2004-02-18
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise you that, in accordance with usual practice, in order to allow members to attend the ceremony commemorating the Bombing of Darwin tomorrow, this Assembly will meet at 12 noon, and the luncheon suspension will be from 1 to 2 pm.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 285 petitioners praying that Great Southern Railway rename the Steve Irwin locomotive. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. This petition is similar to a petition presented during the November 2003 sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, today I update Territorians on the progress of the Martin government’s four-year $75m Building our Police Force plan.
As honourable members will recall, in February 2003, the government appointed former Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan to carry out an independent assessment of the resource requirements of the Northern Territory Police Force. The report, which was debated in this House, was a frank and honest account, detailing the factors and events surrounding more than a decade of under-funding and under-resourcing of our Northern Territory police force.
In response to this report, last August I announced the government had endorsed the recommendations of the report and committed $75m additional to build our police force. This injection of funds was the single largest injection of resources that the Northern Territory police have seen. Six months later, I can advise honourable members that the plan is progressing well. However, there is still a lot of work to do.
The plan, at its core, will deliver 200 more police on the street by the end of 2006. I am pleased to advise honourable members that the Police College is now recruiting at record levels to deliver on this commitment: 120 constables and five recruit squads will join the police force in 2004; 60 constables have finished training; 14 new Aboriginal Community Police Officers and five new police auxiliaries have started duty. It was great to be at the latest graduation parade in December where we had just over 80 police officers in training on parade. That was great to see.
Independent crime statistics for September 2003 show already house break-ins across the Territory are down 25% over the 12 months compared with last year. Break-ins to commercial premises are down 22%. There has been $214 000 of property forfeited already under the criminal property forfeiture legislation, with another $1.58m under seizure.
That as an aside, I congratulate the police force on the effort that it is being asked to make and the money that is being spent. It is good. However, I do wish to ask the minister some questions very quickly. The first question I have is that O’Sullivan reported that in Katherine Police Station, because of complications with PROMIS computer system, some 5% to 10% of matters were not being entered on to the system. The PROMIS system is the source for these much lauded crime statistics. I am concerned that the problem is being amplified through the rest of the Northern Territory.
Added to that, it is my understanding that the Australian Capital Territory, which was running the PROMIS system, has now abandoned the system. The PROMIS system was in such need of repair that this year, $1.8m has been committed to its repair in the Northern Territory. I know that it is still causing problems for police officers in the field. This being a concern, it goes to the very heart of the integrity of the statistics on which the minister so heavily relies.
Second, if the statistics are accurate, would the minister care to explain to Territorians and this House why it is that, although crimes against property seem to be on the decrease, crimes of violence are on the increase in a very large way, those crimes of violence affecting Territorians in their homes as well as out on the streets? Further, why have the efforts to control itinerants and those sorts of things failed so miserably?
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, the opposition spokesman cannot have it both ways: he cannot challenge the validity of the statistics of property crime and break and entry and then rely on the same statistics to prosecute the point that there are extraordinary increases in violent crime.
We accept that there are increases in violent crime and it does concern this government. A lot of work is being done, particularly reviewing the Liquor Act, to look at those issues. He cannot have it both ways.
I wish that members opposite would stop attacking the police and the statistics that they provide. They are independently audited and accounted for, and I can advise the honourable member that the police will soon be launching a centralised call station where data will be input at source away from individual police stations, which will further enhance those statistics. Crime is coming down in the Northern Territory; one only has to talk to Territorians who recognise that fact.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, earlier this month, on 4 February, the Northern Territory’s petroleum industry took an important step forward with the granting of two onshore petroleum exploration permits to Sweetpea Corporation Pty Ltd.
At a function to celebrate the formal signing of the exploration permits, everyone was impressed by the progressive and insightful approach of the key driver behind the project, Mr Thomas Dugan, President of Sweetpea Corporation.
Mr Dugan has significant experience in negotiating agreements in New Mexico, United States, with American Indians, and he has used that experience and expertise in negotiating the Sweetpea agreement.
Sweetpea Corporation is an American company that can see the vast potential the Territory offers in regard to onshore exploration and it wants to be part of our future success. The granting of two permits, EP 98 and EP 99, is significant in that they are the first Northern Territory petroleum exploration permits to proceed through the right to negotiate process of the Native Title Act.
The two permits are for an area within the McArthur Basin in the Daly Waters-Newcastle Waters area, and cover approximately 14 000km and extends on either side of both the Stuart and Carpentaria Highways from just south of Larrimah to some distance south beyond Elliott. It is anticipated that $15m will be invested in the exploration project. This represents a significant economic injection in the Northern Territory, and I am sure that local suppliers will have opportunities to be involved.
The McArthur Basin is considered a greenfield frontier basin, which has only been sparsely explored by the petroleum resource industry. The basin has not been validly tested for its petroleum potential, and is ripe for exploration and prospectivity. The granting of the exploration permits shows productive partnerships can be achieved between the Territory government, the minerals and energy industry and indigenous stakeholders.
The granting of these two permits is a credit to the commitment of Sweetpea Corporation, the Northern Land Council, the native title holders, which includes 13 main groupings of traditional owners, and the Territory government. The agreement sets out the parameters for both exploration and production, and includes important safeguards for the environment and sacred sites.
It is expected that the Sweetpea Corporation permits will pave the way for further petroleum exploration permits in the Territory through the right to negotiate process. The onshore petroleum industry is committed to exploring all avenues to progress the granting of petroleum exploration permits in the future. Negotiations for several onshore petroleum titles are currently continuing under the right to negotiate process and are expected to be granted soon.
The petroleum industry in the Northern Territory is entering an exciting phase. The grant of the Sweetpea permits is testament to the commitment of the Northern Territory government, the minerals and energy industry, the Northern Territory land councils and Aboriginal stakeholders to develop productive partnerships.
I reiterate that the granting of petroleum exploration permits EP98 and EP99 to Sweetpea Corporation is a significant step forward for the Northern Territory resource industry and supports the government’s commitment to building the Territory’s resource base. This is good news for jobs, good news for economic development and good news for strengthening the opportunities for regional communities.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement made to the House this morning. We will continue to watch with interest the development of this initiative and this project.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support, and I assure the House that this government is doing everything to support this kind of initiative, to support negotiations between the interested parties, including Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal interests, the land councils, the mining companies that want to explore the Territory.
Recently, I visited Tennant Creek and was very impressed by the activities taking place there. A few months ago, as I said, Tennant Creek was a very pessimistic town. Today it is buzzing with optimism and I wish this to continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I wish to report on action that is being taken to recognise the people who lived and worked at East Arm Leprosarium.
The settlement at East Arm was established in 1955 to provide accommodation and treatment facilities for leprosy patients who had previously lived on Channel Island. It was the last and best leprosarium in Darwin. Lepers were originally taken to the northern-most tip of Wickham Point, also known as Mud Island, offered little treatment and lived in poor conditions. This facility became the subject of a scandal in 1922, and a facility was subsequently built on Channel Island.
Initially, the East Arm Leprosarium had dormitories, a convent, administration and hospital block, a water tower and reticulated supplies, a dressing clinic, a school, kitchen, refectory and laundries.
Over the next 20 years, the settlement was developed with the addition of Catholic and Australian Inland Mission churches, additions to the hospital and construction of a gatehouse, separate cottages for non-indigenous and mixed race patients, a swimming pool, a community hall, as well as several sporting facilities, including basketball and tennis courts, and a large oval.
In 1956, Dr JC Hargreaves arrived in the Northern Territory and began a career that greatly improved both the physical and social wellbeing of the settlement’s patients. I remember Dr Hargreaves very well. As a child, I regularly visited the leprosarium with my mother, watching as she trained and worked with Dr Hargreaves and the Catholic nuns as one of the many first indigenous health workers or domestics, as they were known then.
With other dedicated health professionals, as well as church and community workers, Dr Hargreaves radically reoriented health services and patients’ accommodation. The earlier regime of isolating and stigmatising lepers was disbanded. The success of new drugs and remedial surgery, the deaths of many elderly patients and the overwhelming public confidence in the newer treatments all led to significant reduction in the number of people needing treatment during the 1970s. Because the newly-diagnosed patients could be offered outpatient services or accommodation in newly established wards in mainstream hospitals, the East Arm settlement closed in 1982.
After 1982, the site housed several tenants, including a joint Australian-Thai fishing venture, and then caretakers working for the Trade Development Zone. By the mid-1990s, almost no maintenance was being carried out. Some of the buildings, deemed to be dangerous because of termite damage, were demolished. Other buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by fire. In around 2001, the last remnants of the leprosarium were removed and relocated to the new industrial complex at East Arm.
Concerns have been expressed that the heritage values of the East Arm Leprosarium have never been recognised. While there is little physically left to remind us of the story of those who suffered from this terrible disease and the courage and dedication of those who helped them, steps are being taken to ensure the site receives recognition. Interpretive signs are being introduced into a viewing platform overlooking the site. In addition, designs are being prepared for a plaque and monument to be established at the entrance of the old leprosarium site on Berrimah Road. These will be located in a specifically identified section of the road reservation that will incorporate some of the gmelina trees that originally bracketed the entrance.
Madam Speaker, I wish to put on record my commitment to ensuring that the story of the East Arm Leprosarium is not lost. We are well on the way, with the interpretive works and allocation of land for a memorial. I thank the member for Nelson for his efforts. He has raised this issue on more than one occasion, and has been on-site with staff from the Office of Environment and Heritage. I believe he has a personal connection with the site, and I am sure we will to continue to have discussions on how best to appropriately acknowledge this part of Darwin’s history.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for this report. It is a very important site and has a lot of history attached to it. I also visited the site when it was operational. It is a sad shame that leprosy became such a critical disease for the Northern Territory that such an establishment had to be set in the early days. It is probably a shame that it was dealt with in that way, where isolation was the only way that was known at the time, in the early part of last century, to deal with leprosy.
The minister made great mention of Dr Hargreaves. There has been a lot written about Dr Hargreaves and the fantastic work that he did. I hope, in the site recognition and the signage, that he gets a special mention along with all of the people who went out - particularly in the bush in the 1950s and 1960s - and treated Aboriginal people in particular for this terrible disease. It is one that we do not see in our communities at all these days, and that is because of the work of people like Dr Hargreaves.
I congratulate the minister for this site recognition. It is a part of our heritage - not a nice part, but one that we should still recognise. I am sure the member for Nelson had a lot to do with recognition of that site as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what can I say? Thank you, Minister for Environment and Heritage. You have summed up perfectly the importance of that area.
My wife lost her mother to leprosy. Her name was Kitty. That was the first contact I ever had with the disease. She was a happy woman until the day she died. She had no legs; she used to get around the house literally on her backside. She was a very cheerful lady; she was well looked after at East Arm Leprosarium by Dr Hargreaves, the nuns and many other people. I presume your mother, member for Arafura, was part of that group.
The leprosarium is a very important part of our history. I am pleased to see that we are going to retain the gmelina trees in the driveway, because that is basically all that is left. That is the only memory I have of the area. There is probably much more I could say, but thank you very much to the government for listening to those concerns - not only my concerns, but the concerns of Aboriginal people. Another person who raised the issue was Shane Stringer. He also felt that was a site that should be preserved.
Once again, thank you for that. Maybe in an adjournment debate, we can look at it in a little more depth.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to put on the public record that last night, it was my understanding that the government Whip and I agreed on three speakers from each side for the ministerial statement on health. Several government ministers are implying that the deal was two-two. This is incorrect and impugns my integrity as opposition Whip.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act to ensure the ongoing operation of the Tow Truck Operators Code of Practice.
Since 1996, a code of practice in relation to tow truck operators has existed in the form of regulations under Part 13 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. The code of practice was a joint initiative of the Motor Traders Association and the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs and, essentially, sets up a roster system for tow truck operators attending police-controlled accident sites. It also seeks to avoid undesirable behaviour in jurisdictions where attendance at accidents is unregulated and results in payment of spotter’s fees or commissions to tow truck operators, and the loading of these fees into repair costs.
Tow truck operators in the Northern Territory have been informally or formally regulated in this regard for many years. The code of practice replaced a roster system operated by the Motor Traders Association, which itself replaced an informal roster system run by the police for about 30 years.
The code of practice was the subject of a National Competition Policy review, which found it created significant public benefit through setting minimum operational standards, increased transparency in the contracting process between tow truck operators and their clients, and the requirement that all operators have insurance so consumers are protected against costs arising from damage to their vehicle during towing. The review considered other forms of industry regulation and ultimately recommended that the code of practice be retained.
Madam Speaker, section 51(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act provides that regulations under Territory legislation can only authorise behaviour that may otherwise breach restrictive trade practices provisions for a maximum of two years. No such limitation is placed on Territory acts that authorise behaviour that would otherwise breach the relevant provisions. The regulations setting out the code were initially made in 1996, but, due to a sunset clause, had to be re-made in 2002. Without this amendment, the regulations authorising the code of practice will cease to have effect past May 2004.
This amendment operates by moving the authorisation for the code of practice from the regulations to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Without the enactment of legislative authority, the roster system may constitute a breach of the restricted trade practices provision of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
As required by clause 2(1) of the Competition Policy Conduct Code Agreement, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will need to be notified of the amendment to the act within 30 days of its enactment. Given the finding of significant public benefit in the National Policy Review and the recommendation that the code be retained, it is not anticipated that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have any difficulties with the amendment.
The code of practice has operated successfully for a number of years and has the support of industry, the police and the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. This amendment to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act and the relevant regulations will ensure the ongoing operation of this successful code of practice. The opportunity has been taken to make some statute law revision amendments to remedy incorrect cross references that arose during the re-numbering of some sections of the act a number of years ago.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 9 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yesterday, we in opposition had the opportunity to outline a vision for the future, a vision that understands the capacity of Territorians to face a future and to make decisions that allow us to take complete control of the way we deal with issues of primary concern to the citizens of the Northern Territory.
Those of us involved in decision making at this level are aware of other agencies in our community that also make such decisions, such as local government. Many of us deal directly with local government. Local government representatives spend an extraordinary amount of time and energy to service the communities they represent. It is time that we formally recognise, after 26 years of self-government, the third tier of government, the councils, whether they be city, town or community councils.
A CLP government will enter to negotiations with councils and LGANT that will lead them to being far more independent and no longer subject to directions from the Territory government or the department. We will give greater autonomy to local councils. Part of this would be to seek an amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, which is virtually the constitution of the Territory, to recognise the role of local government.
The Constitutional Convention came up with a form of words that could perhaps be used. Members may recall that at the time of the convention, the CLP argued against such recognition. Recognition of local government was not needed; that was the position held by the then CLP government. However, the weight of argument at the convention led to wholesale support of the inclusion of the third tier of government in the draft constitution.
The clause in the draft constitution is this:
under which local governing bodies are constituted with such powers as the Parliament considers necessary
for the peace, order and good government of those areas of the Northern Territory that are from time to time
subject to that system of local government.
functions, duties and responsibilities and all matters incidental thereto, shall be determined by or under an Act.
We do not have to wait for statehood because we can recognise local government via the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. A CLP government would ask the federal government to amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act accordingly.
As well as the symbolism of words, the reality must change. A CLP government will move those local government functions and the public servants who perform them out from the Local Government Division in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, and place them under the control of the councils. It may be that LGANT is the appropriate representative body to house this new council secretariat, but that will be worked out in negotiation with councils.
The budget for this division within the present super-department will be transferred at the same time from the control of the minister to the control of councils. The simple aim is to ensure the autonomy and independence of the operations of the third tier of government. No longer will they have to go cap in hand to the minister or the department for every little thing. Of course, there will still be need for a Local Government Act that establishes the structure, but it will no longer be prescriptive.
We argue, of course, that the Territory is ready for statehood, and there is no one in this House who thinks we are not ready. We are a mature political entity, we no longer need the federal government’s supervision, and we deserve all the powers of other states. What I propose is that we recognise the same elements for local government.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I would have expected that on an issue as important as local government, the government would have more speakers. It is a tragedy to see that they do not. It is indicative of the way that this government approaches this House and what happens in it.
It was not that long ago at the Indigenous Self-Governance Conference in Jabiru that a presentation was made by Dr Will Sanders, a Fellow of the ANU’s Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy and Research, in relation to local government reform in the Northern Territory. He touched on the Northern Territory Local Government Act and, among other things, he said:
The act has been up for a major reconstruction for quite some time, so much so that the process of looking in to the operation of the Local Government Act goes back to the former CLP government. Indeed, part of the extensive consultations to which the minister referred when he got to his feet and said: ‘We have consulted widely’, which does not appear to be true, but goes back to the days when the CLP consulted with local government authorities, LGANT and such organisations.
From the feedback I received, a lot of people are very dissatisfied with the style of consultation that has occurred, when it has occurred and, frankly, did not feel that they had been particularly consulted with; in terms of tough issues, they had simply been ignored. It is a little disappointing to hear that the minister is claiming wide consultation when, clearly, even last week, they were still trying to tic-tac with organisations like LGANT to nut out issues.
Indeed, they will be coming into the House today with amendments in relation to this bill because it was not negotiated out in the first instance, and subsequent negotiations after the bill had been tabled meant there were going to be amendments. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition enunciate a philosophy that is entirely at odds with what this bill is trying to achieve and forecasts what a future CLP government will do.
Madam Speaker, I hearken back to the Indigenous Governance Conference in Jabiru. The thrust of that was the ability for people to make their own decisions, to be able to make structures to suit their own cultural environments. I am inherently attracted to that because all too often – history is full of it, especially regarding the spread of European culture – the colonising cultura has become the dominant culture; it has overridden the indigenous culture and has not worked particularly well because there was no ownership at the ground level. So philosophically, there is a problem with the way that this act is starting to shape up.
I have to be very careful here because there are some very good things in the act in protecting CEOs and setting certain standards and the like. I want to make it clear that my comments are not applied to anything in particular in the act, but the philosophy of the act itself. The act itself, and the bill which is now before the House, is designed to make government control, departmental control if you like, much more invasive into the local government area. It is designed to give the minister a great deal more ability to massage what happens on the ground. That is a response to a situation that has occurred over the years whereby greater demands are placed on the department to get into those local government communities and make sure that they are doing their job properly. This is where the amalgamation push comes from. The department, quite rightly, goes back to the minister and says: ‘If you expect us to do this, minister, then we need the tools’. That gives you this permeating philosophy of invasiveness.
Let us look at this in a global context. Departmental staff are going to be thinking: ‘Okay, I have to do this job, and I have to do it to the best of my ability, and we are going to make sure that what we are being asked to do is something that we are capable of doing and capable of enforcing’. However, these things have a habit of stepping up on themselves. At each level there is a step to: ‘We expect greater accountability; we need the tools to police that accountability’. It is a self-perpetuating argument. Before too long, with the very best intentions in the world, you end up taking up a role that is very prescriptive indeed, and very invasive in the local government environment.
Considering the arguments we heard at the Indigenous Governance Conference and the flavour of the Kalkarindji Statement and those sorts of things, this invasiveness is an affront to traditional Aboriginal people. They are not particularly happy with this invasiveness on that level, and they said that repeatedly during the governance conference in Jabiru. However, on the non-Aboriginal side, it is also somewhat resented because there are municipal councils out there that are the jobs effectively on a daily basis without any major concerns.
The Leader of the Opposition has made this abundantly clear: we, on this side of the House, do not think it is necessary to have power over municipal councils. Those councils are quite capable of making all sorts of decisions by themselves but are, nevertheless, caught up in this act.
The principles that have been outlined this morning by the Leader of the Opposition - I have had some conversations with him over this stuff - is that we wish to, as a government, say: ‘All right. We believe there should be constitutional recognition in the Northern Territory - effectively through amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act – of the third tier of government.’ This is something that councils at the Australian Constitutional Convention argued. It was successfully argued at the Constitutional Convention in the 1990s for the development of the Northern Territory constitution, and it is clear that it is something that local government desires most passionately. I can well understand why they would, because the philosophy of permeation that is now starting to appear as a result of the amendments to the Local Government Act causes them concern. It is a philosophical idea to give them an element of integrity.
The Leader of the Opposition enunciated the shift in how the CLP in future will approach the structures of local government. What we would like to see is greater independence of the local government system and the local government associated body - LGANT at the moment, but whatever it is called. We would like to see an environment in which that local government body has a much greater say in what happens.
At the moment, local governments and municipal councils have to walk cap in hand for all sorts of reasons to the minister and say: ‘Minister, may I?’ That is demonstrated in the bill before us by clause, and I will turn to it as I go through it. Because local government debt is rolled into the overall debt of the Northern Territory, the government wants to control the ability for local governments to borrow so it knows what is on its books, etcetera. However, at the end of the day, surely we can trust local councils to make those sorts of decisions.
I am not saying that we should entirely wash our hands of local government and say: ‘You are over there; operate independently’. There will always, for structural reasons, need to be a Local Government Act in the Northern Territory. However, there should be negotiations entered into to find out exactly how the Local Government Act works. Those negotiations should be between the local government authority itself, be it LGANT or the local government institutions, and the Northern Territory government to create a structure that effectively gives an organisation like LGANT much greater control of what happens in the local government sphere.
The CLP, in future, will explore ways in which those sorts of levels of autonomy can be granted to local government authorities. Therefore, philosophically, the CLP has a problem with the flavour of this bill. The act already has certain invasive qualities to and now we are being asked to create a more involved process for the minister. I understand the rationale for that, which is, as I said before, that the minister wants great control as to what happens.
Madam Speaker, I will turn to the act itself and touch on a few issues. I am aware that in relation to clause 13, the minister will be proposing an amendment. I would like to discuss that amendment with him. The first issue that I wanted to raise, and I have raised this with him during a briefing, deals with Division 2. Clause 14A creates the ‘role of member’. My concern about that amendment is that the clause effectively dictates the member’s role. It does it in broad terms, but it still says that the member has to direct and control the affairs of the council in accordance with the act; has to operate in the best interests of the council itself. This has the potential to engineer a small problem, and I turn the minister’s memory to history. When the Commonwealth formed the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, there were moves at the time to get people voted on so that they could totally disband the Assembly as their first act of parliament and put themselves out of a job. There are precedents in the Westminster system whereby parliaments have voted themselves out of existence. The one that springs to mind was the Scottish Parliament during unification of the United Kingdom. It does happen.
If someone stands up in front of the population of their local council area and says, ‘This council stinks, I don’t think it should exist. I want to get elected and I want my colleagues to get elected so that we can disband this council because we don’t like it and we get rid of a local council body. We vote ourselves out of existence’. The problem we run in to is that people who are legitimately elected as representatives of the people then are stuck between a rock and a hard place because this legislation would not allow them to vote for their own disbanding of the council. It is part of this percolation, this intrusion by government in to the local government area that this act starts to show its colours. If someone is elected to do something that is contrary to the provisions outlined in clause 14, they are being elected to do an unlawful thing. It creates an awkward dichotomy because if they are elected, they have a mandate to do that. So, how exactly, do the mechanics of this work if such an unlikely scenario were to occur? That is probably an extreme scenario, but there may be other policies that a person be elected upon that are in contravention of the legislation. I would like some advice from the minister as to how he intends to deal with that issue and whether he intends to bring any amendments to that part of the bill.
I turn members’ attention to clause 36, which proposes the introduction of a new section 122A, ‘Core functions of councils’:
The Regulations may prescribe -
This is an example of the prescriptive nature of where this act is going. The parliament is being asked to give the minister a power to say to a council: ‘You have a function and this will be a core function of your existence’. I know the rationale for that is that the minister would like to be able to say to a community government council: ‘You will pick up rubbish’ and that does not sound unreasonable, because it is an appropriate instruction and should be a core function of the council. However, I am concerned that the minister has cast his net very widely in this instance because he is also applying it to municipal councils.
Municipal councils are made up of intelligent people elected by electorates in some instances that are larger in numbers than our own. These people are capable of making decisions, yet the minister is asking us for the authority to assign core functions to them. The CLP has a great deal of trouble supporting such a concept because it is against the philosophy that I outlined earlier, which is a philosophy of greater autonomy and independence from intrusion by the Northern Territory government.
The bill has other areas that are very positive. One is to make the role of the CEO quite clear, and I can well understand why the act has to be amended to reflect that, and it allows for some ministerial intervention in relation to holding off a decision to sack a CEO. Members who have had much to do with local government, especially community government councils, know full well from time to time there may be an inclination to make a decision to sack a CEO that is ill-considered. The protection that this affords the CEO to the processes of holding off and a cooling off period and those sorts of things are attractive. It is very difficult to sit here and say that the bill is all bad or all good, but that is a positive step.
Also positive is the ability for the CEO to hold up the Local Government Act when they are asked to do something beyond their power. The circumstance might be dealing with certain types of expenditure; maybe it will help councils realise that sometimes the purchase of restaurants is not necessarily in the council’s best interest. The protection structures that are built into it are quite reasonable, however following that philosophy on, it would be possible under a future CLP government for a council itself to determine what the role of the CEO is and to establish that in its own constitution. It is something that would have to be talked about, but in creating a more autonomous council system in the Northern Territory, that would be something open for negotiation.
In such a future act, the process would be subject to a decision of the council itself unless there is a rider to the effect of ‘Unless otherwise stated, the role of the CEO will be…’. That would open the way for councils themselves to set their own direction both in the municipal sense and in what is happening in the philosophical thrust of Aboriginal self-governance, about which this government is trying to make acknowledgements. Indeed, the minister himself has said on repeated occasions that he is a supporter of Aboriginal self- governance. So are members on this side.
The human resource management principles that are outlined as a part of the role of the CEO could be treated in a similar fashion. I am not suggesting for a second that the council should be allowed to act unlawfully and beyond their powers in the Anti-Discrimination Act and other legislation, but it should be allowed to set its own human management principles if it so chose. It would be appropriate to deal with it in a fashion similar to what I outlined before.
Briefly, I would like to touch on the business plans. At the moment, there is a process by which local councils have to provide an annual report. They do not have to report to any particular structure. Clause 49 seeks to introduce section 161A, which creates a legislative requirement for councils to put together a business plan and, once again, it is reflective of this philosophy of: ‘we need to police, we need to control’. This is starting to permeate all of government and their decisions and I will make, during debates in relation to another bill, comments about this. They are trying to seize, grab control of all aspects of the Northern Territory and its life without an appealable process. That is not really the case in this instance, but the flavour of it is starting to permeate the way that this government operates. It is one of the more dark aspects that people have not realised yet. You have drill into the legislation to see how it actually operates.
I wish to point out some things in relation to autonomy. There has been a process in government in relation to the amalgamation of councils. Having a large bush constituency, I have seen some of the problems that this amalgamation philosophy has created. There are good reasons to do it, financial reasons and the like. It is very tempting to say: ‘If you bring those three or four communities together, they can operate as one council and get to share all these resources and it will be very good for them’. That is true, but there is an element of the administrative tail wagging the community dog. What I mean by that is where these amalgamations are being explored, there seem to be consistent problems with the local traditional people in the area. That is not surprising because traditional people, from a customary perspective, like their autonomy, not only at a language group level, but even further down the line to families. Basically, family, as all members will know, is the social unit of the traditional culture. Those families often have disputes with each other. To take communities that often have their own disputes internally and then push them into a direction where they are now having to deal with three or four other communities, which, on paper, looks like it makes perfect sense, has the potential to run into trouble and ultimately may end up costing more than what is gained from the process.
I have been to Willowra a couple of times in the last few months, particularly to examine how this process works. As members will be aware, Willowra had its council basically taken away from it and they made some pretty poor decisions which led up to the government making that decision. Indeed, the minister himself had the experience of having to shut down Ngukurr for similar reasons. Curiously, the minister has seen fit to re-advertise and re-establish Ngukurr, and Willowra remains steadfastly ungoverned in terms of local governance. The toll is starting to show. What has been made abundantly clear to me, after a couple of meetings with some of the people who live there, is that they are particularly unhappy with the services they are gaining from Yuendumu. They feel that the only way they can be properly represented at a local government level is by having a local government council. I have to say that I have some sympathy, having travelled around the community and examined some of the humpies people are sleeping in next to houses that are in such poor condition that they are now only fit for the habitation of donkeys. Clearly, there is a problem for the people at the community of Willowra. What I am saying is the pressure being applied for the amalgamation of Yuelamu, Yuendumu, Nyirripi and Willowra is having poor outcomes for the people of Willowra. I will be deeply concerned if the government continues to go down this path of saying to Willowra: ‘No, you are not going to have any form of local government council’ when they have recreated the Ngukurr council. There is an inconsistency with the way these things proceed.
