End; and
elsewhere in the Top End, rangers are working on Landcare projects at Minjilang, with assistance from the
Northern Territory University, Maningrida’s Djelk Rangers, and field training from Primary Industries and
Fisheries staff. As well, two projects funded by the Savannas CRC are being undertaken with traditional
owners of the upper Daly region along the Fitzmaurice River.
Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are strongly committed to the protection of their lands in the face of the rapid changes to the Northern Territory environment of the last 130 years. The projects I have just outlined is an indication of this commitment.
As a community, the Northern Territory must do much more to assist Aboriginal people in this task, in both utilising tradition indigenous knowledge about the environment, as well as in supporting Aboriginal people as they face newly introduced threats to biodiversity. For the first time, a Northern Territory government is committed to working closely with the Aboriginal landowners, not as a matter of empty rhetoric, but as a process of active partnership.
The integration of the department outlined by the minister achieves two things. First, it brings together various functions of government involved in management of conservation and natural resources in the Northern Territory. In doing this, it consolidates under one roof the expertise of our hard-working public servants in ways which are both cost-effective and administratively efficient. Second, it acknowledges the vital role that Aboriginal Territorians must and will play in the protection of the Northern Territory’s environment under this Martin government. This will be acknowledged later this week when the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and I visit the Garma Cultural Festival, which this year is devoted to environmental issues.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr REED (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Perhaps the old axiom that has been used in relation to these proposals that have been expressed to me a couple of times, ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’, might be appropriate in this regard.
The Parks and Wildlife Commission as we knew it, and as it serviced the Territory for many years either as the Parks and Wildlife Commission or the Conservation Commission and it was the Parks and Wildlife Commission for a little while and prior to that it was the Northern Territory Reserves Board. It has been a service that has delivered exceptional service to Territorians. In fact, being responsible for most of the major destinations that tourists visit whilst they are in the Northern Territory and for managing and presenting those parks and reserves, it has been an exemplary example of land and park management and services to the tourism industry. That has been achieved over a long period of time and it has also been recognised nationally for the quality of services that have been provided as, if not the best, certainly the equal best of parks and wildlife services and that type of service across the nation. From that point of view, it is quite disappointing that it is being disbanded.
It is of concern in the minister’s statement that he provides no detail in relation to a few very important factors. One of those is the reason and the benefits for doing this. Whilst in operational terms what the minister and the government perceive will flow from future management and provision of national park-type services have been detailed to some extent, the real reason behind this, as put forward by the government in their early days after winning government was that bringing the smaller agencies into mega-departments would achieve efficiencies, reduce costs and provide a better service. None of that is touched on in the minister’s statement in terms of just what the efficiencies will be in quantifiable terms, that is, how much money is going to be saved by, I don’t know, reduced administration because the service has been moved into a larger bureaucracy, and what the overall efficiencies will be that will flow from that? That is rather a serious omission since that is one of the principle planks of government in relation to making government more efficient, saving costs and making things work better, and the benefit perceived and promoted by the government of having mega-departments.
Personally, and speaking from experience, as a former public servant in the Northern Territory, and indeed an employee of the Conservation Commission for 13 years, I do not think it is going to assist at all. If you look at the overall administration and provision of services by government in the Northern Territory, and this was certainly the attitude largely adopted by former governments, was that services should be provided in a way that are both adequate and suited to the Northern Territory. We have a very small population, and one could believe, as the current government does, that by compacting what were the former smaller agencies into large bureaucracies efficiencies will be gained.
That is a very dollar directed attitude and it is a very impersonal one because we should be considering, in the provision of services to Territorians, the Territory lifestyle and community needs and the ability for those who provide services to Territorians through their respective agencies, to be able to do so and to be able to relate to them in a way that is appropriate. The small agencies, over time, demonstrated that that could be achieved. Bear in mind that those small agencies, and by small agencies I talk of say, the Work Health, the former Parks and Wildlife Commission and agencies of that type and size, were able to provide a very efficient service, perhaps not in pure dollar terms, but certainly in being able to relate to the community and provide those services. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you would have some understanding of this yourself because you came from the public sector, I think, at one stage of the game. No? Not at one stage of the game? Certainly Mr Kiely did.
From that point of view, if you look at the operations at the ground level, at the service delivery level, it affords, through a smaller agency, those agencies to be able to relate directly to the community sectors to which they provide the service. As opposed to the structure that we are now entering into, in the case of Parks and Wildlife and many others, whereby these services, and they are very important services, will be now amalgamated into huge bureaucracies.
Rather than being able to relate directly to the people to whom they are providing services and the industries which they service, in many cases they will now do that through a bureaucratic process, certainly in terms of getting guidance from minister and government - the Parks Service will have to have messages work their way up through a huge bureaucracy to the CEO. If there are questions to be answered, that then will be sent back down through the bureaucracy for clarification and further information from this particular service sector of that agency, go back up to the CEO and perhaps eventually get to the minister and government for a decision. That is going to see a deterioration in the level of service and performance. It is a very sad reflection on the public servants who have been working in those smaller agencies. And I don’t argue that it may a bit more expensive to do it that way, but we should be looking at the appropriateness and the level of service that emanates from a particular government activity rather than just purely the costs.
Of course, it is for the government to determine the structure of the public sector, as they have, as they see it and how they think it will best work. But in forming these huge bureaucracies I wonder if the government looked at history, because there was a time in the Northern Territory when we had them. Some members might remember the Department of Health and Community Services. It was all encompassing. It had the department of health, it had community services, everything from local government upwards. It had correctional services as part of it, and many of the other smaller agencies that came out of it when it was disbanded - and it was disbanded for very good reason in that it was a very bureaucratic process that was found to not best suit the needs of the Northern Territory. It was decided that smaller agencies that could better mobilise themselves to work more closely with the community and industry would be more proficient and better at providing services for Territorians.
There is probably no better example than the Parks and Wildlife Commission in terms of its demonstrated performance over the years in managing the lands for which it was responsible, in extending services beyond those lands for which it was responsible in terms of wildlife management and other services that are provided of a conservation and flora and fauna protection to other land holders.
The demise of this organisation is a sad day, and it really is its demise. It will never, ever look like its former self and it will never perform like its former self because of the structure that is going to be put in place, because it is going to be a very small and unimportant part - and the minister might not intend it to be an unimportant part of a huge bureaucracy - but the fact is in a huge bureaucracy, the smaller sectors are overlooked. It is a fact of life. The minister might find that in the future he is very frustrated in relation the structure that he is setting up that, whilst he might have the best intentions as to how it might work, it does not work in the way that he intended, or currently intends.
The other point I want to raise, which is a glaring omission in this statement, is that there is no mention at all, minister, of the Conservation Land Corporation, and what is going to become of that entity. The Conservation Land Corporation was set up to be wholly and solely responsible for those lands owned and managed by what was then the Conservation Commission and formerly the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Territorians are going to be very nervous about government’s intentions in this regard by the very fact that no mention has been made of its future. That in itself will create nervousness. If the minister, in his response, can give us some indication as to what the government’s intentions are as regards the Conservation Land Corporation, the members on it, its future and what is going to be if it is to be disbanded, and the future of those land holdings. They are very important. They are not owned by the government. They are owned by the people of the Northern Territory. Parks are very much for the people. They are assets of the people. One can only be suspicious with a statement of this kind when the fundamental plank of park management, that is, the structure which is the owner, if you like, of the lands does not rate a single mention. As I say, there will be nervousness in relation to the lack of reference to that. I ask the minister to clarify it as quickly as possible, in his closing remarks if he can, because it is a very important issue.
I hope that our assets can be safeguarded. I hope that the structure, whilst I do not agree with it, will be able to ensure that the integrity and the professionalism, and the desire of people in the Parks and Wildlife Service to look after their lands and present them as they have in the past, can continue. I say that drawing on a bit of experience in that, having been a regional manager in the Commission for many years, it was very frequently my experience with the staff that they were not there for the money. That is to say, they did not necessarily look for professional advancement in terms of monetary reward. They were not looking for the next step up the ladder just to earn more money. If it happened along the road, and it met their personal professional thoughts and aspirations, well that was fine. But if it meant moving to a location at which perhaps they might not be happy working in, or leaving a place where they were achieving something for conservation and the achievement of land management and job satisfaction - they were the sorts of things that were held in a very prestigious way in the views of many of those employees, rather than seeking an increase in salary and just climbing up the ladder to achieve that.
The danger with this restructure is that those kinds of personal attributes and desires, and a willingness to go that extra yard without the extra dollar because you are achieving something personally as well as fulfilling your duties as a park ranger, could well be lost. If that is lost, we are going to have a Parks and Wildlife Service that is going to be like many of the other parks and wildlife services in the country. That is going to be one where you turn up at the allotted time in the morning to do your job and you leave at the allotted time in the evening. That certainly has not been the case. In fact, over the 13 years I was in the Commission there were very few employees who got to work late and knocked off on time. The commitment to their duties was such that they were often there early and they were, more frequently than not, there late. And, of course, if they were out doing field work, often overtime or things like that did not come into it. If it meant after-dark surveys by spotlight or clearing elliot traps or pit traps, or whatever they were doing, the reward was their personal satisfaction, involvement and participation in the job that they were doing, rather than the monetary return.
If we lose that, and I fear there is going to be a great risk in that regard, then this will be an enormously retrograde step. It is one that Territorians will regret, and one that the government will have to answer for. However, the government has the responsibility at the time to do as they wish with these organisations. I wanted to put on record my opposition to it. In closing I want to congratulate the past and present employees of the Parks and Wildlife Commission for the commitment they have given to the Northern Territory. It is all the more poignant that we do so, because we may have seen the last of that sort of commitment.
A final remark that has come to mind, the other point that I was going to mention was that the Conservation Commission Board is to be disbanded, and I take it that is in line with an announcement by government when they came to government that they would reduce the number of boards to save costs. Immediately replacing the Conservation Commission Board will be an advisory council. That will be a step back about a decade because there was an advisory council up until about a decade ago which was disbanded because it was dysfunctional; it just did not work. It would not be too bold a prediction to say that this advisory council will meet the same fate because it will have no teeth. It will find that it has no reason for being. It is a retrograde step back a decade without really looking at what has happened in the past, investigating the history of the commission, and taking those matters into account in making the decisions to restructure it. Of course, we have heard nothing of the potential saving of cost in that regard either, so I do not see a great deal of benefit coming from that particular operation.
The other point that should be made is that this has been a very very clumsy restructure. If you look at what the processes are, that is, that this parliament has in place legislation to operate a Parks and Wildlife Commission. If the government was organised and businesslike in its process, what it would have done would have been to investigate all of the legislative structure and debated the changes in this House and perhaps have legislation in place that would immediately enable a new Parks and Wildlife Service to flow on from the cessation of the former one. But we have an ongoing and continuous upheaval here in terms of what has happened over the last six months, with sackings of directors and all sorts of uncertainty with the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Now we are at this stage, and it is going to be then another process where the legislation is revisited. All that has to regurgitate through the system and finally, at the end of the year or who knows how long, will come some definitive direction for the Parks and Wildlife Service. None of that is going to be either businesslike or work to the advantage of the services to Territorians through a new a Parks and Wildlife Service.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the announcement of the restructuring today has significant implications for cooperation between the government and Aboriginal people. As the minister has noted, these structural changes bring together the major off-park and on-park conservation of our natural resources. Many of our Territory’s off-park natural resources are on Aboriginal freehold title land. By bringing together Landcare, Bushfires, weed control and feral animal control the government is now well placed to work directly with the land councils and the communities in determining how those control measures will operate on Aboriginal land.
The government has appropriately placed Aboriginal representatives on the Pastoral Land Board, the Landcare Council, and has established close working relationships with the land councils on matters to do with feral animal and weed control. I also understand that the government is involved in serious discussion with both land councils about the future of land use mapping, resource conservation, and regional planning where those resources fall across a range of land title fronts.
If we turn to the Victoria River region for example, in this area very little land use mapping, survey and testing has been done. Bushfires are a constant threat, weed infestation is a problem, feral animals are a problem. But this area contains freehold title land, Aboriginal freehold title land, pastoral land, parks and every other form of tenure you can name. To get a fully cooperative effort at countering these problems, we need to be able to cross those land title boundaries. To achieve that, we must have one coordinated body effectively drawing together all of the information and the scientific resources in one area of government. This has now been achieved. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have some mixed feelings about the changes. On one hand it is certainly good that there has been some rationalisation of departments. That is a step forward. But on the other hand there have been some lost opportunities. I have mentioned in this House before that I had two concerns about what was happening to Parks and Wildlife. One was about the issue of staff and their morale; and the other was about whether we could make changes that I think would be for the better. One of those changes was that I thought we could establish a Department of Environment, or perhaps a Department of Environment and Natural Resources, or even a Department of Environment, Heritage and Natural Resources.
Although this has gone some way towards that, I think we have missed an opportunity to do even better. For instance, I mentioned previously that if you had a Department of Environment, you would bring in those areas of environment that are in other departments; there seems to me to be a duplication. After all, isn’t that what good government is about - trying to become more efficient. I speak specifically here of the section of the department of mining, which might not be called the department of mining now, but that department anyway, has an environmental section attached to it. It seems to me that that would make common sense for that to be part of this new structure. We have already seen it take place. The minister has announced that the Weeds Branch from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has gone from that department to this new department of natural resources - I will just get the correct name, I am not used to this new name, the new Conservation and Natural Resources Group.
The other area we have missed out on is the heritage. For a long time, as the minister would know, I have been concerned about heritage sites. There are many heritage sites in the Northern Territory. I believe heritage should be part of this department; the minister may correct me if I am wrong there. I expressed concern about the protection of our World War II sites, especially the airstrips in the rural area. There is an opportunity there, not to just only have parks that are set out for wildlife and conservation, but also heritage parks. I see that again as a role that should have been in these changes, which would be beneficial for heritage.
Another issue that perhaps could be debated, and I might ask the minister to comment on it, is the issue of fire control. At present in the Northern Territory we have two fire control authorities. One is the Northern Territory Fire Service which generally does the urban areas, although in the case of the Litchfield Shire they also cover rural areas. Half of the Litchfield Shire comes under the Northern Territory Fire Service, the other half comes under the Bushfires Council. The Bushfires Council does basically the rest of the Northern Territory. I imagine there are two sides to the Bushfires Council’s work. One is management, which also includes studies into ways of managing fire, and the other side of that is the role of putting out fires, similar to what the Northern Territory Fire Service does. So even though, to pardon the pun, this would be a hot issue, it certainly would be an appropriate time to look at the benefits or the down sides of a combined fire service. The down sides of that might be so great that it might not be worth considering, but at this stage when we are talking about amalgamations and rationalisations, this is an opportune time to at least look at that.
Another issue that is raised - I think the member of Arafura just raised the matter – is off-park and on-park. For a long time when I was in local government in Litchfield Shire Council, the one thing that I felt that was wrong was that Parks and Wildlife at that stage used to only want to comment on what was in their park. I understand that because they used to say that they came under the Parks and Wildlife Act and that only allowed them to comment on the park. Yet in Litchfield Shire there is a large amount of wetland which needs protection. When we would get subdivision applications, sometimes we would hope that we would have got some support from Park and Wildlife to say, ‘Yes, we think that by taking that creek out of a subdivision or protecting that lagoon would be a good idea’. But the general feeling was, ‘Well, were not interested in that; we are just interested in what is within our boundaries’. This is where an important change could happen.
Litchfield Shire at the moment is one of the few places that has gone down the path of trying to exclude the wetlands, the creeks, and the lagoons from subdivision so that they are permanently protected. They become public land, but they are not to be subdivided. In some cases, like Howard River Park, the Litchfield Shire Council actually owns a section of the Howard River, it owns Water Lily lagoon, and they are all adjacent to the Howard Springs Reserve and the Howard Springs Shooting Reserve. It would make sense to me that some arrangement is made between the council, parks and wildlife and perhaps the Landcare group to manage this land together. More of this land will start to come up as more and more subdivisions occur in the Litchfield Shire. In keeping with what the minister said about the catchment management policy for Darwin Harbour we have to work more closely together.
Local government does play a role. I have heard some people say it is not their role. Local government plays a role simply by leaving it as it is, in its natural state. But local government would be happy to work in partnership with people like parks and wildlife, with the NT government, to make that process - which the government wants and in which Litchfield Shire Council has led the way. For many years, Litchfield Shire Council was criticised for attempting to remove wetlands from subdivisions.
Mr Bonson: By whom?
Mr WOOD: By the previous government. But what I am saying is that times have moved on and to be truthful, I think the council actually got the previous government to come around and see the benefits of what we were trying to do. I have always told people, ‘If you really want to see wetlands that are destroyed, go to the Torrens River in South Australia and see how much money is being spent and see what a mess has been made of it’, and you would have to come back and say, ‘Let’s not do the same thing again. Remove our wetlands now from subdivisions’. Even if it costs us a few dollars to do firebreaks and a bit of weed control, it certainly won’t cost you the money and time to repair that land later on. So that is an area that I would like the minister to comment on.
The other concern I have is that this Conservation and Natural Resources Group is still part of the Department of Industry, Planning and Environment, and comes under one CEO. The difficulty I believe is when you get planning applications you have this sanitised version, because in some cases you can have the industry side of the department saying one thing, you can have the planning side saying another thing and you can have the environmental side saying something else. If you are a member of the Development Consent Authority, you get this fine letter from the CEO saying, ‘This is what the department says’. What you don’t really get is the Environment Section over here might have a completely opposite view to the Industry Section. When you have a department which, I have said before, is, to me, pretty top heavy in Transport and Works people and Power and Water people and all that sort of stuff, and the environmental side of this department is quite small, then sometimes the chances of these environmental issues getting out to the broader community is very difficult.
I would prefer that this maintained its integrity as a department on its own. I would have said it should be Department of Environment. I would rather see this as a single department, separate from DIPE, which had its own CEO who was directly reportable to the minister. Otherwise, the people who have to make the decisions, which is the minister himself and sometimes the Development Consent Authority, I do not think we will get the full picture. Maybe I am wrong. But that is my own experience from being on the Development Consent Authority. I have seen the sanitised letters. I have spoken to people in the department who have a completely different view. Sometimes I would have liked to have heard that different view so I could make a decision and balance the conflicting arguments from within the government.
I ask another question, and it may be a simple answer. I have the Intranet site which looks at these changes. There may be a simple answer to it because I notice the CEO is still the head of the Parks and Wildlife, and I presume in the changing of the guard that that position will go. But in the diagram, the head of Parks and Wildlife goes straight to the Chief Executive Officer, while the heads of the other three divisions go to the Executive Director. I presume that eventually all those people will go to the Executive Director.
Another query I have is, what happens to the NT Office of Environment and Heritage. I am not even sure how …
Mr Vatskalis: It remains independent, as it was.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well maybe you could give me an idea how that role fits as an independent body from this. You may include in that why heritage is not in here, or it may be in here, but I cannot see it in here. There is nothing in here that says ‘heritage’. Heritage should be in there even if you have an independent body, you can tell me why that exists, but I think we should have heritage in here.
Another little concern I had is that, it is interesting reading this Intranet discussion, when you get to the section on the wildlife service, it talks about the commercial operations branch, which is a subsection of Parks and Wildlife, ‘will assume direct management of Windows on the Wetland and, in close consultation with its management, will seek to further develop the commercial returns from the George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens’. There are two things I would like to ask. Is the government intending to charge people to get into Windows on the Wetlands and the George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens, because that is what you get from this statement, ‘commercial returns’. I would be a little bit concerned about that because I am not sure those two pieces of infrastructure are set up for that. The other concern I have is that places like Windows on the Wetland are not really there as a commercial operation. They are there as an educational tool. They are there to show people the value of the wetlands. And the same for the Darwin Botanic Gardens which is there for people to learn. I would be very concerned if there was any move to turn those two operations into a commercial …
Mr Vatskalis: Leasing site for a kiosk, a coffee shop.
Mr WOOD: Could be. But it possibly needs a bit more explanation. They have certainly tried to put some, well you might say, the hot dog stand out at the Windows on the Wetlands for the last umpteen years and they haven’t gone anywhere. Maybe there needs to be a bit more land available. It is very difficult on top of that little hill. Anyway, I have those concerns.
A fundamental question that I would like to ask is, and some may some it is a bit silly, but what was wrong with the old system? I mean, I know new governments get in and they like to put their own stamp on what they do. But I hate to see a situation of, ‘Well, we have done all this. We have a new beaut structure. It cost us a lot of money to do it. We now have all these divisions, we have committees, we have scientific subcommittees’. Have we created a bureaucracy bigger than the previous one? Is it going to cost more money to operate this? That would have been an interesting debate, and some figures probably would not have hurt. It would have given us an idea of whether there are any economic advantages in doing this. If we can make these departments less top heavy with bureaucracy and have more work on the ground, I would be pleased to see those sorts of changes.
Minister, last concern is about the staff. I have mentioned that before. I spoke to a couple of people today and one is actually leaving the department. It is partly because morale is still low in some parts of the department. I am not saying it is low in all parts of the department. I read in your statement where it says about the process of change:
- This process involved a series of openly reported meetings with staff at all levels from both the Parks and
Wildlife and the Natural Resources Division of the department, as well as opportunities for direct feedback
from all staff to the Chief Executive Officer.
The Chief Executive Officer also wrote a little on that same section:
- Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the draft proposals. I was overwhelmed by
the number of submissions I received and impressed by the positive and considered contributions. While there
was a healthy range of views put forward, the overriding sentiment was broadly supportive of the directions
outlined in my previous newsletter. The input I have received has been used to refine the detail of the
structural arrangements and, over time, we will explore further some of the ideas put forward as we begin
working in this new context.
The information I received was that the staff who had been involved were generally senior staff - this is the feedback that I have - and the lower staffing - I do not mean that in a derogatory term, but staff at lower levels – did not appear to have been involved in this much at all. They are the people I worry about. I feel that this Department of Parks and Wildlife - and I heard some of what the member for Katherine said - and you actually said it yourself today, in a different way. You said that there were umpteen vacancies - I do not know if it was 27 or 65, we can debate that – and that about 170 people applied. That has always been the case with Parks and Wildlife, because, even when I first came to the Territory, if I had not worked out bush, the job I would have wanted was with Parks and Wildlife. It is a job that attracts people because they see it as a great job, and they wear their badge with pride. They see themselves as someone special. They are a very - what would you say - shopfront reflection of the government. Which department do you see the most, besides, perhaps the electricity inspector? Which department do most people see? It is Parks and Wildlife. I see the ranger at my supermarket a couple of times a week. People see them at the coastal reserve in Darwin.
Mr Kiely: What about the nurses? I see a lot of nurses.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. That is true, but … Do you?
Mr Kiely: I am married to one.
Mr WOOD: I have just been put off by the member.
Ms Lawrie: You digress.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I do digress.
They are not only the people we see, they are also the people the tourists and visitors see. They are the ones that are seen often. I feel that in this whole change, they have really gone down because they now become a division of a division, as I said before. We need to really rethink this. Somehow we have to make sure that Parks and Wildlife are up there, and they do not feel they have just become a division of a division.
I was talking to someone today, and they are a little bewildered. I know change causes bewilderment, and change causes problems, but this change has been happening for 12 months to some extent. There have been cuts and there has been change and it has taken a long time to get to this stage. Some people have worn out. I do not know when this may be all for the better, but it certainly sums it up out there that they feel that way.
The last thing I would like to say is that I thought when this review was going to be done that it would be a public review. I would have liked to have participated in a debate about how I thought the Parks and Wildlife should have been restructured. That was what I was trying to get at before. Forget the nurses for the moment …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … but - thank you, I just lost my thought there. May I ask for a small extension of time, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker?
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time so as he could finish his speech.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I just feel that there was an opportunity here for the public to be involved and that was why I was arguing the point and highlighting the fact that these people are the people who are seen not only by us but by the tourists. They are very much reflecting the Territory lifestyle. Because they are so important in our community I believe that the community should have had a say in how they felt this department was going to continue. I just hope that this Parks and Wildlife Department does not go down because many people will be disappointed if it is not out there as the reflection of what a great place the Territory is.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, having listened to the debate on the restructure of parks, I have to say that to me it is a reflection of ‘is the glass half full or is it half empty’. On this side we are seeing the glass as half full, and on the opposition side they are seeing the glass as half empty. That is the difference of perspectives. Parks and Wildlife is very dear to my heart. When I was a 15 year old I did work experience with them as a ranger and for those few days I saw first hand the work that the rangers did in the then Conservation Commission. I loved it so much that I went back to school and two of my best friends became rangers. I certainly spoke glowingly of the work, and of the people who did the work.
As a Territory born and raised person, my heart lies very deeply in the land, the conservation of the land, the protection of our flora and fauna. That really is what the field staff of Parks and Wildlife have been doing, and doing exceptionally and extraordinarily well against sometimes very great odds for many years now. Those of us who have been in the Territory quite a while have seen it go from the Conservation Commission, which was largely gutted, lost large amounts of the then department and was shrunk down to Parks and Wildlife. Now, as is pointed out in this restructure, they are changing again.
I see this change for the first time in a long time as being a very positive change for the staff of what has been Parks and Wildlife. Through this change, they will be freed up to do the work that they do best, that is to be out in the field, but they will be a part of a conservation and natural resources group that looks far more broadly at conservation and resource issues. They are not just going to be looking in at the park; they have the potential opportunity to look without as well at the entire Territory. I see it as an expansion and a growth of opportunity for staff in the section rather than how it is being perceived on the opposite side which is a contraction and loss of opportunities and experiences. Proof will be in the pudding. Time will give us those answers.
I have every confidence that the minister has handled this process appropriately. I disagree with the member for Katherine and the comments that he has made about it being sloppily handled, etc. What has occurred is unusual. Previously, when a minister and the CEO change a department structure, it is handed down as a fait accompli, as a bolt from the blue to staff. What has happened this time in this process is the CEO and ministerial staff have moved through the department and worked with people and had meetings with people, and consulted with the union. From all accounts of what I am hearing, the staff are happy with what is being proposed. Certainly, what I am hearing is that the union is happy.
In terms of those concerns about security of jobs, the minister has been very upfront in his ministerial statement. He has laid that bogey man to rest and said there will be no job losses with this restructure. That, again in the history of Territory departmental restructures, is extremely unusual. Normally restructures in the past have resulted in massive job losses and, as I say, have always come as a bolt from the blue for the staff on the ground. That whole aspect of fear and loathing has come through debates here this afternoon. There is this insidious idea that the staff are too frightened to say that they are unhappy about this or that.
I have had the opportunity in the past 12 months to work very closely with some senior people in Parks and Wildlife. I was out there a couple of weeks ago hosting morning tea for staff to say thank you for all the assistance they had given me on the hard work we did with the Leanyer Recreation Park. A friend told me that when it was first announced that one of the staff there had to work closely with me on the Leanyer Recreation Park project, that staff member was a bit concerned about how that would be. My friend had to say, ‘Look it’s okay. This person is actually fair dinkum, honest and will treat you well’. I hope that time in the last 12 months has proven that to be the case. Certainly, I feel that I have struck up a very strong, positive working relationship with Parks and Wildlife staff. I have found them to be incredibly hard working, incredibly dedicated and highly professional, highly trained people with distinct expertise. There is some bipartisan approach in that both sides of the House hold the Parks and Wildlife staff in extremely high regard. That is a given. What I said about the glass half full/half empty is about people’s perception on the restructure.
My view is this focus on change is one to conserve our precious natural environment and to ensure that the value of our natural resources is sustained for our children. That is so important. We are custodians of the future, and these are the people who on the ground deliver that custody every day and they challenge it. I listened to the debate today, certainly from the member for Macdonnell as the shadow spokesperson, and I was really concerned. He made some insinuation in terms of with the grouping that has come together that there could be an elimination of constructive tension. He questioned the integrity of the processes that would occur in the future. I see that as an attack on the integrity of the people in the department.
I have trust in their integrity. I have had the pleasure, as I have said, of working alongside some of them and I have certainly met many more of them. I had discussions with them in the workplace about the new government, the new department, the way forward. I did not see any of them being shy, retiring wallflowers in what they had to say to me. They were very honest and they approached it with the integrity that a highly skilled professional does. I like to feel that that was a marking of a change in relationship because certainly I am aware that public servants in the past, under the previous regimes, reached the stage of not speaking out. There was that whole approach of fear and loathing that clamped the talent down that we had in the Territory so that people really were too frightened to speak out to politicians in government.
In the last few years before the change of government, they ferreted stuff out to opposition out of sheer desperation, feeling that they needed to say this is what is going on on the ground and this is what we are worried about. What I see now is they have the confidence to tell us directly. The minister is one of the most approachable ministers I have met in my entire life, and I have met many ministers in various jurisdictions over many years. His staff are also approachable, down to earth, hard working people. Very reflective, I believe, of the department.
I am congratulating the minister on his statement today. It lays to rest some of the scaremongering that has been going on in the past week or so, whipped up by the CLP. It shows that what we have established is an integrated Conservation and Natural Resources Group led by a single executive director. Discussion between the ED and the minister will be a very effective chain of command. It creates four divisions within this new Conservation and Natural Resources Group: Policy and Planning, Natural Systems, Natural Resource Management, and Parks and Wildlife Service.
It is this Parks and Wildlife Service, quite rightly, that we all treat specially in our hearts and minds, because of the good work we know they have done through decades in the Territory. The Parks and Wildlife Service will continue to take the responsibility for a Wildlife Management Plan, the supervision of our threatened species, and importantly, the scrutiny of sustainable use of wildlife in the Territory. This is a truly welcome reassurance.
The restructure outlined in this ministerial statement provides for an expansion of the role of staff in this new group. As I said before, I have been advised that it has been greeted favourably by staff and their union. So whilst the member for Macdonnell attempts to whip up a bit of scaremongering, fear and loathing, our minister has gone about his work, and has provided a wonderful combination in this restructure of parks and natural resources together. That is, for the first time, the management and conservation of our flora, fauna, land and natural resources, both inside and outside parks, are within the one grouping. That is a positive step forward.
I have had the pleasure of working first hand, as I said, in the area of parks and wildlife, and I have to say that I believe the staff are well positioned to move boldly forward with this restructure. It certainly lays to rest some of the uncertainty in the past 12 months. As the member for Nelson pointed out, any restructure brings with it, by nature, uncertainty and a suspicion of change. This restructure clearly sets down where our government is heading in the area of conservation and natural resources, and the very dedicated and talented staff who deliver for us every day on the ground.
I want to refer to a section specifically in the minister’s speech. It talks about the second division of policy and planning being led by three of the Territory’s most experienced senior natural resource and conservation managers, who are drawing on the expertise of a wide range of staff throughout the group. I quote directly from the ministerial statement:
- It is crucial that the Territory develops properly researched and integrated natural resource and
conservation management policies and plans so that the government and community can make
informed decisions about the balance between resource use and protection. This division has been
charged with the specific responsibility of bringing these sometimes conflicting aspirations together.
What we are saying is, we recognise that there are conflicts, oft times, internally, about what the way forward should be and what the plan should be. But that is not to say, because there can be conflict between expertise, that you should keep them at arm’s length, which is a proposal I have heard suggested today about having completely separate entire departments. Surely constructive progress is about bringing experts together with their competing views, and move and progress a way forward that is the best outcome for Territorians. That is what this restructure is doing and I think the delivery will occur in that respect.
I congratulate the minister also on the creation of a specific Natural Resources Management Division. I refer here, specifically again, to the ministerial statement, where it says:
… there will be a Natural Resources Management Division to manage the way in which people impact
on the landscape ... This division will largely consist of staff drawn from the existing Natural Resource
Division, the Bushfires Council, and the former Weeds Management Branch who, in another initiative of
this government, have recently joined the department from the Department of Business, Industry and
Resource Development. This will bring together for the first time the intellectual and financial
resources of government to assist it and the community in making sensible … decisions about the
management of fire, weeds, feral animals, land, water, native vegetation, and biodiversity.
As I said, it is actually a wise move to bring what were in the past separate entities together, to take this whole-of-government approach to what I believe are crucial areas for the Territory in terms of the way forward. We have all heard previously in the economic development statements here in the House, that we are on the verge of pursuing the opening up of our potential; whether it is mining, pastoral leases - certainly the railway is going to open up various areas of the Territory. So, making these sensible decisions about the management of fire, weeds, feral animals, land, water, native vegetation and biodiversity are becoming all the more crucial, because we are on the verge of completely opening up in terms of our economic opportunities.