Regarding what was said at the Indigenous Governance Conference, this self-autonomy concept does not just apply to Aboriginal people as opposed to European people; it applies to Aboriginal people who want autonomy in their own communities. What is happening in Willowra is starting to look to be a process by which this government is not giving those people the things they had hoped arising from the self-governance conference.
What we are at odds about is that we have a philosophy of approach to local governance that is entirely different from the government’s. The government’s philosophy at the moment is: ‘We will become more involved and more active and more intrusive into what happens at a local government level. We are going to make more decisions on local government’s behalf. We are going to drill down with our new legislation …’ and whatever subsequent legislation they bring before this House, in an effort to clamp their stamp on local government authorities in the Northern Territory.
The philosophy of the CLP is quite the opposite of that. We hope, through a process of negotiation with LGANT and other local government representative organisations, as the Leader of the Opposition put so well, to recognise local government at a constitutional level, define what functions can be given to LGANT in an effort to make it a more effective organisation, with a clear view to getting the best outcomes for local councils, and to get those functions happening as quickly as possible with support of the next CLP government. This is not going to happen in a vacuum. There will be staff and support made to whatever organisation, such as LGANT, to make sure that they are able to do their job more effectively because they will be taking on some of the roles of the department under the next CLP government.
To that end, for philosophical reasons and despite the fact that there are some good things in this bill, the opposition is not in a position to support it because of the nature of what it is trying to achieve, and the fact that it exposes this government as wanting to exert greater and greater control on the lives of Territorians. The opposition’s position is quite the opposite. We will seek to create greater independence for Territorians across the board.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I must admit I am extremely pleased to hear that at least one part of the parliament has decided to support local government having constitutional recognition. That is long and well overdue. Until that happens, local government will always be at the whim of the Minister for Local Government. For many years local government has asked for that to happen. There was a move at the statehood convention towards it but, from memory, it had strings attached. Local government wants to be recognised without those strings.
I would love to hear from the government whether it would support the move by the opposition to allow local government to be where it should be: recognised in the constitution as a legitimate form of government within the Northern Territory.
The reason I have always supported local government, and I know many people argue that we are over-governed, is because it gives people the right to have a say in their own community. One of the arguments I used to use about town planning - and I know governments of both persuasions have always opposed town planning being a function of local government - is that town planning is such an important part of local activity. It decides whether you can have a shed next to your fence, a shop next door or a 33-storey building put on a small block of land. Those are things that affect a lot of people. If it is a mechanical workshop being set up next to you, you are not too happy about it; it affects you. They are local issues, and I have always felt that people need more control over their day-to-day lives.
I am not talking about the big picture. Governments certainly have a role in town planning for the overall picture, but there are times when the community should be able to have a group of people represent them who are democratically elected and who are responsible to the community, who make decisions on behalf of them, and if they do not like those decisions, they can kick them out. Local government fills that role. It fills the role of what they call pot-hole politics. That is the sort of level of politics at which it operates. You can ring someone and say: ‘My road is all pot-holed’ or ‘the council hasn’t graded the road’ or ‘the drains are blocked’. It may be mundane for some people, but for a lot of people, it is important and local government fills that role.
The idea of giving more autonomy to councils through the use of the local government association is also welcome. I remember a number of years ago when I was on the local government executive, this was raised as a possible way to go. People would ask: ‘Why do we have a Department of Local Government?’ We are not saying it should be abolished altogether, but once the functions of local government are set out, why can’t it run itself? I am not saying that the local government association is the controlling body. That is something that needs discussion with them and with councils in general, but I think the principle of what has been mentioned today is worth exploring. I would be interested, minister, to see whether you thought there was benefit in that approach.
As regards the act, I will also talk from a philosophical point of view. It is important that councils are similar. If you read the long title of the Local Government Act, it includes that the act is:
That similarity needs to be reflected in democratic principles. I do not care which local government council you are talking about, whether it is out bush or in town. The fundamental principle is that people are elected fairly, without coercion, without any form of corruption, to represent people in an area. It is our job to make sure that the system is in place to protect the people whom the council will represent. The government has a role to make sure the basic principles of democratic government are enshrined in this legislation. That does not mean to say councils cannot have autonomy; that is an issue that will raise a lot more debate in this parliament and among local government themselves, but the government has a role to make sure that there is a set of rules that protect democratic principles and prevent people from abusing their roles in local government.
Many of the amendments I will propose today are specifically designed to do that. They are based on: one, the similarity of power and function; and two, trying to protect those democratic principles from being watered down or adjusted to suit certain circumstances without any guarantee that those changes in circumstances are water tight when it comes to protecting constituents’ rights.
There are a couple of other issues, and some of them I will get to as we get into the committee stage. There is the section in the act that the member for Macdonnell raised, and that is section 14. This is a nightmare, going from one book to another. ‘Division 2A 14A Role of Member’ and ‘14B Role of presiding member’. This would highlight more than anything why councils should have autonomy. Councils, if these democratic principles are defined and are adhered to, will be elected by the people. The people will then have the right not to re-elect them if they do not do what is required of them.
By putting these sections in the act, you are saying that you are breaking the law if you do not do these things. Let us have a look at some issues.
How is someone going to say that a councillor failed to do that? It is a pretty broad statement at the best of times; it is very subjective. Those best to determine whether they agree that someone has ensured the most effective and efficient allocation of council’s resources are the constituents, and they will make their decision. It is not for government to make a decision on that. That is where you will have ministerial interference, government overriding what really should be the role of the people. The same applies to the role of the presiding member.
I agree that the role of the CEO should be defined, but the CEO is not an elected member. These people are elected members and they are, first and foremost, responsible to the people who elected them. That proposed section should be deleted.
I should raise an issue about which the member for Macdonnell is well aware. He was talking about the autonomy of councils and protecting them, but I cannot help but remind members of the days when Yulara lost its right to have local government. The member for Macdonnell will know very well, because he was the bunny – pardon me…
Mr Elferink: Yes, I was.
Mr WOOD: I flew to Yulara. That is how serious we thought it was. There was a meeting of about 300 people with about 200 apologies. I have never seen a meeting that big to discuss local government in my life. Margaret Vigants was there. The poor member for Macdonnell had only been in the job for about a week, I think, and all the people said: ‘We do not want to lose our local government’. Of course, the members for Katherine and Daly, we know very well, were the ones who signed off on the demise of Yulara. To this day, I think that was a terrible thing.
When I was at that meeting, I saw so many people say they wanted local government, then the government said: ‘No, too bad’ and that was terrible. Putting local government councils in the constitution is a way around that; it would protect them. It is the right of the people to say whether they want local government, and they do that through elections.
However, that is history and life moves on. There is one other question, minister, that you may be able to answer. I will not be proposing an amendment, but I noticed that the second reading speech mentioned PBIs or public benevolent institutions. I know that councils have had trouble with PBIs, but you said:
How does that fit in with Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul and such groups that you could argue are commercial ventures but operating for charitable reasons? In other words, they are not trying to become the Murdochs of the world; they are operating some commercial activity from their premises as a charitable organisation. Where do they fit in? Are they subject to the same fees? If they are sitting on a bit of Catholic Church land, for instance, do they pay rates? How does it work? If you could clarify that, I will be interested to hear it.
I will discuss some of these issues as we go through the amendments. I would have liked the amendments a bit earlier than half of an hour before I walked in here. I have had a briefing and provided my amendments two months ago. It would have been nice to have these a little bit earlier. We did discuss some of the changes, but some of the changes, I do not recall. For example, clause 35, maybe I missed a beat there, but that is a fairly important change. Sometimes, especially with complicated amendments like this when we are tyring to deal with amending the bill as well as the principal act, we need reasonable time. It is a fairly complex approach to changing things. I would have liked more time to have mulled over it and seek opinions from people. Be that as it may, I will be interested as to whether I have support for my amendments and that will determine whether I vote for the changes to the bill.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments proposed by the minister. I thank the member for Macdonnell for shooting himself in the foot once again.
Whilst I acknowledge the bill ranges over the entire act, the focus of the amendments is to reduce the difference between the municipal and community government councils. It is intended that, over time, the differences will be eliminated completely and, as indicated by the minister, these changes will only occur after full and lengthy consultation with all appropriate stakeholders.
A significant change to the act will allow councils to develop protocols for members to attend meetings, using modern technology such as teleconferencing or by video link. This will have significant benefits to councils, which cover large areas, and will enable councils to fully participate without the need for constant travel or restriction by seasonal conditions. It may also assist in attracting quality members who, because of time and travel constraints, may well accept the important role of councillor by being able to attend these meetings.
I am surprised that this did not occur previously. I naturally assumed that councillors were able to participate through these means because I can imagine a situation where a Tennant Creek business man sits on, for instance, the Tennant Creek Town Council, indeed someone from Borroloola, a business person. He then has to go up to Darwin to engage in discussions and negotiation in respect of their business, and they were prohibited; they were not allowed to participate. The changes proposed by the minister are very timely and bring the Local Government Act up to date in respect of the needs of those people who have something to contribute to their community.
The other point, which I welcome, is that council staff and officers are now able to nominate for the Legislative Assembly and federal parliament, with access to revokable resignation. This corrects an injustice towards staff of councils and increases the chances of quality candidates standing for parliament without the prospect of not having a job if they are unsuccessful.
The bill also introduces a change in what councils can call themselves. This is considered important as councils evolve, merge and grow. Council names may be an important aspect of recognition and acceptance by constituents, and it is considered inappropriate to restrict the title of the council, although they must fall within the parameters approved by government.
For the first time, the act will include a definition of the role of members of council. This clearly will assist smaller councils, which sometimes struggle with responsibilities without really understanding what their responsibilities are. This provision will assist greatly with understanding the importance of their role.
The other thing which must occur here - and I have actually spoken to the minister about this – is that there must be a role in regard to educational seminars or workshops in respect of those councillors. Perhaps LGANT can play a more important role with regard to developing those educational programs.
In addition, there will be a defined role for the chief executive officer, which will make it easier for elected members and constituents to understand what that person does and is required to do. It puts up-front the role so that it is transparent, easily understood and there is no need for the ongoing confusion and doubts that sometimes exist. By providing clearer roles for both members and CEOs, councils, particularly those in remote areas, will have a much better grasp of how things should be done.
I would like to relate a series of events or incidents which occurred a couple of years ago in relation to the role of CEOs and how important it is for councillors to be aware of the roles of those people. About two or three years ago, a CEO who was employed by an indigenous organisation in Western Australia had his contract terminated. He took off with a Toyota along with a trailer containing a lot of goods belonging to the local organisation. The matter was reported to the police and he was obviously pursued. Within two weeks, he returned the vehicle to Kununurra. That person rolled up in Tennant Creek about two to three weeks later looking for work and was obviously directed to an indigenous community out of Tennant Creek. I will name that community: it is Canteen Creek. That person arrived on a Thursday afternoon and, by the Monday, he had changed the whole pay system of the CDEP, ordered motor vehicles and, essentially, was placing the community in a position whereby it was obviously at risk regarding its ongoing administrative and management capacity.
I sincerely trust that the bill and the amendments before us today will mean these examples will no longer exist. However, the reality is that they are going to exist, but affording councillors a better understanding of the role and conditions of CEOs may go part of the way to addressing that.
Another important amendment is the permissible functions which can be performed by a community government council under its constitution. This amendment will allow the declaration of functions to be specific by approval, or all the functions of the existing Schedule 2 of the act other than those that may be excluded from approval. This provides greater flexibility to councils and less complex constitutions.
The minister will declare core functions for those councils who fail to meet minimal levels of service delivery. This is very important for constituents of those councils that fail to do the job. Not only will government now focus on financial and regulatory requirements, but will monitor the level of services provided. If they fall below acceptable standards as outlined in their business plan, then, of course, the minister may act. The requirement now to provide an annual business plan will also enable councils to focus clearly on their priorities and stick to them. It is fair to say - and I am not being critical of a lot of councils throughout the Northern Territory – clearly, there has been a culture built up over a very long period of time in which near enough is good enough. By proposing these amendments, the minister is basically sending a very clear message to councils, whether they be indigenous or not, that they are a professional organisation and they have to discharge their duties in the best interests of their communities. As I said, unfortunately it is not happening. I sincerely trust that this amendment, will serve notice on those councils and, of course, the CEOs who choose not to act in the best interests of the community.
In some cases, as most members will be aware, intense pressure is put on CEOs to provide money for wages in advance or a Toyota or some other demand. Clearly, some of these demands are inappropriate and the act will be amended to provide protection to CEOs who can point out such demands are illegal. Councils have to become real and realise that people cannot go around demanding these things. People have to learn that it is time to get their act together and act in the best interest not only of their constituents, but also to provide support to their CEOs.
The other amendment that the minister referred to is that some CEOs have been poorly treated by some councils and have quite often been dismissed for petty reasons. This bill contains an amendment that following a resolution by the council to dismiss their CEO, it will have no effect until 14 days after the minister has received that written resolution.
A significant and welcome amendment is the new provisions that will allow the minister to appoint a manager to the council following its suspension if it fails to meet its obligations under the act. This action will provide for council services to be returned to normal without necessarily going to a full commission of inquiry. In cases where councils are struggling, this amendment will provide a quick intervention without dragging councils and residents through a prolonged period without representation, but will allow things to be fixed quickly. Naturally, if issues such as fraud were uncovered, then clearly, full application of the act would follow.
These amendments to the Local Government Act have taken a long time and originated under the previous government. It is unfortunate that they failed to address some of these concerns.
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government, yourself, Madam Speaker, and the member for Nelson in respect of their involvement in this bill.
I want to take up a point raised by the member for Macdonnell whose assertion was that this is another attempt on the part of the Labor government to intrude upon the operations of governance at a local community government level. I would like to make very clear that I certainly do not see it in this respect. I honestly believe it is a very sincere attempt by members of this House, members in government, to come to grips with governance issues in regards the operations of councils throughout the Northern Territory.
The member for Macdonnell also referred to the Building Effective Government conference, which was held in Jabiru in November of last year. I conclude by saying, in response to the member for Macdonnell’s assertions, that I will almost guarantee, member for Macdonnell, that whilst we may have some philosophical difference in respect to this debate, the majority of indigenous organisations, the majority of indigenous councils, the majority of organisations out there in the Territory, black or white, it does not matter, would welcome these moves and not interpret it as an intrusion upon their lifestyle or their capacity to manage at a local level, but as a means to get in to the real world, for organisations to be professional. If you do operate in a professional manner, clearly, governments of whatever persuasion are more likely to treat you in a manner that you deserve. Basically, this is just bringing a whole lot of issues back in to reality and providing a mechanism of support to those councils.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to LGANT. They play a very important role. I believe that they will play an ever-increasing role. I acknowledge members from LGANT in the gallery. The fact that they will not be involved in the assessment of CEOs in partnership with government is a very good move.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments as proposed by the government.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member for Barkly’s final comments because I believe he said them in all sincerity. If anyone looks at this legislation, reads the second reading speech and had discussions and experience of some of the issues that affected bush councils primarily over many years, there is no doubt in my mind that there are aspects of this legislation that certainly go to giving a sense of professionalism and realisation that under the old American adage, government by the people for the people has to be transparent and proper.
There is no doubt that there have been instances in the past, of which we are all aware, in particular councils that really throw that whole notion into question. There are too many deals that have been done under shades of grey that really needed fixing and I applaud LGANT and the government for the work that they have done in fixing those issues.
I read through the second reading speech again today to refresh my memory. If one reads through the second reading speech, the first thing I would say is: ‘You are right, member for Barkly’. If you just read the second reading speech and believe that is what this legislation deals with, you would obviously reach those conclusions, but it doesn’t.
I was looking in the second reading speech for the explanation from the minister as to why he has now taken upon himself such intrusive powers as to determine the sorts of functions that local government will have in the future and also set the standards for those functions himself for the future and, at a whim of the minister, decide that he will impose new functions or remove functions from councils.
That is the major issue in this legislation. It has not to do with what the CEO may or may not do, important as that may be. It has not to do with technical issues as to whether or not a member declares a conflict of interest in some aspects of debate in local government. Important though those things are, the second reading speech goes nowhere, and one would have to reach the conclusion and ask the question why the second reading speech in itself provides no explanation as to why the minister has taken upon himself such arbitrary and intrusive powers.
Member for Barkly, you said that the Local Government Association has worked wholly and completely in the framing of this legislation. I do not know what the visitors to the Chamber think of this, but I would be amazed, stunned, that the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory is aware of the amendment to clause 35 that hit the table this morning. It is nowhere referenced in the second reading speech. It says:
Under the old act, it was the Administrator, after advice from Executive Council only, could declare functions and powers. We now have:
Administrator in relation to a community government council;
or added by the minister under paragraph (a).
This is what is wrong with this legislation: we now have a situation where the act provides explicitly for the minister to act arbitrarily against any council, not a little bush council only: Darwin Council; Palmerston Council; Alice Springs Council; Katherine Council; Tennant Creek Council.
Mr Wood: Do not forget Litchfield.
Mr BURKE: Litchfield Council. There is a council you would have some trouble with, I can tell you. What we have in this legislation, supposedly supported by LGANT, is that arbitrary powers have been given by the minister to set responsibilities, vary responsibilities and, not only that, set standards on those responsibilities. Have a guess what some of them are! Schedule 2 in the current act has a whole list of functions of councils. What has now been inserted is animal welfare. What does animal welfare mean to, say, Palmerston? Animal welfare at Palmerston means you collect the dogs, you impound them, they come and pay for them and you get them out. What could animal welfare mean in the real sense? Animal welfare could mean that all of those issues with regard to the overall welfare of animals are passed from the Northern Territory government down to local government. Mr Ah Kit would not be explaining his horse away to the RSPCA and having to deal with it at some ministerial level; some poor local government would be dealing with that issue with him as the owner of the land.
These are the schedules that LGANT has worked closely with government to have inserted in the new act: animal welfare; communications and broadcasting; marketing and promotion; public safety and security; economic development – there is a doozy; economic development is now a local government responsibility; that is a good one for the minister: ‘We are all for regional economic development. Over to you, Tennant Creek’. You have a good track record there. Ask him how well libraries have been going. Libraries is one of the functions that has been foisted on them and it still has not been sorted out.
A new one is – the member for Arafura would be interested in this: substance abuse prevention and control is now a new function of local government if the minister, at his whim, decides to prescribe it. That will be a doozy. We have had committees running around the Northern Territory for years, all of the resources of government are trying to handle substance abuse and control, and now we have it inserted in the schedule as a possible power to be delegated to local government. Ablution blocks and laundries, that is reasonable. Collection of water, sewerage and electricity charges, as an agent only – cannot give them too much responsibility – adult vocational and other training. Adult vocational and other training! Community employment programs, cinemas, barge landings and wharves. They are the insertions. I do not see any deletions except for zoos.
Mr Wood: I think it has been added in somewhere.
Mr BURKE: Zoos! The member for Barkly would be pleased with that. You do not have to worry about the zoo at Tennant Creek. If the government puts in a zoo at Tennant Creek, do not worry about it; it will not be your responsibility.
Really, the heart of the argument here is that two things have not dawned upon the government. The first is the fact that the second reading speech is totally duplicitous. It makes no reference to the threshold insertion in this Local Government Act and the threshold reason. Whilst the opposition supports many aspects of the legislation, it cannot support these powers being given arbitrarily to a minister, any minister, to act at whim against any local government authority in the way that it is prescribed in this act. It should not be done in the way that it is being done and, frankly, it is treating them more and more like children.
No government, CLP or ALP, has a great record in the past on dealing with local government in many aspects. I do not deny that …
Mr Ah Kit: I am glad you acknowledge that.
Mr BURKE: Yes, I will. It is a new era, though. Importantly today, and proudly, I heard the Leader of the Opposition lay down what should dawn on everyone as a new direction for government. The new direction is this: that government by the people for the people will be a truism. If you put in your second reading speech that we are dealing with the third tier of government, let us do it properly. The Leader of the Opposition has said that immediately upon attaining government, the CLP will move, by plea to the federal parliament, to have the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act amended. That is overdue. It is also a demonstration of the bona fides that will be the first step in making sure that constitutional recognition of local government is a fact of the Northern Territory.
That is a challenge that has been laid down to the Labor Party by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. There is the challenge: do you treat them continually as children; do you want to introduce legislation that is more intrusive, puts the hand around their neck and slowly squeezes it more and more, or do you treat them as mature councils? Obviously, for some of the bush councils, there will have to be a transitional process that may take some time. However, when it comes to municipal councils, let us put our money where our mouth is. The Leader of the Opposition has said how he will do it, that no longer will the department or office of local government, whatever it is called nowadays, act as the supervisor of local government. How it will act is in a supportive and subserving role on a model to be established. Certainly, the resources, the administrative support of the Office of Local Government will work for local government and not for the minister. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. That is the guarantee he has given in a new policy statement for the CLP in the future.
One thing that the large councils can take from his words is: immediately, they will be treated legitimately as the third tier of government in Australia, and particularly as the second tier in the Northern Territory; resourced properly, funded properly, structured so that they are more and more autonomous and, as the member for Macdonnell said, not under the current situation where they have to come cap in hand with the begging bowl, hoping that they would get some minister’s attention. More often than not, they get a minder.
I know in the case of Palmerston Council, under the new minister, they have been up about three times. All you ask for is more information. They want to borrow some money for a library. Does Palmerston Council have the capacity, with all its resources and the expertise and the staff who are there, to borrow money for a library? Ask yourself that question. But no, you have to go to see Dr Burns. They cannot even get to Dr Burns; you have to go to the department first, and the department says: ‘Go away. Go away, we are not giving you any money. We are not going to approve the fact that you can borrow for a library’. So cap in hand they come to the minister: ‘Mmm, go away and do some more work. Come back and see me again’.
That is the situation with local government in the Northern Territory. No wonder they have been pleading for more responsibility. Those pleas have been unheard. However, you see the new statement and new challenge laid down today.
Mr Henderson: What about planning? Give that to the local government?
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri says: ‘What about planning?’ Well, that is what the Labor Party has been saying for years. ‘What about planning?’ What about planning? Let’s give local government more planning responsibilities’. As soon as they get into government they say: ‘No way. No way’.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Isn’t amazing? It’s amazing how the worm turns.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri, order!
Mr BURKE: It is amazing how the worm turns. This is, what? This bill has been two or three years in the making and the most you can come up with is a few measly statements as to why a person should absent themselves from a meeting and defining a few powers for CEOs, important though a few of them are in elections, etcetera, in bush councils. But, at the end of the day, the important clause in this bill is: we want more power. Not only that, we don’t like the current situation because it stalls us too much. We want arbitrary, absolute, unconditional power given to the minister. That is what new clause 122A gives and that is why the opposition does not support it.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition is recognised for the challenge that he has laid down, and for his innovative and forward looking policy because it is way overdue in the Northern Territory, and I was pleased to hear his words today.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am pleased to advise that in the gallery this afternoon we have high school students who received state awards from the Rio Tinto Australian Science Olympiad. Present are Amy Colbert, Andy Casseeram, Adam Davis, Joshua Hamil and Cameron McDonald from St Phillip’s in Alice Springs; Steven Highet and Rebecca McLellan of Katherine High School; Sarah-Jane Matthews of Kormilda College; and Cassandra Pearce of Casuarina Secondary College. The students are accompanied by Cathy Highet and Cath Nixon. On behalf of all members, I congratulate you on your achievement and extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this day on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate the support in principle from most contributors to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that this bill is similar to proposals developed under the carriage of this portfolio by a number of previous ministers, including yourself and the members for Greatorex, Daly and the former member for Karama. Most of these changes had their beginnings in the policy work done at the time the former CLP government started its reform and development agenda. That policy review process engaged departmental officers, LGANT and individual councils in a very thorough process of discussion and debate.
These amendments have had a long gestation period. Because of the delays experienced in presenting the amendments, a number of additional changes have been identified by some members and councils as being necessary. Most of the new proposals relate to new initiatives or policy issues, and I am not proposing that they be accepted at this time.
I believe, however, that there are some that should be considered further. I have asked my department to take them into account in discussions proposed to be commenced within the next six months. These discussions will centre on a further series of amendments that would appear likely to be required to provide for full implementation of the government’s Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy.
While the bill contains a variety of amendments, the overall aim and intent of the current Local Government Act is not changed. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, a number of the proposals contained in the bill are designed to reduce or minimise the legal differences between municipal councils and community government councils.
The member for Nelson has indicated that he would like to see these differences reduced even further or removed altogether. While I understand and agree with some of the principles that underpin the member for Nelson’s philosophical position, I do not share it. It is simply neither practical nor feasible in the Territory to try to achieve a one-size-fits-all solution. Differences in culture provide differences in view about what structures will be considered legitimate. Unless our structures are considered to be legitimate by the people being governed, the structures will be ineffective. We must achieve flexibility and balance it with requirements of transparency and accountability.
The member for Nelson has also expressed concerns in the past that the word ‘council’ may not be used as part of a title of a council established under the act. Whilst ‘council’ is used to refer to local governing bodies, the terminology is not used exclusively to refer to local governing bodies, and is commonly used by other bodies, such as church councils, ministerial councils, ATSIC regional councils, land councils and many other bodies convened for consultation, deliberation or advice. Flexibility is required for the naming of new councils established under the act and, in particular, with the naming of regional authorities, as I set out in my ministerial statement on the Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy on 14 May last year. The changes will allow the minister to settle on a title after proper discussions and negotiations with the people who will operate under that title.
Some concerns have also been expressed about the provisions that define the roles of presiding members, elected members and the CEO of the councils. There are no provisions in the current act that clearly define the role of the presiding member, elected members or the CEO of a council. In the interests of transparency and accountability of local government councils to their community, it has been found necessary to include these provisions for the information and clarity of all concerned, and to ensure proper accountability by councils. A proper balance must be struck between the roles of elected members and those of officers and employees of the council, and the provisions concerned achieve this. These provisions will apply to both municipal and community government councils.
An issue that has been raised by some members opposite relates to the provision that allows the minister to declare the core functions of a council. While there are some excellent councils in the Territory, there are also councils that fail to deliver even basic services to their constituents. At present, the act does not allow for ministerial intervention, even when there are no services at all being delivered by a council. I make no apology for creating the capacity for this level of intervention. The minister already has considerable power to intervene where financial accountability is a problem. A lack of ability to intervene where service delivery accountability is also a problem means that constituents have nowhere to go when a council fails in its duties. Clearly, constituents can wait until the next election; that can mean a very long wait when the garbage is not being collected and there is no road maintenance whatsoever. The provisions will allow government to establish some core functions - such as roads maintenance and waste management and disposal - to ensure that basic services are being provided to the community. I have given an undertaking to LGANT that there will be consultation before any function is declared a core function.
Performance standards will also be established as outcome standards. The intention is that it would not matter how a council achieves a result, just that it achieves it. The member for Brennan became a little carried away on this point. He has interpreted the power to include functions that a council ‘may carry out’ to be a power that the minister ‘may require that a function be carried out’. The changes to section 122(1)(a) that he is complaining about will allow functions to be added to lists already included for community government councils. These changes will allow us to cover all of the functions that councils routinely carry out.
A number of points have been made about this bill allowing greater intervention by a minister in the affairs of a council. It is, of course, always difficult to achieve and maintain the best and most appropriate balance between the need to give local governments the power to do their job, and the need to ensure that they do it properly. On the one hand, we want councils to exercise real power; on the other, we want them to deliver services to their constituents. We have achieved the balance necessary by maintaining the general competence power of councils, the strongest expression of power that can be provided by this Territory government. We have balanced that with provisions that ensure that councils will be more accountable to their constituents.
Transparency and accountability are at the heart of the changes we are making to articulate the roles of members and the CEO, and in creating the capacity to prescribe core functions. On the one hand, we are extending the functions that can be carried out; on the other, we are insisting that they carry out some specific core functions. Let us not forget that councils expend considerable resources. They receive a total of $42m each year through my portfolio, additional money from a range of other portfolio areas and, of course, from the Commonwealth government. Clearly, transparency and accountability to constituents and funding agencies is a priority.
The member for Brennan took the opportunity to criticise LGANT for not objecting to amendments being proposed. LGANT is a professional organisation, which is prepared to talk and negotiate with government. When LGANT disagrees with us, and they sometimes do, they have no difficulty saying so; when something makes sense, they support it.
Concerns have also been expressed about the provision that sets the employment principles to be observed by councils. Whilst councils are expected to generally follow human resource management principles practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelt out for councils in the current act. The proposed new section 143A will correct this deficiency.
In addition, concern was also expressed with the wording ‘or other ground’ in section 143A(2)(h). Basically, the provision ensures that a CEO is responsible for upholding the law, and that there is no unlawful discrimination against officers or employees or persons seeking employment with the council. It provides a status quo. However, it may not necessarily be unlawful to dismiss someone or not to employ someone who has a criminal history that is of relevance to the position or council. Whilst section 143A(2)(h) lists the most obvious or common forms of discrimination, it is not intended to cover all forms of discrimination now or in the future. Therefore, the words are necessary to ensure that the provision covers any other or future situation.