Further, it is also good to know that the division will bolster its presence in the regions and work more closely in supporting statutory bodies such as the Bushfire Council, Landcare Council and Pastoral Land Board. In closing, I look forward to seeing the fruits of success borne from the new Conservation and Natural Resources Group. I commend the minister for working very hard with his CEO, the staff, his ministerial staff, in effecting what I believe will be seen as a positive restructure.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have just a few comments. I agree with the member for Karama, the proof of this pudding will be in its eating. Speaking of different perspectives in addressing this statement, that comes naturally with the structure of this parliament where it is our requirement to approach the whole issue from the other side, with the single purpose of ensuring that what we are putting in place, the decisions we are actually making, will be for the benefit of the Northern Territory.
Many speakers have referred to their impression of the former Conservation Commission. My arrival and my first job here, had me in close contact with the then Conservation Commission. I was attracted to the colour that they had, in a sense that they had a personality and a character that was very much in keeping with that which I was appreciating in the Northern Territory. There is a certain vibrancy and energy about those who worked in this field, because they loved their work and they strongly identified with that thing which is so much around us here in the Territory and that is the wildlife, our landscape, our parks and so on.
My concern is that through this structural change, we will be able to explain it in terms of enhancing our ability to go places we have not been before and conquer things we need to conquer, and make certain progress. My concern is that on one level that may make sense theoretically, but we are managing people here. I am concerned about the actual identity of those who work in this field; how it links to that identity that the Northern Territory has - that identifiable difference. I referred to colour, and now I am concerned that there may become an emerging beigeness in terms of this being just another operation the same as any other in any other jurisdiction in any other state, when the Territory is so unique. The proof is in the eating.
I will finish with a practical situation, and I hope that the minister has obviously set off on this course and with good intentions. I hope the proof will be in the evidence of things that we see around us needing to be addressed. Recently, I had the good fortune to force myself to take some time out to visit two of our parks that I very much like to explore; one being Keep River National Park and the other being Gregory National Park in the Timber Creek section.
Ms Scrymgour: They are beautiful parks.
Mr MILLS: They certainly are. When Gregory National Park first opened I had the opportunity, I had only been in the Territory for a short time, to visit that park in its earlier stages and was very much attracted to the Limestone Gorge area. It is an absolutely fascinating area attracting the attention of speleologists from around the world. It has a cave system that apparently is the last unexplored cave region in the world. There are just masses of caves that still have not been properly explored. It is quite a fascinating area on the Baines River.
I have been there twice before and was looking forward to spending some time there this time. It is quite a drive. I was disappointed to find that when I got to the turnoff to Limestone Gorge a sign said the park was closed so I thought we cannot camp here then. Driving in I was puzzling as to why it would be closed at this time of the year because I had stayed there a few years back and there was a number of tourists. When I got in there and found that the gate was locked, I walked in and found that the road into the park had been washed out. It had been washed out during the wet season and we are now feeling the first touch of the build-up and there is another wet season coming. This road has been gouged out. Territorians think they could probably get their vehicle around here and drive through anyway. I had a little look and found that there is no way that you could drive your vehicle around and get through there unless you had a significant 4WD. The road simply has been scoured and has not been repaired. I would like to see that whatever we put in place will ensure that things like that are repaired.
I will come back and tie this together, but in the same trip I visited Keep River National Park. Though I did not visit this area I was disappointed to find that the Keep River Gorge was also closed and I can only presume for the same reason because it said due to erosion problems. Well, there is no rain during the dry season so the road was also closed. What is of concern is that speak of that colour and that which attracts people to the Northern Territory and that which we who are Territorians really do appreciate, that I met a number of tourists who had driven a long way, mainly from Western Australia in this case and a few from New South Wales, who had done their trip and they had heard about these places. When they get to the Timber Creek section, the Limestone Gorge area is the most interesting in many peoples minds, also the gorge at Keep River.
After a huge trip up the West Coast they arrive there and they find that they are closed and closed due to lack of repair. So without getting into silly business of looking back and finding who we can blame for this, I certainly hope that we may hear the rhetoric on the other side, ‘Goodness me, it has to be the CLP’s problem, they were there, they were in government, they wrecked the Territory for 26 years, so gosh it’s their fault’. Forget all that rubbish. The road has not been repaired and I just trust whatever wonderful arrangements we are putting in place here will see those roads repaired. And that people when they visit the Northern Territory will go away with that sense that they have been here and seen it rather than being disappointed after a long dusty drive to find that the road is closed. I simply put that there as a way of this is how we really do measure these kinds of structures in this specific instance. Certainly the statement has my support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members for their comments, even from the member of Macdonnell, shadow spokesperson for doom and gloom, as my colleague I refer to him. However, I thank him for his comments. It is sometimes very good to get negative comments from people so you can go back and re-evaluate what you have done and that what you have done was correct. I also wish to thank the member for Katherine. I know he does not support the restructuring. However, his comment were very valuable having worked in the Parks and Wildlife and Conservation Commission for many years. I thank my colleagues for their support and the member for Nelson and the member for Blain for their comments.
However, I would like to go back. First of all, I remember a few months ago we had another discussion about Parks and Wildlife with the departure of the then Executive Director, Bill Freeland. I remember I tabled in the House a letter and the person who wrote the letter said that he remembers the Conservation Commission being at the vanguard of research, being famed all over the world, presenting papers at national conferences, and then things went wrong. And then what happened with Parks and Wildlife? They went to conferences just to listen, not to present papers. That concerned me greatly.
I was also accused of having a hands-off approach. I remember very well that I was accused a few months ago of involvement in the removal of the director. Now, either you have your hands on the department or you do not have your hands on the department. You cannot have it both ways. As for the Westminster system, I do not think the system really allows a minister to have a direct involvement in the running of the department. The minister and the government provides leadership, provides policy, provides direction, and the CEOs control and organise the department. I do not think anybody would like to work in the public sector organisation and have the minister come down and tell them how they are going to run the department, how the department will be structured.
Yes, I had involvement in the restructuring. The involvement I had was to provide policy, to provide direction, to provide leadership, and to sit down with my CEO to discuss the different issues. It also involved travelling in the Northern Territory, to the Centre and to the north to meet the people at their place where they work to discuss some of these issues with them. That was my involvement. It was not my involvement to sit down individually, take notes and decide how the department is going to be restructured. That is the role of the CEO. The broad directions are given by the government. The CEO refines the directions and applies them to the department.
Parks and Wildlife is not the department that it used to be before. Yes, it is one of the four divisions but one of four very important divisions. When I worked in the public service there were a number of departments doing similar jobs, with many people doing exactly the same job under a different name and never working together. You had a health department here that would do something about environmental health, you had another department dealing with building, you had another department dealing with quarantine, and they would not talk to each other. This is a unique opportunity for Parks and Wildlife, with their expertise, with their rangers, with their scientists, together with the people in natural resources management where they have their expertise, their scientists, and their field workers, to get together.
We have now moved from conservation of the parks – which was quite rightly was pointed out by the member for Nelson, ‘These are our parks, we look after them; we don’t look after anything outside the park’. We have moved away from conservation on park to conservation all over the Northern Territory, off park. So, this is my park and there is a block of land out there, we still have responsibility for the block of land. We are going to look at the block of land because you cannot maintain by biodiversity in islands. You cannot maintain flora and fauna in small areas - small areas with regard to the Territory can be quite large but isolated from each other. You have to look at biodiversity as a whole, in a holistic approach. 1 500 000km, that is our national park because wherever you go in the Territory, the Territory is virtually untouched. We are lucky. We are not developed as heavily as other states and we have a biodiversity in 1 500 000km. This is our national park. What we are doing now is looking to the whole Territory rather than the little parks - Litchfield Park, Kakadu Park, Uluru and other parks. We are going to have a look at the whole lot.
We are not the first to do that. Other people did exactly the same. Conservation and Land Management in Western Australia did something very similar. But we are a step above them, a level above them, because we now getting everybody with those similar jobs together. The people with expertise from Parks and Wildlife, the people who used to work in Parks and Wildlife, the scientists, will bring their expertise and will work together with people who work for natural resources management. They work together. They define policy, not policy on natural resources management, but policy that will cover wildlife, natural resources management, weeds, bushfire, everything.
Mr Wood: Mining?
Mr VATSKALIS: Including mining, why? Because if it is going to affect biodiversity it has to be considered. We have to consider our natural resources. Land and water, even the atmosphere, is a natural resource and we intend to preserve all of those. We are moving in the right direction. And it is quite right, as the member for Katherine said, what are the efficiencies? Does it cost less, does it cost much? We can put the dollar figure on everything and say: ‘Well, if it is going to cost $10 less, that’s good, let’s do it’. But this is not counting dollars, it is how well it will operate and what will be the results. If the results are going to be good, even if it costs a little bit more, so be it. If we are going to maintain our biodiversity, then so be it.
I was very surprised to find out from the scientists at Parks and Wildlife, that in the past 100 years we have lost a large number of animals in the Territory. We have lost these animals through our activities, through human activity. At the same time, I was equally surprised to find out that we keep discovering new plants all the time in the Territory. That does not mean we have not lost any plants, it means that we do not know what is in the Territory, but we keep discovering new plants all the time, That is why we have to look after our natural resources, we have to look after our natural heritage, how to maintain the biodiversity, find out why these animals disappeared and try to prevent further disappearance of other animals. There are many animals out there that are actually in danger. There are many animals that have actually disappeared because we have affected their habitat, their food chain, through activities. It does not matter how big or small those activities. Sometimes these animals need only that much to tip them from a species that is in very good condition to an endangered species and then disappear altogether.
Mr Elferink: There is an inconsistency in your thinking. You say that there are pristine conditions throughout the Territory, and now you are telling us that we are losing species. Where are the consistencies?
Mr VATSKALIS: I did not say it is a pristine condition. I said we are in a much better condition than other states, for the simple reason, we do not have the level of development and industrial development other states do. Our Territory has been developed, but not industrial development. We have pastoral activity, we have agricultural activity, and they affect the environment as well, but not to the extent of industrial development that we have seen in other states, let’s say in New South Wales or in Victoria, or even other countries, as in Europe.
This restructuring took place after extensive consultation with the staff and the unions. The member for Nelson said that the consultation was with senior staff only. I disagree because the senior staff consulted with junior staff. I witnessed that when I went to Alice Springs and I spoke to both senior and junior. There might be some cases where some senior staff did not consult widely with their junior staff, but what I found was that people were actually talking about it, knew about it. They expressed views and opinions about it, and these views and opinions were fed up to the CEO.
There were times when we had to change the Conservation Commission, there were times we had to change it to Parks and Wildlife, and now we start to look seriously at what is happening around us, because within the next few years we are going to see massive development in the Territory, starting with the railway. The railway is going to change the face of the Territory. The East Arm Wharf is going to change the face of the Territory. The establishment of the gas industry and relative industries is going to change the face of the Territory. We are trying to attract population to the Territory. This is going to affect the Territory and this is the right time to have a look at the Territory as a whole. Not only our parks, but every single kilometre of 1 500 000km of the Territory should be considered as a place where we want to maintain the biodiversity of the Territory, we want to maintain the flora and the fauna. This restructuring aims to do exactly that.
Working together, put our expertise together, put our experience together in order to see results, in order to maintain the biodiversity of the Territory, in order to make the Territory for a better place.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I have a confession to make to the Assembly. On 1 July 2002, I failed as Minister for Sport and Recreation. In fact, I was a coward, as I abjectly failed to take up the extreme sport of rollerblading at the opening of the Alice Springs Skate Park. As you would know, as sports minister, I am not reluctant to take up the occasional challenge, whether it be horse riding in Lajamanu, ten pin bowling in Nightcliff, or hockey at Marrara. I teed off just recently, in fact, with Dawn Fraser, our patron of the Masters Games in Central Australia, along with the Minister for Central Australia, to promote the 100 days to go before the Masters Games in Alice Springs, at which, as I informed the House on Tuesday, I have signed up for darts and eight ball. Only last week, I had a go at skeet shooting with the NT game and field mob at their Goose Fever Expo, something that is very close to my heart and my tummy.
But rollerblading, no way! Just watching what the young people of Alice Springs could do at the new skate park convinced me that I was too old and long in the tooth to take up being the minister for extreme sport. The opening happened on Territory Day and if nothing else, Territory Day should be about celebrating the future, and it is the future that very much concerns the youth of our communities throughout the Northern Territory.
The Alice Springs Skate Park is very much the brainchild of the young people of Alice Springs. It arose from a workshop coordinated by the YMCA just over a year ago. The weekend workshop was put together by the YMCA’s extreme sports youth advisory committee. This committee was guided by the views and ideas of young skaters. I know that a lot of young people - not just in Alice Springs but elsewhere in the Territory - face problems with boredom and a lack of facilities. A lot of the time, older people who live busy lives have difficulty understanding and appreciating this, and only worry about it when a small minority of our youth get into trouble.
That is the beauty of the skate park. It is not just a new facility that provides something for our youth to do. It is an idea that very much belongs to them. The YMCA is to be congratulated for adopting this approach. I am told that will continue to be the case. The YMCA, which also manages the swimming pool next door, is still working with the users of the Alice Springs Skate Park so that young people have an ongoing involvement in the management of the facility. I have no doubt that having the Alice Springs youth involved in management will be an investment for the future, in capacity building. It will yield much more than a well run skate park.
In government, slowness in getting things done can sometimes be frustrating. But that clearly has not been the case with the skate park. Construction of the park commenced only 10 weeks before the opening and I understand the park was in use a month before the opening. The constructors, Convic, should be congratulated on a fine job carried out in excellent time. The short time between conception and completion of the park is even more extraordinary when you think that there was more than one agency involved in funding the park. The Alice Springs Town Council, ATSIC, and my Department of Sport and Recreation, each contributed $65 000 towards the project. Innovative partnerships such as this must be the way of the future. I cannot speak more highly of the local town council and ATSIC, not to mention officers in my department, for the spirit of cooperation that has been the hallmark of its success.
These are the kinds of partnerships that emphasise the community nature of the benefits that the Alice Springs Skate Park will bring. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation in the Martin Labor government, it gives me great pleasure to be there, and be a part of the official launching of the Alice Springs Skate Park.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put on the record a quiet success story that is occurring in my electorate. I believe it is the start of, or the end of the beginning of something I have hoped for and worked in the past to achieve, not only within the defence force but outside of it as a politician. That is the capability in the Northern Territory of doing more and more logistics support and maintenance support for military equipment, whether it be army, airforce or defence that is either located or potentially to be located in the Northern Territory. Such a success story was the opening of the General Motors Defence Australia expanded Darwin logistics centre which was opened in Palmerston by the Chief Minister on 23 July this year.
I was particularly pleased not only to attend the opening but to see the importance the government put on that opening with the Chief Minister herself officiating. I was very pleased to see the Minister for Defence Support there as well. The member for Karama was also there a long with myself, my wife as the Mayor of Palmerston, and some others. It was a very good roll up for the opening and I am sure it would have pleased the defence representatives and also the representatives of the General Motors Defence.
A little bit of background on General Motors Defence - it is the largest and the most successful producer of light armoured vehicles in the world today with over 35% of the current world market share. Over 6000 vehicles and over 2000 turrets have been sold to date to major western and allied forces, including the United States Marine Corp, the Canadian Army, the Australian Army, the New Zealand Army, the Swiss Army, the United States Army, and the Defence Forces of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They are currently pursuing other contracts with other countries and it is no overstatement to say that the General Motors light armoured vehicle essentially is the benchmark I believe for wheeled light armoured vehicles.
The General Motors Defence Australia organisation is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Overseas Corporation, GMOC. It is located in Adelaide, South Australia and GMDA was originally formed in Australia in 1998 as an operating name of the General Motors Locomotive Group, GMLG subsidiary, in Australia, Electromotive Maintenance Operations or EMMO.
During 1995 and 1997, General Motors Defence delivered 113 ASLAVs which is the Australian variant of their light armoured vehicle to the Australian Army. These ASLAVs incorporated technical modifications to the basic LAV design and introduced seven variants which were developed for and proven against an extant Australian capability requirement for the conduct of armoured reconnaissance operations and surveillance. Due to the success of the initial contract the follow on order was contracted in August 2000 with up to 150 additional ASLAVs for issues to units in Darwin and Brisbane. The reconnaissance and surveillance roles of these cavalry units demand a highly mobile amphibious armoured vehicle to which the ASLAV is ideally suited. There is a follow on contract, phase three, which also introduces increased levels of local content, including the fabrication assembly of LAV 25 turrets by GMDA at a new purpose built manufacturing facility at Pooraka in South Australia.
The extension of the facility that was opened on 23 July is located at 2123 Beresford Road, Yarrawonga. I recall as Chief Minister at the time, I opened the initial facility. I am not quite sure if I have a plaque there. I know that the present Chief Minister has a plaque but I am not quite sure if mine has had the flick or not but there should be two plaques there I would imagine. It commenced operations on 28 February 2001, essentially as a response to the Commonwealth’s request to have the previously Adelaide-based repair and overhaul capability closer to the main custom which is Second Cavalry Regiment. Since then the facility has developed the capability and capacity to manage the local repair and overhaul of the full range of component assemblies that comprise the ASLAV and that capability is now expanded to include a warehousing supply and distribution capability to support the contractor based through life support initiatives defined by the Commonwealth as the most cost effective means of supporting the modern ASLAV fleet.
It was good to see Mr Bill Pettipas, the General Motors Defence Chief Executive Officer at the opening. I met him when I was commanding officer of Second Cavalry Regiment when we were completing the trials of the ASLAV and he has been out on a number of occasions and certainly was at the open of the initial facility on 28 February 2001 as well. In his address he stated:
- The expansion of this logistic support capability in Darwin is testimony of the GMDA dedication to
provide genuine contractor base through life support to Army in association with the new whole-of-life
support initiatives implemented by the Defence Material Organisation and such initiatives will ensure
high levels of effective and efficient equipment availability to the Army.
Mr John Harriott, the Marketing Manager of GMDA, stated in his address:
- As well as providing significant local opportunities for employment and subcontract work, the
GMDA Darwin logistics centre facility provides a strategic resource to the Australian Defence
Force which will enable the establishment of a self reliant maintenance and supply support capability.
That capability now is extended not only in the Northern Territory but it is linked to the GMDA manufacturing facility at Pooraka in South Australia and the logistics centre in Brisbane. All this together will provide a contractor based long term, cost effective, through life support capability for local and regional customers.
When the Army first moved into the Territory, it was always a problem that much of the logistics support and maintenance support was provided from southern based units and too much downtime was incurred through vehicles and other equipment having to be sent south. I believe not only is this GMDA extension of capability to do major repair of the ASLAV in-house a great initiative, but also it points to the significant opportunities in my mind that exist for the Northern Territory to capture more and more of the defence support market. Not only a market for the current equipment that is here or will be located here, but also the potential that I have always felt a strong logistics support capability can provide to other defence forces in our region, many of which, if they are not operating now, are looking to operate equipment such as the ASLAV. If you look at many of those Asian countries, they have a fairly poor capability in terms of their own logistics and maintenance support. Too often, American-type equipment goes back to places such as the United States rather than be repaired in-house.
There is a significant opportunity in the Northern Territory to capture more of that defence market. Certainly that opportunity needs to be a continuing strategy of government to encourage not only defence, but also through their political masters in Canberra to recognise the need for building on the infrastructure and capability of our private contractors in the Northern Territory and also to recognise that capability. There has always been a suspicion, I believe, within Defence of the capability of Darwin based contractors in terms of QA levels and all that sort of stuff needs improvement. More and more, they are recognising that the capability is there, has been there for some time and as that recognition grows, and also as strategies such as GMDA are employing themselves to make a conscious effort to put their capability closer to the equipment itself, you will see a growing defence support market in the Northern Territory. I believe that market and industry will be a significant growth industry for Territorians.
We have the new attack helicopter coming into service shortly. That Attack Helicopter Regiment will be based in Darwin at Robertson Barracks. It will be using state of the art equipment, equipment that not only has great capabilities but also high levels of technical maintenance requirements, and it would be sad to see too much going to places down south or overseas. So we need to work more with the prime contractors for that sort of equipment to have the maintenance done in the Northern Territory.
New patrol boats will be in service in a few years time, the majority of them will be based in Darwin and, of course, we are seeing Bradshaw Station as the major training area for the Australian Army coming online in the next few years. Again, over time that will become not only a great training area for the Australian Defence Force and also defence forces of our regional friends and the United States, but also it will require over time to become more and more technical in terms of the sorts of the military equipment that is maintained there. That in itself is a great opportunity for our Northern Territory businesses to joint venture with Primes and capture some of that market.
I just wanted to put on the record how pleased I was to attend the opening, how pleased I was to see that those initial strategies that a few years ago we thought would not bear fruit are doing so. I congratulate not only GMDA Australia but also the logistic planners within Defence for the work that they have done in ensuring that more of that maintenance capability is carried out in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been 12 months since we had the election here in the Northern Territory and I thought in my adjournment tonight I might review a number of publications that have been written about that election a year ago. I am sure for some it was a night of elation. For some it was a horrible night. To quote from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:
- The horror of that moment,’ the King went on, ‘I shall never, never forget!’
- ‘You will, though,’ the Queen said, ‘if you don’t make a memorandum of it.’
So tonight is just by way a little memorandum 12 months on. Some of the themes that I have been speaking about within my speeches this week is the fact that we, as an opposition, developed position papers and policies. We went to the electorate with those position papers and policies and we were elected. I think there is a contrast on the other side of the House, and some of the independent academic publications that have come out in the past 12 months about the Northern Territory election 2001 actually point to a whole range of very interesting factors for Labor’s win and the CLP’s loss.
The main publications that I would like to review are: one that most people would have seen by Loveday, Jaensch and Berzin’s Labor’s Win - The Northern Territory Election 2001; an article written in issue 13 of the Journal of Northern Territory History in 2002 by Carment and Wilson entitled Change at the Top - The 2001 Northern Territory Election; and an essay written by Gayl McKay, a political science student at the Northern Territory University simply entitled The 2001 Northern Territory Election. I will also be quoting from a very learned publication called the NT News, which had a couple of interesting articles earlier this week, I think on Wednesday. All of these are excellent publications that contain mostly an even-handed analysis of the NT election result. I commend them to members.
However, to illustrate how the CLP had lost touch with their electorate, particularly the business community, I would like to quote from the book by Loveday et al, on page 70:
The CLP had succeeded in alienating many key sectors of the Northern Territory economy, particularly
in Darwin. Nurses, teachers, ethnic communities, the aged, even business had at some time expressed
public disappointment at the government.
By contrast, we, then in opposition, now in government, had developed a comprehensive list of policy papers, and I quote again from Loveday et al, pages 34 and 35:
Policy papers being prepared in 2000 were packaged under the title New Directions, and as they
emerged, the relevant shadow ministers launched them publicly. Detailed papers followed announcing
the policies Labor would initiate should it win government.
That was in sharp contrast really to the now opposition, and then government, who went to the electorate in a cloud of negativity, and with 27 years of wedge politics and mates rates hanging around their necks like a millstone. Their handling of the economy, government spending and business, I believe, was a disaster zone. I would like to quote from Loveday et al. This one is about mates rates. It is quoting Heatley, who was a bit of a commentator. Heatley talks about some media talk which alleged:
… favouritism, patronage, even corruption and to assail the close connection between the party and
some business interests. Some party officials have admitted privately that some companies had to be
reminded that their continuing fortunes were linked to CLP success.
On lack of accountability, it talks about erosion:
- Oligarchic tendencies, if they take root in a democracy, entail the erosion of understandings which
underpin democratic politics, including the principle that administration should be transparent and
accountable.
I believe that was certainly a major issue in the electorate’s mind when they went to the election 12 months ago. But there is a whole section in Loveday et al called ‘Results and Reasons’, and I commend it to honourable members. I would like to talk a little here and quote:
- The task for Labor was made easier by the stated approach of the CLP, as a party and in government.
There were some messy CLP pre-selection matters, especially those involving Grant Tambling and
Loraine Braham.
Talking of the CLP:
- It had become dismissive of parliament and parliamentary processes. It considered a freedom of
information act but only tardily.
We had it in our policy; we developed it. This week, we have seen the introduction and soon we will see it pass into law - freedom of information, a cornerstone of open and transparent government.
On the issue of the economy that I mentioned before, I thank the member for Wanguri for bringing this to my attention. In an address to the Press Club, in Darwin on 11 October 2001, he reminded the audience that:
- … four years ago the NT had a balanced budget, reserves for the building of the railway and
‘glowing economic prospects[but] now there is an unbalanced budget requiring dramatic surgery,
no money in the bank and [economic] prospects shot to hell’.
That is a very interesting quote.
Then we have the themes of the Labor Party and it says, talking of the Chief Minister:
- From Martin’s election as leader of the Territory ALP in 1999 the party changed to a more positive
approach, while retaining the CLP as the main target. Clare Martin’s approach and style re-focussed
the Labor Party. Over a period of two years, the party built its policies and image: pro-development,
but through proper processes; tough on crime, but opposed to mandatory sentencing; a promise of open
and receptive government; above all, an emphasis on policies, especially health and education,
designed for all Territorians.
- On the question of the negative impact of the decision to give preferences to One Nation before Labor,
especially in a city which is multicultural with a large Asian population, Burke was certain that it ‘had not
been a factor …’ I was looking for that in the polling …One Nation didn’t affect our polling one iota’. On
the following day, however, Burke ‘apologised for his role in …the decision to place Labor below One
Nation …[this] had contributed to the party’s worst performance’.
We have a shift; one day he is saying: ‘Well, all the polling is telling us it did not impact’. Then, searching for a reason the day after the election, he latches on to this One Nation business.
I believe possibly the most succinct analysis of the election last year was given by Gayl McKay, a politics student at NTU. It is a document simply entitled The 2001 Northern Territory Election. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to table this, but after I have read from it. There is a section at the end where she analyses the reasons why the election went the way it did:
- The reasons for the change in government in the Northern Territory can be summed up in four
main categories.
I will give you the categories first. The first category was, ‘The CLP was responsible for a percentage of the swing against them’. The second, ‘The ALP was responsible for a percentage of the swing towards them’. The third was, ‘Social change had occurred which altered the electorate’s attitudes and values’. The fourth factor was, ‘It’s Time’. If I could just sort of make a precis and synopsis of what is in here, it is a dot point list, and it is very good.
So the reason for the swing against the CLP – ‘The CLP party was divided, with tensions and rifts clearly visible’. Well, I don’t think much has changed because picking up the paper of Wednesday of this week and turning to page 4: ‘Stone Under Attack’:
- Former CLP Chief Minister Shane Stone is under attack from his own party for his criticism of
Opposition Leader, Denis Burke. Sanderson branch member, Jenny Sinclair, moved a motion
at the party Central Council meeting in Katherine to censure Mr Stone. The motion was lost.
Mr Henderson: Vote of no confidence in Burke. In the party.
Dr BURNS: Well, that is what it appears. I did not hear Mr Stone make these comments but I believe he was very fulsome in his praise of the Chief Minister in a whole range of things but attacked the current Leader of the Opposition. It goes on to say:
The Northern Territory News revealed that Mr Stone recently said that Labor Chief Minister
Clare Martin had far more constructive relationships with the Howard government than Mr Burke.
Mr Stone could not be reached yesterday.
And then there is Col Newman on Wednesday, ‘Can Burke lead the CLP back to victory?’ Leading on from Shane Stone:
Shane Stone was not only critical of Denis Burke’s dealing with federal politicians in Canberra
but went on to praise the actions of Labor Chief Minister, Clare Martin.
It then goes on to say a bit later in the article, quoting the current opposition leader, ‘I realise a challenge could come at any time and from any one, that’s part of the job’. Well, certainly, on this side of the equation, I don’t think anyone is thinking about challenges but obviously there are challenges on the other side of the equation. So here is an opposition leader feeling very uncertain about his future. Col Newman finishes off there saying, ‘I wonder what the future holds for all of us, and in particular, will Denis Burke ever stop being a corporal and become a leader again?’ Well, I would have to chastise Col about that, because my colleague and friend, the member for Sanderson, is a corporal and he is proud of it. There is no shame in being a corporal.
Getting back to this, so the party was divided:
The CLP team was perceived as lacking energy and skill, and was surrounded by controversy.
The CLP did not offer new direction and few new policies. The CLP allowed the development
progress to falter, and was perceived to have not managed the economy well in recent years.
The CLP sacrificed principles for expedience with its One Nation preference deal. The CLP was
seen as favouring some sections of the community, and benefiting from its connections to business.
The CLP did not listen when the community voiced its disapproval over the handling of the
statehood convention. The CLP was out of touch with the electorate …
The second category - The ALP was responsible for a percentage of the swing towards them:
Clare Martin was favoured as a superior leader. Labor had good quality and appropriate candidates.
Well, I would agree with that.
Labor was a cohesive team, backed by their party machine.
Well, that is very true and we remain a cohesive machine, but let’s look at the CLP party machine. Obviously a bit of controversy at Katherine over the weekend. I like this quote on Wednesday from CLP president, Len Notaris, on ABC radio:
There may have been a few mistakes, but too few to mention.
Here is the Frank Sinatra of the CLP: ‘Mistakes, I’ve made a few, but too few to mention’.
- Labor was better prepared, and ran a more professional campaign. Labor intended to make changes in
areas of social concern … Labor had demonstrated its potential to handle the economy properly.
The third category - Social change had occurred which altered the electorate’s attitudes: ‘Territorians were better educated than previously’. McKay goes on through category three. I won’t go through that but I would commend it to members.
Then, the fourth reason was ‘It’s time’:
- The CLP had been in power for 27 years. The CLP portrayed a ‘redneck’ image of Territorians to the
world which was at odds with its cosmopolitan reality and embarrassed numbers of Territorians.
The CLP was perceived as tired and dated …
Just the last little bit here - The Future:
- Labor will be under considerable pressure for the next four years to prove that it can deliver on its
promises and govern successfully.
The CLP will be under similar pressure to analyse its defeat and rebuild.
So there is the challenge for both sides of politics. For our side, it is to take the mandate the people have given us very seriously and govern and implement the policies that we went to the electorate with. As I have said many times this week, the opposition has to get itself together, develop policies and be a coherent team.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to mention a number of community groups within my electorate, but before I do that it is interesting to hear the member for Johnston articulate some of his views.
Dr Burns: They are the views of commentators.
Mr MALEY: I must say that he is certainly not some one you could describe as objective and unfortunately for him, little or no weight can be given to what he has said on that subject matter. There are more important issues that are before the Territory, issues which beg to be dealt with by the current government. Indeed, that is our call. We want these issues dealt with; they are real issues that affect Territory people everyday and clearly are not getting the attention these issues deserve.
One such issue is the debate about public liability insurance. On 13 August, only two days ago, in this House this very important issue received momentary attention when the Chief Minister made a ministerial statement without notice. It was a five minute speech. The opposition were given absolutely no warning and no time to respond, but in any event responded in the required two minutes. Then the Chief Minister wrapped up with a one minute summary. This is an important issue which has affected a lot of people and community groups within the Northern Territory. Yet the only time which the government saw fit to give to this issue was a measly eight minutes.
The issue of public liability insurance is a difficult one, and whilst there has been much discussion about the issue in Australia in the form of seminars - and there have been several meetings I understand at a ministerial level - these meetings and this discussion has yet to really manifest itself in the form of something constructive and something which would assist the people and the non-profit community groups within the Northern Territory.
Historically of course, as legislators we are - even those of us who are new to parliament - must bear some of the responsibility at common law. The common law of negligence has been around for many years. Just by way of example, if there was an element of contributory negligence then that would effectively stop the person from making any claim against anybody if he had contributed to the misfortune which beset him. Legislatures and parliaments around Australia and most of the Commonwealth countries then began legislating, preventing the old common law rule of contributory negligence being a blanket defence. So we have the situation where courts and the lawyers appearing before them were left in the position of trying to decide, okay, something has occurred to this person but he contributed to this accident, 10, 20 or 50 or whatever percent, and that is the way that damages were quantified.