The member for Macdonnell raised a question as to what would happen if all the members of a council decided to dissolve the council. While it is possible for a council to so resolve, only the minister has the power to abolish a municipal council pursuant to section 30 of the Local Government Act. Only the Administrator can repeal a Community Government Scheme pursuant to section 265 of the act on the advice of the minister. Clearly, a council cannot dissolve itself of its own motion.
This series of amendments have been a while coming. They tidy up the act in a number of important areas and they make some changes that are important. As I noted earlier, there will be discussions about further changes starting within the next six months to carry through changes announced in the Building Stronger Regions Future strategy. These will set up a framework that will take local government in the Territory to a new and more significant level of power and responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that the proposed amendments support the overall aims and objectives of the Local Government Act. Whilst comments on some aspects of the proposed amendments were received from LGANT and some councils, generally good support for the proposed amendments has been received. I thank honourable members for their comments and support for the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Local Government Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 176), together with Schedule of Amendments No 57 circulated by the Minister for Local Government, Mr Ah Kit, and Schedule of Amendments No 62 circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.1, which amends the definition of the CEO in paragraph (b) of clause 4 by amending an incorrect reference in the definition of CEO. The definition of CEO is amended by omitting the incorrect reference in the definition of CEO, that is section 142(1)(a) and substituting the correct reference, which is 142(1).
Mr ELFERINK: That is just a straight typo, I take it.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.2, which amends the definition of Deputy CEO in paragraph (b) of clause 4 by amending an incorrect reference in the definition of Deputy CEO, that is section 142(1)(b), and substituting the correct reference, that is 142(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.1.
Some people might say that this is being pedantic and that it should not matter whether you call a local government council by any name, but there is a fairly important distinction to be made here. Local government is about councils, meaning duly elected bodies representing their constituents. If you read a dictionary definition of ‘local government’:
It is a generic name, whereas ‘council’ means:
It also can be:
It is important that the name be retained. You have to remember that when the minister gave his second reading speech, he was specifically relating this change to the issue of Tiwi Islands local government. The Tiwi Islands organisation is not a local government; it is a local government council. In fact, I believe its name officially in the records has the word ‘council’ attached, but it is not used in the public arena.
The idea of having a local government association in the Northern Territory and then having one of these councils calling itself the Tiwi Islands Local Government will give you the impression that there is local government for the Northern Territory and there is local government for Bathurst and Melville Islands, and that is not the case. There is local government for the whole of the Northern Territory, which is made up of a series of councils. Whether you want to call them the left-handed council, the right-handed council, the back-footed council or whatever does not worry me in the slightest, but the word ‘council’ tells people who live in those areas that they have an elected local administrative body looking after their welfare.
‘Council’ itself means a group of people getting together to discuss issues. That word itself is important. ‘Authority’ is not a council. You have the Swimming Pool Authority; that is not democratic - well, sorry. What I am saying is that it is not an elected body of people. You have regional authorities and they are groups of councils that get together and discuss regional roads or tourist matters. They are not a council.
It is important that we retain some basic names that should be seen by people for what they are. Local government is a generic name for the third tier of government; a council, regardless of the words preceding the name, is the body of elected people who make up local government. If the government wants to introduce a fourth tier of government, let us look as authorities as a separate issue, but authorities are not necessarily local government councils.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, whilst I understand what the member for Nelson is arguing, I made the comment in my reply in debate just a while ago, and I will refer to it once again because it is not that the word ‘council’ needs to be retained across the board.
The Tiwi Islands Local Government, as we understood it, from the early days, and I think it was then under minister Lim, had a number proposed names. One was the Tiwi Regional Assembly, Tiwi Islands Regional Authority. They ended up with Tiwi Islands Local Government Council. It is up to the Tiwi people how they refer to themselves. Most of them, as I understand it in my discussions with them, talked about TILG, Tiwi Islands Local Government.
As you drive throughout Queensland, as with other states and territories, not so much the ACT but other states, you drive through shires. I want to make the point on behalf of our government in discussions that we are having and now, with the advent of Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy, that we really owe it to the people who are going to live under this body that they have the flexibility to name it appropriately as they wish, as long as, at the end of the day, they are able to work together, to share resources and information, to look at economies of scale and deliver valuable services. That is what we were aiming for. I believe we are being too restrictive in going along with what is being proposed by the member for Nelson.
The proposed amendment to clause 5 of the bill is not supported. The proposed amendment, as it stands, provides the capacity for titles other than those currently specified in section 5 of the act. That is, as I said earlier, city council, town council, shire council or community government council to be used as part of the title of a council established under the act. Whilst ‘council’ is used to refer to local governing bodies, the terminology is not used exclusively to refer to them and is commonly used by other bodies, such as church councils, ministerial councils, ATSIC regional councils and many others convened for consultation, deliberation or advice.
As I said, flexibility is required for the naming of new councils established under the act, and that is what I would like to see happen and the government would like to maintain that flexibility, which is why I choose not to support the amendment proposed by the member for Nelson – reluctantly.
Mr WOOD: Well, we must fight on. Minister, what is your definition of ‘local government’? That is the name the Tiwi Islands use. What is that, as it is?
Mr AH KIT: I have made my explanation to you quite clear. We can be here for many hours and we can go to and fro. What we need to establish from the outset – and it is not that I have not given consideration to your proposed amendments, and I am glad to be able to adopt at least one of them – but we have fundamental philosophical differences. I understand and respect your experience in working as a former town clerk of the Bathurst or Nguiu Council.
Mr Wood: Shire council.
Mr AH KIT: Shire, shire - and your experience with Litchfield Shire, etcetera. We have consulted. This has been happening for five years. The feedback has not been: ‘We are adamant that we must have the word “council”’. The people we have consulted through LGANT and the other councils are quite happy to allow that flexibility.
If you are saying: ‘Councils in the bush under the Community Government Council Scheme must be brought into line with the Palmerston and Darwin City Councils’, that is something that we can all, hopefully, achieve one day in our time. At the moment, we need to build capacity and to work together. It would be so onerous to say to Lajamanu: ‘You need to have a system in place similar to Palmerston or Katherine Town Council’. One day we would like to see that, but it is a fair way off.
As I explained this morning, we have the situation where there are a lot of community government councils out there that we need to work with to start turning it around in the bush. We saw what happened with a particular community out at south-east Arnhem Land. There are others that we are monitoring to make sure that they do not go off the rails. That is a big task.
However, to restrict their capacity to provide a title is minor in regards to where we end up because, at the end of the day, we have Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures and councils, through these amendments and future amendments of the Local Government Act, are going to be able to recruit good CEOs, have the ability to share resources, to work as a region and independently move their community forward. That is the result we are seeking. We should not debate for hours about a particular council title.
Mr WOOD: I understand that you would not want to labour this for a long time, minister, although I have waited a long time to debate it. In fact, it was on the Notice Paper for many, many months. I did not come here to debate it in a frivolous manner; it is important that the government sets some parameters. It is not about whether Yirrkala becomes the same as Palmerston Council; it just tells people of the Northern Territory that they have a council under local government. You said in your second reading speech:
However, one of the main reasons it came in to being is because no one - and I am not sure it was your government – took some leadership to say: ‘We are quite happy to have any name you like. However, as you can see in section 5 of the Local Government Act, ‘council’ is used behind every other name’. One would presume that when you put:
Obviously, you were not going to allow ‘city, town, shire, community government’; you were going to allow something else, but you would have put the word ‘council’ at the end of that as well.
Therefore, I understand that you may think it is pedantic, but it makes the clear distinction that Tiwi Islands Local Government is not ‘local government’, it is a council of local government. That is the problem with the name and that is why you need to make that distinction.
I do not know whether anyone else wants to speak on that matter. Obviously, minister, as you said, you are not going to accept that.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.2. For people who do not have it before them, the section says:
That is a common phrase through the act. Here we are referring to some restrictions on who can be a member of a council. Those restrictions, according to this act, can be overridden if it is written within a community government constitution. There is very good reason for it being there, but I do not believe that they should be written into a constitution and that is why I have asked for the words ‘despite anything to the contrary’ because, minister, we are changing the act to upgrade it from what has been in existence, you might say, as a trial act. As I said earlier today, the long title of this act is:
Minister, this is one of those core principles, so I am asking in this case that the amendment ‘despite anything to the contrary’ stays in and, without debating the next section, there is there the out, that the minister still can make an approval over and above that. It is not saying that it is not possible for it to happen because you still have the power to make a decision in a specific case, but it is saying that it should not be in a community government constitution and, if it is, then the act will override it.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, this amendment to the proposed new sections 9A(3) and 9A(4) and to substitute a new section 9A(3), simply states that the minister’s approval for an officer or employee to be a member of council should only be in a specific case. Whilst this may be appropriate in most cases, some flexibility is required to allow consideration for some future special instance. The amendment proposed by the member for Nelson is therefore not supported. However, we can get there in a roundabout way if the member for Nelson supports my amendment 57.3.
As a preamble of subsection 9A(1) provided an exemption …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Just one moment. For clarification, in commenting on your proposed amendment, the minister may explain his proposed amendment that we will deal with next in the context of his answer to your amendment. But we will deal with your amendment first.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I am just wondering whether we have drifted from …
Mr AH KIT: Could I, Madam Deputy Chair, just clarify?
Mr WOOD: Amendment 62.2 was what we were really debating.
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I think we have moved into the 62 point …
Mr AH KIT: Sorry, member for Nelson. Madam Deputy Chair, if I could just clarify: in regards to amendment 62.2, clause 9, the amendment to proposed section 9A(1) is not necessary as a result of my proposed amendment 57.3. I agree with the member for Nelson that the provision should apply to all councils.
Mr WOOD: Yes, minister, but to clarify that, you need that amendment at the top, because, from my reading of it, you would have one section saying one thing and the next section saying something else. I do not know whether they are complementary; I think they might be at odds because one will say, and I will read section 9A(1), according to your changes, you would have:
which I am saying should not be there. Are you scrapping that all together? Are you getting rid of section 9A(1) totally?
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 9A(1): omit the whole subsection.
Mr AH KIT: My amendment 57.3 seeks to substitute the following subsection:
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I have to introduce the next section. I am asking whether that would only be given for a specific case. Are you saying that you are not giving a general approval here; you would look at each case on its merit?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, that is right.
Mr WOOD: All right.
Mr ELFERINK: For the purposes of clarifying – and I am trying to follow this as closely as I can because I am bouncing the two proposed clause 9 amendments from each other – I ask that the minister makes clear the intent of his proposed amendment 57.3 and how it affects the operation of the rest of the subsection. I am sure he has notes there and it may help to have 57.3, 62.2 and 62.3 heard together for the sake of expediency. Perhaps the member for Nelson would agree, but I think an explanation by the minister as to what he is intending to do might solve some…
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: May I propose how we could deal with it? We are ostensibly dealing with the member for Nelson’s proposed amendment. If that is negatived, we then would move to 57.3. Regarding the logic and the abilities of Hansard, I would prefer to keep on the path we are currently on.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I will wait for an explanation from the minister when he is ready.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Sure.
Amendment negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, for the sake of clarification, is my reading of it that because 62.2 was negatived, 62.3 is also.
Mr WOOD: We are on to 57.3 now?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I follow that.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We will deal with 57.3 and then we will move to your 62.3.
Mr WOOD: No, that…
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It falls with 62.2.
Mr WOOD: I see what you mean. Let us see where we go with 57.3.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.3, which proposes to omit subsection (1) and substitute a new subsection.
As the preamble of subsection 9A(1) provided an exemption from the application of this provision to a community government council where its constitution allowed an employee to also be a member of the council, this was not the original intention. It was proposed that the provision would apply to all councils. Subsection 9A(1)(a) has therefore been amended to ensure that an officer or employee cannot be a member of council. Section 9A(1)(b) is included so that the application of the provision does not apply to a person who is a member of council and also an officer or employee. That is, at the time these proposed amendments become law.
The word ‘becomes’ in section 9A1(b) has future connotations, which means it does not apply to current situations. That is, the provision does not have retrospective effect on any person who is currently a member and an officer or employee. However, at the expiry of the person’s current term of office as a member of a council, the provision will apply to prevent the person from standing again for election without the approval of the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: That was pretty much the way I read it, however, I seek some guidance from the minister in relation to this. I presume that when you are talking about omitting the whole subsection, it also includes subsections (a) and (b), then in the bill before the House, the final words ‘without approval in writing from the minister’ appear in the bill itself. I presume from this that the minister is intending to remove those words from subsection (1) as well and, if that is the case, the substituted subsection (1) reads as an absolute. The minister has no discretionary power to then move on to subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the bill. Am I reading that correctly, minister? Or is there a mechanism in place whereby you can still give some sort of approval?
Mr AH KIT: No. It is explanatory in 57.3 with: ‘(1) Unless approved by the minister in writing …’ Okay?
Mr ELFERINK. Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, do you still propose to move 62.3?
Mr WOOD: Yes, thank you. I move amendment 62.3, which relates to section 9A(3) of the act. The act says that the minister’s approval under subsection (2), where he gives permission for someone to hold office, may be given generally or for a specific case.
My understanding of the word ‘generally’ is that it is too broad and leaves it open for councils to be allowed to approve people who hold office all the time. By just allowing for special cases, this stops over-use of the clause. I would be interested to hear how the minister interprets ‘generally’ in this clause.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment to omit proposed new sections 9A(3) and (4) and to substitute a new section 9A(3) that simply says the minister’s approval for an officer or an employee to be a member of council should only be in a specific case. Whilst this may be appropriate in most cases, some flexibility is required to allow consideration for some future special instance. The amendment by the member for Nelson is therefore not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, can you give me an example of when you would need to give approval ‘generally’?
Mr AH KIT: Yes. If we could give you examples, member for Nelson, we would have them covered in the act. We want to ensure that we do not restrict and limit ourselves and that we provide for instances in the future, which is exactly what I explained not so long ago.
Mr WOOD: That might be true, minister, but the reason we are trying to maintain some specificity in this section is to make sure it is not abused. Normally, you could not be an employee of a council. That is the normal process throughout Australia. However, we are recognising that there are difficulties, especially in community governments. It has always been recognised that there are difficulties. Therefore, we should make sure that this section of the act is as tight as possible. In other words, this is the exception to the rule.
By using the world ‘generally’, you are making it too flexible. If a person has a specific need to be on a council, then it should be a case-by-case decision by yourself where we can see in a transparent manner why you have approved it.
By adopting my amendment, you are, once again, maintaining the principles I spoke about before: something that is not normal and we accept the reasons why, but we are making sure that there cannot be any abuse of that extra power. I hope, minister, you will support the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Very briefly, Madam Deputy Chair, the opposition concurs with the position of the member for Nelson on this issue.
This is basically the equivalent of what would be considered, at our level of government, a separation of powers issue. I understand the flexibility needed from time to time to allow it to happen on a community level, but specific attention will have to be given by the minister to particular situations when this occurs. I am sympathetic to the member for Nelson’s position on this.
Mr AH KIT: I understand the member for Nelson’s concern, but I did say in my closing of the second reading that under Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, we have already had a situation where, through LGANT and councils, new initiatives that they believe should be picked up in the act have been proposed. They will come before us, no doubt, later on in the year.
I said that within the next six months, I certainly hope that we will be discussing, as we continuously do, with the councils throughout the Territory and their representative bodies, any new ideas or thoughts that they feel could strengthen the act to allow them a lot more flexibility in the way they are able to conduct the business of their council. We are quite happy to sit down and talk to them about those.
I predicted that there will be further amendments coming up later on in the year. We will have to go through the consultation stage. I am saying to the member for Nelson that I am not going to support your amendment. Allow me that flexibility. If we see problems, we will monitor it and we can report back later in the year on whether I was right in building in that flexibility or you were right in saying we should tighten it up.
Mr WOOD: I am happy to hear that, minister. I will probably still disagree with you, but I am happy to hear what happens. Then one of us can say: ‘I told you so’, but yes, we will go for it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.4. Section 11 in the existing act is referred to as clause 12 in the Local Government Amendment Bill. The section I am referring to says that the office of a member of a council becomes vacant where the member, except as otherwise provided by a community government constitution, is absent without leave of the council from all meetings of the council, disregarding committee meetings, held during a continuous period of three months.
Once again, minister, I refer to those core democratic principles that it should be the requirement, surely, of an elected person to attend meetings of the council. Generally speaker, as you know, in local government councils, if you do not turn up for three meetings, you are out. Part of the reason it is there to make sure that local …
Mr Stirling: We have that rule here. It is the same rule in here.
Mr WOOD: That is right, and I will add that to my arguments for this. Built into these community government constitutions is a rule that you may not have to do it. Again, trying to stick with those core principles of democracy, people should expect their councillors, no matter where they come from, to attend council meetings otherwise they should not have stood in the first place. They should know they are the rules and if they cannot stick to those rules, do not even nominate to stand for election.
Once again, I am moving a clause that uses a phrase you will hear me say a few times and I am saying it should apply to all councillors. Anyone who takes on this job must be responsible, must turn up, must represent their people. It is not just about a matter of good governance, it is about the people they represent getting the best deal. The amendments I propose would do exactly that.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment to paragraph (a) of clause 12 of the bill to amend section 11 of the act is not supported. Section 11(1)(c) of the act states that the office of the member becomes vacant if the member is absent without leave for all council meetings held during a three month period. Section 11 is being amended to make it clear that the meetings referred to are council meetings and not committee meetings of the council.
It has been found that some members are attending committee meetings of council, but are failing to turn up for council meetings. This makes it difficult to establish a quorum for a meeting and to conduct council business in a professional and timely manner. It is not the government’s intention to force its will onto councils, but to allow some flexibility to continue, particularly where there is provision made in a current community government constitution concerning attendance at council meetings. As constitutions are amended or new constitutions are commenced, this issue will be looked at closely to ensure that members are required to attend meetings of council on a regular basis. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: I can imagine if this was in the constitution of Litchfield Shire Council. If we were allowed to have some of the amendments that are proposed, such as you only had to have one meeting every two months, that means that a councillor could miss nearly half a year of meetings and still belong to the council. Governments have a duty to make sure that the principles they lay down for local government are good principles based on, again, trying to maintain the democratic focus of what local government is about.
Some people might say that this is airy fairy stuff, but it is not. We have a danger of setting in place systems that will become habitual and will be extremely hard to move away from. Some of the systems that we have in place at the moment leave local governments open to abuse of power. We see in other countries where systems are not in place, where certain family members have more power than other family members. I do not believe that we should risk that occurring in some of our communities.
We have had a broad set of rules for community government councils, and one could argue that was put in place as a sweetener because we know that people will find these changes difficult. Here is an opportunity where we are amending the Local Government Act to bring things in line not because I want to be the same as Palmerston Council or Litchfield Shire Council, but I want those guiding principles to be exactly the same for all people, not whether they are black or white, but for all people, not whether it is the Westminster system, but the people who elect me do so according to due process and I am comfortable with that.
Here you have a system where you are basically not encouraging people who are elected to do their job by allowing that to continue in a constitution. Here is an opportunity for the government to say: ‘Okay, we’ve had that period of time where you had that in your constitution, but now you are becoming more professional. You are dealing with more issues…’ – we are talking about taking on more functions – ‘…therefore, the professionalism of your council, the democratic principles of your council are extremely important and you will have to attend council meetings, otherwise you will lose your job’. As I said, if you read on further, where there are amendments with which I do not agree, that some councils may only have to have a meeting once every two months, then you may not see a councillor for six months. That is a regressive step, not a progressive one.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Deputy Chair, I have listened fairly closely to the member’s arguments and an ideal world, you would have nothing but support for them, but we live far from an ideal world. The dichotomy of debate is interesting because in the second reading debate, the member for Brennan was saying: ‘Here’s the big black hand of government and the minister all over this controlling councils and what they can and cannot do’, yet during this debate, I have heard the minister argue the need for flexibility in the arrangements and in the amendments, particularly as they have to apply across the board.
What I am saying is here, I would see operations that are vaguely familiar with the operations of community government councils in my electorate such as Yirrkala, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku. They would have some prescription around this in their constitution. If we were to go the way you are suggesting, we would overriding those constitutional clauses at that local level and that would be the big hand of government sitting right on top of community government councils and prescribing something that works very well for Palmerston and Darwin City Councils, but would not be very effective at, say, Galiwinku where perhaps as much as a third of the population could be attending a ceremony at a neighbouring community and there is a need for a council meeting. Those sorts of things could conceivably occur and clash with meetings in a community to the point where you would simply be scrubbing out membership.
We have a long way to go in terms of where you would want to be and where we would want to be as a government. We have to face the facts and reality of the bush and the way community government councils operate.
Whilst I recognise and have empathy with your argument, you must have the flexibility to allow these organisations to function at all at this stage of their development, if I could put it like that. The whole idea of councils serving the people and the concepts that we take for granted are not always as clearly understood in the bush as we would like to think they are. There is a fair way to go to reach the ideal world where you would have it prescriptively in the act so everyone would have to comply or else they are off. Whilst I hear what you are saying, we have to err on the side of flexibility, as the minister argued.
Mr WOOD: I agree in general with what you are saying, minister, but you will note that in that section of the act it says:
… without leave of the council.
No one gets sacked from a council if they have given an apology. The issue is: how much do you care for your council that you cannot even be bother to give an apology? That is what is bad. By all means, there will be funerals, floods and business matters that people have to consider, but everywhere says that you can do that, as long as you have leave of the council, but this says you don’t require the leave of council. That is a bad habit to get in to.
I take your comments about the black hand leading local government. Perhaps you would not need this if, say, the principles had been better implanted into the original concepts of local government. We set up a third tier of government through this parliament. I was always told that local government was a servant of this parliament. This parliament is the one that sets up the structure, the core, and that core needs to be stable, and the flexibility that operates around that it is a different matter. I do not believe the core itself should be as flexible as what is being proposed today.
I am trying to bring more similarity to what was flexible, as I have repeated, is in the long title of this act. I do not believe my changes do any more than put a bit of pressure on people to say: ‘Excuse me, I cannot come to the meeting tonight’, because that is really what it is all about.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.5. The reason I propose this is, again, I do not think it is needed. Section 11(1)(d) of the existing act says an office of a member of a council becomes vacant when the member fails to complete a prescribed declaration in section 10, or lodge it with the – your proposed amendment is - with the CEO, or if there is no CEO, a person nominated by the council before the expiration or three months after the election or appointment as a member. I believe that if a person cannot get their act together and fill in the prescribed declaration three months after they have been elected, they are going to be a great councillor. I would say: too bad. What your amendment says is that even if they have failed to do that, I have the power to override that and fix the problem. I know that this might have occurred in our briefing to specific problems that occurred with councils some years ago. That may be well and good. However, we are moving on and becoming more professional. If people want to work on councils, surely they make the effort to find out what they have to do, and if they have three months; I wonder how many meetings they attended in that time yet had not completed the prescribed declaration form. There is a bit of hand-holding stuff here. The act allows plenty of time for people to do what they need to do, and if they cannot be bothered, perhaps the community needs someone else.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment to omit paragraph (c) from clause 12 of the bill relies on proposed amendment 62.4 being supported. As amendment 62.4 was not supported, it is not necessary to omit new section 12(1)(a) as proposed by the member for Nelson in amendment 62.5.
New section 12(1)(a) has been added to provide some flexibility where the declaration required under section 10 of the act has not been made within the required time. The new section will allow the minister to override an automatic vacancy in the office of the member should the circumstances be justified.
The new section allows an extension of time to be granted to lodge the required declaration. This would overcome the necessity to hold a by-election to fill a vacancy and could also validate the actions of council for those members who have failed to make declarations unwittingly. The amendment is not supported.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendment schedule we received this morning deals, to some extent, with this clause. My concern about that amendment is that it says:
The word ‘nominated’ could mean anything and if a party decided to endorse and announce someone three months before the election, they would have to resign. I am presuming that what I was after, which is not quite the same, is covered in (2) of the proposed amendment, which says:
I ask for the minister’s explanation and if his explanation is satisfactory, I will invite defeat of my proposed amendment. However, I am presuming (2) means that if you want to nominate for the House of Representative or the Legislative Assembly, your resignation will not take effect until one month before the date on which the nominations for the election are to close. That might be all right for a municipal council because you would know when the election was to be held, but how would you know what is one month before a community government council election, which is flexible?
Mr WOOD: Minister, I was not particularly worried about that. I was trying to get an explanation of (2) because my clause may be overridden by your proposed clause 13A(2). I was not going to debate my amendment; I was going to see if yours would do the same job. Then I was going to ask how (2) works for a community government council, which does not always have a set date on which it is going to have its election.
Mr STIRLING: But it is not the council election, it is the Assembly or Reps election.
Mr WOOD: We do not know when that is going to be, either.
Mr STIRLING: That is true. But it is not the council election that is the question, it is the …
Mr WOOD: Yes, I may be reading it incorrectly.
Mr STIRLING: No. They know when the nominations date is.
Mr WOOD: You will not know when nominations for the election close until you know the date of the election.
Mr AH KIT: Sorry, member for Nelson, I am not quite with you on what …
Mr WOOD: What I was trying to do …
Mr AH KIT: Could you just explain again, thanks?
Mr WOOD: Yes. The reason my amendment is there was to make sure that no one nominated themselves for a House of Representatives or Senate election, say, six months before the election. When I read your amendment originally, such a person immediately had to resign. It did not give a date. You have to go to the principal act because the bit that everyone crossed out is the bit I reckon that you should have kept. It was very specific and said:
So there was a specific time at which a person had to resign because it is fairly important. It could become fairly messy if someone nominated and the council found themselves without that person or a replacement because this is not exact enough.
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, your concern is about resignation. The resignation, as I understand it, does not become formal until the nomination is handed in to the Electoral Office with the nomination fee, if so required. Whilst I understand what you are saying, I can only inform you that the resignation does not have any effect as such until a nomination is actually lodged.
Mr WOOD: It may be a ‘suck it and see’ situation, but I hope someone does not get caught because the words ‘nominated for election’ are a fairly broad term.
Mr STIRLING: I was misreading it exactly along the lines that you were. When you take it and you look at it the other way: ‘to take effect more than one month before the date on which nominations for the election are to close’, it does not matter. It does not matter that you do not know the date. However, when the date is known, and this is the point that the member is trying to make, they cannot be called on: ‘You have to go. Your resignation has taken effect’. They have the protection at least that it cannot take effect more than one month before the date on which nominations for the election are to close.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am satisfied with that. I mean, that is where it has been complex and I will just invite defeat.
Amendment negatived.
Proposed new clause 13A:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.4, which inserts proposed new section 13A into the principal act and will allow officers and employees of a council to be reinstated to the council after resigning to contest an election. As announced by the Minister for Local Government in the media on 8 October 2003 and in his second reading speech for the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) on 9 October 2003, the Northern Territory government would consider reforms to allow an officer or an employee of a council to be reinstated after resigning to contest an election.
The Australian Services Union also raised concerns in relation to the ability of council staff to stand for elections. Currently, council officers or employees are not able to submit revocable resignations as is the case for council members and public servants in the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Public Services.
Proposed new section 13A will allow an officer or employee of a council to resign from council to nominate for election to the Legislative Assembly, House of Representatives or Senate. The resignation can only be made within one month of the date on which nominations for an election are to close.
The officer or employee may apply in writing to be reinstated to the position from which they resigned before the election if the person withdraws their consent to be a member of the parliament, if elected, or the person ceases to qualify as a candidate for the election.
Council must reinstate the person as an officer or employee of the council effective on and from the day of receipt of the written application by the CEO of the council. The person should be reinstated at a salary equivalent to the salary the person had before resigning or, if the position has been filled, as near as possible to the position previously had and at a salary as near as possible to the salary that the person previously received.
The amendment is based on the principles contained in proposed section 13 of the Local Government Act concerning members of a council standing for a Territory or federal election, and the principles contained in section 38 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act for reappointment of persons resigning to become candidates at elections and, in particular, in relation to the timing of the resignation, reinstatement and salary conditions and requirements with respect to leave entitlements.
Mr ELFERINK: Very quickly, it is worth placing on the record that the requirements under the Northern Territory Public Sector Employment and Management Act - and I believe the Police Administration Act contains similar provisions - are to avoid a very specific doctrine that operates in the Westminster system: the doctrine of separation of powers.