The insurance industry now has mounted a fairly persuasive and unrelenting campaign. That campaign has been founded on three principle assertions. Firstly, that Australia is undergoing a litigation explosion fuelled by aggressive plaintiff lawyers advertising ‘no win, no fee’ type scenarios. Secondly, public liability claims have skyrocketed. In an article by the President of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, in the August issue, one of the claims by insurance companies is that claims have skyrocketed from 55 000 claims in 1998 to 88 000 claims in the year 2001. The third pillar on which the campaign by insurance companies seems to rely upon is that the average value of public liability claims has increased faster than inflation.
The Plaintiff Lawyers Association, through this particular publication, addressed each one of those particular claims that have been made by the insurance industry and the Insurance Council, and quite rightly pointed out that according to the Australian Productivity Commission, civil litigation has declined significantly over the past three years, on average about 4% per annum. The Australian Plaintiff Lawyers, late in 2001, through their various sub-branches in all the jurisdictions and territories in Australia, caused an inquiry to be made where they examined to ascertain what, if any, evidence was available on personal injury litigation per se. The research revealed that several states had experienced no or little increase in the last five years and, in fact, they went as far to say that in some states and some jurisdictions, litigation actually declined over that five year period. Here is an objective piece of research to try and find out whether the assertion is made by bodies such as the Insurance Council were in fact correct.
The other factor which seems not to have rated a mention by the Insurance Council and the various other lobbies is that over the same period the Australian population increased by about two million people. In that same period, the president of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association quite rightly points out that the adult population increased at a much greater rate due to the aging nature of the population, and hence the number of people in a position to litigate, the pool from which those people are drawn, had certainly increased.
The second assertion by the insurance industry was the alleged explosion in public liability claims, and through the various campaigns they relied upon statistics. As Benjamin Disraeli, a former British Prime Minister said, ‘Lies, damn lies and then statistics’. The Plaintiff Lawyers Association looked closely at the assertions that were made and the basis upon which those assertions were made, the end result being that in Australia the claims per $100 000, when compared to the income raised from premiums, found that public liability claims had decreased by approximately 20% by 1995.
The third pillar was, of course, these claims that claims had gone through the roof. There was an increase in the average cost of claims paid. Once again, there was the inevitable reliance upon statistics by the Insurance Council. There was a particular set of statistics prepared by Trowbridge Consulting, A Draft Report of the Working Group of the Heads of Treasury. It was prepared on the 21 May this year. In conducting that analysis Trowbridge excluded nil claims from the analysis, and then failed to adjust for substantial increases in policy excesses and deductibles over the period of their analysis. I am summarising the report by president, Rob Davies, on page 4 and 5 of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers article. That means that the average cost of claims would increase as an artefact of the way in which the data was analysed, thereby making their findings meaningless.
In a previous article - and no disrespect to any journalists who are listening, but it was actually entitled The Death of Journalism - the same solicitor decided to explore where some of the cases reported in southern papers had come from, and whether there was any actual fact. I do not know if you recall the case where a person had broken into someone’s home and during the course of leaving he was going through the garage and the door had closed behind him. He was locked in the garage and he was forced to live on dog biscuits and soft drink for about eight days. When he was finally discovered there was a suggestion that he had sued and been successful against the owner of the house. It was reported and, as things that are reported in papers, perception becomes fact. It was relied upon by many people as justification for some type of review of this whole process.
Rob Davies looked into this particular case and said, ‘Where is it? We will try and find out the facts and see if what has been reported turns out to be correct’. Remember, it was reported as fact in several papers. The end result of his research was that this, and several other particular examples of litigation out of control, were all lifted almost word for word from joke e-mails that were doing the rounds. They were not true in substance at all. Trying to find the very source of these e-mails led to a group of people in New York. It was a group of business people and private enterprise had funded this group. It was established that the body corporate that seemed to be the source of all this material was, as I said, found in America, but it was financed by donations from corporate America including insurance, pharmaceutical and tobacco corporations. Amongst the donors - some of these names may be familiar to other honourable members and some may not be – Atina, Bristol-Myers Squib, Dow Chemical, Eli Lily, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philip Morris, and RJR Nabisco, only to mention a few.
Quite surprisingly, and from a perspective of a legislator who will have some input, hopefully, in what is going to occur in our own backyard, it seems that much of the information which is circulating in the public arena is outrageously wrong and misleading. Even worse than that, it seems there are organisations in the world peddling this type of material.
The issue of public liability insurance and the fact that it is quite genuinely having an effect on community groups and people in the Territory, needs to be addressed. There needs to be some inquiry or committee to work out what we can do to help these sporting, non-profit and community-based organisations get on with promoting the Territory lifestyle. Giving the issue eight minutes by way of a without notice ministerial statement on 13 August is certainly not discharging that duty. Certainly from my perspective it causes some concern about trying to perhaps, rather than deal with an issue, the head-in-the-sand approach. It is a serious issue. It needs to be debated and not just political mudflinging or motherhood statements, a genuine constructive bipartisan approach to dealing with the problem.
The other matter I wish to raise, in the electorate of Goyder a new association has been born. I am happy to say the Organic Producers Association of the Northern Territory held its first public meeting on 7 August at the Litchfield Christian School at Bees Creek at 7.30pm. It was well attended. There were some interesting speakers. Full credit goes to Betty Coo and Chris Nathaniel and the organising committee which put together this very ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am afraid the honourable member’s time has expired. I believe he cannot get an extension during adjournment, so I am sorry.
Mrs Aagaard: But he could incorporate it, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you have written notes you could seek to have them incorporated in the Hansard.
Mr MALEY: I appreciate the assistance from my colleague, unfortunately, I do not have notes, but I appreciate that.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might have to wait until next week, honourable member.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to report to the House on two recent events that have occurred at Warrawi community, a small, very isolated community, situated on South Goulburn Island in the Arafura Sea.
On Friday 2 August, along with my colleagues, and yourself, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and the member for Sanderson and Senator Trish Crossin, I had the pleasure of visiting Warrawi and opening the annual Jumbuluk Festival, a smorgasbord of sporting and cultural activities. The Jumalak Festival was commencing after the completion of a major ceremony to which most communities in the west Arnhem region had come. Everyone in the community having completed this ceremony was feeling revitalised. All the children had just finished school and had assembled at the recreation hall for the official opening. I handed out some little flags to all the children. This gave them a great thrill. There was great anticipation amongst the children for the weekend events, the sports, the music, the traditional dancing, etcetera.
From all accounts, the festival which went on for several days, was an outstanding success, and shows what can be achieved through sheer determination and hard work. On behalf of my colleagues who were there, I congratulate the community representatives involved. I would like to take this time to mention the following people from the three main clan owning groups at Warrawi.
From the Maung clan, Jenny Inmulugulu, the president of the council; Johnny Namayiwa, senior traditional owner, Billy Nawaloinba, and Solomon Ganawa. From the Galiwinku clan, Bunug Galaminda, Paul Milaidjaidj, and the names will be supplied so I’m stopping right now. Miriam Kris and Stephen Nayandilli. From the Walang clan, Paul Naragoidj, Nita Garidjalalug, Douglas Djalanba. To the sports and recreation committee that organised and put together all the sporting and cultural events, Jay Galaminda, Jason Mayanij and Geoffrey Thomas. It was a job well done in organising the sporting events, and everyone who went to the festival took part in all of the activities.
I would like to also mention and recognise the hard work and commitment of Mr Jim Gorey, who has been out in the community for nearly 12 months and who worked quite hard alongside the president of the community to start building and make things happen out there. Some time ago, I talked in this House in another adjournment speech about some of the quiet achievers working out in our remote communities, and I feel that Jim Gorey is one such individual.
The event over the weekend was well organised and an enriching experience for all visitors who attended. A big thank you to that community for allowing us to be a part of it. I am waiting for next year’s festival with great anticipation.
The second story involving the same community began unfolding at the same time. As it so happened, the HMAS Wollongong was on patrol in the same area and it asked the community for permission to come ashore on North Goulburn Island to stretch their legs, play a bit of footy and have a barbecue. The request to come ashore of course was granted. The following day, the community president and others took up an offer to come aboard for a tour of the ship and whilst there, took the opportunity to ask the Commanding Officer, Wesley Herron, a few pertinent questions about the federal government’s proposed changes to the immigration laws. South Goulburn is one of the islands of the coast of Australia that would be affected by any changes to the migration zone. The skipper referred the questions to NORCOM.
I understand that the crew were all invited to the Jumalak Festival but declined as they had other commitments. They skipper, however, offered the services of his crew to help the community with any repairs or jobs that the community were not able to do with their own resources. On the day of the festival opening, a shore party came and discussed a joint project to repair and paint what was the old Ajarumu Store Building which had been nominated as the home for the Mardbalkk Arts and Crafts Centre.
The following Wednesday, the ship returned to the community and again preparing the site for repairs and painting. That night, the community held a corroboree for the crew, many of whom had not had such a close cultural experience before. The skipper, I believe, made a presentation to the community of a bell for the school, fashioned from a five-inch shell from a World War II destroyer. The rejuvenation of the store was completed the following day and the community, in turn, presented the crew with a painting from one of the local artists.
Both the community and the ship’s crew were enriched by this incredible gesture of goodwill from the Australian Navy and in particular, the captain and crew of HMAS Wollongong. I have been told that it has resulted in an enduring spirit of friendship between the ship’s company and the people of Warruwi which has certainly given the residents a new sense of purpose and pride towards their community.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise primarily to report on a CPA conference which I attended in Adelaide. Before I do, I would like to just make some comments about the member for Johnston who, a short while ago, harangued CLP members for their past actions, right or wrong. I find that quite offensive. I find that this member, very new to this parliament, very new, one year old barely, has the audacity to come in to this Chamber and tell everybody how to run business.
There are many members in this Chamber who have been here for two terms and more who, I can assure you, understand the business of politics a lot better than he does. He has his political ideology. That is fine. I can appreciate political ideology and …
Ms Scrymgour: It’s not only the politics of this Chamber that you have to know.
Dr LIM: You see! That is the problem, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The moment we start talking about your side of politics, the haranguing starts. You could not even try to listen in silence.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask members to give the member for Greatorex the courtesy of be able to deliver his speech, please.
Dr LIM: You had your speech, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker as the member for Johnston, heard in silence. Likewise, that courtesy should be extended. Typically the empty vessels across the other side will rattle, and that is fine. That is fine. That is the way it is. Maybe it is just my face that stirs up emotions that I do not understand; the primeval emotions that the member for Sanderson continues to exhibit day in, day out. I wonder whether he ever looks in his mirror and says: ‘God, I have to be tough today’. I don’t know, maybe he does.
But Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think I need to say anymore than to say: remember there are many members in this Chamber who are a lot more experienced than you and do understand the business of politics a lot better than you do.
Let me come to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference which I attended in Adelaide between 21 and 27 July this year. I was privileged to be sent by the CPA Branch of the Northern Territory to attend the conference. The member for Millner was also there for the conference on behalf of, obviously, the government side of the Chamber.
The program was particularly interesting. On the first day, the morning was essentially ceremonial, with greetings from various dignitaries in South Australia, and then we launched into the topics of the conference the first Monday afternoon. Topics covered included the role of the Whips in the Australian parliament, which was presented by Mr Jim Lloyd, the Senior Whip of the Liberal Party now in government. It was followed by a paper presented by the member for Millner, entitled ‘The role of a new member’. I do not wish to go into the details of what he said, it is in the transcript of the conference which I have already presented to Madam Speaker in my written report to her about the CPA conference. If members are interested, I am sure we can all pull out the transcript, the Hansard, to read what the member for Millner had to say, and the subsequent questions that he responded to during that afternoon.
After that, there was a discussion paper on Parliamentary and Constitutional Reform by a very new member of parliament in the South Australian Legislative Assembly, I believe. He was elected to parliament at the last election in South Australia. Following that, there was a particularly interesting item entitled ‘The Code of Conduct’, presented by the Greens member of the ACT Legislative Assembly. That was of particular interest as this parliament is currently considering a code of conduct for our Assembly also. However, she did say that it is not as easy as it appears, and a code of conduct is essentially not a code of ethics, they are quite different things, and we need to consider this quite carefully.
The next day, we started with a short presentation by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Secretariat’s report on the region, followed by a paper from the Fiji branch entitled ‘Further Developments on Parliamentary Committees’. The next paper was presented by a Greens member from the Western Australian parliament on the impact of climatic change particularly on the Pacific Islands community. This was all about the Kyoto Protocol, and what she felt First World countries could do to alleviate the phenomenon of global warming. That brought a lot of interest from the Pacific Island delegates who had a lot to say about the matter. Again, I draw your attention to the copy of Hansard, which I brought back with me, and which is now in the hands of the Speaker.
A further paper was presented which would be of particular interest to the Northern Territory about the container deposit legislation in South Australia. This was presented by another new member of the Upper House of the South Australian Parliament. I wrote in my report to the Speaker that she would find that paper of particular interest. Every person who debated that paper praised the CDL that is in South Australia and all agreed that there should be a national agreement on this legislation so that it can be put through all parliaments in Australia to improve our litter control.
A few other papers were presented which I will skim through quickly. On the Tuesday afternoon, a paper entitled ‘The Genetically Modified Organisms Debate in Tasmania’, sparked a huge debate among delegates whether there were any concerns that genetically modified food and organisms might enter into the human genetic, I suppose you could say, configuration. There are concerns that GM can, in fact, physically affect the human genome as well.
I had the pleasure that Tuesday afternoon to present a paper which I called, ‘I 1 IT II’. I played with the hieroglyphics. In fact, it was to mean ‘I want IT too’. I presented the paper in the form of what would we do in first world countries does not necessarily mean that it is the same thing that should be done in developing worlds. Anyway, I used the paper to introduce my pet subject which was the appropriate technology that is being produced by the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs. I presented a PowerPoint slide show which created a lot of interest among the Pacific Island delegates. One of them actually took the presentation home with him, and another promised that he was going to build a VIP toilet in Fiji to try out and see if it would work.
Wednesday was essentially a free day; we had a train trip to the Barossa Valley where delegates had opportunities to personally test the product of the Barossa Valley. Being a non-drinker I drank soda water for the day. It was a good opportunity to look at the Barossa Valley in the company of the member for that area, Mr Ivan Venning who has visited the Northern Territory on many occasions and who I know personally very well. We had a great opportunity to exchange views and political experiences, he being in parliament for some 25 years.
Thursday started with a paper from the New South Wales delegate on the ‘Private Financing of Public Infrastructure and Services’, and the experience of the Public Accounts Committee in New South Wales. Then came the vexed topic of ‘Banks, Community Obligations and Community Banks’, and what it is like to have banks that are now getting stuck into their depositors rather than into their borrowers.
A further topic that was of particular interest to the Northern Territory was a paper presented by a delegate from the Victorian branch entitled ‘Sittings in Regional Areas of Victoria’. This obviously applied to us because we are now considering having parliament in Alice Springs next year. I had a little to contribute to that paper. I drew the Speaker’s attention to that particular paper and again, transcripts are in the Hansard which she has in her office now.
That afternoon, there were a few things spoken about. Of particular interest to me was the topic raised by the Western Australian delegate, ‘The Prescription of Stimulant Medication to Children for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’, otherwise known as ADHD. He reported on two particular paediatricians who have used Metamphetamine and Ritalin quite extensively, and causing some concerns for the state health system.
The conference was particularly interesting. I had great opportunity to make a lot of friends on both sides of politics across Australia, and also in the Pacific Islands. I was thinking that perhaps I should actually make a trip across there to look at their IT systems first-hand and perhaps be able to provide the CPA with some insight into what the real needs are of the Pacific Islanders, and how the CPA could be more productive with the financial assistance that they have provided to the Pacific Islanders to ensure that they have good IT systems – ‘good’ not meaning first world standards, but meaning that it would do all the work that they need the computers to do for them - and also making sure that there are enough people there who are able to at least troubleshoot to a large degree so that we do not end up with having computers not functioning, being used as paper weights or doorstops instead.
The member for Millner unfortunately had to leave the conference within a day and a half of it starting. I have some papers and a group photograph of the conference members which I brought back for him and he might like to have that in his office to show people that he did go to the conference. I should tell the member for Millner, however, that many people did inquire about his absence wondering whether he was ill or whatever. He told me however, to explain that he had been called back to his electorate on the Tuesday or the Wednesday. It was a pity because this CPA branch had spent a significant amount of money to get him to Adelaide and he had to rush back within 24 hours of the conference proper starting. It is something that I felt rather embarrassed about that I had to explain his absence to the conference, however so be it. There are some papers that the member for Millner may wish to have for his keeping. I hope he enjoys reliving through the conference and remembering the people he met there.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to rise here tonight to briefly outline my experiences at the CPA conference in Adelaide. I take this opportunity to thank the member for Johnston for his fantastic assessment of the last year and where the CLP lies and where the Labor Party is heading. It is obvious through your beautiful critique of the last year that the Labor Party is moving forward and following its policies and that the CLP is still trying to work out who their leader is and where they are going. I would advise all members of the public to get stuck into your rendition tonight.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, kick him out! It is a well known convention in this Chamber that electronic devices such as pagers, mobile telephones, satellite telephones and those sorts of things should be switched off.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that, member for Macdonnell. I advise any members here who have their laptops turned on that might have the broadcast from the races to turn them off as well. If you will please proceed.
Mr ELFERINK: I take your point, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and I was advised at that point of the seriousness of the offence which is why I draw it to your attention.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you honourable member. Could you please proceed.
Mr BONSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to briefly report on my trip to Adelaide, South Australia for my first CPA conference. Like many first time experiences I was nervous about the big occasion. But I steeled myself and made an attempt to jump in feet first. I had the courage to participate and like other first time experiences it turned out thoroughly enjoyable. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker what a relief! I should on this occasion give special mention to the Speaker of the House for encouraging me to attend as she thought it would be a worthwhile experience. I can inform her tonight that in fact it was. It was a great experience.
I was a bit nervous about representing the Northern Territory, as I have been in the past when I had on previous occasions represented the Northern Territory for a number of many different things either within Australia or outside the country. On all of those occasions I have taken a personal pride in making sure I represented the Northern Territory to the best of my ability. I am proud to say that on my first trip to a CPA conference I delivered a paper. I believe it is quite unusual. We tried to research in the library some of the papers written in the past by members. We found quite a lack of them. It was commented on my trip that it was a fantastic effort to be on my first trip and to be delivering a paper. Basically, my paper was how I felt as a new member representing a diverse electorate, and as the honourable member for Greatorex, interesting human being that he is, has mentioned, it is on Hansard there, and in fact it was commented on in Hansard that the paper was quite interesting and there was quite a debate. On those occasions, I could see sometimes why there would not be debate on papers.
One of the first things I would like to mention about the experience was actually on the first night. I attended an introductory cocktail party. It was an evening function, and it was quite a function to remember. There was a broad spectrum of elected members from all over the world - obviously the South Pacific - Fiji, Tonga, Kingdom of Tonga, New Zealand, Australia and other states. It was interesting to see that the Kingdom of Tonga has a two-level elected members system over there, one being members who are appointed by nobles as their representatives, and the other being persons who run for an election, as we know it here in Australia. I found that quite interesting. There was recognition of a different type of system. There were members from New Zealand, both Labour and the National Party, the first time ever, of course, I have had an opportunity to meet members from New Zealand. Both of them retired at the most recent election in New Zealand after 24 years and 18 years service respectively, I believe.
I also had the pleasure of meeting federal and state members from all over the country, belonging to the Labor party, Liberal party, and minor parties. It was with great pleasure that I received congratulations from all over our election victory, and it is fitting that I give this report tonight. It was surprising to me to find so many members critical of the former CLP government on both sides of the fence.
However, without question, meeting with representatives from the Samoan parliament was the most interesting, and as you saw in the last few days, I had the honour of meeting a family member, though distant, who is a member of the American Congress, and we date our relationship back to his great grandfather and my great great grandfather being brothers, his being the eldest and mine being the youngest, and just in summary, he was sent here from Samoa to attend school. As was the case in those days at 14 he thought he had had enough of school, jumped on a pearling lugger and went to the Torres Strait Islands and met his wife, and so the rest of the story goes.
We had the great pleasure of entertaining him last night. We got the word out in 24 hours and had 200 family members turn up last night: photos, fantastic! He has invited us to a family reunion in Los Angeles next year in June and I hope to attend that, and he has also invited me to Washington.
Mr Kiely: You should get them to move into your electorate.
Mr BONSON: Oh, don’t worry, when he saw everyone turn up, he said, ‘Oh, you must have had all your family members helping you in the election’. I said, ‘Yes, they were’. He asked, ‘Were they carrying out signs?’ and I said, ‘No, they were just ringing people up’. It was surprising me for me to find – sorry, I digress.
I had the opportunity, of course, to meet the Premier of South Australia. He is a fantastic speaker and a very interesting individual. I think he will be in power as the government in South Australia for a long period of time. I was quite impressed with him.
At the CPA conference I was also able to meet new members recently elected across the country, in all states. It was obvious that they were also enjoying the first time experience. The President of the Legislative Council, the Hon Ron Roberts MLC who was also the chairperson of the CPA at the time, mentioned - we have heard the criticisms of the member for Greatorex and it seems to run through his veins, the little human being that he is. I would just like to read a letter that Hon Ron Roberts sent to me.
- Matthew Bonson MLA
Parliament House.
Dear Mr Bonson,
Please accept my thanks and deep appreciation of your valuable contribution as a delegate to
the 26th CPA Conference for the Parliament of the Northern Territory. Your thoughtful contributions
during formal and informal discussion groups, and your friendly nature and cooperation throughout
the conference helped make the occasion a great success.
My thanks also go to your branch for sending such a high quality delegate to the Adelaide CPA conference …
I will just repeat that, member for Greatorex; this is just for you.
- My thanks also go to your branch for sending such a high quality delegate to the Adelaide CPA conference
and trust your future deliberations are helped by the knowledge and experience you gained here and will
assist in the true welfare of the people of Australia.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely …
Thank you.
Dr Lim: You fool! He wrote a letter to everybody. You fool! That letter went to every delegate. You fool!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I believe that the member for Greatorex is way out of line and should contain himself for just a little while.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! The member for Araluen – oh, I apologise, member for Millner, please continue.
Mr BONSON: I was also able to witness some very interesting formal and informal debate surrounding comments from the New Zealand representatives, and representatives from the states and the House of Representative and the Senate of the federal government. It was their opinion that they were amazed that in Australia that we would have such a system. Of course, that was defended by many of the smaller parties and major parties, both Liberal and Labor in Australia. But it is obviously food for thought.
Alas, I do have to mention this, as the member for Greatorex took great pleasure in mentioning that I had to return to my electorate for electorate matters. Unfortunately, I had to leave the CPA, but fortunately, I came back to escort the Minister for Education, Employment and Training to a school which has a special place for my heart, and that is Nemarluk, which cares for children with special needs. Unfortunately, because of their size, they were often overlooked by the previous government for expenditure and development. I thought to myself this is something that is important to my electorate and also to the people of the Northern Territory that I make sure the Minister for Employment, Education and Training fully understand the needs they have. And I hope that is an appropriate response to the member for Greatorex
I also had an opportunity to meet with two indigenous ex-Territorians there; they are still Territorians but they are living at the moment in South Australia. They are working for the Health Department in South Australia. One is Russell Nasir, a childhood friend I grew up with in the Northern Territory. He is doing quite well for himself, and I have encouraged him to bring his experience back to the Northern Territory. The other person is Brian Dixon, a person the member for Barkly knows. He is not an ex-Territorian, just a Territorian living away at the moment. He is heading that branch; a very informed and intelligent human being.
A member interjecting.
Mr BONSON: Well, I don’t want to mention that. Definitely we all had a common interest, apart from indigenous health, and that was the fact that we both represented the Northern Territory in basketball. He went to South Australia and continued a great career there and played against my uncle, Michael Ah Mat, who represented Australia at two Olympic Games.
I thank all the parliamentary staff and members from all over Australia - in particular South Australia – who showed me particular hospitality.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise some concerns that I have, and that have been put to me in relatively recent times, about the increasing role this government has created for ministerial officers and other staffers, who not only move throughout various electorates representing elected members, but also attend meetings and functions on behalf of ministers - often at a distance. It appears as though they are, in fact, doing the jobs of ministers.
This has happened on an number of occasions over the term of the government, and I will shortly refer to some specifically. However, in simple terms I would like to suggest that it is naturally offensive that unelected staffers are doing the jobs of ministers, whether it is in the Northern Territory or any other jurisdiction in the country. No doubt, some of these staffers harbour political ambition, but that is not the point. The fact is that these people have no mandate whatsoever from the people of the Northern Territory to go around saying, as indeed they do: ‘I represent the minister. Talk to me and I will get you what you want’.
This is occurring throughout the Territory, and I sound at this relatively early stage a note of caution and concern. Even yesterday in Question Time in the House, we raised the issue of a ministerial officer attending, in place of the minister, a meeting of other Police Ministers recently. No satisfactory explanation was provided by the minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, so it appears from his answers yesterday that he thinks that it was just fine for one of his staffers to attend this meeting. The minister interestingly said that he was fully briefed from that meeting. The question I put is: how on earth does he know? On any view, it is just not appropriate to send staffers to represent ministers at meetings such as this. This staffer, Mr Nelson, was not elected at the last election. However, the government has a number of backbenchers who did receive a mandate to represent the people of Darwin. They are the elected representatives of the people, not Mr Nelson.
There is a certain hypocrisy at work here, and it is evident in what is coming out from the Australian Labor Party, NT Branch. They say that they are very democratic. They say that no one understands democracy quite like they do. They bag the CLP for daring to be in power for 26 years, suggesting that somehow it was undemocratic. In fact, in some of its position papers released prior to the election, there was a suggestion that democracy has been reduced in the Northern Territory, without even pausing for a minute, as any person would, to concede that the people of the Northern Territory actually voted for the CLP for 26 years - a small but important fact that seems lost on so many people from the Australian Labor Party.
It is against this backdrop that a government minister - a minister of the Crown - relinquishes and delegates his responsibility to a staffer. It is hypocrisy and mismanagement at the highest level. Indeed, I was interested to see the ALP’s position paper called, Good Government. No doubt, members on the other side have read the same. It was distributed widely throughout the election, and ironically, it is all about ‘good government’, which is not only ironic, I would suggest, but a bit funny. Here are some of the statements and promises made in that document:
- Labor believes that it requires vigilance by the parliament and people to ensure that democracy is
protected, not whittled away; that institutions are strengthened, not weakened; and that the power
of the executive is scrutinised.
The number of reforms and promises which Labor says: ‘… will enshrine the concept of mutual responsibility between government and the people of the Northern Territory’. I pause there to point out to members that the document says ‘government and the people’; it does not say ‘staffers and the people’. Elsewhere in the document, it says that Labor will not breach the ‘… accepted standards of ministerial accountability, and propriety’. In the conclusion it says, ‘Labor is concerned with the proprieties and conventions of government’.
Oh really! I say. Well, you could have fooled me, and you could have fooled a whole lot of people around the Northern Territory. We have seen increasingly reports in the media that a ‘spokesman for the minister said’ this that and the other. Now, in a very practical sense, this is creating barriers, not only for the media, but barriers for all Territorians. An appalling message is being sent to the public that ministers are not available and not approachable, and the Australian Labor Party somehow thinks that it is suitable to send their staffers to meetings and other events to represent them. It is just not good enough by any standard, and hardly supports the ALPs mantra that it would be an open, honest and accountable government.
I know that this government is shackled to its commitment to stick to seven ministers, but I would have thought that these very serious matters would bring about a change in that decision, or at very least, a change in attitude. I would like to deal briefly with the Office of Central Australia, which was set up to represent each of the seven ministers. Indeed, prior to the election, the ALP promised, and there are various documents supporting this, that each of the seven ministers would be represented. There was no rider, no qualification, no hesitation, and yet from the very outset, from the day the Office of Central Australia opened, it broke its promise. It did not have seven staffers representing each minister, it has five staffers representing each minister.
It went to the election saying very clearly, one representative each for the seven busy ministers we would have. They have five. This raises questions, not only about the breach of promise, but also how these people do their function, and I will get to shortly, how it is that they go about performing the functions that they do. The tale however, does not end there. An election promise was made, also prior to the election, that the people of Central Australia would have the ability to speak to government ministers by using video conferencing facilities at that office. Now, unless I am mistaken, I have been advised very recently, that in fact this facility has only been used in very recent times, and we can ask some questions about that in estimates. So if that is the case, this is another example of the government saying one thing and doing another. At best, it has taken this government 12 months to do something that it should have done ages ago, in keeping with their promise, but again, it has run off track.
Having said that, that matter is minor when compared to the conduct of some of the staff employed at that office. An example that I would like to share with members on the other side is an occasion in Alice Springs recently, namely 30th anniversary celebrations of the Teppa Hill Preschool. I have been advised that a staffer from the Office of Central Australia attended instead of the minister, and this staffer stood up and gave a speech saying that he was representing the minister for education. This raises a number of very important issues.
Did the minister know about this? Does he know what his staffer said? Did the minister instruct one of his staffers to do such a thing, and if not, who did instruct the staffer to undertake the course of action that this particular staffer did? Another question it raises is, does the minister think it is satisfactory for him to send a staffer to represent him and give speeches on his behalf? I would have thought that most people who live in the Northern Territory, who understand the principles of good government and democracy, and in fact even some of those people who do not, would think that it was offensive for a staffer to conduct himself in the way it was conducted in this particular instance.
The Office of Central Australia is widely regarded as a joke. It has failed to do what was promised, that is providing a ministerial officer for each minister. It has failed because the Minister for Central Australia has no idea or no regard to what they are doing or saying. To sanction these staffers, going around, representing the minister for this and the minister for that is, as I said at the outset, naturally offensive. Let me quote from a document issued by the office at the time it opened, and I was invited to attend the opening, as a I did. I will table this document shortly. But on this document, it says in bold print
- This office has a mandate for communication and a mandate for action.
Well, the office may well have a mandate for communication and action, but it does not have a mandate to actively and formally represent ministers of the Crown. It was not, I would suggest, in anyone’s contemplation at the beginning. Certainly in light of the material that I have been provided with, it seems that bad habits are forming very early on. The Minister for Central Australia should act and pull his staff into line.
I will digress slightly by summarising the five staffers who are there. One has experience in Aboriginal tourism; another one was formerly employed at Tangenteyre Council; another was formerly employed at Tangenteyre Council; and another one was formerly employed at the Central Land Council. So four out of five have a great deal of experience, and I do not detract from their experience for one moment. But on the one hand, we have a promise of one ministerial officer each, then there are five and out of these five, four of them with this mandate of communication and mandate for action for all of the people in Central Australia, I would suggest that that is a top heavy outfit. I seek leave to table that document, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: I should say while I am on the topic of the Office for Central Australia that I have received information directly from public servants. Of course, this is the Northern Territory. We have very good friends, all of us I am sure, who are public servants. I have received several approaches from public servants who for very obvious reasons do not wish to be named. They tell me that they are at the end of their tether because of the conduct of some of the people in the Office of Central Australia.
In particular, I have been told that staffers call public servants directly, rather than at the CEO level, to obtain information that should otherwise in the normal course of events be obtained from the CEOs of various government departments. They are making life difficult for these people and it has been reported to me that one staffer said words to the effect of, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’, and one in particular told me that he felt that he was being bullied to get information from the Office for Central Australia.
Now these public servants are the ones who have received no assistance, no support, not even, I would suggest any good manners from this government in the way it has dealt with public servants which, in my view, has been contemptuous. Given that the government has dealt with public servants contemptuously throughout the Northern Territory, I guess there is no reason why the public servants of Alice Springs should be treated any differently, but I very sincerely raise these concerns. Alice Spring is a small town. People are at the end of their tether. If they are ringing me, they are presumably talking to all sorts of other people around the town. As I said, my view is that the Minister for Central Australia, who does, I am pleased to acknowledge, spend some time in that office, needs to pull his staff into line.
Even if you put aside principles of good governance, I would have thought in just political terms it would be damaging to the Office of Central Australia and, indeed, for the Labor government. The question is at the end of the day whether the Minister for Central Australia sanctions this behaviour. He may not be aware of it and if he is not, then obviously this adjournment speech will have been worth it. Is this part of the open, honest and accountable government that Territorians were promised? I think not. But if it is part of the government that was promised, then I think it is a disgrace.