It is not appropriate for any member of parliament to earn the Queen’s penny and vice versa; it is not appropriate for a person who works for the executive to be an elected official in either the highest or middle sphere of the parliamentary system. It is for that reason that the principles outlined in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the Police Administration Act exist. I am curious to know whether the minister can advise the House as to whether or not that is the thinking behind this proposed section.
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, it maintains that separation, as I just explained.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I ask is whether or not the principle of the doctrine of separation of powers is offended by a person who is an employee of a council standing for either federal or state parliament.
Mr AH KIT: It ensures, member for Macdonell, that they resign before they nominate.
Mr ELFERINK: I will ask the question again. Is the doctrine of separation of powers offended by a person who is an employee of a council standing for either state or federal parliament?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question is the proposed new clause 13A be inserted.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked a question of the minister. I take it by his silence, he is not prepared to answer the question, or …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I understood the minister answered it and chose to remain seated.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, I have answered the question.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you have not. The question is very specific. All I needed to know from the minister is whether or not if an employee of a council who takes a decision to stand for a Territory or federal election offends the doctrine of the separation of powers.
When I was briefed on this and the issue was raised, I was told that it was similar to the provisions contained in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The provisions are similar, but the rationale for those provisions may not be, which is why I am specifically asking the question: does a council employee standing for state or federal parliament offend that separation of powers? Now, if the minister does not want to answer that question, that is fine; that is his business. However, if the minister says he has answered the question, he clearly has not.
Proposed new clause 13A agreed to.
Clause 14:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Amendment 62.7 for you, clause 14.
Mr WOOD: I picked up the wrong set of amendments.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is okay. I have several sets here, too. I fully understand the mistake.
Mr WOOD: We are dealing with clause 14, which is the role of a member, is that correct?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is the one.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. As I said in my opening, I do not believe - and I will speak to the next clause as well so we do not take up extra time - that either clauses 14A or 14B, the role of a presiding member, should be in the act. I have no problem with it being in a guide book for elected members - there it is, beautiful! - but I do have a problem if something goes in to legislation that requires a person to provide leadership and guidance to the community. That is pretty difficult to prove, and some people might not be comfortable making a speech to the common folk about an important matter in the community; they might be there because they want to help. Is someone going to make a judgment on whether they provide leadership and guidance? I do not think so. Further, they must facilitate - I love the word ‘facilitate’ - assist, aid, help communication between the community and the council. These are very broad clauses that should not be in the act.
As I said before, I do not mind when we deal with the CEO. The CEO is not an elected member, and you need to define that role. However, for the role of a member, sure, I have no problem with the department bringing out a list of what they are expected to do, but in the end, they are accountable to the people who elected them. If we get that core function I keep talking about right, then this will take its place. People will make people do their job. It may take some time, but I think that is what will happen.
If I may ask a question while I am on my feet: under 14A(2) as distinct from 14A(1), which says:
Clause 14A(2) says:
Now, doesn’t the member represent the community to direct and control the affairs of the council to ensure the most benefit, effective and efficient allocation to participate in the deliberations of the council? Why is there a distinction between the role of the member as a member of the council and the role of the member as a person elected to represent the community? Surely, the two are the same thing.
Mr AH KIT: The amendment proposes to omit Division 2A from clause 14 of the bill, which relates to two new sections, 14A and 14B, which define the role of member and role of presiding member respectively.
There are no provisions in the current act that define the role of members or the role of a presiding member. It has been necessary to include these provisions for the information and clarity of all concerned, and to ensure proper accountability by councils. There needs to be a balance between the roles of the elected members and the role of officers and employees of the council. This new division will apply to both municipal councils and community government councils.
Proposed new section 14A will define the role of all members of a council. The role specified will make it quite clear how a member should conduct and manage the affairs of council. At no time does a council member have direct authority over an officer or an employee of the council in the performance of their duties.
In the same way, proposed new section 14B will define the role of the presiding member - that is, mayors and presidents, as the case may be – of each council which will be in addition to the role specified for a member. The presiding member will chair all meetings of council, is the principal spokesperson of the council, carry out specific and ceremonial functions of council and any other functions as determined by the council from time to time.
New clauses 14A and 14B are cognate provisions to proposed new sections 142A and 143A, which define the roles of the CEO and the human resource management principles to be observed by the council. It is important that the members and presiding members of council have a clear understanding of their roles. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Notwithstanding clause 14A(3) is a fair clause to include in that section, that a member has no direct authority over an officer or employee of the council, I accept that should stay, if you include this in the act, who makes the judgment and what are the penalties for not complying with this section of the act?
Mr AH KIT: The constituents obviously make the judgment. The penalty will obviously be removal at the next election.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is your act; this is an act of parliament. That is why it should not be there; it should be somewhere else where the people can make that judgment.
Mr AH KIT: It establishes the accountability mechanisms. Member for Nelson, as I said earlier, I understand your experience, but I have been around for some years also. I want to check out the process of your consultation. You may say that you do not need to consult with LGANT or councils and that you, as an Independent member of this Chamber, can question, as is your right, legislation as it passes through the Chamber.
I have had my department conduct consultations and discussions since I have been the minister. This has been going on for five years. LGANT, in the main, as I said in my speech today, supports most of what we are proposing here. I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to consult about this stuff or the shadow minister, member for Macdonnell, but while I understand it is your right and we can stay here until the cows come home - that is not a problem with me – it is frustrating in a way that a situation is developing where very little consultation has happened. My people have been good enough to arrange briefings, and more of those could have been organised. If you have not taken the opportunity to further consult, I do not know why we should continue to play funny buggers for quite some time in the Chamber.
Mr WOOD: May I reply to that?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, please do.
Mr WOOD: I take exception. It is not about my experience in local government, although of course I have a desire to make sure that local government bills are properly debated in this parliament. However, I have discussed this with other councils. I have material from Palmerston Council and Darwin City Council. They do not always agree with LGANT. I was on LGANT and I know that councils do not always agree with them. I have taken some of the matters that they have given me into consideration.
Forget that I am an Independent. I am a member of the Territory parliament. I am not worried about being an Independent. I represent my electorate and I also represent, I hope, the people of the Northern Territory. It is my job to ask you as minister and for you to explain so that I know that you have an understanding of your own act. I am going to put some questions to you that I think are relevant, and I think this is important. I am not doing it to keep you here until the cows come home. I am here because I presume the process of dealing with legislation – and I regard myself still as a newcomer to this place – is to thoroughly go through these bills so we do not have problems down the track and that people know that, as members of this parliament, we are doing our job thoroughly.
I certainly do not want to drag this debate on any longer than it should run, but I take exception to the assertion that I have not been to briefings. I have. Your ministerial advisor will know the history of some of this stuff when I was in local government. It goes way back before I was in parliament. This is the first chance I have had to debate some of these important issues. I am not going to be hurried through it because you have some reasons that I do not believe are valid.
Mr ELFERINK: I also have to place on the record my exception to the minister’s comments. This has been a process that has, by his own statement, taken five years to get to this House. Now it has to be proceeded with at a million miles an hour? I place on the record that I am trying my hardest to keep it short. The reason that I did not pursue the separation of powers stuff is because it does not offend the separation of powers insomuch as I am aware, and the reason that is an issue is: why are we not protecting the jobs of the Plumbers’ Guild or mechanics or anybody else? That is the problem I have with that section. I am thinking to myself: ‘All right, it does not bother me, if that is the way the minister wants to go, then fine. I am not going to argue the point’.
Then to allege that we are prevaricating and trying to waste time, every time I get to my feet I could talk for 10 minutes, and that is not an option I am taking. I am trying my hardest, as I believe is the member for Nelson, to be succinct and to the point. I am not going to sit here and give lectures about the reasons for my questions in relation to things like the separation of powers. I was not being flippant or glib. I could not understand why we were protecting the people of one particular industry but not another. It is not on point so I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
In relation to the matter that the member for Nelson raised, I have a simple question: in the first instance, is a member of a council answerable to you or answerable to their electorate?
Mr AH KIT: To the electorate.
Mr ELFERINK: If you accept that then you must accept that your decision to ask for us to place in your hands a power to limit the role of those members to what you have listed in here is a breach of that concept. If you agree that a member who is elected as a councillor is first and foremost responsible to their electorate, why are you limiting or trying to limit their parameters of operation in this legislation?
Mr AH KIT: All this clause does is simply set out the role of members so that they can be accountable to their constituents.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you have, in other parts of this bill, asked this parliament to give you powers to intervene in councils when they do not adhere to the sections outlined in this act. It is incongruous that you are telling me that in once instance, they are responsible to their electorates first and foremost, and in the second instance, they have to then, as part of their responsibility, fulfil their role as a member as you dictate. It cannot be but supported by you, the member for Nelson’s proposed omission of this division. If you believe that they are responsible to their electorates first and foremost, then this section is prescriptive and therefore invasive on that liberty.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, slowly, the shadow minister is starting to get into full swing. In 1997-98, the annual report of the Department of Housing and Local Government forecast that there would be legislative change. One of those changes under the Department of Housing and Local Government was the introduction of changes to the Local Government Act arising from the reform and development process.
Also, the Department of Local Government annual report Directions for 1999-2000 cited legislative change. Three things, all important: introduce and implement new animal welfare legislation; introduce and implement new legislation relating to swimming pool fencing. You sit there and shake your head. This is stuff your mob was supposed to do.
Mr Elferink: I am shaking my head because you are not answering the question because you can’t. You can’t answer the question. It is very specific.
Mr AH KIT: Let me finish, Madam Deputy Chair, with the third one.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Macdonnell, please do not interrupt the minister.
Mr AH KIT: The third one is: introduce amendments to the Local Government Act. Never acted on any of that. You had carriage of it; you had government; you had three ministers involved. Eighty per cent of the stuff I have picked up is stuff that I am responsible for after all the consultations have been held. Now we sit here and you take issue with this stuff, which is arguing.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You talk about predicaments. You are in an awkward situation there.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Most of this stuff has been supported by your ministers, your government and your former Chief Minister. Yet you now sit on that side and chose to argue against it. I cannot understand your logic.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: No. We have communities out there …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr AH KIT: If you shut up and listen, I might be able to explain. Your government doesn’t have a very good track record over the last 26 years.
Mr Elferink: Attack us, fine; answer the question.
Mr AH KIT: Just shush and I will answer your question. But you have to understand that all these headaches haven’t been created since we won government. What you need to understand is that the situation out there was left in an appalling state right across the Territory. You should be supporting us in trying to turn it around. You spoke about Willowra, which has a history and we are trying to work our way through that.
Mr Elferink: Not very effectively.
Mr AH KIT: Well, what’s your track record? What is your track record? Not a very good one. Now, when we are trying to do something about turning the situation around, introducing Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, getting indigenous economic development stuff happening, looking for more opportunities to get things going in the bush, turning around the health and education stuff, you sit there and criticise. That, I suppose, is how you understand the role of the opposition; to sit there and criticise.
I believe the consultations have been appropriate. Whilst we are going to fundamentally disagree on certain things here, in the main the amendments I am proposing will be satisfactory to most of the councils. As I say, there will be new material on the table and my department and I will be meeting with councils and LGANT to look at further changes to strengthen the act and give them more power.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I am not going to drive this any further. The minister, when trapped, immediately resorts to the automatic self-confessed Idi Amin process of common abuse. That is fine and it is his business. The fact of the matter is that there will continue to operate in this act a potential problem for all future councillors in the Northern Territory. Those who are caught between the rock, which is the minister, and the hard place, which is the responsibility they have to their electorates. As much as the minister wants to yell at me about things over which I have never had any control and matters of history, the fact of the matter is that he is asking for a power to effect a change when a councillor does not perform the way he wants that councillor to perform. His assertion that a person who is a councillor is responsible to their electorate is primary is not consistent with the power that he seeks in this legislation. He has no answer to that. Consequently, the opposition cannot do anything but support the member for Nelson’s proposed amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, may I point out that I believe we have jumped over 57.5 and 57.6.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I was moving to 57.5 now.
Mr WOOD: You are dealing with clause 14?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes. 62.7 has been dealt with. I will come back to 62.8, 62.9 etcetera.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.5. This amendment adds to the preamble of proposed subsection 14A(1) to make it quite clear that a member of council can only exercise authority as a member of the council and not as an individual. That is, the member has no authority to act alone. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.6. As the original wording of clause 14B(c) was confusing, this amendment is a redraft of the clause to make it clear that the other functions of the council specified in the original wording relate to the other necessary activities or responsibilities of the council and not to the functions of the council listed in Schedule 2 of the act.
A council is required to undertake many activities and responsibilities on behalf of its ratepayers as part of its everyday affairs. That is, all of the council’s powers and functions under the act. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: I wonder why that should not be counter-balanced with a definition of what ‘council-related’ means. Can it be so broad that someone could claim that something is council-related? If you are going to include the term, it should be defined. Most people would have said ‘to perform other council functions’, if you were talking broadly, it could be going to have a cup of tea with the old-timers down the road. Normally, we would expect council functions to be a pretty broad brush, but if you are going to use the term ‘council-related’, do you need a definition?
Mr AH KIT: The draftsmen do not believe so, member for Nelson. I know you do not have a lot of faith in them and their ability to put to the right words together …
Mr Wood: Where do you get that from?
Mr AH KIT: … with the intention …
Mr Wood: Look what they did for me! They are pretty good people.
Mr AH KIT: I take your point.
Mr Wood: Okay. They are only human.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Mr Wood to move amendment 62.8.
Mr WOOD: No, we have spoken enough on that one, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Do you invite defeat or do you want us to move on it?
Mr WOOD: Just move it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.9. I have to make sure I find the section here. It is under Division 3, clause 17(1)(b) of the amending bill, which says that an ordinary meeting of community government council can be held at least once in each two-monthly period, so that at least six meetings are held in each financial year.
I could argue that I would like that as a core function of councils – well, not a core function but it is one of those guiding principles of democracy that people attend meetings regularly. However, there is more in that, because there is a practical outcome from having a meeting once a month. Councils deal with business. If a person is owed money, will they have to wait two months before the council has a meeting? It should be left as once a month. I do not see there is any problem with that.
You have all these references to the constitution, and if it says that someone may be excused from a meeting, you do not have to turn up for a meeting. Further on we will deal with technological advances that facilitate presence at meetings. There are enough elements there to allow people to turn up for a meeting once a month. That is 12 meetings a year. Surely, it is not too much to ask members of the council, and that is the very least you would expect as a member of a council, that your councillors made the effort to turn up for one meeting a month to deal with transactions and business and to keep in contact. In a lot of cases, council issues are sometimes daily issues that occur fairly quickly. If you have to wait two months before they are dealt with, I do not believe one is serving one’s community well at all.
I believe this section should be changed, and the amendment that I propose is that an ordinary meeting of a council must be held once in each month. It is as simple as that.
Mr AH KIT: The amendment proposed is to omit clause 17(1) and substitute a new clause 17(1) which simply states that a council must hold a meeting at least once a month. The amendment, yet again, fails to recognise the needs of community government councils. Government will not force councils into meeting monthly at this time, particularly where there is a provision made in a current community government constitution concerning the conduct of ordinary council meetings. New section 17 sets out the minimum requirements for conducting ordinary meetings of council and enables council to transact its business. The proposed amendment is therefore not supported.
Mr WOOD: You are prescribing how many meetings they have anyway. If you accept what you say is correct, that it is not our job to tell councils what to do, why bother including anything? Why not just say: ‘community council shall hold meetings’? You are prescribing there. All I am saying is that your prescription is too slack. You should prescribe at least one meeting a month so residents at least have some faith in their council. Otherwise, as I said, if I accept what you are saying, then you would say: ‘community government councils shall have meetings’ and let them determine it.
Mr AH KIT: I understand what the member for Nelson is saying, but this is a situation where we have to agree to disagree.
Mr WOOD: Then why did you nominate six meetings? If you will not accept my 12, then you must have a reason for including six. What is the reason behind this clause?
Mr AH KIT: It is a minimum, not a maximum.
Mr WOOD: Mine is a minimum of 12. Why did you pick a minimum of six? There must be a reason.
Mr AH KIT: I can assure the member for Nelson that there is nothing sneaky about this.
Mr WOOD: I was not saying that.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you are looking for a reason. Look, I have provided the government’s response, and I suggest we move on.
Amendment negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, with your indulgence, the Chair proposes a five-minute suspension. I am the mother of two children; I can last so long on the Chair. If there be no objection, the committee will suspend for five minutes.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I call to order the committee in session considering the amendments to the Local Government Amendment Bill 2003. The committee has before it Mr Wood to move amendment 62.10.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.10, which refers to clause 19B(1) in the amending bill. This amendment was requested by a number of councils. As I said, I was listening to what the council said as well as LAGNT. This clause provides that a special meeting of the council may be convened by the presiding member or three or more members directing the CEO to summon a special meeting.
Councils have asked that in addition, a council may by resolution decide to convene a special meeting to transact business. On that basis, I propose the amendment.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause 19B(1)(a) into the act to allow a council by resolution to decide to convene a special meeting of the council. Under accepted rules of practice for meetings, it is the responsibility of the presiding member to call special meetings. There is provision under proposed clause 19B for the presiding member or three or more members of council to direct the CEO to call a special meeting. The proposed amendment is ambiguous and inconsistent with the new clause 19B and is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, could you explain why you think it is ambiguous? Are you saying that three or more members is the same as having the council convene a special meeting? We are dealing with (1)(a) and (b) and after that, we are seeking to insert a clause to say the council can convene a meeting by its own resolution. You are saying that is ambiguous. What is the ambiguity?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, under proposed amendment 62.10 you are seeking to add to proposed section 19B(1):
Under clause 19 of the bill, notice of meeting of council, you have three days notice of an ordinary meeting and four hours notice of a special meeting, however, that can be convened under clause 19B:
(1) A special meeting of council may be convened by –
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, my proposed amendment 62.11 is consequential to proposed amendment 62.10, which was negatived. That being the case, I withdraw proposed amendment 62.11.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.12, which allows a council to establish a quorum when members are not physically present at a meeting. I heard the member for Barkly talk about local governments coming into the 21st Century. Some may be a bit slower than others, but the issue is whether people are absent or not. Some of that can be overcome simply by making sure there are enough councillors on a council; by people planning. They know that there will be a council meeting every second Wednesday and fourth Wednesday of the month, so councillors who are serious about their job would certainly know when meetings are scheduled and, I presume, would manage their affairs accordingly.
Now, be that as it may, I understand that there will be times when councillors cannot physically be present at meetings. In some of the outback communities, that could be the result of floods, the roads being out or any of those sorts of reasons. However, the danger of clause 19E(3) without any limitations on it is that, in theory, you could have an entire meeting by teleconference. People might ask what is wrong with that My response to that is: ‘Try here. Let us start it off here as a good example. We will run parliament by teleconference’. Would you support that?
Members interjecting.
Mr Henderson: Seconded!
Mr WOOD: Okay, save some money on that. Very good. Yes, I can see the blue sky at home, at least. So it is not good enough for this parliament because we come together as human beings, face-to-face, to deal with issues and that contact is important. What I propose is that, bearing in mind there are some issues, there are some problems that some of these communities have, have a limited amount of technological flexibility, if you want to call it that, to run meetings. What I have done with my amendments is to limit that to two meetings in any period of 12 months. That would allow this so-called new technology, this new amendment proposed by the government, to at least be tested.
Once again, like you changing to one meeting every two months or saying the constitution allows this even though there are times when I do not believe that they should be doing that, we need to ensure that the person council represents is represented well and fairly. It could be that someone out bush on a telephone with the TV going, the kids all running around and the dogs barking is not in the ideal place to be dealing with an issue of who will take the $1.3m contract for the new road development. You know, there are times and places that it may be inappropriate use of that technology.
The amendment I propose basically says: ‘All right, let us try some of this teleconferencing at meetings’, but let us put a limit on it so that people are required at some time, that is, at least for another four meetings if you have only six meetings a year, to come face-to-face and discuss issues. Otherwise you could end up with a farce. If the government really thinks this is the way we should go, as I said before, let us apply it to this House, too, and we can all sit at home and do the deliberations from there.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Chair, appreciating the intent of this amendment from the honourable member, it is a denial of the capacity for technology to facilitate attendance at meetings that people might otherwise not be able to make. If we are looking at increasing participation in council meetings and forums, then the adaptation of technology should be encouraged. I would imagine that most people would want to get to meetings in person. As human beings, we all work better when we have personal interaction.
However, the reality is in this day and age, to deny that technology does facilitate communication to an extent that was unthinkable years ago is really looking backwards, not forwards. There are all sorts of forums - board meetings are held via teleconferencing facilities. As often as I can, I would rather spend time in the Northern Territory instead of personally attending ministerial councils. I do any number of ministerial councils via teleconferencing. It is totally acceptable; you get your point across and participate in the debate without the requirement of being away from home for three days.
Government does not accept this amendment. We do not think technology would be to the detriment of the operation of councils and, in fact, will probably facilitate greater attendance than otherwise occurs.
Mr WOOD: The government is saying that is good for local government; it should therefore be good for us as a parliament. The Chief Minister is away today – sorry; I should not say that, but I am using it as an example and do not intend any denigration …
Mr Stirling: I do not think she looks too good to put her on a video link.
Mr WOOD: I see. That is basically what you are saying: Why isn’t this type of technology …
Mr McAdam: No, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Why not? Why can’t we have it for this parliament? You are saying it is okay for local government. My fear is that if you leave it open-ended, without some controls on it you could have a council that never meets in the council chambers. That is important.
The government does not accept it, from what you have said, Mr Acting Acting Minister for Local Government; I am becoming confused. You need some guidelines on it and my amendment attempts to impose some sensible guidelines, at the same time promoting the notion that local government is about meeting face-to-face so that you can make the best decisions that you can. I will leave it at that.
Mr HENDERSON: Just a further clarification: I am advised that following representation from councils and LGANT, the proposed amendment 57.7 adds new clause 19E(3A) to the bill, which will allow council to decide whether a member could attend a meeting by technological means. Therefore, it would be for individual councils to determine the protocol. The object of this amendment is to facilitate attendance, not limit it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.7. Whilst it was always considered that a council has the right to determine whether a member could attend a meeting by technological means, the proposed amendment makes this quite clear. A member does not have the right to attend a meeting by technological means unless it is approved by the council and the conduct of a member attending a meeting by technological means is in accordance with any procedures determined by council. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: That is fair enough, minister. I understand that. Sometimes when propose changes, I do not do it from the point of view of LGANT; I do it from the point of view of the people they represent. It is not that I disagree that some technological means can help, but I am unsure that by having this clause and the clause you have under 19E(3)(b) that the people represented by the council are protected. They need the best quality council to represent them. They need a situation where the best quality decisions are made.
I do not believe that by allowing a council to have open slather on technological meetings that you are going to achieve that result. It is the people who will have a poorer decision-making council representing them if you leave this wide open. Even though that amendment has some limitations, it is only limited inasmuch as if the council passes a resolution that we all have technological conferencing once every two months. Then they can do it, anyway. I am coming from the point of view of what is best for the people whom councils represent.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I understand the member for Nelson’s position, but this is another area where we obviously disagree. I have provided my response. I do not think I can accept what he has proposed, even though I understand it. It is another case of agreeing to disagree.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.13 relating to clause 19E, which says that if a community government constitution provides that a member can appoint a proxy to attend the meeting in the member’s place, the proxy is not included for the purpose of establishing a quorum.
I do not believe you should have proxies for council meetings. Having a proxy dilutes a council. You should have enough people on the council to ensure you have a quorum. Do not use this as method of getting around not having enough members. The people elect the member, not a proxy. The proxy does not represent the people. Therefore, on a council we should not allow proxy. There is an opportunity to accept my amendment, which says that a member may not appoint a proxy.
I raise the issue that when you start to have teleconferencing and you have someone on the telephone, where do proxies fit there? Will you have: ‘Oh, hang on, my brother here wants to talk, too. I am going out for a while’. It is a pretty loose arrangement if you are not careful. People expect the person to represent them at a council meeting to be their elected representative. Proxies cannot do that.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment is not supported. A number of community government constitutions contain provisions relating to the appointment of proxies and it is not the government’s intention to override these provisions at this time. Many councils have had proxies for quite some time and have become used to the situation to allow them to conduct their meetings. We do not like it, either, but we need to phase it out in a sensible manner rather than knock it on the head very quickly.
Mr WOOD: I am saying that this is the phasing out period. This is the old act. This is the chance to do something. Again, I will harp on it: proxies are not democratic, especially for a council. They are not elected. That is why local government has to have a strong foundation in democracy. If it does not have that, you are wide open for all sorts of interpretations of so-called local government.
By all means, be flexible on the outside, as I said, but these principles have to be steadfast. Here is a chance to fix those things that you admitted yourself, minister, you are not happy with. Somewhere, someone has to bite the bullet, otherwise these things are going to be here forever and a day.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the Local Government Act is across the board for community government councils and municipalities, as the member for Nelson understands. In reality, I would say that there would be very little use of proxies in a municipality meeting situation, but we know from experience that in the community government council scheme, the opportunities to use proxies exists in many councils and they have become used to it.
That is why I point to the remote area community government council scheme type situation and say whilst we are not comfortable with the proxy system and how it operates there, councils in some cases will not be able to have meetings. It allows people who are interested, on behalf of their clan, to attend those meetings, to have input, provide advice and be involved in decision making on behalf of their clan. That continues to operate, but, as I say, we need to monitor and phase it out to have them come in line with municipalities. That is something that I can commit to the member for Nelson and members of this House that we need to monitor.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I accept that. I ask, therefore, how do proxies fit in with clause 14 A, which deals with the role of the member? A proxy is not a member as the person elected to represent the community. Is a proxy outside the requirements of the role of the member?
Mr AH KIT: Through the chair, I am advised that proxies operate as a member. We are now in a situation, member for Nelson, where, once again, I have given my answer. It is not an answer that makes you happy. I said earlier that we will be continually discussing with councils, LGANT and the municipalities - I include them when I mention councils - about further changes to strengthen the act and give more responsibilities to them. I am unable to support your amendment.
We would be best served by monitoring the situation. As I say, in the remote areas, change takes quite some time. Yes, we need to phase this out. I hope that the more Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures takes hold and more responsibility and capacity building occurs that we will be able to do away with the proxy system.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you do not have to keep me happy. I am happy enough as I am. There is a real question mark as to where proxies fit within your act now that you have this role of members there. I have taken on your answer, but there are some real doubts as to how proxies fit within this act, but I will leave it at that, minister.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.14, which is very similar to one of the minister’s proposed amendments. Obviously, mine was drafted by a different person, otherwise we would have pretty much the same words. My 62.5 and the minister’s 57.8 …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we are on 62.14, which is…
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon. No, we are past that.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, we just did 62.13.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: What I propose is that perhaps, given the defeat of 62.13, you invite defeat of 62.14.
Mr WOOD: Yes, sorry. I will put it to the vote.
Motion negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, your comments regarding 62.15 and the drafting people?
Mr WOOD: I ask the minister if he sees any difference between the amendments; is his amendment better than my amendment? They are both about trying to show your hands behind a telephone, which is a bit hard to see in a meeting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It is a comparison between 62.15 and 57.8.
Mr WOOD: Mine relates to 19J(b), the minister’s relates to 19J. They are both about voting when attending by telephone.
Dr Burns: If you were in a caucus, you would know.
Mr WOOD: Ah, but the act specifically says that you must have a show of hands, and I have been trying to work out how you show your hands on the telephone. That is why this amendment has come into being. I ask the minister, is one of these amendments better than the other, or can I get one through myself?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, I believe mine is better.
Mr WOOD: Oh, fair go! A point of order.
Mr AH KIT: It boils down to different styles of drafting. I do not know whether it is right for me to discuss mine while we have the other one sitting there, or if I were to do that, then the member may …
Mr WOOD: I will put mine up for the vote then, minister. Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.15.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.8. If a member is participating in a council meeting by telephone or teleconferencing, etcetera, as provided under proposed new clause 19E, it will not be possible for the member to vote by a show of hands. Amendment 57.8 proposes to insert new clause 19J(2), which will allow the member to voice a vote in these situations. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: I will say one thing: it is funny how we talk about being culturally appropriate, yet we have told them to say yes or no. So if they say qua, we cannot count that. This is specific: it is a yes or no, but a minor point, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw proposed amendment 52.16, Madam Deputy Chair. That was part of the controls over the misuse of technology so we did not have random technology occurring all over the country.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.17. I have to refer to the act for this. Madam Deputy Chair, I am having trouble finding which part. I might need some help there.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Clause 30, amendment 62.17 ‘after paragraph (a) insert (aa) by omitting ‘six years’ and substituting 10 years’.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but that refers to …
Mr AH KIT: Council may sue for rates and charges.