This government has repeatedly accused the CLP of arrogance and of treating Territorians with contempt. That is clearly arrant nonsense and instead, the Australian Labor Party NT Branch has demonstrated in less than 12 months of government that it treats Territorians with contempt and has more arrogance to last a lifetime. Not only does this sort of conduct show that it has broken various promises, but on a worse case scenario, it gives us all an idea of what we can expect over the next three years.
People in their own party are not happy with the way the Office of Central Australia is running and, in a broader sense, staffers and ministerial officers around the Northern Territory. I can assure this House that I speak with some confidence in this matter because some of my friends, for reasons that continue to escape me, are members of the ALP or supporters of the ALP, and the fact that they tell me that they are very unhappy about things indicates to me that there is a serious problem.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not going to adjourn tonight but I think after that diatribe, I had better put a few things right on the record.
Do I sanction the work of the staff in the Office of Central Australia? Too right I do; too right I do. We have a group of people in that office who have transformed the access to government that is available to the people of Alice Springs. I could count amongst their achievements, too many things to mention individually, but just amongst them, the work that they did on the complementary measures, drawing those together, and the negotiations with the Commonwealth government through the foundation was attributable to them. The current work they are doing on developing the approach to street kids, all the things the member for Greatorex saw going on year after year when he was in a position to do something about this. Thankfully, he is now sitting on the sidelines while we get on with this work.
What do people think about the Office of Central Australia? I have heard, time after time after time, at public events around Alice Springs how easy people are finding access to that office, how much they appreciate the fact that they have some people there who are not there to play a secretive and dominating role on behalf of the government of the day, who are actually there to pick up the priorities, the concerns of people of Alice Springs and Central Australia, and to do something sensitively about those concerns.
If the member for Araluen wants to characterise this office as being the axis of evil within the middle of the town …
Ms Carney: I didn’t say that.
Dr TOYNE: …well, you do that at your peril, you do that at your peril because you are going completely against the public mood …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Stuart has suggested that I described the Office of Central Australia as an evil axis. Clearly that is arrant nonsense and I would ask that you direct the member for Stuart to withdraw that remark.
Dr TOYNE: I did not, I said ‘characterise’.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. That was not the case at all. If you have a think back at what was said, he compared it. She did not say that she actually said that, and I do not believe there is a point of order.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I believe that is true. Continue, please.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I think the at the heart of the sentiments being expressed here tonight by the member for Araluen is that the CLP are not use to having a real contest in Alice Springs. It used to be a party political town, didn’t it? When I got in to parliament, there was one political office belonging to the ALP. There were, I think, five CLP offices there when I first entered politics, well not any more, not any more. We are there and we are there in strength and we are going to be following a stronger political agenda. You have lost the plot and we are finding the plot down there, and you can go down there, let’s fight it out and I am sure we will do pretty well.
Let us just correct a few of the furphies that were put forward tonight. Mike Bowden, the advisor in question at the Teppa Hill celebration, had permission from the minister whom he represents there, Syd Stirling, the minister for education. There were no policy issues canvassed in the speech that he gave that day. He had every right to be there, just as the CLP ministers in the long time that the CLP held government often sent advisors along to represent to represent them at public events. In fact, I used to have regular contacts with Tony Bohning, with Paul Scott, with Rod Hunter, who in exercising his authority tried to chuck me out of a public meeting on alcohol restrictions that the member for Greatorex had organised: ‘Out you go, son, or I will call the police’. What are we doing, talking about advisors exceeding their responsibilities and their authority. ‘Yes, out you go. You are a member of parliament, out you go, through the door or I will call the cops’. That was what your advisors used to go around doing, so do not talk to me about advisors misinterpreting their roles.
The comments about video conferencing: the video conferencing has been in the Office of Central Australia for some three months now and we have had, I think, what would be approaching 100 or so video conferences through that facility. It is now also installed in the Cabinet room, something that the CLP would not have even dreamt of doing, let alone getting it in place. We are now having regular meetings between the people in Alice Springs, community leaders and people from organisations there, individual constituents who want to speak to a minister. That is happening and it is happening as promised, and it will continue to happen. That is something that is contributing to the general feelings down there that we have cracked through the Berrimah line with that office. We have now given people a whole range of new ways in which they can have interaction with our government ministers.
The third area which, of course, was totally glossed over because I am sure you do not like the very frequent ministerial visits to Alice Springs that are occurring under our government, I am sure you do not like that at all. Our ministers operate out of that office and they operate out of that office most weeks of the year, there will be at least one of our Cabinet down there doing their work and serving the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia with the support of that office. If you want to have an argument about the value of the Office of Cental Australia, let’s not have it here, let’s go back down to Alice Springs and we will see who does the best in the eyes in the electorate there. That is what it is all about - one party or the other party, you are in a real contest now and you will continue to be in a contest.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it must be tag team debating tonight because guess what I was going to talk about? On this occasion, I think it is time to review, on the anniversary of Labor’s election win, our loss …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. There you go. Happy?
Let us have a look at what the Labor Party promised Territorians when they decided to come into this parliament and change and reform the democratic processes in the Northern Territory. As the member for Araluen quite accurately reminded us, there was a time when the mantra of ‘open, honest accountable government’ was being chanted - chanted. Every second sentence that you heard come out of the ALP’s mouth: ‘We are critical of the …
Dr Toyne: I could have sworn I put an information bill into this House yesterday. You would not have done that.
Mr ELFERINK: Did you say freedom of information? Absolutely, we will pick up on that one for a start. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition, Clare Martin, sitting in that chair which is occupied by the current Leader of the Opposition and what did she say? She said: ‘Let us have freedom of information with no exemptions; not a one, not a single exemption’. That was the promise she made, sitting in that chair, to Territorians. That is the promise that she made, and yet, what do we see without anticipating debate? A freedom of information bill which is somewhat different.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. We cannot anticipate a debate. If he wants to get into the contents of the bill that is going to be debated in October, he can talk about the bill in general terms but not deal with its content, including the provisions of exemptions.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take some advice on that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw any reference to anything inside that bill. The sensitivity of the minister in relation …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Macdonnell please continue?
Mr ELFERINK: The sensitivity of the minister on this particular issue is startling. This is a minister who chanted the mantra along with everybody else: ‘open, honest, accountable’. The first challenge - the very first challenge – and he wants to shut down debate.
Let us cast our mind back to the very first vote taken in this Chamber. What was that? It was a vote to gag the CLP. The very first vote that the new Labor government put to this Chamber was to shut down a debate. Isn’t this fascinating, that this is what the ALP had brought forward on the back of their good governance policy. A policy paper that Territorians believed. Now, let’s start to visit some aspects of this good governance policy, the paper which was presented to Territorians and upon which they placed so much of their faith.
I am intrigued to see all sorts of promises made in this particular document, and the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the new Chief Minister, promised to reform the conduct of elections by removing the NT Electoral Office from the control of the Chief Minister and establish an independent commissioner. No sign of that occurring. Have we heard about any promises for that to occur? Not a word. The enshrining in legislation the requirement for periodic reviews of electoral boundary distribution committees to be headed by an independent judge: this was their promise. Not a word. The silence is as deafening as the pauses within my statement.
To review and strengthen the powers of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman: when? The government prides itself on the time lines it sets in its economic strategies, but what is curiously absent is any time lines in this document, and it is becoming increasingly disconcerting to me that the thunderous silence which surrounds this document nowadays is being inflicted on Territorians. These were the promises that they gave us, and this document is full of holes.
One of the promises of the former opposition and now the government was to create a committee system on which there was equal representation. Equal representation. Three members of the opposition, three members of government. But that has not occurred. What has happened is that the new government has gone: ‘Oh my God, we have won the election, what do we do? We will keep our promise and this is how we will do it. What we will do is we will create committees with three Labor members, two opposition members, and all we will ask is the one Independent who can sit on committees, to sit on all of them’. That is an outrage because it is not the intent of what was promised, because there was never an anticipation of Independents in the good governance document. And that is the sleight of hand. It was an intentional sleight of hand, at the procedural level, to get around this problem.
One of the things I object to particularly is the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, which has always had bipartisan, equal representation on it. However, that situation has changed, so not only have we not advanced, but we have regressed, in a direction which is not reflective of this document.
The new government also promised to introduce things like whistle blowers legislation and those sorts of things. I am not hearing that term nowadays. Whistle blower legislation? No. What is in the Criminal Code of course, is a threat to any public servant who goes public that they will do time in jail. I would have thought the Criminal Code would have been a good place to address that sort of whistle blowers legislation. But no, not an utterance, not a word.
Now, here is a beauty, and I would love to see what happens next week, and in the next couple of months. This is worth quoting:
Expenses of ministers and their offices: Labor will provide full disclosure of all ministerial expenses
by each minister in the annual report of the Chief Minister’s department. This information is currently
available within the government’s accounting system but the CLP don’t want Territorians to see it.
Well, let’s see if this government is capable of living up to that promise.
Labor will also furnish regular quarterly statements to the Public Accounts Committee of all ministerial
expenses. This will allow for the scrutiny through each year, so matters can be investigated and referred
to the Auditor-General if appropriate in a timely manner. We will also ensure that ministerial expenses
are open to freedom of information claims. Labor will introduce tough new guidelines for ministerial
expenses, with the Auditor-General being involved in the auditing of these expenses.
I would be curious to hear from the ministry and the Chief Minister and any minister, whether or not they have submitted, on a quarterly basis since their election victory, their expenditure to the Public Accounts Committee. That would be very interesting to find out. I am just wondering if at some point or another we are going to discover whether or not those things are being forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee.
It is utterly fascinating to go through this document. This document was written by an opposition that never believed it was going to be in government. This is a good one! I love this one:
Holding public office, brings with it an obligation to act with honesty and propriety. Labor will instigate
systems to facilitate the monitoring and scrutiny of ministers’ and members of parliament’s behaviour
and performance.
A question was asked of the Chief Minister today, the answer to which was: ‘It is confidential’. I never thought that those words would cross the lips of the Chief Minister. Confidential? That word was spelt with four letters when she was in opposition. The incredible thing is that this Chief Minister not a couple of hours later divulged the same information quite blindly while she was reading through a prepared statement. It was not confidential; there was no intent to have that information as confidential. The information had already had been contained in briefings …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I believe that Hansard will show that the question was asking for financial returns and the Chief Minister said that that was commercial information and was confidential. Following afterwards was the ministerial statement which contained details about the rate of return that would be redeemed to the Chief Minister as the shareholder in the corporation. I think the member for Macdonnell should get it right instead of standing up here and misrepresenting what happened a couple of hours ago, which we remember and which is on record. All I ask for is a bit of truth in what he says.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I do not think there is a point of order. I would ask the member for Macdonnell to continue, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sure that the Chief Minister, when she is making an explanation to this House, will clarify all of these irregularities. The fact of the matter is the information that was requested was not given; it was claimed to be confidential. Now, was that an intent to mislead this House, I ask, or was it because she did not understand what she was doing? Had she read, prior to coming into this House, the prepared ministerial statement, or had she not? If she had not read it, then that is why she would have made a mistake. If she had read it, she misled this House, and it is something that this House should turn its attention to as a matter of propriety.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you know the mechanisms for that so..
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am just trying to …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it becomes difficult from time to time. I have not made an allegation. I am not putting an allegation. I am asking the Chief Minister to explain herself. I am certain that a member would like to pull me up on a point of order on it, and that can be debated accordingly. However, with due respect to the Chair, the comments I make are not in the style of the substantive motion, and I have not made one.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that the Chief Minister has either misled this House or she has proven herself to be incompetent on probably one of the most important issues facing Territorians under this government: the cost of living in the Northern Territory. I would ask that the Chief Minister return to this Chamber and outline to honourable members …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not believe it is convention to reflect on a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is true. I would ask the member to withdraw that, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it. In the presence of the back of the Chief Minister’s chair, at some time when she should hope to cast her shadow upon it again, then I would ask her to …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, member for Macdonnell! They are just variations of the same thing. I have just asked you to withdraw. Please move on with your speech.
Mr ELFERINK: The Chief Minister owes this Chamber an apology one way or the other and she owes Territorians an apology.
Now, I continue. Question Time - this is another good one, in the Legislative Assembly Chamber.
- Question Time has become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding with answers taking up to
half an hour.
Well, guess what? They said:
- Labor would adopt a similar approach in terms of controlling Question Time, setting answers to a
maximum length of five minutes.
Oh, this is incredible. This is a question of this document. This is what is at issue here. The promises you lot made to the Northern Territory people and you have broken them, one after the other. One after the other.
This is another wonderful quote from the position paper:
- Much of parliament’s time currently revolves around the use or misuse of ministerial statements.
Many provide little real information for the citizens of the Territory and are highly political in nature,
and are followed by a multitude of speakers from the government side of the House.
Well, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it appears that your own leader in opposition and now Chief Minister would like to gag her own backbench. That would be a most curious thing. I am wondering how the back bench would feel about that. But that was the policy that was promised to the …
Ms Scrymgour: If you look at the workload of this back bench versus your back bench when you were in government we probably generated more work and more quality work.
Mr ELFERINK: … Territory. And isn’t it funny, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that we have interjection after interjection because the sensitivities of this particular group of people are deep and profound over this issue because I honestly believe that those backbenchers who came into this building and the new members who came into this building believed what was in this document. I honestly believe that they believed in this document and their sensitivity arises out of their own irritation that they know that this document has failed Territorians.
I am running out of time. I could do this for hours, going through this document. Suffice to say that this document, the good government position paper of the ALP, which was then in opposition, has turned out to be a farce and has turned out to be a total deception on Territorians. I fully expect, fully expect, that these things are understood by Territorians, and the price that Territorians will make the government pay will be profound.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I too was not going to give an adjournment tonight but everyone else seems to be in the mood for it so I thought I would.
With particular reference to the last couple of speakers from the opposition side, from the shadow ministers, I think they call themselves. I like it over that side, where they are all shadows, because there are not enough of them to be anything else. They have actually emulated their old Cabinet because they still cannot accept it themselves that the Territory has moved on from a year ago. That the Territory now has seven portfolios, seven ministers, but in their vanity and in their organisational denial that they were whooped a year ago, they have still retained the old nine shadows, or the nine ministry positions.
I think the Territory people ought to have a really good think about this and look at the psychology of an organisation which cannot adapt to change. This is something that I would recommend as a business study at NTU, or a political study. Have a look at this. Really think of the psychology of an organisation which cannot accept that they have been whooped and they still hang on the to old part. They are running these fluffy little ads, these feel good memory ads, you know, ‘We have made a few mistakes, too few to mention’. This is an organisation which is emotionally crippled which cannot face the future. And I am happy about that. I am happy about that because that means we are in here, we are in next time and will be the time after and the time after because they will still be sitting there with nine. They will. When our population in 10 to 20 years time has gone up another 100 000, they will still be sitting there with nine, because they would not have moved on. They are frozen in time. And the reason they won’t move on also is the calibre of the shadow ministers that they have there.
I am not even too sure what their shadow ministries are. I do not pay any attention to it because they don’t seem to get it right. The member for Macdonnell is looking at our good governance paper, Building a Better Territory, and I stand by that document. But you know, it is a bit rich for them to be carping on about what is in there. The member for Macdonell bangs on about our freedom of information legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, which they would not bring in; which they hid and slipped and slide and promised the people of the Territory they would do, but which they never, ever went near. And why? He let it go wide before. Because those things in a good governance document, they do not want to go near any of that business. They are terrified of being open and accountable; they are terrified of freedom of information and what it means. But then they have the temerity to say, ‘Oh, look, this is a shocking thing; look at all the stuff that you have hidden from people on it’.
I have heard commentators talk of the freedom of information, and it is the best in Australia. Commentators are ecstatic about the lengths that this government has gone to, to bring in a good, effective act; one which treats people with respect, and allows them to do exactly as the act says. It is an information act, which is freedom of information. It covers and rolls in the whole archival, the records management, the privacy principles and it has the freedom of information all in the one act. This is progress; this is legislation at the cutting edge, and this is something that those time-starved people over there just cannot accept.