Mr WOOD: That is it, thank you, minister. The reason I moved this is because when you are dealing with the Honourable GW Smith who lived in Glasgow for most of his life and did not realise he owned a block of land in Litchfield or Coomalie, chasing up rates from that gentleman can certainly take a while. Councils wanted to have a time that was a bit more generous than the six years provided by section 92 of the act.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment is not supported. The proposed amendment to section 92 seeks to increase the time permitted under the act for a council to recover unpaid rates and charges from six to 10 years. This is a new initiative and cannot be justified at this time.
My department will need to discuss this issue further with LGANT and seek advice from the Department of Justice on the proposal before accepting such an amendment. I propose, member for Nelson, that we monitor this because, as I said earlier, we are always looking to strengthen the act and consult with councils and the representative body, LGANT. We need to seek advice from the Department of Justice, so we need to work our way through it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is fair enough, minister, but I point out that the amendment did not come from me. I am sure it came from a council. I was trying to represent a council there. I have taken in what you have said. Let us see what happens.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.18. It relates to clause 30(2), which provides that a council may recover its costs. Again, this was raised by a number of councils. The main change here is that reasonable legal expenses incurred in recovering the rate or charge be added in there.
In the briefing, I was told that it was a bit suspect and may require the Department of Justice to look at it. However, it is an issue that councils are concerned about because sometimes the legal expenses are more than what they are chasing in rates or charges so it is hardly worth them following up.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed is not supported. The amendment proposes to provide by statute for the recovery of legal expenses associated with the recovery of unpaid rates or charges. This is inappropriate as a council should be required to justify its legal costs associated with any recovery action to the courts for decision, the same as any other business or individual.
Again, I say to the member for Nelson that it is something that we can work through and monitor. If we have had consultation with councils and LGANT and they are quite happy and able to put a very strong case, then I will give a commitment to look at it and, depending on the outcome of those consultations, move further amendments tied to the Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.9. Paragraph (f) of clause 31 in the bill omits section 97(2) of the principal act. As this only left one part to section 97, it was not necessary to retain the heading to 97(1), which was therefore omitted by paragraph (a) of clause 31 in the bill. As amendment 57.10 now adds a new section 97(2), it is necessary to re-insert the heading subsection (1) to section 97.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.19, which seeks to amend section 97 under Division 2, Constitution of Community Government Councils, and says:
Here is a whole section in which the government is going to enshrine things that could be different from other councils into a community government council constitution. This is a fairly important section if one is to relate democratic principles - and I won’t go on anymore about that or I will wear myself out. However 97(n) says:
In other words, a community government council may make provisions for the way elections are held. This comes to the central part of what I have been arguing. My amendment - and I thank the Parliamentary Counsel for their drafting because my words were a little different from these – is premised on all elections having some basic principles. One is they should be in secret, and two is, as elections are held throughout the Territory, Commonwealth, federal and in municipalities, they should be preferential. The reason that should happen is that we want to protect the people councils represent. The people need to know that their representatives have been elected fairly.
I have worked on councils for a number of years and, without a doubt, some council elections were definitely not fair. They were neither secret, nor were they conducted pursuant to a preferential voting system. That is not good enough in this day and age. The longer we leave those systems in place, the harder it will be to introduce change and to ensure that councils do their job of representing their community properly and fairly.
The changes I am seeking, the calling and conduct of elections in a way that is consistent with the calling and conduct of elections of members of the Legislative Assembly, are purely code for the way we would expect an election to be conducted anywhere else in Australia, at least in most states. There is optional preferential voting elsewhere, but in the NT, the proposed changes to our Electoral Act include full preferential voting.
Not only do we have a chance to enshrine what I call good voting practice, but we also have a means of teaching people how to vote for bigger elections in the Territory. They are learning at local government level what preferential is about, they are learning that is should be done in secret, and that is teaching them the process that is used in other, bigger elections. Traditional methods can also come into play. For instance, at Bathurst Island, you are elected onto the council by your skin group. Each skin group has a secret election, which is done preferentially. One of the advantages of this is that a lot more people would nominate for election. A lot more women would be on councils, too, because I know in some cases it is very difficult for some women to go through the power structure to be elected.
By allowing this amendment to this section, we are making it clear that there is a basic principle that must apply to all elections and that will not be varied except for, as I said, options where you are voting from a particular skin group, but the basic principles remain.
Mr STIRLING: Just a couple of points of correction, I suppose, in view of the last two Queensland state elections, both fought on optional preferential voting where voters were actively encouraged to simply place ‘1’ against the candidate of their choice. I do not think even the member for Nelson would be saying that the Queensland election was fought other than on democratic grounds or that the election result was flawed as a result of having optional preferential.
May I give an example, and I am not putting this up as strong argument in defence of what he is saying, which goes to cultural practice. I have been at different school council elections throughout my electorate over the years and I was struck by one: the election of a school principal for the Laynhapuy Homelands group of schools. The full school council was there and up went seven or eight names on the whiteboard. The meeting was conducted in language, which made for less than optimal understanding for me. There was animated discussion, lively discussion throughout the room resulting in someone going to the whiteboard and erasing one name. This discussion continued for about 35 minutes, the result being that one name remained on the whiteboard. At that point, the room was in spontaneous applause.
Democratic? Undemocratic? I do not know. I was not privy to the discussion that preceded the removal of each name, but in traditional means of getting a result that all understood and all supported, how would I go saying: ‘We cannot accept that. That is not going to work. You must have a secret ballot’? These are the realities. I am certainly no expert on Aboriginal culture, but I have witness to that on a number of occasions. No one questions the results. They are some of the realities we have to bear in mind.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, without getting into a long debate over optional preferential and preferential voting, the Territory is recommending what I believe is a good system, full preferential, and if they cannot count to three, four or five, I give up.
Be that as it may, I accept what you say, but as you said, you did not hear it in language either and I do not know how I would debate that with you. It may be fine, but I am taking examples of elections I have seen that have nothing to do with democracy; it was about who had the power, the most force, and the weaker people can sometimes be excluded from the system because there is not a secret ballot, which is paramount. The preferential system, we could argue about, but the secret ballot is paramount. You can have variations on the theme, but at least implement a secret ballot system so that we know that people have voted without being intimidated.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment is not supported. The amendment proposes to replace section 97(1)(n) and impose a requirement on how a community government council should call and conduct its elections. The proposed amendment again fails to recognise the needs of community government councils. How a community government council conducts its elections is currently provided for in most community government constitutions and it is not the government’s intention to override these provisions at this time.
Mr WOOD: Minister, if it was proved to them that a constitution allows what is flagrantly an undemocratic system of voting, do you mean the government would say: ‘That is your system by your constitution. Too bad’? That is what I am trying to protect against.
Mr AH KIT: No, not at all, member for Nelson. Every constitution is tabled in this House and is subject to disallowance or approval.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move that amendments 62.20 and 62.21 be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 62.20 and 62.21, which address sections 97(1)(p) and (q) of the principal act. Section 97(1)(p) provides for:
And (q) provides for:
Subsection (q) is about proxies, and (p) allows councils to set out whatever guidelines they want to remove and replace members. Again, that is something that should be consistent across councils, and I do not believe it should be enshrined in constitutions. Once again, I believe we are making a rod for our back. We are going to make a whole range of council structures that will end up permanently operating in a manner I consider undemocratic.
Minister, you mentioned the issue of proxies. Amendment 62.21 is exactly what that will allow. If you are serious about getting rid of proxies, do not allow it in any new constitutions. For sure, if it is already in a constitution, yes, leave it there. This says you can put it in to a constitution, and it would be far better to take it out.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson are not supported as they fail to recognise the current needs with respect to community government councils and community government constitutions. It is not appropriate to omit paragraphs (p) and (q) from section 97(1) of the act at this time
Amendments negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.10. This amendment is necessary as some recent community government constitutions have established specific committees instead of leaving it to council to establish committees pursuant to Division 5, sections 134 to 136 of the Local Government Act. For example, see clause 9, Executive Committee of the Tiwi Islands Local Government Constitution; clause 11, Management Committees of the Thamarrurr Community Government Scheme, etcetera. Whilst the amendment ratifies those committees established under a constitution, it does not limit councils from establishing other committees under sections 134 to 136 of the act.
Mr WOOD: To clarify, amendment 57.10 does not tell me where I am going; it just refers to paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) of what? Clause 31, is it?
Mr AH KIT: Yes. New paragraph (f).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Proposed New Clause 32A:
Mr WOOD: Did you want to do it in numerical order or am I next?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You are, you are up on 62.22, proposed new clause 32A.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.2. Again, this falls under section 105 of the principal act, which provides that the Administrator must not approve a draft constitution unless satisfied, etcetera.
I will not debate clause 32A(a) or (b) because the minister has already put his point of view about those. However, I will discuss the new clause 32A(c) that deals with a substantial majority of residents of community government area are in favour of the matter only if at least 65% of the residents vote in favour of the matter in a referendum. This amends section 105(2)(b)(vi) of the principal act as well as clause 32 of the bill.
The words ‘substantial majority’ is something you could debate until the cows come home. I believe in referenda, usually there is a figure. I cannot think what the figure would be, but it would save a lot of argument if you set a figure. I set 65%. I am only roughly thinking what Litchfield Council used to use as a substantial majority once to get the roads sealed. However, for a referendum you need a definite figure, otherwise you leave yourself wide open to people challenging what the referendum was.
Mr AH KIT: The proposals contained in this amendment for new clause 32A cannot be supported at this time. As indicated in my comments with respect to clause 31, the proposed amendments fail to recognise the current needs with respect to community government councils and community government constitutions. It is not appropriate to support the proposed changes by the member for Nelson with respect to community government councils without conducting a complete review of the act and its application with respect to community government councils.
Might I add that I am talking to the department about a total review of the act. I understand that it has not been reviewed since 1993 and, whilst legislation is amended from time to time and consultations are carried out and it strengthens the act and allows for more powers to be passed onto local governing bodies, a review of the act every 10 or so years is warranted to ensure that what the act is supposed to provide is delivered, especially to the government of the day.
I am not supportive of your amendment, member for Nelson, but I can announce that we will be discussing with the department and working out the terms of a review. I will announce a date, hopefully in the next couple of months, when that review will take place and what the terms and conditions of the review will be.
Mr WOOD: You mean we are going through all this again? I thought you said this took five years and that this was a fairly substantial review of the act. Anyway, I accept that. Here we go again! It went out for a lot of consultation and has been around a long time for discussion. This was a fairly hefty review of the act. I would be interested to see what the new act is going to look like. I should be able to say what was said at the briefing: the new regional authorities will probably come in to a new Local Government Act. I imagine there will be major changes to this act. However, I was surprised when you hinted that this was not a major review of the act because it has been going on for a long time.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, it was a major review in the sense that it has been happening since 1999, that is five years. However, even when you conduct reviews of this nature, it is important that all legislation, whilst it is amended from time to time, is reviewed. You need to stand back from it and have a look at the bigger picture and ask: ‘What is the real intent of this act? Is it fulfilling everything we want it to?’ As Territorians in parliament, we want to move regions forward and give more powers to councils. What I am saying is that this has been a major review. I understand that. It is something we inherited. It has taken a long time to get where we are right now and some councils have been disappointed with the process. These things happen.
Overall we will have a look at whether there needs to be a major review of the act to see that it is operating effectively, and I will announce that later on. If people argue with me in this House that they do not believe there should be a review, I am quite open to listen to those sides of the arguments.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused now, Madam Deputy Chair. The first observation I make is that if the minister thinks that this act is not working effectively and he wants it looked at, why is he trying to amend it now? If the first thing he is going to do is admit that the act is not working effectively and will not work effectively as a result of these legislative changes, why are we making those changes? Why are we not bringing on this review as a matter of urgency?
Or is it the fact that this review has now been announced at 5.57pm on Wednesday evening as a reaction to the policies proposed by the Leader of the Opposition? Have they suddenly realised that they are going to have to make up a lot of ground with local government because they realise that what the Leader of the Opposition has enunciated is actually what local government authorities are after?
Mr STIRLING: I am not quite sure of the member’s point. It was a review that did kick off some time in the past. There has been extensive consultation in and around it. Obviously it was a work in progress that was not completed and it was picked up by this government. That is a normal function of government. These amendment packages have been worked through. Local government was consulted extensively right throughout the process.
I am not sure of the point the member is making. But it seems to me a normal function of government that you review all the legislation on the books, all your programs and projects, recurrent ones, over time. There are things that come across my desk that had not been looked at throughout the life of the time they have been in place. That is not a healthy thing for government. You do need to have a fresh look over time. The secondary review is an example. The school-based constable regime is an example. Driver training and licensing is an example - a good program put in place in 1993 but tweaked and changed over the years. There was never a review in terms of the qualitative outcomes. What was government achieving for its expenditure? So, reviews are a healthy thing. This is the outcome of that process and this body of amendments has been around the traps for a long time.
Mr ELFERINK: I am surprise that the Deputy Chief Minister is surprised by my comments. At the end of the day, this is a process of five years of consultation, of review, if you like, and now all of a sudden the local government minister is telling us that no matter what we do with this legislation now, it is going to be looked yet again in the next couple of months. The whole process is going to start off again. I can only presume that the minister thinks that the process we are going through now will produce a substandard item. If he wants to have review in the next couple of months, for God’s sake bring it forward, get on with it and amend the act appropriately rather than coming out of here with an act, which is, by the minister’s own admission, substandard.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 33 and 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 35:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 57.11. Parliamentary Counsel was not happy with the original drafting of proposed section 122(1A)(a), so it has recast the provision to make it easier to understand. The amendment has not changed the intent of the provision, which allows the declarations on functions given to a community government council to be only those functions listed in the Instrument of Approval under proposed section 122(1A)(a) or as proposed by section 122(1A)(b):
Mr WOOD: I need clarification. Did you not just read (b)? We are actually substituting (a), is that correct?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Paragraph (b) of proposed section (1A)(a).
Mr WOOD: I am sorry. I might have misheard what you said. You read (a), did you?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, (1A).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 57.12, which inserts subsection (1B) to section 122 of the principal act, which is being amended by clause 35 of the bill. Under the current provisions of the act, a community government constitution sets out the permissible functions that may be performed by the community government council.
As these functions have become virtually standardised, all council functions, that is both municipal and community government council functions, will now be included in Schedule 2 of the act. This will enable less complex constitutions to be prepared for community government councils in the future. Schedule 2 presently lists the functions of municipal councils only, but is being amended by clause 71 of the bill to include the functions for both municipal and community government councils.
Whilst clause 35 of the bill will insert new section 122(1A) into the act, which enables the minister to declare the functions of a community government council, no provision has been made to add, amend or remove a function of a community government council. Amendment 57.12 therefore adds a new subsection, 122 (1B), to the act, which will allow the minister to add, amend or remove a function of a community government council at any time. The minister is unable to amend, extend or repeal a function of a municipal council under section 121 of the act.
Mr BURKE: A point of clarification, minister. I gather by your statements that in the powers of the minister to add functions of local governments and standards associated with those functions, those things only apply under this legislation to community councils?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, they do.
Mr BURKE: Therefore, you can clearly state in this House that this legislation does not in any way interfere with the current functions of municipal councils and would not impose additional standards on those functions by your direction?
Mr AH KIT: May I ask, through the Chair, is the member for Brennan referring to issues that were raised earlier in this debate in regards to Schedule 2 and my response in closing debate about the consultation that will occur, not about the core functions? Sorry, member for Brennan.
Mr BURKE: It is wrapped up in those two, 122A and your amendment 57.12. The point I am making, I will clarify it for you.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, please.
Mr BURKE: In my opinion, you criticised my comments with regards to the fact that I do not believe that LGANT was the organisation that asked wanted this inserted in the legislation. If they were, I would like you to state clearly that they were because you criticised me supposedly for criticising LGANT. What I said was that I could not believe that LGANT would have been the organisation that would suggest you should have inserted in the act the amendments that are contained in 57.12. I would like you to clarify to me that that was the case, that you did this on the recommendation of LGANT, which is what you stated when you wrapped up your second reading speech.
Mr AH KIT: As I said in my reply closing debate, when I mentioned your criticism of LGANT, I said they are a professional organisation that is prepared to talk and negotiate with government. When LGANT disagrees with us, and they sometimes do, they have no difficulty in saying so, and when something makes sense, they support it. LGANT, in fairness, had reservations, I am advised. They were concerned that the minister would have the power to add to the core functions, and I have given them a commitment that that is not going to be done without full and proper consultation. They have accepted that commitment.
Mr BURKE: Well it would be nice if you apologised for the criticism you made of my comments. That aside, could you give me an example of how you would prescribe a function, existing or one that you might wish to insert in the schedule, and how you would set the standards associated with that function?
Mr AH KIT: Well, I thought I did that, member for Brennan, through the Chair. In my second reading speech, I gave an example, from memory, on Nhulunbuy. They had a problem with animal welfare. The Nhulunbuy Corporation does not as such have municipal council status, given the complications with the lease of the land in regards to the mining company and the traditional owners, but they do look for ways in which the government, through me as the minister, can provide an opportunity for them to have powers and to have in place regulations that can allow them to control animal welfare problems. We have other situations with cemeteries in regards to Nhulunbuy.
We have a list of about 51, but there are certain situations that need to provide something equivalent to, or just as good as, powers to allow them to make decisions as a council in their particular situation.
Mr BURKE: Well, you gave me the example of Nhulunbuy. Given the gestation on the issue of libraries and the fact that you now have these wide-ranging powers and libraries are a responsibility of local government, but a pretty temporary responsibility, could you tell me how you intend to proceed with libraries in terms of responsibilities and standards?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, clause 36 we will be dealing with shortly. That goes to core functions. However, we will also be dealing with clause 35, which is amendment 57.12, and we will be discussing the notice in the Gazette and going through functions of local government specified in Schedule 2, etcetera.
As I understand it, in regards to libraries, councils have a choice of complying with the functions they have. There is no compliance, administrative or ministerial direction that forces them. If they choose to take on and operate a library, that is a choice of that particular council. There is no provision, as I understand it - and I stand to be corrected - that forces councils to take on functions that are provided under Schedule 2 arrangements or, for that matter, any other new arrangements that may be core functions that are added to the schedule after full and proper consultation with councils and LGANT.
Therefore, there is no compliance and it is a choice that they have if they wish to operate a library or if they do not. I remember a particular situation, and I had a letter that I was going to table that I wrote back to the Mayor in Katherine, stating exactly that position; it is a choice for them whether they wish to operate a library. It is not for me, as the minister, telling them that they should have a library and that they should maintain, operate and service that library or that the library provides services for their constituents.
Mr BURKE: I gather by your comments that this really has to be taken on faith. You are a good minister, you have a good relationship with local government. You treat them well; they have a good communication with you and everything is hunky-dory. Wouldn’t you agree, tough, that the legislation does not say that? The legislation does not say anything about ‘with the agreement with the council’, ‘in consultation with the council and only those points that the council agrees’.
I understand that the member for Nelson has an amendment to that effect. Given your words in this Chamber, I take it from your comments that you would not have any disagreement with his amendment because that would provide the comfort that councils want.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, how the function is carried out is determined by each council. The functions are permissive, not mandatory.
Mr BURKE: I accept you are saying that, but can you show me in the act where it says that? As I understand it, the act says the opposite. Perhaps it is in the principal act, I am not sure.
Mr AH KIT: Under Functions, Division 2 in the Local Government Act, I refer the member for Brennan to section 121, Functions of the Municipal Councils:
Mr BURKE: You have not answered to question. What you said is the fact that the Administrator, with Executive Council recommendation, obviously puts his stamp of approval as to what the council will or won’t do. But that does not go to the heart of what you have said, which is that none of these will occur without consultation and agreement by the councils themselves. That is the whole spirit of this act as it has been explained to us today. I would have thought that in this amendment, we would have seen those words: The minister may, with the agreement of the council, do whatever. Why isn’t that there?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, in answer to your question I refer you to section 120 of the principal act, which reads:
Mr WOOD: To clarify, because I am becoming confused, can you, as minister, order a council to take on a function that it does not want? Does amendment 57.12 say that? Is there anywhere that says you have the power to order a council to have a function? I am not talking about core functions here, just any function.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, as I said, it is not up to us to tell the councils what to do. There is no compliance or conditions placed on them. It is a decision that they choose and, as I reiterated, it is permissive and not mandatory.
Mr WOOD: I know we are coming on to core functions. According to the second reading, the proposed new section of the act will allow the minister to declare a function of the council as a core function. You can actually say: ‘That will be a core function’. We haven’t discussed what core functions are yet, but any of those functions, you may declare as a core function. So there is a section in this act that says: ‘You have to do that’.
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Is there any appeal mechanism for a council, or do you have the ultimate power?
Mr AH KIT: We are coming to that clause.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I realise that, but the whole issue around here is: are councils protected against an arbitrary decision by the minister to say: ‘You will take on toilets and ablution blocks’?
Mr AH KIT: I gave examples. Let us say a community government council receives funding to pick up rubbish in the community. If they are not doing that, then I will have the ability to ask questions on why they are not undertaking that function when they are receiving dollars to carry it out. I suppose there is a fear amongst municipalities, but as far as I am aware, most of those councils have no problem carrying out the functions and delivering the services that monies are provided for them to do.
We have situations out in the bush whereby some councils sit back and want government to do everything for them. We all know about these and should realise that some things need to be done in some of these communities. I convinced my caucus and Cabinet to allow me to come in, I suppose, in a heavy-handed way, saying: ‘Hey! You are receiving dollars from government to carry out certain functions, especially the core functions, and you need to start to deliver on those.’ For too long, and I have said it in this parliament, we have continually rewarded councils that have gone under by throwing money at them and hoping to provide a short-term fix and we have forgotten about rewarding good councils that have been accounting for dollars that they receive from government.
The time has come when some of the core functions that councils, especially in the bush, should deliver must deliver. There is nothing more disappointing than to know that they are receiving funding, these community government councils, in places where it is disgraceful; there is rubbish everywhere. You know that there is a CEO who is not doing their job properly along with the council president and the councillors who have been elected by the people.
We need to start turning this around and I am going to create a situation that will show these people, especially in the bush, that we are serious and we want them to meet us halfway. If you want us to help you, then you also have to start wanting to help yourselves.
Mr WOOD: I agree there should be core functions, and I know we are coming to that, but it would have been better to state clearly what the core functions are. I have previously mentioned roads, rubbish and perhaps reserves. All councils should be required to maintain those. The concern I have is that if you can basically add things on to that, is there a danger that this is an exercise in cost shifting from NT government responsibility to local governments?
We know the pain that many local governments have had in having to take on things that I do not believe they should have taken on. They should have, as you said, proven their worth with the core functions and not taken on some of these things like health or post offices, which have contributed to making it very hard for some councils to exist. That is my concern.
I have a concern about this amendment generally. I have not had enough time to discuss it with local government. I would like to have looked at it more thoroughly. It belongs to an amendment you are already proposing. You have an amendment here, and you have added an amendment to the amendment. It has made it difficult to understand how it works in practice. Is there a danger that the minister can come in heavy-handed and say: ‘You will take on regional development’? Regardless of whether it is municipal or community government, I am concerned that the minister could basically do what he likes. If the council was a bit belligerent, the minister can say: ‘Yes, well that is it’.
They are my concerns. I do not think that there has been enough time in local government to discuss the implications of what this amendment means.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, there is nothing new with sections 120 and 121. These functions have been there for many years, since 1994. I understand the members for Nelson and Brennan and the points they are making. Maybe there is more discussion or debate around section 122A, which is about the core functions and which we will be moving to next.
Mr ELFERINK: One very quick question: would the minister care to explain what exactly is the difference between a ‘core function’ and a ‘function’?
Mr AH KIT: I am suggesting, Madam Deputy Chair, that we discuss it in relation to section 122A in regards to core functions.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, I missed that. Would you say that again, please?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The minister is recommending that the discussion on core functions and functions be contained to the amendment in relation to core functions.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, well, can the minister tell me?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So we are proposing to move forward to that section. We are not on to that amendment yet.
Mr ELFERINK: Where does that come up?
Mr BURKE: Maybe the minister can explain to us because we are dealing with one principal act, an amending bill and two amendment schedules. One amendment seems to amend an amendment. On the first amendment to the Local Government Amendment Bill, 122A - Core functions of councils. Do those amendments stand, that the regulations may prescribe (a) and (b)? Are they not amended by 57.12 or have they been amended?
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, that is dealt with under clause 36, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Clause 36, yes, which is what we are discussing.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are on clause 35. If you want to move to the discussions on clause 36, I will put the amendment.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mr WOOD: Are we dealing with the core functions?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. We are dealing with section 122A. I have two amendments. I move amendment 62.23, which is basically a drafting change to reflect any council rather than specifying both municipal and community government councils.
I move amendment 62.24, which is the important amendment. In proposed section 122A, at the end insert:
That is basically a guarantee that the council has to agree to it. I have a few notes here, and the minister might understand where I am coming from. Basically, any core function prescribed under the regulations cannot come into effect until an agreement with the affected council and the minister has been reached over the core functions, which must include a minimum consultation period of 90 days and the right of appeal to a Local Government Tribunal. The drafting people said if we stick with the words proposed, there are parts of the act it will cover the situation if a council does not agree.
We are saying that you just do not force those functions on council; we sit down and have a discussion with them and do it in a way that takes away any belief that this is a draconian regulation being imposed on local government.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson are not supported. New section 122A contained in clause 36 of the bill will allow the minister to declare the core functions of the council.
It is not clear what the member for Nelson is trying to achieve with his amendments, although he just enlightened me a bit. While some concerns have been expressed in relation to the new provision, it is becoming increasingly necessary for government to establish some core functions for councils, such as roads and rubbish, to ensure that basic services are being provided to the community. The minister is accountable to parliament for all prescribed matters, so it is unlikely that a minister would prescribe a core service without proper consideration.
Mr BURKE: That really is the heart of the difficulty I have in this area. One of the biggest problems with the Local Government Act is that it is centred on the difficulties of bush councils. There is no doubt that they had many difficulties, and I cann see the logic in many of the amendments. However, it seems to me that municipal councils are being lumped into the same band wagon. They are being lumped in, which suggests that they have similar problems, at a time when they should be given greater comfort in respect to their own maturity.
Nothing the minister has said denies that he can act arbitrarily if he so wishes, notwithstanding that he says he would not do it. The reality is that he could set standards and functions that a municipal council may or may not want. An example would be: we do not have the situation in the Northern Territory at the moment, but you could have a municipal council that became politically aligned, and it could be belligerent to the current Northern Territory government to a point where the government, using this legislation, could act punitively against that council.
We hope that such things will not occur, but the act provides for those powers for the minister to be exercised if he so wishes. If the minister can say he cannot do that by virtue of this line in the act, show me where it is. In the absence of that, the amendment suggested by the member for Nelson would give sufficient satisfaction. That is, amendment 62.24:
(2) A regulation may be made under subsection (1) for a council...
That is what you suggest the legislation intends to provide, so why not include it?
Mr AH KIT: In my reply closing debate - and I want to go back to that when we talk about these core functions - I said:
Mr WOOD: Minister, I accept what you say, but a way around it is to declare a group of functions as core functions so councils know exactly what would come under this section. We have talked about roads and rubbish. I do not think any council would ever say that they are not core functions. If that was set in place, and then all the other functions became add-ons, you could argue the case on its merits.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I have made my position clear. I understand and respect the comments made by the members for Brennan and Nelson. If I look back and say that in my time in this Assembly, for almost seven years in opposition, we had a government that had all this legislation with very little restrictions. They cannot argue against what I am proposing. I make no apology for it. We need to have it in there. Why should the ball change very quickly because there is a change of government? I am not going to accept that argument. I have put my position clearly. Maybe we agree to disagree again.
Mr BURKE: I won’t labour the point any more except to say, and it will be the last word for me on the subject, it is a pity that the new government cannot move forward, particularly in respect of municipal councils.
As I said, I understand the problems with bush councils, but what you are saying you make no apology whatsoever for taking upon yourselves arbitrary powers to move against municipal councils. Now, I reckon we have moved past that point and I believe municipal councils have moved past that point. I do not believe this is supported by LGANT. I do not believe it will be supported by the large councils of the Northern Territory. I will be telling them that the minister was emphatic that he makes no apology to municipal councils for the arbitrary way he will move against them if he so wishes.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I am a little offended by the comments made by the member for Brennan in the way he is misconstruing the position that I have put. He seeks to make political mileage out of it, and that is a choice of any politician who sits in this Chamber. If he does not fully understand our position, then I cannot help that.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I invite defeat of clause 40. It deals with human resource management principles. One has to ask: what are they doing in the act? We have an industrial relations and other acts, so what are they doing in this act? These are all things that have already been legislated for. I would have thought the CEO had to do most of what is in clause 143A(2) anyway. Subsection (1) states:
This is big brother stuff. Glory be! How can you have that in an act? Who is going to make the judgment of ‘sound principles of human resource management’? You are really going to have trouble trying to enforce this, and you would have to ask why it is there. We have the role of the CEO. I do not have a problem with that. Let the CEO do his job and don’t start putting all this stuff in the act. Who is going to make the judgment whether the CEO has done it? Some of these things, as I said, are already in legislation outside the Local Government Act anyway, so why bother?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am probably going to differ with the member for Nelson on this to a degree simply because I understand what this is being driven at. If I were a CEO in one of the bush communities in my electorate who, from time to time, is challenged to do certain things, it would be a very handy shield to be able to hold up legislation that says: ‘No, this is what the law says I have to do and I cannot, I am afraid, go out and buy you a new Toyota with the road building funds’.
Although I understand the prescriptive issue that the member for Nelson has, I do want to place on the record that, as far I and the CLP are concerned, we do not like the prescriptive nature and flavour of what is occurring here, but if you are going to go down this path, you are going to have to at least provide protection. So the prophylactic exercise that this section represents is not such a bad idea.
Mr AH KIT: I thank the member for Macdonnell for his comments because he hit the nail right on the head. This is about getting away from awkward situations facing CEOs. I am not saying that all CEOs out there are perfect, and we need to monitor their performances, as we do. Many of them are put in an awkward situation if there is a president or council members, sometimes from the same family, who put pressure on CEOs by saying: ‘You will give me this or I will get the numbers and sack you’. This is about accountability to the community and to constituents and will provide added protection.
If and when we do see a situation like that arise, a number of things can happen. One could be that the person is dismissed unprofessionally and the council is in court on unfair dismissal charges, etcetera and that could cost tens of thousands of dollars. We could also end up with the situation where CEOs give in to requests that are being made of them, turn a blind eye and cover their tracks. It is about accountability to constituents and councils.
The member for Nelson invites defeat of this new provision, however the government does not agree with the member and will not support the proposal. Proposed new section 143A sets out the employment principles that are to be observed by councils. Whilst councils are expected to generally follow the human resource management principles as practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelled out for councils in the current act. Proposed new section 143A will correct this deficiency.
Mr ELFERINK: Relax; it is not a big issue. In fact, the minister already went a long way towards answering this in anticipation that I was going to raise it during the second reading, but I simply ran out of time. On the matter of clause 40, section 143(2)(h), dealing with the general issue of interpretation, I thank the minister for his comments in his conclusion of the second reading debate when he addressed the issue I raised in earlier briefings. I am well satisfied with his explanation.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: May I ask the minister whether these human resource management principles come from another act? That was my argument. While they might be fine, are they covered somewhere else? That is why I am asking why they should be in this legislation.
Mr AH KIT: Through the chair, no, they’re not. They come from another act, but they’re not imposed on local government under the act.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.13. Clause 44 of the bill inserts a new section 148(2) into the act to provide a requirement that a resolution of a council to dismiss their CEO cannot take effect until 14 days after the minister has received written advice of the resolution.
Experience indicates that some protection is warranted from impetuous and unfair dismissals. However, the amendment is not designed to prevent a council from initiating instant dismissal in cases where fraud, dishonesty or misbehaviour is involved. New section 148(3) therefore allows the minister to agree to a shorter period for the dismissal where appropriate. This amendment has been requested at the request of LGANT.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 68, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 69:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.14. The reference to subsection 122(1B) in Schedule 2 is necessary as a result of changes to the act by the amendment 57.12 considered earlier. This will ensure that the functions of local government are exclusively contained in Schedule 2 of the act.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.15. It was originally proposed by clause 69(b) of the bill to rename the heading in Schedule 2 from ‘functions of municipal councils’ to ‘functions of councils’. It has now been decided to change the heading in the schedule from ‘functions of municipal councils’ to ‘functions of local government’. Amendment 57.15 achieves this objective.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move that amendments 62.25, 62.26 and 62.27 be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 62.25, 62.26 and 62.27. The reason I included these, and I know they will be defeated, is that some of the changes proposed are simply a case of Northern Territory government cost-shifting.
Why is substance abuse a local government function? It is a government function; it is not a local government function. Regional and economic development are primarily Northern Territory government functions. On the issue of animal welfare, there was an example of a council that wanted to take it over, the question is: is it the job of the NT government? Are they including these matters to cost-shift some of the responsibilities they should have?
I am not against councils taking over certain functions, but the minister highlighted the problems with some communities with lots of rubbish and poor roads and the emphasis has to be on those issues, not so much on looking at other things. I would rather see those councils operating effectively on a small number of those core functions and we will worry about all these other things later. We need to be fairly clear as to what are Northern Territory government functions and what are local government functions.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I reiterate that there are no cost shifting matters that you need to be concerned with, member for Nelson and other members of this Chamber.
As I said earlier, it is permissive, it is not mandatory. It is the choice of the councils. If they want to take on a particular function, then the choice is theirs. It comes back to that choice; it is not mandatory. It is not government insisting that they comply.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 and 71, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 72:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.16, which inserts new clause (1A) to the savings provisions in clause 72 of the bill. Clause 72(1) of the bill provides a savings provision to ensure that community government schemes approved under the principal act before the commencement of the amending act will continue in existence and be taken to be a community government constitution following the commencement of the amending act.
It is now considered that the savings provisions contained in clause 72(1) are not adequate to ensure that the current functions of a community government council will be saved by the amending bill. Therefore, new clause 72(1A) will ensure that a community government council will continue to have the functions given to it by its constitution.
Mr ELFERINK: One very quick question that probably does not relate to this: what is the current rate of a penalty unit? $110?
Mr AH KIT: Penalty unit is $110.
Mr ELFERINK: That is $110, right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together:
Mr ELFERINK: Just very quickly in relation to the remainder of the bill, we are talking about schedules and I was pre-empted in my question in relation to the penalty units, I note that, effectively, some of the fines have gone up fourfold. For example, where a fine was $500, it is now 20 penalty units, which is $2200. I presume that is only because those fines have been on the books for some time and that $2200 is about commensurate of a fine of $500 when the act was introduced or have the penalties or offences suddenly become more serious?
Mr AH KIT: I am just trying to ascertain, member for Macdonnell, the penalties you are talking about are the penalties …
Mr ELFERINK: In Schedule 1.
Mr AH KIT: … under Schedule 1. The penalties specified for offences under this act are in line with contemporary standards one expects to find …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Okay.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, a penalty unit is $110 and, yes, the fines are commensurate.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to reiterate the position of the CLP in relation to the passage of this bill.
As I said, our philosophical approach is fundamentally different and we cannot support the bill because of its invasive nature. As I said during the second reading debate, we want to see a local government environment that is less under the thumb of the state level of control than is intended by this bill.
I certainly understand the thrust of this bill and what it attempts to achieve, but there is a dichotomy that operates in this environment, and that is the balance between the needs of small local government authorities in the bush and the large municipals. It is not entirely unreminiscent of the problems we had when the Associations Act was passed with such a broad brush stroke, touching everything from the bridge club to multi-million industries. I wonder, by way of submission to the next review of the Local Government Act, if we should examine what this act is intended to achieve in light of multi-million dollar municipal councils and small local government authorities in the bush. I would be happy to see that as one of the terms of reference for the review that the minister announced this evening, to examine how those dichotomies can be addressed, because I think it is a worthwhile examination.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also have opposed the bill because it fails to protect the democratic rights I sought to have covered in my proposed amendments. I do not care whether it is a bush settlement or a municipal community in the big city, there are some fundamental rights that should be protected for all people and we have not advanced those in this debate today. I will continue to try to have those changes included in the act to ensure that people who fall under the jurisdiction of under local government, like the little lady under the mango tree at Milikapiti, have their rights protected so that they can have faith in a system; they know that the people who are there to deliver essential services have been fairly elected to their positions.
Even though I just mentioned Milikapiti, one of the concerns I have when I talk about local government is that in some cases, we have gone backwards. Some rights have disappeared, and I refer specifically to the concept of community management boards in communities where councils were elected but now have groups that do not perform the functions the councils formerly performed. This has been a regression. I will continue to argue for changes to that system because there is a lot of discontent out there, especially on Melville and Bathurst Islands. I have a fairly thick file on some of the issues affecting them.
Some of what I have been talking about today needs to be incorporated into the act to ensure that people’s rights are protected. I will continue to fight for those rights because they are essential for good local government.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, in closing, I welcome the contributions from the members who participated. I recognise that they are sincere in wishing to ensure that the legislation is healthy, picks up their concerns and strengthens the act.
As the minister responsible, I have a lot of work to do, as does our government, to turn the situation around in the bush. I have good intentions. There are no thoughts whatsoever about cost shifting or being too onerous on councils. We have to take into account municipalities along with community government councils. We are heading in the right direction.
The act will always be open for debate and discussion. The only way we are going to strengthen it is to continue to review it. We have set up very good mechanisms by way of consultation with between departmental officers, the municipalities and LGANT. In fact, LGANT is doing a great job in providing elected member training and other services throughout the Territory. They are now involved with recruitment, and they are helping us to help the community councils improve, and we will keep moving in that direction.
Some concerns were raised. I would like to assure members that those concerns are not warranted, and I will continue to work as hard as possible to ensure we move the councils forward, both in the bush and in the major towns and cities throughout the Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 October 2003
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer pats himself on the back for his achievements in 2002-03, as outlined by this report, and well he should. He managed to grab an extra $20m in taxes from Territorians, and that is an extra $100 for every man, woman and child; he got an extra $128m out of the federal government, and that is excluding the railway; and he charged Territorians an extra $17m in government fees and charges for goods and services.
That is an increase in revenue of $165m and if you throw in interest, income and other revenue sources, the Treasurer had an extra $181m to spend excluding the railway. But he managed to increase his spending by only $65m, and that included an extra $13m in interest payments and $4m increase for the nominal superannuation interest expense. So the revenues are up 7% and expenses up 2.3%, dead on line with the consumer price index increase for 2002-03.
In other words, the government has done nothing but match inflation this year when it comes to its overall expenses while pocketing a 7% increase in revenue from taxes, charges, and the federal government. These are not my figures; they are the audited figures provided by the Treasurer in this report. I wonder how many empty shop fronts, closed restaurants, struggling businesses in the Darwin CBD would still be operating if they could increase their revenues by 7%, but hold their costs to inflation. I wonder how many would still be operating if the government had chosen to actually spend some of that extra revenue on stimulating the economy instead of keeping the revenue. Even the Treasurer is prepared to admit that he cut back on spending in certain areas. Some $20m of what his predecessors said would be spent on capital works was not spent in 2002-03. Plus the Treasurer had an extra $80m in the bank at the end of 2002-03. This is not my estimate; the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report explains it on page 53. I quote from the report:
The government, in the past few months, has made big announcements about how it is going to spend an extra $75m on police over the next four years and an extra $27m on tourism over the next three years. Both are very welcome and desperately needed initiatives, but why did the government have to be dragged screaming to do this when it had the money and could have factored it into the budget? The extra expense for these initiatives in this financial year is only $17m, hardly a dent in the excess cash that the government has of $307m.
While I am on the budget, I wonder whether the Chief Minister remembers her comments when she delivered her first budget, the mini-budget of 2001. She railed against the old system, which she claimed gave government departments unrealistically low budgets and then topped them up as the year went on. The Chief Minister and Treasurer said that was not going to happen while she was in charge. Chief executive officers were going to be held accountable, and the onus would be put on them to produce financial outcomes within annual budgets.
If you look at the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, you will find that eight departments or agencies failed to meet this requirement. Have the CEOs been spoken to? Have they been counselled? Were they perhaps given an unrealistically low budget and had to, like Oliver, ask for more? Or has the government finally realised that things can change during a year and budgets and appropriations need to change? The Treasurer said in his report:
Does the Chief Minister now acknowledge that? Nine agencies are shown as coming in under budget and overall, the appropriation approved by this Assembly in the 2002-03 budget fell by $4.151m, thanks largely to the cut in capital works I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, according to the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report issued in January but not yet tabled in this parliament, 15 departments and agencies had their operating expenses adjusted upwards for 2003-04 on what they were given in the budget. However, we will get to the issue of the mid-year report and its revelations when it is brought to this parliament for scrutiny and debate, presumably in the next day or so.
Returning to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report on which we are finally allowed to comment, four months after it was tabled here and eight months after the financial year ended. As I said, the figures I referred to about departments and agencies exceeding their budgets is revealed in the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s report. In past years, this was the very section that was audited. Once again, we have a document that cannot be compared with previous reports. I accept that this is not a deliberate ploy by the government to hide anything. The change is caused by Working for Outcomes, an initiative of the previous government; the transition to accrual accounting; and the fact that we have had a change of government. This has meant no financial document has been directly comparable with that produced in the previous year.
As the Treasurer notes in the overview in this document:
For a start, this year the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is considerably slimmer. Last year, it was 151 pages; this year, it is 124. In this figures dominated context, it is appropriate to say that that is a 17.9% shrinkage factor. Apart from the basic reporting and accounting charges I have mentioned, the report is a complete reversal of the 2001-02 TAFR.
Instead of changes to department budgets being in the audited section and examined in depth, they have been relegated to the unaudited section. For full financial information, one now has to go to each department’s annual report, which is why you look at TAFR and find the allocation of Health and Community Services increased by $11.127m mainly due to the $15m injection in February. However, when we look at the department’s annual report, we find that they finished the year with $17m cash in the bank. Look at Employment, Education and Training in TAFR, their appropriation increased by $4m. Their annual report shows that they finished the year with $11m in the bank.
I realise there are carry-overs of some form of another in most agencies, particularly the big ones, but I find it hard to rationalise how Health and Community Services ended up with $17m in the bank, especially when the then minister told us in February that she needed an extra $15m to address an anticipated shortfall and:
It is doubly hard to understand when it is quite clear from the annual report of Health and Community Services that some core services were not maintained. I refer to page 71 of that report, which says there was a lack of available beds in our two large hospitals, Royal Darwin and Alice Springs, in 2002-03 to accommodate admitted patients. The annual report says that these patients awaiting admission then put pressure on the emergency departments and they, in turn, had a reduced capacity to attend in a more timely manner to patients. I would have thought that they were some of the core services the $15m was meant to ensure. Apparently not, because there is still $17m left over at the end of the year.
I am sure there is an explanation to these striking anomalies somewhere in the open, accountable and transparent system we now have. I am sure the Treasurer will be able to point me to the pages of TAFR or the annual reports where it is explained, especially as one of them is a department for which he is responsible.
This year, the audited section covers the financial statements by UPF sector, but budget comparative data is not provided. In previous years, the UPF reports were in the unaudited section. While the audited report provides some 35 pages of notes to the accounts, these notes refer to the operating statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement of the total public sector, a sector report we have not seen before.
This gives us two major problems: anyone attempting to analysis these accounts, particularly anyone who does not live and breathe accounting and auditing, has as yet no valid comparison to make between TAFRs and the budget on which it is reporting and no way of comparing it with the previous year; second is to discover what chart, what list of accounts, to which anyone is referring when they make comparisons.
To give you an example, I was at a Chamber of Commerce and Industry breakfast late last year at which the Treasurer was guest speaker. He made a presentation that included such figures as what Territory tax was collected in 2002-03 and what he anticipates collecting this financial year. The figures he used were $553m in 2002-03 and $351m next year, a nice little point for a Treasurer to make it to business: ‘See, the government is reducing the tax burden on you’.
Unfortunately, I cannot find this figure of $353m in tax collected in 2002-03 anywhere in these accounts. TAFR reports at page 48 that taxation revenue for 2002-03 was $241 342 000, up $17 987 000 on what was collected in 2001-02, and the budget delivered in May predicts taxation revenue to be around $254m in 2003-04, or an increased take of some $13m. I am sure the Treasurer will be able to explain the differences here of some hundred million dollars between his statement to the Chamber breakfast and his report to this parliament.
However, as he and his Chief Minister keep saying, this is the most open accountable and transparent government when it comes to financial reporting. Why, then, can’t I read that figure he presented to the Chamber of $353m in taxation revenues in these accounts? Perhaps the answer might be that the higher figure, the figure he presented to the Chamber, includes the taxes the government pays to itself while the TAFR figures do not. Perhaps mineral royalties of $39m are not included in taxation revenue in TAFR. If that is so, where are they accounted for? Perhaps it could have been more relevant to the business people at the breakfast have heard the comparison between what the non-government sector paid in taxes last year and what they are expected to pay this financial year. Perhaps it would help if the government could sing from one sheet of music rather than picking and choosing from a variety of estimates and actuals. We can only hope that before this government’s term ends, and I am not saying that it is your fault or Treasury’s, we will have financial documents such as budgets, TAFRs, and mid-year reports that are directly comparable with the equivalent report of the previous year.
We may even reach the day when we can track to and fro between the different documents to make some sense of where we are going, where we have come from and how we are faring financially. The Treasurer concluded his remarks when tabling this report in October that this was:
The problem is that we keep working so hard on the framework that the picture is becoming obscure. Documents such as TAFRs are vital to the proper functioning and scrutiny of government. I thank the hard working Treasury staff for their efforts to keep us informed. In the past two and a half years, they have produced four budgets, three TAFRs and a mid-year report and have had to accommodate a different format, different reporting, and a different accounting system for each one. They are to be commended.
How much the Treasurer is to be commended is slightly more doubtful and I await the Auditor-General’s report on this TAFR.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his somewhat churlish remarks, Madam Speaker. I can only recommend and offer that he have a full briefing on all these matters.
It has been made fairly clear on a number of occasions that the difference the 2001-02 and 2002-03 reporting is always going to be tricky around the margin because of the move to adopt full accrual accounting in the 2002-03 financial year. The points the Opposition Leader made are valid because we have had a different system of treatment of accounts and you will find straight comparatives down the line when we get around to 2003-04 as against 2002-03 because they will all be in the full accrual system.
If I can just go back to the $400m windfall that somehow we have mysteriously pocketed away, a windfall of course that never existed in the first place, tonight is $307m. So we have lost $93m somewhere along the line for the Leader of the Opposition. He is trying to peddle a story that somehow this government has pocketed $307m as a war chest for an election. If we are sitting on $307m out of so-called GST windfall, why are we still running budget deficits? Why wouldn’t we be paying our way and having a surplus on our budget? It does not make sense to have money in your pocket but to be running up your daily expenses against debt and having borrowings. It would make sense, of course, to use that money. The fact is there is no $307m secreted away.
I will go back to the introduction of the GST. In order to get the states and territories on side, the Federal government made a pact and said this to each of the states and territories: ‘You come on board with this tax reform, this GST, and this is what we will do: we don’t know what the size of the GST pool will be because we have never had a GST before. We don’t know what your share of Grants Commission funding will be until we work through and get an idea of the size of the GST pool for the first year of effect’. That was not very comforting, as you might imagine, to the states and territories. So the Commonwealth said: ‘We will give you a guaranteed minimum amount, and that will be what you got last year and a bit more because your revenue goes up every year’. Under the old system, it went up every year; under the GST, it goes up every year and so do costs to government. When you talk about a 1% wage rise across the public sector, it is $30m-odd, and they do no settle for 1% these days.
Mr Henderson: 11% for nurses.
Mr STIRLING: Nurses just got 5%, 3%, 3% over three years. Doctors are in the same margin. I do not have a global figure on that, but it is millions. It costs millions more each year for wages movement and the cost of goods and services.
I am going back to this guaranteed minimum amount because it is quite important that you understand it. If you did not make the guaranteed minimum amount from the GST pool, they gave you what they called budget balancing assistance. It was a figure derived from what you would have had under the old system, what you are getting under the GST plus budget balancing assistance under the guaranteed minimum amount to make sure you were not worse off under GST. That was the whole principle on which the states and territories went into it.
In 2001-02 the nett effect of the GST to the Northern Territory was zero because we were receiving budget balancing assistance to get us up to the guaranteed minimum amount. New South Wales will be receiving that all the way through to 2007 on current estimates because the size of the pool will not be big enough to get them what they would have had under the old system.
In 2002-03, we received more than we would have under the guaranteed minimum amount under the old system, which was all worked out, and they gave us $9m. We received $9m more. We are one of the first jurisdictions to move into the green field, if you like, under the GST.
At the moment, in 2003-04, the best estimate is around $76m more this year under GST. It is undetermined until you get to the end of the financial year because the Commonwealth cannot tell you what the size of the GST pool will be. No one can, because it depends on consumption, consumer sentiment, how much people purchase, how good the GST collection system is and how much rorting there is of it, of course, until you get the final amount. But if you add the two amounts together, from the time of the inception of the GST - $9m last year, $76m best guess at the moment this year – it is $85m.
The NT has received $85m more since the inception of the GST than we would have received under the former federal arrangements with the states and territories. So the $307m you have out of your head because it is around $85m - it is only a best guess - that the GST has put us in a better position since its inception. The other $315m we would have received under the old arrangements with the increases year by year.
In relation to whether health had money left and whether they asked for extra money, you have to take the fact that budgets are a line in the sand on a given day. Purchases and expenditure simply don’t work like that. You could have ordered quite expensive capital items in the case of health; equipment needed, often very expensive, some delays in receiving that equipment. So it is ordered, it is expected to be spent against the budget in the 2002-03 financial year. Come 30 June, the equipment has not arrived, it is en route from the United States or the United Kingdom, or it might be on its way from Melbourne or Sydney, but it has not been received by the end of the financial year, midnight on 30 June, which is when you draw the line under it, and it is simply expenditure that cannot be incurred in that financial year notwithstanding that the agency got the budget to buy that, they planned for that, everything was in place, but the stuff did not arrive. That expenditure slides over into the 2003-04 financial year, and probably quite early in new financial year, those items came on deck and were paid, and that was the reason, of course, we were tracking for a $31m deficit and finished up on paper with a $9m surplus because of the carry over of $40m plus.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer need to understand how this works, that with accrual there can be no hollow logs, there can be no money salted away. I wish we did have $307m or $400m to play with, but you have to understand that, at the bottom line, government is no different from a household. You have an income stream, whether you rent properties, or whether you have wages or salary coming in, the same as government has income, and you have expenditure. You try to keep, and government does the same, that gap as narrow as possible with a view to the 2004-05 budget coming in as a balanced budget so that the revenue we receive throughout 2004-05 will be about the expenditure that government incurs along the way.
We deserve more credit than the Leader of the Opposition is willing to bestow on us. We deserve credit for having reined in the excessive deficits of the CLP, which saw government debt outstanding today, if you throw employee liabilities and superannuation into the mix, around about $3.5bn. If you want to compare that against the other states, it is the worst in the nation by a long way on a per capita distribution.
Notwithstanding that, the Shadow Treasurer simply need contact my office at any time. There are various areas of Treasury from which he would benefit by a briefing. Of course, there is the revenue side, the taxation side, budgets and expenditure, and the area that deals with the Commonwealth and inter-governmental relations.
Before I move on, in relation to the taxation, it is a pretty hard story to peddle that we are a high taxing state, that our taxes went up, therefore we tax more. In fact, we reduced tax. If we receive more revenue through taxation, it is the result of greater activity out there in the labour market. A range of taxes went down in the 2002-03 budget, and again in the 2003-04 budget. So it has to be greater activity out there in the marketplace. Stamp duty is one. The economic base in the Northern Territory is such that a major transaction of conveyancing and stamp duty can really distort the figures. You might have one or two one-offs and your revenue can be way up there.
I want to read across the bottom line, which puts a lie to this high taxing Northern Territory government, and if we compare recurrent state taxes and charges on a typical small business with 15 employees, so we are looking at an equivalent business operating in the CBD of each capital city, with wages of $600 000 per year: New South Wales, $25 880 the government extracts from that business; Victoria, $23 879; Queensland $14 714; Western Australia - $17 114; South Australia - $14 393; Tasmania - $17 675; ACT - $15 259; and Northern Territory - $7554. That is the effect of the Northern Territory government and its recurrent state taxes and charges on a small business with 15 employees on wages of $600 000 per year.
You want to look inside that tax mix. For example, the land tax that the Leader of the Opposition said we ought to be reducing the other day notwithstanding the fact that we do not have one at all, in New South Wales, the land tax realises $12 680 on the same sized company; Victoria $6230; Queensland $5750; Western Australia $2430; South Australia $1205; Tasmania $4443; ACT $7500; and Northern Territory zero. Is it any wonder they shudder when they begin to realise that the Leader of the Opposition and the Country Liberal Party might be looking to inflict a land tax in the Northern Territory and the effect that that will have …
Members interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: These are the sorts of things that are recommended in the Productivity Commission, which the Leader of the Opposition is looking to glean ideas from, based on the way he is going.
Fire services levy - an estimate in New South Wales of $8500; $8500 in Victoria; $1000 in Queensland; $7000 in Western Australia; $331 in South Australia; $7000 in Tasmania; zero in ACT; and zero in the Northern Territory. I am not surprised that small business might start to become very nervous when the Leader of the Opposition says he is going to knock off payroll tax because they will be thinking: ‘My god, what else is he going to inflict on us given that we are not in the payroll tax system now?’.
The offer is on the table. The Shadow Treasurer is welcome to a briefing on any of these areas. It is in our interest for the opposition to understand. It is in the interest of the Northern Territory for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Treasurer, to understand how it all fits together. He made comment in relation to the difficulty of comparison between 2001-02 and 2002-03. He understands, but he did not acknowledge the fact, that it was the introduction of full accrual accounting in the 2002-03 year.
Over successive years prior to that, we always had difficulty in opposition of judging apples to apples budget to budget - not because they introduced accrual or any major systems like that, but because the Country Liberal Party consistently changed the way they treated various items in the budget and changed their categories and structure simply to make a year-to-year comparison impossible.
There were so many times when we were only able to get to the bottom line through the Committee of the Whole because the different treatment year to year. You will not find that this year. We have been praised by overseas analysts with, in one case, an analyst from New York saying: ‘This is the best set of papers I have ever had to work with and you are to be commended’.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 6 relating to debate on the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2002-03 be called on forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise speak to the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report. The 2002-03 financial year has been one in which the committee was required to adapt to change as the circumstance of committee membership and responsibilities of the committee as a whole altered significantly.
A major milestone for the committee occurred on 20 August 2003, when a motion by the Honourable Syd Stirling, then Leader of Government Business, empowered the members of the Public Accounts Committee to become core members of the inaugural Estimates Committee. The then Chairman, Dr Chris Burns, assumed the role of Chairman of the new committee during the public hearings held on Tuesday 17 September through to the evening of Thursday 19 September 2002.
Many members in this House have debated the workings of that first committee and, as I believe the issues raised have already been carefully considered by government, there is no need for me to cover old ground with the tabling of this current Public Accounts Committee report.
I need only reiterate the views expressed by the Leader of Government Business that the process was not one set in concrete from the outset. Flexibility by the government was a key objective in ensuring the Estimates Committee examination of appropriation bills and budget related papers. We saw a methodology that was able to achieve acceptable outcomes.
Only four weeks after the completion of the Estimates Committee public hearings, the chairman, Dr Chris Burns, was appointed to the ministry. The newly elected chair of the Public Accounts Committee was Mr Elliot McAdam, the member for Barkly.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I have tolerated some of the infringements that the member for Sanderson has made. He knows that he should not refer to any member of this Chamber by name at all. For the last five minutes of his speech, he has been using names quite freely. He should be referring to members by their electorates. You should rewrite your speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you do know that.
Mr KIELY: I apologise if I have offended members in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Refer to them by electorate, please.
Dr Lim: It is standing orders, do you not know that?
Madam SPEAKER: It is standing orders; refer to them by their electorate.
Mr KIELY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not hear you over the talking.
Another milestone for the committee then occurred on 27 February 2003 when the Leader of Government Business moved a motion appointing a further Estimates Committee to consider the Appropriation Bill 2003-04 and budget-related papers, with the member for Barkly being appointed as the Chairman of the new committee.
Madam Speaker, members of the Public Accounts Committee once again comprised the core membership of the Estimates Committee during the public hearings held from Tuesday 24 through to Friday 27 June 2003. On the evening of 27 June, immediately following the public hearings, the Leader of Government Business announced that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Barkly, was discharged from the committee in order to take up the position of Chairman of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee found itself in the unique situation of being actively involved in two Estimates Committee processes in the space of nine months as well as losing both chairmen to other areas of government.
Apart from members’ time, these two processes were extremely labour intensive for the committee secretariat. The preparatory work for the first series of public hearings involved the physical processing and recording of in excess of 1200 written questions. While written questions were not part of the second public hearings in June, the follow up required prior to release of final transcripts and the inclusion of questions taken on notice with appropriate replies had to be completed.