Then the member for Macdonnell goes on about, ‘You promised the people of the Territory in this document that you would have equal representation on your committees’. He then says, ‘Oh no, you have three government people; you have only two opposition people’. He discounts the arrogance, the sheer arrogance of the CLP. The sheer arrogance of the opposition is that they discount a legitimate elected member, and Independent, and they say, ‘Well, they should not get representation on any of these committees - we should’. ‘We should’, they say, ‘We the opposition should have three on there, and do not worry about the Independents’. Well, we do not work like that, members of the opposition. We do not work like that; we work in an open and fair system, and we make room for the Independents. We make room for them on our committees, and that is why you have three government members, two members from the dominant opposition party and an Independent. Let us count up on our fingers. We will need both hands, won’t we? Are you watching, you guys over there? Six, right; five, one, six, that is equal. That is what it is about.
Then the member for Macdonnell – he is incredible, isn’t he? – he is talking about the legal and constitutional committee and grizzling and griping on about how it is unfair representation on there. Have a look; have a look at how it is set up. It is three, two and one. If the Independent does not elect to go on there, then that is their call. That is their call, not the government’s call, certainly not the dominant opposition party in the Chamber. It is the Independent’s call. They cannot accept that, but that is really what it is all about, member for Macdonnell. You ought to do your sums, start treating Independents with respect, because after all, that Independent - don’t worry about the person, he is actually representing his constituency, his electorate, and it is them you denigrate by denying this person to have representation. But enough said about that.
Let us move on to the member for Araluen, shadow tourism minister. She is doing her utmost to bury the tourist trade. She talks it down at every opportunity; just talks it down. ‘Tourism has gone to pieces; we have nothing happening; everyone is coming and saying how terrible and deplorable it is’. People who read Hansard must really wonder where is the constructiveness in this person. Don’t they have any constructive thoughts about how to bring it along, how to help business, how to get the Territory moving along? No, all that she has managed to do in a whole year is to keep on being negative, negative, negative. Nothing constructive coming out of that corner, and that is a shame. That is a shame.
Here is another one who has stepped onto the tardis and just won’t get off. She is all stuck in that time warp, a year ago, has not moved on. I tell you what, I would like to give them four bob, put the whole lot of them in there and send them away. She was going on then about the Office of Central Australia and she commenced to lecture the Minister for Central Australia about how to be a good minister, how to run things, how to do this, how to do that. I found it interesting sitting here listening to more of ‘this is how it should be done, this is how you should do things, you don’t know, you wouldn’t have a clue’, and all this sort of stuff. It shows the disunity over there. It shows the lack of listening to their more senior members. Because just before she spoke, the member for Greatorex - and I won’t stoop to his level of personal insult, you know, he just can’t help himself, can he, he took his bitter pills in the morning and he just carries on with them all day. But the member for Greatorex was so great in talking to the member for Johnston and saying, ‘Well member for Johnston, you have only been here for a year, you should listen to people who have been around for one term, two terms. You should listen to them. And you know, the temerity that you should come in, and say things about people who have been around for a lot longer. Well, you should learn, you should listen’.
I should have thought that a senior member of that side, such as the member for Greatorex, whom might I say, I believe embodies all the principles of the opposition, whom I think is one of their better performers. Let me say that again on record, let me say it again: I think he is the best one over there. I think he is. And if I was to talk about leadership challenges, I would not be looking at the member for Goyder. Well, member for Blain I might. But I would not be looking there. Right there. That’s the one. I don’t think the opposition leader’s twigged onto it. I really don’t think he has. He sits there. I have seen him. I have seen his eyes looking at that seat. I have seen it, and I hope the leader for opposition has, because boy, is he in strife.
I tell you what, it is going to be a movement and it is going to come right out of Alice Springs. Because the member for Greatorex is right about having a lot of experience. Did you know he has been a party official since back in the 1980s, five terms, five terms as vice president. He has been in the parliament for two terms, I think, or is it three, I don’t know. He did make minister for about ten minutes before they lost the election, didn’t he? That man has so much experience, so much valued experience by the party, they kept him on the party machine for five terms. They brought him in and they let him sit on those backbenches, just absorbing all this heritage of the party, all this experience, even giving him a shot at the Cabinet – albeit for a short time and albeit it was a rather insignificant portfolio, but they gave it to him – and I think there is where the leadership challenge will come from.
But sorry, I digress. He gave the advice to member for Johnston that: you should listen to people who have been around. Well, it seems like people on his own side do not take that advice, doesn’t it. Because the member for Araluen is a neophyte just the same as us. She came in one year ago, same as I did. I certainly listen to my senior members in this party, and I will tell you what, if one of the members in my party gave me the advice that the member for Greatorex, that great man, gave the member for Johnston, I would heed it. That just shows the splintering that goes on over in that place.
That is a sorry thing, it is a sorry thing for the Territory. They promised to be a good opposition. They don’t know how to be a good opposition. They cannot even mirror our own Cabinet over here. No, they’re off, they were not a good government and they are a shocking opposition. They are a shocking opposition.
But anyway, it is a pleasure to have them. Look, I would be a much poorer person for not meeting these people. Some of the character traits that I have seen exhibited from that side made me appreciate the diversity and the richness of the people in the world, because they are a diversified mob. I don’t think you will ever run into such a crowd all assembled together, sharing the same ideals – which is to be the leader - and that is wonderful.
The member for Johnston was talking about what some of the difficulties were over the other side. I am surprised that he did not pick up on this in Alistair Heatley’s book, The Territory Party, the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party 1974-1998. He was talking about statehood issues. He says:
- Like so much in the CLP’s policy making history, the statehood question has been determined by the
interest and commitment of the Chief Minister. It points once again to the dominance of that office
in policy formulation.
Well, I would say to the member for Johnston, ‘Bingo’. You have just heard why they are bereft of policy. Because they do not have a Chief Minister for a start any more, but with everyone clamouring over to be the Leader of the Opposition, what time would that office have for policies, for policy determination? That is what the problem is. I would urge the CLP members to get a little bit of unity, and I think everything will be okay for you. It will be a rough trot and you might have to start accepting that you have to go to seven ministries. You might have to start accepting that you did lose an election. It is not so bad. You know, Labor lost a couple. We won one. That was enough. We don’t ask for much, do we? But you will spend, members of the opposition, a long time in the wilderness unless you get it together, unless you start letting your Leader of the Opposition, start making a bit of policy. Get behind him and help him. You know he needs help. Where is the milk of human kindness in you guys? Get in there and work together as a team.
I look forward to the contributions to the debates that you all can make because I am sure that with a member like the member for Greatorex leading you that everything will be rosy for the future.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would resist entering that arena because the words that are spoken at the beginning of each sitting day are that we would ‘advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians’. I would like to continue the theme and make sure that all that we do here and every debate that we enter into is for that distinct purpose. I must say that I find this whole tone that we have is really quite juvenile and it does not attend to or allow us to even begin to understand the complexity of the issues that we have to discuss to make a real difference.
Whether we sit on this side or that side, the issue is who we are actually representing here and the quality of the debate. This school yard rubbish makes a mockery of what this place is all about. No wonder people have a low opinion of the serious and important work that we do, work that has been given to us by the choosing of the electorate when they have given us a job to represent them and their interests.
I will always endeavour to ensure that the content of my discussions will always carry that central theme: to advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians. When it comes down to issues that have been raised by members on my side with regards to the response to a very important document, the governance paper by the Australian Labor Party, I would have to say the quality of debate in that was simply to draw attention to the directions and the charter that was laid before the people of the Northern Territory. I have said it before. I actually had some weight in that. I had some sense of interest. I am involved in making sure that we do move forward. There were many things there that I felt were presented in good faith to the people and they seem now to stand on paper alone and the spirit of them has been shown little regard.
I will go on to what I was wanting to address in this time. There are a number of issues in the Palmerston community that do need to be constantly raised in this parliament because of that central notion that whenever we make a commitment to anyone, that stands almost as sacred. It is a contract that is entered into. We have issues such as the one that has been referred to by members on my side with regards to the governance paper. That was effectively a contract that was made and we are requiring a response to that, and it is our responsibility to draw attention to it. There are also other contracts that were entered into - promises and commitments that would be made. I understand that there may come a time when the pressures of government would require an alteration of the contract. That then should be entered into in a very honest and forthright way. I believe there is a growing sense of disappointment in the drawing away from the value of the contract, such as no new taxes and charges, and the like.
A contract that has been entered into in the Palmerston community is the multipurpose recreation facility. That facility has lived for a long time in the hearts and minds of our community. The Palmerston Crime Forum takes a responsible role in understanding the nature of crime in our community and how we can all play a proactive part in making a difference. At the time when we formed I recall the Attorney-General was endeavouring to classify this group, this gathering as some sort of vigilante group with a little bit of mischievous intent. By coming to the third meeting he was able to say he respects the tone of the meeting, and that is what we are about. That meeting has determined that there are certain things that our community actually does need. These are not running around the play scene, we need this, we want that. It is a well considered need that has been well articulated, well consulted and well discussed by many groups in Palmerston.
A contract was entered into by both parties going to the last election with regards to a commitment, to the point of the then CLP government committing $500 000 to the design phase of this facility. A matching promise was made by the Labor Party upon entering government. Assurances were given, but the sense was given that we needed to consult and we needed to find out what the community wanted. I read that as code for ‘We will delay this for as long as we possibly can so that we can then make a promise at the next election, because we need to buy as much time and extract as much out of this because it is actually a promise we have made and how the heck do we get out it, and that is probably the only way to keep it alive for as long as possible’.
In fact, much consultation has already occurred and I do not really think we need to go through too much down that track. We do not need to do all that work. What we simply need to know is what is actually happening, where is it at the moment? What happened to the design phase of it? Please, someone talk to the Palmerston community and tell us what is going on with this multipurpose recreation facility. It is not something that is just a wishful notion that we want such a thing. It is intrinsic to the very issues that we are trying to make a difference with, and that is a place for a community, a city of 24 000 people, to have a facility where we can centre some of our youth activities, and we have widespread and well researched support for the concept. We do not need further consultation for the mere purpose of prolonging the exercise. We need some kind of concrete response in Palmerston, and as a member and convenor of the Palmerston Crime Forum, we simply requested and we request that action follow immediately.
Secondly, the Palmerston Magpies Football Club have also been promised a home ground. You do not mess with a football club, particularly a football club which has won two premierships. A commitment has been made with an actual figure to it, they need some real clarity as to exactly what that promise means. Being a black and white football club, they see it plainly. A promise was made, a certain dollar value was attributed to that promise, and they are still left wondering and bewildered by the lack of a clear response to that promise. Work needs to be done. Get down to some serious business, without the hollow-sounding rhetoric, and fix up these two issues.
Another matter I need to raise is not in the same tone. It is not involved in the issue of commitments being made to people. This is the Palmerston to Adelaide railway. There has been a significant amount of discussion about the location of the rail terminal. I understand what voices from Darwin would be putting into this debate, and from a Palmerston perspective, we can actually see that it does have a logical conclusion to that railhead in Palmerston. However, to advance the argument, my advice to those from the Darwin side of the equation, they need to, rather than express the desire, come up with the way that it could actually be done. I would suggest that this would be the parameters that we can work in. It is practical that it should culminate in Palmerston; however, in the longer term we would need a light rail spur from Palmerston into Darwin. That has to be the solution which makes the compromise for both places, but it is a practical solution. Granted, we cannot do such a thing immediately.
I have lived in Palmerston for about 12 years and just in that time the town has grown from 6000 to 24 000. If we look ahead, we can see that in 20 years time we may not be able to imagine the way the Territory will look then. We need to put those things on the ground now and discuss them in a conceptual way. I believe that the issue is: how do you actually terminate a rail in Darwin. I believe ultimately it would be a light rail link from Palmerston.
As members would most likely be aware, the Palmerston Crime Forum has been working on a practical solution to a serious issue with the Palmerston boat ramp. This is an issue that we have arrived at and endorsed at our last public meeting as a result of genuine research and consultation. As practical people we have put a plan on the table which we believe is a well-considered plan. It has gone through an evolutionary process and we are now at the point where the proposal with regards to a fishing platform in Palmerston which serves the purpose of recreational outlet - which we do not have anyway – so that anyone in Palmerston can fish safely in our Elizabeth River. That provides that recreation facility, and it also adds value to the current resource in terms of a boat ramp. It also provides a constant presence of people in a boat ramp car park where people may come along to take advantage of the fact that there is nobody around and help themselves to people’s property. That is a positive way of dealing with that, and the increased trade would allow a caretaker to site themselves at the boat ramp and to service the needs of the clientele: people going fishing, people in boats, selling iced cool drinks, taking photographs, giving information about tides and telling fishing stories, educating people visiting the fishing platform.
These are ideas and are not pie-in-the-sky. We believe that as our community will stay as it is and it will grow that we have to put things out there that we can work together with as a community. I genuinely seek the support of government in finding a way that we can move this forward in a proactive way. In later times I will give further updates on the other issues that are before the Palmerston Crime Forum.
To finish, I make mention of a very interesting group that I have had the good fortune to make contact with, and that is a group called ‘Children Saving Children’. It is a group which works to aid World Vision. It has been organised by a well-known gentleman, Prathapan, who had this idea that - I suppose it is borne out of the old story of a kid walking along a beach after a monsoonal storm and there were all these starfish washed up on a beach and the beach was littered with starfish. This little kid is walking along the beach, picking up starfish and throwing them back in the sea so that they can live again. Someone came along and said, ‘What are you doing?’ He replied, ‘Well, I am throwing these starfish back in the sea; they have all been washed up during the storm’. The questioner said, ‘Look up and down the beach; there are thousands, perhaps millions of starfish all along this beach. What difference do you think you will actually make?’ The young person throwing the starfish into the sea says: ‘Well, it is going to make a lot of difference to this one’, and threw it in. That is the tone behind this group.
I really admire the leadership shown by Prathapan here, because we often have a notion, we see this poverty in the world and it can become overwhelming, particularly for young people when they become aware of it, and get lost in the sea of it, and can’t practically do anything. What he has organised is a few kids together, who can actually make a difference, and practically alleviate that confusion and that plight that they may hold internally by working out a plan, how they can have little clubs, where they can raise money for World Vision and support a certain number of World Vision children.
That is basically the concept behind it. I have a list of the names of the children who are involved in this project, many of them Darwin people. It has also now spread as a group into other states. Rather than read the list out, I would like to include the names of those children who are involved into Hansard. I seek leave to do that.
Leave granted.
Children who are involved:
Neha Singh; Komal Singh; Dev Tillakaratne – representing Casuarina Secondary College Leo Club;
Geetha Kannan; Deevya Desai; Aravin Prathapan; Carmen Quenoy – representing Darwin High School
Round Table; Jaysanth Yoganathan; Prasanth Toganathan; Umanga Arachi; Alka Singh; Aditi Srinivas.
- There are four children from interstate participating:
Vidhya Mahendran – representing a group of children from a school in Melbourne; Anuja Gopal – representing
a group of children from Monash University; Paula Fong – representing a group of children from University
of Melbourne; Shriya Verma.
- Following children have also taken part in the past:
Natalie Ross-Laponite – at present in France as Rotary exchange student; Prajeev Mahenthirarajah – moved to Sydney.
Children we sponsor:
- 1. Lucky Akter – 11 year old girl from Banai, Bangladesh;
2. Ruthiresh Velayutham – 12 year old boy from Manampathy, South India
3. Hluf Tsige – 11 year old girl from Ethiopia – Darwin High School Round Table
4. Kaleke Musyoka – 12 year old girl from Makueni, Kenya – Vidhya Mahendran, Melbourne
University school group
5. Kanah Chak Ra Koeurt – 11 year old boy from Phnom Penh, Cambodia – Casuarina Secondary
College Leo Club
6. Provath Mondol – nine year old boy from Bangladesh – Paula Fong, Melbourne University
7. Kesantha Yogarsa – 14 year old boy from Colombo, Sri Lanka – Anuja Gopalan, Monash University
8. Linking Hands – Papunya Community, Northern Territory – Darwin Nightcliff Rotary Club
Mr MILLS: In order to assist them with their task, they are organising a wine tasting which will be Saturday 7 September, at …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, honourable member.
Mr MILLS: I seek leave to include the details of the fundraising opportunity in the Hansard.
Leave granted.
- Wine Tasting
Date: Saturday 7 September 2002
Time: 7.00pm sharp
Venue: 8 Pelican Crescent, Wulagi
Ticket $15 per head (Sold only to adults)
Light Supper provided
For your tickets please contact Prathapan on 8927 0837 or 0402 027 046
Sponsored by Options Wine Distributors
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016