Madam Speaker, the committee was briefed by the Auditor-General on two occasions during the year. In August 2002, the newly appointed Auditor-General, Mr Mike Blake, presented the committee with his future strategy planning for the Auditor-General’s office. In February 2003, the committee was again briefed by Mr Blake on issues contained in his November 2002 and February 2003 reports to the Assembly. He also discussed an information technology audit strategy within the Northern Territory public sector as well as the performance focus of the Office of the Auditor-General for 2003.
The committee acknowledges the important role the Auditor-General has in overseeing public sector accountability and it constantly relies on obtaining detailed briefings on specific issues from and prior to commencing any formal inquiries. This flow of information is in line with they key corporate objective of that office for provision to the parliament of independently analysed and credible information.
The extent to which Treasury officers communicate and liaise with agencies was clearly demonstrated by the support provided by Treasury staff in the preparation for the inaugural Estimates Committee hearings. The Under Treasurer, ably assisted by key senior officers, personally scrutinised every one of the 1200-plus written questions to be sure they would be referred to the correct ministerial portfolio area of responsibility. In addition, a number of skilled operators were transferred to the committee secretariat to process and set up the database, which was to house the written questions.
I know that acknowledgements for the work carried out during the inaugural Estimates Committee occurred during debate in this House, but the assistance of the Under Treasurer and her dedicated staff is now officially recorded in this report of the Public Accounts Committee. On behalf of the members, I take this opportunity to express our gratitude for a job well done. When the committee tabled its report, number 38, locally known as the Accuracy of the Budget Data report, it was not able to conclude its findings into an issue of a $6m adjustment to the Department of Education’s allocation. The decision was taken to conduct a separate investigation into the matter rather than prolonging the tabling of the overall report.
As stated within the committee report tabled today, after reviewing the Hansard transcript of evidence as well as an additional submission from the Department of Education and having received a detailed briefing from Ms Jane Large, Specialist Financial Advisor to the Committee, the committee agreed that there was a complexity surrounding interpretation of budgetary terminology that had caused the original misunderstanding to arise and no further investigation was warranted.
In reaching this decision, the committee took into account the fact that this was the first occasion on which agency officers had appeared before an Estimates Committee in a public hearing and under scrutiny of the media. With this in mind and with the knowledge gained from the extensive briefing regarding the interpretation of budget terminology, the committee took the view that it would address this matter by formally reminding all agency officers of their responsibilities when providing information to any parliamentary committee.
There were no similar issues that arose during the second round of Estimates Committee hearings.
There are a number of other matters the committee has inquired into that have been satisfactorily resolved.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of all members of the committee, I place on record our appreciation for the support offered by the Secretariat to the committee throughout the 2002-03 financial year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I want to add a few words in respect of the PAC report. I should draw members’ attention to the fact that for the first time in the history of this parliament and the PAC, there is no dissenting report. We decided that we would leave things unaltered and create history for Territorians.
We also note for members’ information that in relation to the former chair of the PAC, the member for Barkly, we commend his chairmanship of the committee. We thought he did it very well. His time as chair through the estimates process was very fair and something that members of the opposition felt could not be criticised. Many members in this Chamber praised his efforts immediately after the estimates process. For the life of me, I do not understand why he was then sacked from the chair. It is a pity that a man who has done a job so well has not been duly rewarded for his efforts.
The PAC report summarises the activities we have undertaken. Over the last 12 months, the committee has not been very active, but the several investigations we have undertaken have been of particular use and have provided members with further information on a variety of matters.
Members of the opposition look forward to continuing the work of the PAC and would like to thank the officers of the secretariat, in particular Terry Hanley, the Secretary of the committee, and the ladies who have assisted him so capably in producing all the reports and other papers that the committee needs in a timely manner to make our lives a lot easier. I congratulate the committee members for their efforts and look forward to another 12 months.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I rise to deliver a statement on the positive outcomes for the Northern Territory’s international trade in goods and services, which are rising as a result of the Martin government’s strategic approach to trade development.
In delivering this statement, I would like to detail the numerous trade-related initiatives the Martin government has implemented since coming to office in August 2001, and record some of the tangible benefits already arising. They are an illustration of how seriously this government takes trade and how it sees trade as a cornerstone in the economic development of the Territory.
Trade is a key feature of the Territory’s economy and is linked to one in every four jobs. Our strategic in structure to approach relies on five key principles:
current period of structural change and emerges with a more business-to-business, outward looking focus than
has historically been the case;
important foundations for successful trade;
Asian region to include, over time, the world; and
Our systematic and strategic approach replaces the ad hoc, scattergun approach taken by the previous government, which spent big but achieved little.
Members will recall that when I launched our International Trade Strategy last year, I noted that it sets significant performance targets. With this strategic plan in place, it was then appropriate to review the structure in the trade support area of my department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. As a result of that review, the trade group within the department has been strengthened to give more prominence to the status of trade as a driver of the economy, and to link departmental roles to the delivery of quantifiable trade outcomes as measured by the Trade Strategy performance targets.
To underscore the importance of relationships as a foundation for trade, this government developed and implemented its Asian engagement strategy, Building Stronger Asian Links. I will talk more about the positive outcomes of this particular strategy a little later in this statement. As an extension of this departmental strengthening, we have adopted a more strategic approach to Northern Territory overseas representation, focussing on offices in Jakarta, Manila and Dili. Trade imperatives have been included in the scope of services being provided by these representatives, along with a requirement to adhere to carefully managed budgets.
The Trade Support Scheme, which supersedes the former government’s Export Marketing Assistance Scheme, has emerged as a much more robust mechanism for assisting trade-focussed firms to prepare themselves for trade ventures, and to undertake the market development work required to maximise their chances of trade success. With a budget of $330 000 in its first year, and clear eligibility guidelines, it has already proven to be both accessible and successful. Our intention is to boost funding over coming years for this scheme, depending on demand, to $500 000 per annum.
The initial response from the Northern Territory export community has been positive, with 55 applications under the Trade Support Scheme being received in the seven months to January 2004. Twenty-eight applications have so far been approved, giving rise to a commitment of $140 000. Examples of successful outcomes under the scheme include:
Earth Dreaming Pty Ltd, an indigenous swimwear design company which, with TSS funding, participated in a
promotional display in Europe in late 2003. As a result, the company is negotiating for immediate sales of up
to $50 000, with the potential for even larger volumes of sales in the longer term;
is a Katherine-based plant wholesaler and has secured its first orders into Singapore Airport and has advised that it
has commenced negotiations to supply plants for two major public infrastructure projects in Singapore;
CSG, a local information technology group, has reached an agreement to sell its logistics management software to
a Singapore shipping company. This was achieved during the Northern Territory government sponsored delegation
to the IX2003 Information Technology Exhibition, held in Singapore in early October last year;
in a forthcoming trade exhibition called Celebrate Australia in Singapore in March this year. This is exciting news
and will help the firm on its way to sustained growth in its business and export figures.
Importantly, the Trade Strategy and Trade Support Scheme both recognise the importance of indigenous enterprise to Northern Territory exports, particularly that which is flourishing in the arts and crafts sector. Indigenous firms and enterprises are actively encouraged to take full advantage of the scheme.
My international visitation plans are now developed on an annual basis in conjunction with industry stakeholders to ensure that our energies are directed to give best effect to our trade imperatives. This government is committed to engaging with our regional neighbours and has plans for an extensive range of visits to the region by the Chief Minister, my ministerial colleagues and myself during the course of 2004 about which I will go into in more detail shortly. At every opportunity, we are accompanied by business people as part our delegations.
The Northern Territory treats its role as invited observer to the Brunei Indonesia Malaysia Philippines East Asian growth area, more commonly known as BIMP-EAGA, with a great deal of honour. I am determined that we take full advantage of our relations with this group and increase our involvement with BIMP-EAGA to create some real and positive trade outcomes for Territory companies. To that end, the department is arranging for a delegation, including the private sector, to participate in the forthcoming BIMP-EAGA 2004 Transport and Trade Conference to be held in Manila at the end of March.
Let us look at the statistics. As most members will be aware, Australia’s imports have increased significantly in the past 12 months due to the rise in the Australian dollar. At the same time, the export climate has been hampered by a number of factors including our rising dollar, global uncertainty created by the ongoing terrorist threat, and last year’s SARS epidemic.
Last financial year, NT exports totalled $2.6bn, which is down $300m on the previous year. This figure is largely attributable to a significant reduction in output from the Laminaria oil field in the Timor Sea. Interestingly, for the same period we experienced a 15% increase in non-oil exports from the Territory largely driven by a growth in food and live cattle trade. In light of Australian and global trends, I believe the Territory has weathered the economic storm remarkably well from a trade perspective, and we are on track with our ambitious trade targets.
As we all know, the recent completion of the AustralAsia Trade Route creates a competitive alternative for trade within Australia, and this route, along with the Darwin Business Park, which replaces the ineffective TDZ, will be key drivers of the development of our economy. With the Northern Territory so well placed in geographic terms, it makes sound sense to develop increased trading links for the benefit of all Territorians.
The realisation of passenger services on The Ghan should not be underestimated as a driver of growth in trade in the tourism services sector, which will be welcomed by all firms operating in the sector. It represents a significant and positive boost to a business sector that has been hard hit over recent years by a series of setbacks.
I also draw members’ attention to the very successful global Freight Connect Conference, which was sponsored by the Territory government, last week here in Darwin. Our efforts to grow Territory trade will count for nothing if we are not able to engage fully with our private sector counterparts, the real deliverers of trade outcomes. Of paramount importance is the strength of our relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s International Business Council. As well as many ongoing projects, our strategic collaboration with this key organisation becomes most apparent with the staging of NT Expo and the export awards each year. In a spirit of genuine collaboration, FreightLink, the operator of the AustralAsia Trade Route, has become a regular participant in the various delegations that have been led by the Chief Minister and I to various regional centres over the past year.
In order to grow aviation trade, this government entered into a partnership in 2002 with the Northern Territory Airports Corporation to jointly fund an airline executive, Mr Peter Roberts, whose role it is to work strategically with airlines to grow passenger and freight links into and out of the Territory. This is yet another practical outcome of our strategic approach to growing trade.
In the ICT sector we have been working closely with the Australian Information Industry Association to grow the business-to-business and international ICT services sectors. To date, our joint efforts have manifested themselves most prominently in two very successful ICT forums and high level delegations to CeBIT 2003 in Hannover and Sydney, as well as IX2003 in Singapore last year. I will talk in more detail about the ICT aspects of my recent trip to Singapore shortly, but there is no doubt that these collaborative efforts will continue into the future.
Moving on to look at the livestock export trade, I note that within the trade strategy framework we continue to work closely with the NT Livestock Exporters Association, the NT Buffalo Industry Council and the Central Australian Camel Industry Association to grow live beast exports. It is a measure of the success of the industry and government that the 2004 figures for live cattle exports through Darwin are the highest in six years, at 22 286 head. This is 5000 more than in the same period last year, and this is despite the Aussie dollar riding as high as it is against the US dollar.
As members may know, Australia now has in place free trade agreements with Singapore and, of course, New Zealand. An Australia-Thailand FTA is yet to be ratified but, when it is concluded, it may well present trade opportunities to Territory firms. I note also that a deal was struck last week with the USA, which gave rise to an Australia-USA FTA upon the passing of legislation in both countries. I was on a phone hook-up with trade ministers and the federal Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, this afternoon for a briefing on opportunities under the FTA.
Whilst we are aware of significant opportunities to develop our trade links with Singapore at present, the reality is that the agreements with other countries may not have any significant beneficial trade aspect impact on the Northern Territory for some time. Nevertheless, it is important as trade minister to take the opportunity to fully explore the scope of these agreements in conjunction with interested industry stakeholders to ascertain whether there are, indeed, opportunities to be pursued at present. As I will discuss in more detail shortly, I propose to visit Thailand this year.
With the strategic framework in place and with significant funding available to support trade initiatives, it is opportune to record some of the exciting projects that are being undertaken by Territory firms at present. In the services sector, Study North Australia, a consortium of education service providers coordinated by Charles Darwin University, is attracting overseas students to study in Darwin. Swires Shipping commenced in November last year its crocodile route, a regular container shipping service between Darwin and Singapore with weekly sailings. Toll Holdings has taken its place as the foundation business at Darwin Business Park, having invested nearly $18m in the construction of dedicated facilities at East Arm to house its Cool Chain Management commercial operations and, since the launch of the international trade strategy, Excel Australia, one of the world’s leading logistic management companies has set up operations in Darwin. I was pleased to open their premises to take maximum advantage of the trade opportunities emerging with the completion of the AustralAsian Trade Route.
I will go into more detail later, but I note here that Rooney Shipping is currently negotiating with potential partners to position itself to take advantage of a number of very significant trade opportunities in Eastern Indonesia and beyond. This government values the contribution made by the Australian government representative offices located throughout the region. We actively encourage a strong relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and seek to draw on their resources wherever possible, as well as the Australian Trade Commission. As I mentioned earlier, this has allowed us to develop a more strategic approach to our overseas representation.
When we came to government we inherited no less than 27 separate memoranda of understanding, or MOUs, with a number of our regional neighbours. This is as impressive collection of wall hangings, but the reality was they were not implemented and they were not seen to be useful by the people who needed them most: our private sector entrepreneurs. Consequently, they gathered dust on the wall. From my point of view, it was important that we sharpen our focus onto the achievable. Accordingly, we have chosen to adopt a more strategic approach to the use of MOUs, not just as unsupported wall hangings.
We will continue to support the operations of the Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility in Darwin and to encourage the expansion of its use as a convenient and efficient service for goods being shipped into Eastern Indonesia. I was surprised to learn from the head of BP Indonesia in the context of recent talks in relation to the BP Tengguh project, I promoted the facility and they quickly grasped the significant benefits to be gained by shipping goods to the site through Darwin.
All this bodes well in my view for the role of Darwin as a supply and service hub for some very significant development projects in the region. The travel undertaken by various government ministers in the last 12 months provides a good platform for enhancing and extending the Territory’s engagement. As I mentioned earlier, the program of engagement is further reinforced in the government’s proposed 2004 travel program. In 2004, we will see the Chief Minister, minister Vatskalis …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The Leader of Government Business knows full well that he should identify members by their electorates and not by formal names. He is the Leader of Government Business, for goodness sake.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I think what the member for Greatorex is saying has been pointed out before. If you would …
Mr HENDERSON: I will defer to the extraordinary sensitivity of the member for Greatorex.
In 2004, we will see the Chief Minister, the member for Casuarina …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Arnhem …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have made your point.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Arnhem will undertake a range of official visits - he does not want to hear the interesting stuff, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - to the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan and South Korea. These will complement visits I have already made to Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia thus far.
I present two specific highlights of the first 12 months of the Martin government’s Asian engagement plan. Activities in relation to the Arafura Games that will include a component of the Business of Sport in the next games to be held in 2005, and continuing successful outcomes from cattle management training, which is being provided to regional customers through DBIRD and Charles Darwin University, all as an extension of our growing livestock export program.
One important area we have not left out of our plans is the re-engagement with the government and the people of West Timor. They have suffered greatly since the independence struggle in Timor- Leste in 2000-01. Kupang is the closest Asian city to Darwin and we have enjoyed many years of cooperation with West Timor. As members know, Darwin is home to a sizable expatriate population of West Timorese people. The Martin government has lobbied the federal government to review its serious travel warning for West Timor and ask that that situation be reviewed so that people can once again travel freely between Darwin and Kupang.
It is regrettable but understandable that Merpati Airlines cut its air links shortly after Timor-Leste’s independence, although this government met with Merpati executives and lobbied in support of trials to reinstate the Darwin-Kupang service. I am pleased that the first trial flights took place in December 2003 and congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I hope to see Merpati return on a regular basis in the near future.
Specifically in relation to trade, this government has also continued to support West Timor and Indonesia’s other eastern provinces in the fields of education through exchange and livestock breeding programs and health programs conducted through Menzies, and through regular discussions at ministerial level.
The government is well aware of the historic and more modern contributions made to trade by members of our ethnic community. It is with this in mind that we have begun exploring options to increase the number of business and skilled migrants choosing to invest and settle in the Northern Territory and that is why this government has developed a discussion paper on business and skilled migration for the Territory. We will hold community consultations across the Territory to assist us develop a fully representative business and skill migration strategy. I encourage all members and their constituents to consider contributing to this consultative process.
Business and skilled migration is not about taking the jobs of hard working Territorians; it is about broadening our skills base, increasing the diversity of our economic base, creating new and improved trade links, creating new inbound investment across a range of industries, and having new arrivals settle here and go on to promote the Territory to their regional network of family, friends and business associates and, very importantly, becoming Territorians.
I am pleased to be able to announce that today, a senior officer from my department left for China and Taiwan to participate in a business and skilled migration program. Next month, the same officer will travel to Surrey in the UK to participate in the Emigrate 2004, the largest migration exhibition in Europe attracting 15 000 people over three days. This is the first time in eight years that the Territory participated in this type of exhibition.
I would now like to focus on some significant developments taking place for our food industry in the USA. The Territory is blessed with unique high quality foodstuffs that are often subject to seasonal influence on availability. To assist producers find niche export markets for Territory foods, my department has formed the Northern Territory Food Group. The department has been instrumental in creating a Northern Territory presence at America’s Taste Down Under contest, which was used as a promotional vehicle to access the high end USA market for Northern Territory farm barramundi, and which has resulted in sales of farmed Territory barramundi going from zero to approximately $1.2m.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I now report on my two recent successful trade delegation visits to Singapore, Indonesia and Brunei. The Indonesia visit, which occurred between 19 and 22 January, was a further step in our engagement with our regional neighbours and will be the first of many into the region by ministers in 2004. Whilst in Brunei en route to Jakarta, I participated in meetings that are likely to have a very positive impact on the growth of AustralAsia Trade Route. I am thankful to Mr Graeme Lacey, the CEO of Rooney Shipping and Trading, who arranged for me to meet with executives of a major regional shipping company to discuss their plans to expand operations to Darwin. Whilst the details of these discussions are commercially sensitive, I am confident that an announcement will be made in April on the commencement of a new shipping service linking Darwin with Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and Korea. This is great news and will further boost trade between Australia and Asia through our new port and railway, providing obvious opportunities and benefits for Territorians.
I put on the Parliamentary Record, with the indulgence of the House, my congratulations to Mr Graeme Lacey, the CEO of Rooney and Trading, an enormously talented and tenacious man who spends months in the region. It is very hard to crack work in the region in probably one of the most competitive shipping sectors in the world and he puts everything into it. He is a great Territorian and I wish him all the best.
Let me now talk about the prime role of my visit over and above my work in the promotion of improved economical and political relationships with our nearest and most populous neighbour, Indonesia, and the potential positive impact this will have on the Territory’s economy. The primary purpose of my visit was to promote the new AustralAsia Trade Route to Indonesia’s corporate and government sector representatives. This was timely, as my visit followed the official opening of the trade route by three days.
On 20 January, I presented the keynote address to the prestigious Centre for Strategic and International Studies on the trade route. I believe the CSIS invitation for me to address them on the AustralAsia Trade Route is clear evidence of its regional significance and its very real potential to change the way Asia trades with Australia. Along with staff from my office and department, the delegation comprised the following private sector members: Bruce Fadelli, as we all know, is President of the Chamber of Commerce in the NT; Mr John Parkes, General Manager International Marketing, FreightLink; Dr Ross Ainsworth, Australian Livestock Services; Mr Graeme Lacey, CEO Rooney Shipping and Trading; and Mr Bob Tormey, CEO AusLink.
My address to CSIS outlined the wide range of opportunities available in the freight and logistics area for Indonesian and other Asian companies in switching their cargos to the AustralAsia Trade Route to enable faster access to and from Australia. I also outlined opportunities arising from the development of facilities at Darwin’s new business park. I urged them to seriously consider Darwin as an alternative route for the trade of goods with Australia.
As Chamber president, Mr Fadelli used his speech to provide a snapshot of our economic prospects, advising the CSIS delegates of the very positive long-term outlook he holds for the Northern Territory’s economy. The 150-strong audience, drawn from a cross-section of Indonesia’s shipping, freight, logistics and government executives, were extremely responsive and genuinely interested to hear of the AustralAsia Trade Route and the opportunities it presents.
I have since been advised by Mr Parkes of FreightLink that the visit provided him an excellent opportunity to promote an increased awareness of the AustralAsia Trade Route to a diversified audience of decision makers from government, shipping companies, importers and exporters. He advised that his participation in the delegation to Indonesia and Brunei is seen by FreightLink as the beginning of a new partnership that will open up both new trade routes and associated business opportunities for his company.
Dr Ross Ainsworth is establishing a veterinary products company in Indonesia, and now has established a formal business partnership as a result of participating in the delegation. He said that the visit was a great success, largely due to business introductions arranged by my departmental staff. Dr Ainsworth has now engaged a company to utilise office space and administrative staff in Jakarta.
I would like to touch on the outcomes of the high level meetings I attended during my visit. The first meeting in Jakarta was with Mr Bill Schrader, President of BP Indonesia. The reason for this meeting was to stress to Mr Schrader and BP Indonesia’s executives that the Territory is keen to assist with the development and supply of BP’s remote area LNG prospects at Tengguh in West Papua. The $4bn project is planned for a remote site in West Papua, only 1200 km north of Darwin. I understand a major announcement on the project will be made as early as next month.
I also met with Hon Manuel Kaisiepo, Minister for the Accelerated Development of Eastern Indonesia. The eastern part of Indonesia is a key focus of development strategies by the Indonesian government, and the minister and I agreed to examine a number of concepts to expand trade and strengthen relations between Eastern Indonesia and the Northern Territory. The eastern part of Indonesia is our closest trading partner and I am confident that we can soon reinstate our links with cities such as Kupang and Ambon. Minister Kaisiepo and I also discussed ways in which we may be able to reinvigorate the existing Memorandum of Understanding the Territory has with Indonesia.
I was privileged to again meet with the Honourable Dr Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Indonesia’s Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources. Our meeting provided me a further opportunity to brief the minister on the AustralAsia Trade Route and developments in the LNG sector. Minister Purnomo was very keen to explore a joint approach in the service and supply of a number of Indonesian gas and petroleum reserves that lie in close proximity to the Territory’s coast. I have invited minister Purnomo to visit Darwin in the near future and suggested that he considers making his visit coincidental with a major event such as the forthcoming South-East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, or SEAOC, which is scheduled for Darwin in June.
On return to Darwin via Bali, I met with His Excellency, Mr Dewa Made Beratha, Governor of Bali. The Governor and I discussed a range of ways in which Bali, Lombok and the Territory may benefit from the use of the AustralAsia Trade Route. The Governor was keen to explore methods of exporting furnishings, architectural fittings and craft to Australia. Currently, these products are trans-shipped from Bali northbound via Singapore to be sent south to Australia. We also discussed the possible supply of food to the Balinese hotel and food wholesale markets.
The proposed Darwin to Bali Yacht Race 2004 was also discussed and I have invited the Governor to visit Darwin in late July to officiate with our Chief Minister at the start of the race. This race will contribute to positive publicity for the Territory’s and Bali’s tourism industries. Governor Beratha and I also discussed ways in which we may regenerate the once significant European backpacker market, which once used Bali as a stepping-off point for Australia.
As mentioned, I also undertook, on 4–6 February, a joint visit to Singapore with my colleague, the member for Stuart. This visit was undertaken as part of my Trade portfolio, but also as part of my new portfolio of Communications. While much of what was discussed was of a commercially sensitive nature, I can advise that we explored with our Singaporean counterparts a proposal to establish a Joint Trade Development Centre, or JTDC, in Darwin and Singapore that will involve the latest information technology and bring together a collaborative team from the Territory and Singapore governments and members of our respective ICT industries.
While in Singapore, we also met with the Honourable Dr Lee Boon Yong, Singapore’s Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. Dr Lee is fully supportive of the JTDC proposal. He has instructed his Development Authority to begin working with the Territory government and our ICT industry and the Singapore ICT industry to progress the development of the centre.
I am pleased to report that similar support for the JTDC was given by the Honourable Brigadier General George Yong Boon Yeo, Singapore’s Minister for Trade. My meeting with minister Yeo also provided an opportunity to brief him on developments associated with the AustralAsia Trade Route. With Singapore being one of the world’s most advanced trading economies, the AustralAsia Trade Route was of great interest. He was fully supportive of our growth plans and offered his ministry’s help in further promoting the trade route in Singapore, a very significant offer and one we will be taking up. I look forward to continuing to work with minister Yeo on that initiative.
We also discussed the implications of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and its potential for trade with the Northern Territory, along with the potential for new opportunities for our professional service industries.
It is my intention to continue this year’s already extensive regional visits program later this month. I have been invited to participate with the Territory’s delegation to Brunei’s International Trade Exhibition, or BITE, which will be held in late February. I am advised that the delegation to BITE may total as many as 15 Territory-based companies from a diverse range of industries including livestock shipping and transport, building and construction, petroleum industry service and supplies, health and environmental management.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you can see, the Martin government fully recognises the significance of trade to the long-term interests of all Territorians. As such, it has put in place a range of linked strategic approaches with measurable outcomes that will see us grow our competitiveness, our skills base, and our capacity to grow exports and inbound foreign investments.
I look forward to reporting again to this Chamber on the continuing tangible and positive outcomes being achieved in growing Territory trade for the good of all Territorians as a result of the government’s strategic approach outlined above.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the statement is welcome. I support the thrust and structure of the engagement that the minister outlined, and I welcome the report on significant meetings that have occurred within the region, particularly the focus on our closest neighbour, Indonesia.
There has been some very welcome progress in recent times with regards to strengthening a vision that many Territorians have had for a number of years. It is a vibrant vision. There is, in fact, a community of people within the Northern Territory who share a common vision about the capacity that we have, as close neighbours to Indonesia and the countries further to our north, of the potential that exists. That is largely borne of active and genuine engagement over a number of years. It is a result of people who have spent time in the region and who understand other cultures. They understand the potential of our neighbours: the potential of trade and of developing, through good relationships, cooperative ways of meeting each other’s needs.
It is those people who have put in that time and have fought those hard yards, such as our cattlemen, who had a need, and they wanted to gain greater penetration and access to markets in the north. They got out there and worked exceptionally hard and were propelled by a clear vision and would not be put off by any obstacle. They have done an extraordinary job and I compliment the cattlemen of the Northern Territory for the way in which they have actively and progressively engaged the region.
They really fit the example of a clear vision with hard work, dedication and constant activity that drives that vision and leads to the vision becoming reality. We see that from the cattlemen in the Northern Territory.
The real vision for those who have worked in the region and those who are familiar with working cross-culturally is that if we restrict ourselves to trade outcomes and talk strictly in economic terms and pay less attention to those things that assist us to build relationships, we will not be able to gain the maximum benefit. Anyone who works cross-culturally in the region knows that it is the relationship that must come first. It is aspects of that relationship building that I would like to have heard more about in this statement. That would give me a sense of confidence that the understanding of how we are going to drive this forward is based on an understanding of how we can actively and realistically engage the region. We must engage with an understanding of the culture and the environment in which we work.
This comes back to basic things that I did not pick up in the minister’s statement; not directly trade related, but you must have a bridge in order carry freight across and that is the bridge of relationship. A relationship is formed through an investment in things that do not provide direct trade benefits, but is an investment in sporting exchanges. Granted, we have the Arafura Games here, and, sadly, we missed one, which provides an excellent vehicle for the strengthening and maintenance of relationships. Also through our education links through exchange programs, which may appear, in the minds of those who work in Asian Relations and Trade and the mind of the minister, to be not completely relevant. However, if you understand how to engage the region, they are very important. To my knowledge, the exchange program in education has fallen away. They are the very building blocks that we need to engage the regions.
The focus on language within our school system in learning the language of our nearest neighbour, the emphasis and the focus on such things are very important if we are serious about working in the region. Otherwise, things will just take care of themselves; people will just discover the trade route. They will find an easier way. Every self-respecting merchant is going to do their own research and they will find a way to gain - we have to start all over again.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be best if we just continue in the vein …
Mr MILLS: You think so?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it may well be the way to go.
Mr MILLS: I am a bit of a stickler for Standing Orders and all that sort of thing.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will refer it.
Mr MILLS: Okay. Nobody is to say anything to anybody.
A member: What happened?
Mr MILLS: Oh, nothing. It is all right.
In a meandering sort of way, I need to draw attention to an understanding of that core vision so we know what it means to engage the region; we know what it means to have a vision for how we transact business.
It starts with relationship and an understanding of who we are as a people, where we are located, what our real potential is and, more importantly, about our neighbour; who they are, what are their needs, who are those people? We must understand the important role that government plays in making the official point of contact and brokering the diplomatic nexus so that we can begin the process from that point of contact. It is so important that there is active and constant engagement at the level of government to government. We know from working in the region that is how it begins.
You can have no end of activity, meetings with business people and you will walk away from those business meetings thinking you have achieved wonderful things, and you will be told very pleasant things, and you will be given a sense that something is going to happen, but unless it has been effected and ticked off at the highest level, at the diplomatic level, government to government, progress is considerably slow and we may not see a result at all. Anyone who has had experience working in the region knows that is the case.
It is for that reason that I believe we need to more actively and progressively fund and support a stand alone agency to engage the region. It would bring together important elements such as sporting and education links to make sure that what is happening in education, sport and recreation and in other departments is all brought together so that we are all pointing in the same direction and we achieve maximum benefit.
If we restrict our engagement to the region and define it strictly in economic terms, we will not make the necessary progress. We will not kick the goals. We will think we are making activity. We will comfort ourselves with information about programs and strategies; we’ll give it whatever name we like and we will all feel that something is happening when we are not gaining traction.
Once, the Northern Territory had genuine traction and genuine engagement within the region. Anyone who has regularly visited the region need only walk around and visit people, and they remember the Northern Territory. They remember Shane Stone, Marshall Perron, Mick Palmer, former members of the Northern Territory government. They know them by name, by personality. A relationship has been built, and they feel that we have walked away from that relationship.
You know that if a relationship stops, it is not a matter of just picking it up again, particularly if there has been gap of about two years. You find that people’s affections have been drawn elsewhere, their interests have gone somewhere else. At the same time, there is a sense of hurt because there were expectations; they thought something was going to happen and we disappeared. That may seem unreasonable, but I will give you an example. I made regular visits to West Timor conducting educational exchanges. I studied in West Timor at University Nusa Cendana. There was a period during which there was a lot of contact between our university and the university in West Timor, between the respective education departments and schools. There was an active program of exchange and it was building upon itself.
Then there was the economic crisis. It was too difficult for our friends in West Timor, too expensive, for them to travel to Darwin, so that part of the exchange stopped. Fortunately, some schools maintained their connection and the university continued its connection. Then there was the problem in East Timor. We were fully informed, though our media, of what was going on there. Parents no longer wanted to send their children to West Timor, understandably. The education exchange programs between the universities stopped. There were once sporting exchanges; they stopped.
Why they stopped was quite understandable from our perspective, but as someone who had built relationships over there, I could not help but feel concerned for my neighbours in West Timor. I know how their media system works, and I felt that perhaps they did not understand what occurred. We do; we have an open and active media.
Fortunately, in 2000 I had the opportunity to make a quick trip to West Timor to visit the Governor and the Mayor. Whilst I was there, I visited a number of the schools with which I had previous engagement. Wherever I went, I kept hearing: ‘Where have you gone? Where has the Northern Territory gone? What have we done to offend you that has caused you not to come here any more?’ I was thrown, and I realised that they did not understand what had happened internationally; they simply knew that at one time we were actively engaged, interested and maintaining a real friendship, and then we just stopped coming. The relationship was damaged as a result.
I use that as an example because once you have a real relationship, you can start talking about how you can trade. I am using that as an example because that is the sort of vision you need and the understanding you must have about relationships in the region so that you can build real trade. I am not just talking about schools and education and touchy-feely things; I am talking about the active maintenance of a relationship that must occur on a constant basis, otherwise all this will not amount to much.
In fact, it is going to cost a considerable amount to gain the momentum that we need to engage the region. We need to build a greater understanding of how to engage cross-culturally. We need a greater level of investment in our own capacity to understand the language and the culture. We need more effort in that path. We need to ensure that we adequately fund the agency that is to deliver the vision. We also need to ensure that we have a clearly articulated and coordinated plan that combines the key and varying aspects of the relationship capacity to build that trade.
Despite all we heard in the statement, which I support in a notional sense, there is an element missing and that is the level of expenditure of the Northern Territory government, based on the Estimates Committee briefing notes, is at similar levels to previous years. In fact, the cost of our active engagement within the region has dropped off. It is maintained in Jakarta, it has reduced in Manila and it has dropped to zero in Bangkok. I understand that there is a fee for service arrangement in Thailand, a country with which we have a new MOU. I note the same arrangement in Sabah, but it appears to me that the level of funding behind this is not adequate to give it real grunt and to build the necessary relationships.
When we look at the number of people within the department, it seems to be a rather small number and it is hard to gain a sense of what coordination there is across government. In the broader context, we need to see how we are tracking in terms of exports. We see that we have a percentage change of -36.9% in international trade, the export of goods. That is from the January 2004 Territory Economic Review. For international trade, the export of goods, for the September quarter 2003, the change is now -36%. International trade, the import of goods, is down also, -19.2%, so we have a long way to go.
I genuinely support what was outlined in the statement. I would like to see, however, inclusion of that depth of vision and articulation of how we transact business and how we gain some momentum within the region. We must start talking about wider ways of combining our common interests and specialist knowledge, how we can harness that in a way that is going to deliver the outcomes we all desire so that trains departing Darwin will increasingly be loaded with freight and ships to our north will see Kupang as a stopping off point on the way to the port of Darwin.
As I mentioned before - and I guess I would like to speak Indonesian better than I do - it was quite clear from my meetings in West Timor that there was surprise that the railway had been completed. Maybe it is as a result of Jakarta not communicating with Kupang, or perhaps it is this neighbour not communicating quite clearly with West Timor. Whatever the reason, there is great potential, great opportunity, to deliver shipping from Surabaya and Kupang to Darwin. It could start small and from small things, big things can grow. The focus should be the capacity and needs of Territory businesses. That must be directly connected to what is possible for trade within the region. We should have clearly defined targets of what we can achieve.
There are a number of initiatives that I would like to talk about. I will touch on one: the opportunity to strengthen the relationship between three key cities, Dili, Kupang and Darwin. Merpati, we understand, is keen to open the link to Indonesia through Darwin. A way of doing that would be to develop dialogue. Some party is going to do it. I know that the baton has been taken up by West Timor in this instance in talking to Dili about forming a link between Dili and Kupang. However, Darwin should come into that as well so that rather than depend on the viability of that link being made just with Darwin to Kupang, it would be far more viable if we could arrange flights from Darwin to Dili and Kupang and have three legs. There is some work already being done, as I said, through the Governor’s office is West Timor on that matter. I ask the minister if he is able to report to the House any activity from this government in progressing negotiations to that end.
We could go further and underlay that with the opportunity of sporting exchanges between Dili, Kupang and Darwin and tie those three discrete but related regions together. We have historical connections. We have real people connections with people from East and West Timor who live in Darwin. Many people in Darwin have an active and comprehensive knowledge of the region. Therefore, there is potential and I just toss that out to the minister to see what he is able to report on strengthening the links between those three cities.
I urge the minister to continue his activity and lobbying with regards to travel warnings in the region. There will be a win-win if we can get some mileage on that. As we know, tourism has dropped off in the backpacker market that once accessed Indonesia through Kupang from Darwin. Because those flight are not operating regularly, our tourism flow in that direction from the Northern Territory has reduced considerably. It now occurs from cities like Perth with the entre through Bali. We miss out on significant trade there.
I might add, for the interest of our close neighbour Kupang, they also have suffered immeasurably as a result of the dropping off of that flight link. Their domestic economy has suffered in extraordinary ways. If we believe we have suffered because of a loss of tourism here, spare a thought for our neighbour West Timor in, Nusa Tenggara, for their loss of tourism revenue. There would be a win-win there if we are able to clear that travel warning, which is a major hurdle. Going back, we would also be assisted if we could strengthen the tripartite agreement between Dili, Kupang and Darwin.
With those few comments, minister, I support the statement. I wish you and your department well in fulfilling the vision that lives strongly in many Territorians; that our real potential and building of trade lies to our near north.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I speak as a minister for Primary Industry, resources, and Mines and Energy since they all contribute significantly to our exports.
The Northern Territory is located strategically close to South East Asia. As a matter of fact, we are closer to Singapore and Jakarta than we are to Adelaide or Melbourne. Of course, our location is unique because it gives us the opportunity to access markets that provide goods and services to hundreds of millions of people, many more than the Australian economy.
In the last financial year, total exports from the Territory contributed more than $2.6bn to the Northern Territory economy despite a downturn in export of oil owing to the decline of production in the Laminaria oil fields. Clearly, trade is a key component of our economy and offers a unique opportunity for growth and expansion of our business and industry sectors. The completion of the railway and the East Arm Port development gives us a real opportunity to increase our efforts, to identify and penetrate new markets.
I would like to comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said. My departments of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy contribute a lot to our trade effort. However, the Office of Ethnic Affairs is one that can increase our chances for better relationships, better trade with our northern neighbours. That is because the Office of Ethnic Affairs has access to multicultural communities in the Northern Territory, and in particular, the communities that come from South East Asia. We have the opportunity and ability for better understanding of culture, better understanding of our neighbours in the north, better understanding of their traditions and, what is more important, direct access to people who speak the language, know the culture and have the connections.
One thing the Leader of the Opposition pointed out correctly is that trade is not the only thing we must have with our neighbours; it is cultural exchange and understanding between the Northern Territory and Indonesia or other countries to the north. Recently I visited Bali and was very surprised when many people asked where I was from. When I mentioned Darwin, they could not place it. They were really surprised to learn that we are only two hours flight to the south, we share a lot of the plants, the animals, and we are closer to Bali than any other Australian city. As a matter of fact, they were more familiar with Perth, Melbourne and Sydney than they were with Darwin.
The other thing that surprised me was the disappointment of the Balinese people and the with the travel warnings issued by the Australian government that resulted in a significant downturn of tourism in Bali. We were walking in Kuta, which is usually, I am told, is full of Australian and western tourists, and unfortunately, on the days we were there, you could count them on the fingers of one hand.
My Departments of Mines and Energy, and Primary Resources and Fisheries contribute significantly to the export effort of the Territory. We export animal, fruit and fish products; we export minerals and processed minerals from the Northern Territory. Let me highlight some of the products that contribute to our export effort. Live cattle trade contributed more than $160m last financial year. I am very pleased to say that despite a downturn of the number of live cattle exported from Darwin to Brunei and Indonesia, there was a significant increase of Northern Territory cattle exported to these two regions. In Brunei in 2002, there were 12 000 cattle exported from the Territory, while in 2003 there were 13 500. In Indonesia, there were 133 000 cattle exported from the Territory, while last year there were 145 000 cattle. I hope this year there will be more. Unfortunately, the continuous increase in the value of the dollar does not help the situation, but hopefully the improved economic conditions of Indonesia and other countries in South East Asia, together with the situation with Avian Flu and Mad Cow disease in America may help our exports in live cattle.
Live buffalo and camels provide opportunities for new markets. Recently, we saw a report in the NT News about the significant number of camels that can be exported from the Territory to South East Asia, the Middle East, even to America. Current live camel exports include 800 head for Egypt, the largest order ever, and 400 for Malaysia. A report was commissioned by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development and the Cattlemen’s Association for the creation, establishment or reopening of a multi-species abattoir in the Northern Territory. It indicated that there will be significant opportunities for exporting manufacturing meat, buffalo and camel, especially if the abattoir obtains a US licence, a European Community licence and a Halal licence.
There is significant demand for camel meat and products in the Middle East and other countries in the region because the local camels have been devastated by diseases, especially the camels that come from Africa. Markets in Saudi Arabia, the Middle East and Africa are looking for a new source of camels. It is important that we look at what we produce and the opportunities we have for value-added and export products, not only live cattle but processed manufactured meat and processed meat, and double our efforts to identify new markets and market our products better.
Our horticultural products are unique. We have vegetables, cut flowers, grapes, hydroponic products and some of our tropical fruits are in great demand in South East Asia and other countries. Seafood exports are increasing from the Northern Territory. There are exciting developments in the United States with farmed barramundi. As my colleague, the member for Wanguri, said:
We are trying to find markets, to target our products for people who have high disposable income and want to find something but they cannot find it regularly available in supermarkets, but you can find it at special times through the year in small quantities, something more exotic from somewhere else.
Territory foods like barramundi or some of the tropical fruits give us this advantage because no one else can copy these foods. No one else can produce the same kind of foods anywhere else in the world. We are trying to identify the right business development partners in the United States and we were very fortunate when an expatriate food trader and professional marketer, Mr David Doepel in America, used America’s Taste Down Under contest that was held in February 2003 in Miami, Florida as a promotional vehicle to market some of the products from the Northern Territory, especially farmed barramundi.
As the member for Wanguri mentioned, during the 15 months since its conception to the Taste Down Under cook-off finals, sales for farmed Territory barramundi went from zero to approximately $1.2m. This includes fish from the Territory’s Humpty Doo and Marine Harvest barramundi farms. For the contest period, sales of Northern Territory barramundi experienced a sustained 25% increase in United States markets. At the same time, upmarket restaurants in America have told our representatives that banana prawns from the Territory are in great demand because they are clean, tasty, world class and they are replacing other imported products in the United States.
In addition to that, the Johnson and Wales culinary university in Miami and Charles Darwin University are exploring ways to share staff and establish a student exchange program as a result of Taste Down Under events. The Northern Territory Chefs Association has identified an opportunity for staff and students from Johnson and Wales University to come to the Territory to undertake a working holiday during the Territory’s peak period, which coincides with the Unites States summer break period. This will be extremely opportunistic as it is estimated unfilled demand will exist this year for at least 40 additional chefs in the Top End during the Dry Season. The contest created specific awareness in the USA, which is one of our key target markets.
It is funny that a product like barramundi and some of our tropical fruits would put Darwin and the Top End on the map in the United States because when you mention Australia, what the Americans think - and not only the Americans, but the British and Germans - they think of Sydney or, in a worse case scenario, Melbourne, but they never think of places outside Sydney and Melbourne, places like Alice Springs or Darwin. We have to increase our efforts to promote our products.
Recently, I was visited by the Ambassador of Kuwait in Australia. He has never been to Darwin. He is the first Ambassador ever to Australia. He was very surprised to learn that we have a date farm in Alice Springs. When I explained how it was developed and why it was developed there, he was very interested. He promised that next time he comes to the Northern Territory, he will visit the Alice Springs region to see the dates because he himself, before he became an Ambassador, was a grower of dates and he has a large property in Kuwait where he grows grapes.
My parents visited the Territory years ago and one thing that impressed them was the quality and availability of meat products. They were not very impressed with the fruit and vegetables at the time, but things have significantly improved, with grapes at Ti Tree, hydroponic production in Alice Springs, and efforts to establish market gardens in places like Ali Curung and Katherine.
The mineral sector makes an enormous contribution to the trade of the Territory. We have Alcan exporting alumina; McArthur River Mining exporting zinc; manganese from Groote Eylandt, and now, with the revival of mining in Tennant Creek, export to London from Giants Reef Mine and the Warrego plant of gold in large quantities. As a matter of fact, my department will soon issue exploration licence number 700 since the government came to power, which is a significant indication of our support of the mining industry, how we believe that mining will contribute to the continued growth and development of the Territory and, of course, to bring foreign currency into Australia and the Territory.
I will be working very closely with these sectors. I have already spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association, the Horticulture Association and the mining sector. I have indicated that I am very keen to undertake trips to Asia in order to promote our products. I am planning a trip to Singapore to attend a food fair in order to promote the Territory and its products. I am informed that the mango winery from Palmerston will be represented at the food fair, promoting some of the wine that he produces from locally grown mangoes. I also intend to visit the Philippines because it is an emerging market for our cattle export, and despite the fact that cattle prices are quite high now, approximately two kilos on the hoof, and the increasing value of the Australian dollar, there are still significant opportunities in the Philippines and Indonesia for our products.
One thing I also wish to promote is the railway. In the 10 days I was in Bali, I bought the Jakarta Post nearly every day, there was not one item about the arrival of the train in Darwin. The only news was on the ABC Asia Pacific program, but there was nothing in the newspaper. Obviously, we have to go out and promote the railway and our port if we are going to develop the port as a transport hub for exports and imports in the Territory. It will be an export hub since a lot of people down south identify the value of the train. There are increasing calls now for Sydney Harbour to close to commercial traffic and for the Navy to be removed completely. Recently, in a conference for the Year of the Built Environment, there were calls even for container ships to be relocated out of Sydney Harbour, imposing a kind of curfew similar to the one at Sydney Airport. It is a unique opportunity for us to grasp this opportunity and promote Darwin as a port that is very close to Asia, serviced by road and railway, and promote the opportunities of Darwin Harbour.
In the next 12 months, as I said, I will be working very closely with all these sectors and travelling with my colleagues, the member for Wanguri and the Chief Minister, in various countries in South East Asia in order to identify new markets. I will be travelling with the representatives of the sectors, the Cattlemen’s Association, people involved in agriculture, horticulture and in the mines sector.
A significant contribution is made by our community, as I said before. We have to utilise our multicultural community. They have the skills, they speak the language, they have the contacts and they know, of course, the habits and customs of these countries. We have a significant Filipino population in Darwin. They have worked closely with the government before. They help during the Arafura Games and even helped established a Filipino Expo in their hall at Marrara. We should also be able to use the Indonesian community that works very closely with the Indonesian Consulate. From our Chinese community, a lot of people regularly visit China, Hong Kong or Taiwan, and we should be able to build on those relationships, their knowledge of the customs and the language in order to promote the Territory.
Recently, we had the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, I have not seen the full text yet because it has not been released. It is going to be released on 23 February. At first sight, I do not think that we are going to see many benefits for the Territory. In beef, the tariff will be removed, but in 18 years time. Maybe we will see some improvement in the export of fish and some of the horticultural and tropical fruit products. However, until we see the full text of the trade agreement we cannot really know what the benefits, if any, will be for the Territory.
However, it is important that we increase our trade with our northern neighbours. It is important we actively visit our neighbours and try to identify new markets and new opportunities for Territorians because there will be continuous pressure by industry for government to assist in developing new markets and to assist the sectors; mining, primary resources, fisheries, fruit, and horticulture. After all, we can all work together to benefit the Territory.
I was very pleased to hear the support by the Leader of the Opposition for the statement by my colleague, the member for Wanguri. Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and commend it to the House.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and many of the things he said. It is, indeed, a pleasure to see that, at long last, this Minister for Asian Relations and Trade has a plan to promote the Northern Territory to our nearest neighbours, to see that he has, at long last, taken this job seriously and embarked on a concerted program to ensure that the benefits and capacity that the Northern Territory has to offer our northern neighbours will be put on display, as he has not done previously. I wish he had produced this plan two and a half years ago. Had that happened, many of the problems that this government faces about use of Darwin port would have been obviated.
I listened carefully to what the minister proposes to do. In particular, I was interested in how he was going to introduce Northern Territory businesses to potential buyers north of us. The minister needs to understand in dealing or doing business with Asia, they do business with people they know. They do business with people with whom they have a relationship. They do not do business purely on a western contract. That is not the way people in Asia, in particular, do business. They want to know you; to see who you are and work out whether they can trust you or not before they go into business with you. The fact that this minister has a plan to go out there and do that is very encouraging.
The minister needs to know his government does not really and truly do business. His purpose is to open doors for businesses in the Northern Territory to go through and for them to engage with other businesses so that there is a business to business relationship. That is the role of this minister. I am glad to see that after two and a half years, he has learned that he has to do that.
I was interested in the minister’s comments about BIMP-EAGA, something the former CLP government had been pushing for a long time. We were invited to be a part of BIMP-EAGA as an observer many years ago by no less that President Ramos himself. There was a time when, with President Ramos’ patronage, the Northern Territory was given the lead to represent Australia in an observer status at BIMP-EAGA conferences, taking part in the debate and providing opportunities for Australian companies to link through the Northern Territory into BIMP-EAGA. Unfortunately, one President Ramos lost his presidency, the drive for BIMP-EAGA was not as strong and involvement by the Northern Territory was not as strong as it had been.
People like Senator Gareth Evans, then the federal Minister for Foreign Affairs in the days when Labor was in government, was very encouraging of the Northern Territory’s involvement with BIMP-EAGA. He gave his approval for his Department of Foreign Affairs to assist the Territory wherever possible in order to be involved in BIMP-EAGA. The government’s promise that it will be involved with BIMP-EAGA again is good and I look forward to a useful dialogue between the Northern Territory and BIMP-EAGA nations to ensure more positive outcomes from the relationship.
The minister spoke about the AustralAsia Trade Route. You have heard me speak on this many a time. I still believe that this government has been particularly slow in responding to the building of the railway. Had they commenced marketing of the Darwin port and the railway line from when they first won government, we would gnashing our teeth, worrying about when and how long it is going to take for us to achieve our desire to have at least 50 000 containers passing through the Darwin port. I said yesterday in another debate that it would be good for the government to start talking to Perkins and try to entice them to come in and be part of the port activity. That would help enhance the activity and the number of containers passing through the port. Anyway, it is in the minister’s hands and if he is going to sit on them, there is nothing much more we can do about that.
As regards the minister’s comments about CeBIT in Hanover and Sydney, yes, that is fine. I accept that his department might have had something to do with it, but had it not been for the former Minister for Communications and his personal and particular interest in these matters, I don’t think anything like this would have happened. I am informed that the member for Stuart has a particularly strong personal interest in these matters and, through his personal interest, it went further than it otherwise would have. I hope this minister will follow in his footsteps to ensure that we continue to promote our ICT industry that is now starting to blossom.
It is ironic, though, that the current Minister for Communications was so insecure that he had to take his colleague to Singapore to be shown around the place. That is a wonder; you have two ministers going across to do one minister’s job. If the minister could not do the job, then he should not have been given the ministry. If he has the ministry, do the job. To take another one to hold his hand and lead him around Singapore – well! Let me assure him, and I hope he knows by now, that Singapore is a very safe country to visit and he would not have been lost.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Dr LIM: It is such a tragic - you know, you would cry if it was not so stupid.
With regards to the Darwin port, the improvement of facilities, the increase in shipping will always be of great interest to people across the nation. I was in Brisbane last week and a horticulturist came to speak to me about it and was very keen to use the port to send his produce overseas. I was keen to learn more from him and urged him to come to Darwin as soon as he can to inspect the facilities for himself and to make use of the port for exporting his goods rather than through his home port of Brisbane.
The minister was quick to criticise and to ridicule the number of MOUs that have been signed between the Northern Territory government, other governments and businesses. That is a reflection on the hard work that our public servants have done to engage those countries, to negotiate terms that form the basis of an MOU. They, the public servants, worked with all the dedication they had to ensure that the interests of the Northern Territory were looked after. The minister had nothing but ridicule for this hard that the public servants had done to bring us the MOUs. These MOUs are the first way to open doors that can then be strengthened by relationships developed by the minister himself to ensure that people then will look toward the Northern Territory for continued development.
I am glad to see that Merpati has resumed its flights. It helps those of us exiting from Darwin to get to places in South East Asia. At least it will be easier now than it was previously. There are not enough overseas flights connecting Darwin to countries north of us. It is a pity that Qantas will not increase its frequency of flights. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was one of the first people to fly Merpati when it resumed flights late last year.
The minister promised that he would now start to travel more. He talked about his two visits to Singapore and to Indonesia, he undertook to do more and promised to demonstrate how important his government regards travelling north. That is good. He is going to get up and say I was churlish in my congratulations about him. Well, churlish in the sense that it took him a long time to get to know what he was doing. Now, at least I see a plan that will help enhance what we have.
To prove to the minister that his last two and a half years have been particularly wasted in this portfolio, have a look at figures in the Territory Economic Review. In the page on Northern Territory state final demand and gross state product, under the state final demand, it shows that there was an annual percentage change in the negative of 36.9%. That is export of goods. For imports, it is -19.2%, so that is not good enough. When you go down to the comparative economic indicators, comparing the Northern Territory with every other state and territory in Australia - and these figures were published in January 2004 - again, the Northern Territory is -19.8%. If you look at the figures across the columns, we would have been one of the worst performing states or territories around.
If that is not indicative of how the minister has not performed, what else can you use? Had you performed from the very beginning when you became the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade two and a half years ago, we would not be faced with these dismal figures. It is important that the Northern Territory continues to engage with South East Asia. We did it for years under the CLP government, we worked very hard at it, and had you continued to do it, we would have a much better operating port, a much more viable railway line and freight service than exists now.
For the minister’s information, it was nearly nine years ago when all these issues about trading with South East Asia started to burgeon. It was predicted that by year 2012, eight of Australia’s top 12 export markets will be in East Asia. There are lots of opportunities, minister, and I urge you strongly to go for broke and try to win as much as you can from these countries. You can only do that by developing personal relationships with people over there. There is no other way to do it. The obvious benefit for us if that happens is that there will be more jobs in the Territory, both in the private and public sectors. By introducing our public servants to this international market, we will have our public service attuned to free market enterprise thinking and promote an ethos within the public service that will enhance our competitiveness with our neighbours in South East Asia.
When you start talking about trade with South Asia, remember, it is not all one way. What they want from you is not just what you have to sell, but what sort of intellectual exchange you can have with them, what intellectual transfer they might benefit from this relationship. It is important to understand that what they are looking for is expertise not available in their countries, they are looking for us to help them to develop and retain as many of those needed skills that we have. While we might be a small jurisdiction, we are within a first world country with first world technology and first world intellectual property. They need those sorts of facilities and services to enhance their own countries. When you develop a relationship with them, there is an expectation that there will be some sort of assistance provided for them to have that intellectual transfer, and for them to retain that intellectual capacity for their own country’s development. It is important to understand that Asian mentality, so very important. Without understanding that, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, your job will be poorly done.
Asians do not trade with people they do not know. It is important for you to be there frequently; travel as much as you possibly can. You will not be criticised by the opposition for travelling across to those countries to promote Northern Territory, to sell what we have. Indeed, we have a lot to offer those countries. Get there, do the best you can and we will praise you for it. We will not be talking about you going on junkets. I remember a time when the member for Stuart was sitting on this side of the House accusing ministers of the CLP government for having junkets and saying that they should be doing their research on the Internet. You cannot do that. You cannot develop a relationship with a person over the Internet; you have to be there face-to-face. I offer you this encouragement: go and do it. You will not be criticised by the opposition for doing it; you will only be criticised by the opposition if you do not do it.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I support the trade statement delivered by my colleague. One of the many natural advantages of the Territory economy lies in our proximity to the markets of Asia. Darwin, in particular, with its high-quality deep water port, has long been recognised as possessing natural advantages that will ensure it develops into a key trading centre linking Australian and Asian markets. This potential is now on the threshold of major advances with the completion of the Australasia Trade Route, the north-south rail link and the development of intermodal capacity at the Port of Darwin. These developments have long enjoyed bipartisan support in the Northern Territory. They have made up a significant proportion of the record capital works budgets over the last two years.
We live in historic times in regard to the development of the Port of Darwin. The port now boasts over 750 m of continuous berth space. The general purpose berthing is now 600 m long, and a dedicated bulk liquids berth of 154 m is under construction. Two hundred metres of the wharf provides priority access for container vessels adjacent to the rail port intermodal facility. The intermodal container facility now has the capacity to handle in excess of 250 000 containers per year. The facility also provides for rail sidings and mobile terminal operating equipment.
In 2002-03 total import and export tonnages through the Port of Darwin were approximately 1.060 million tonnes. Almost a 500 000 tonnes of this total was made up of imports of bulk petroleum products. The budget estimates for 2003-04 are for total imports and exports to grow by approximately 13% this year to reach slightly less than 1.2 million tonnes. In the current financial year, the anticipated tonnage of container trade through the Port of Darwin is approximately 115 000 tonnes. Over the next three years, the Port Corporation projects that the container trade through the port will grow to over 275 000 tonnes. That is solid growth of 140% over three years.
As outlined in the minister’s statement today, the government is putting in place a series of actions and assistance measures that will work towards the achievement of the Port Corporation’s container throughput projections. The completion of the rail link also provides the opportunity for development of mineral deposits along the transcontinental rail line. The movement of bulk minerals to port by rail has as significant positive effect on the economic viability of such proposals. The Darwin Port Corporation and FreightLink are working with resource developers to develop logistic solutions for the export through the port of the bulk mineral resources along the Central Australian corridor. I have been briefed on this very recently and it is a very exciting development.
A number of proposals are under active consideration at the moment. Potential tonnages from new mineral developments have not been included in the tonnage forecast for the Darwin port. Of course, the development of new mines has the potential to increase the tonnages throughput at the port by a very large quantity. A number of projects could commence in 2004-05 and potential tonnages could be as high as 750 000 tonnes per year. The Darwin Port Corporation is also working closely with FreightLink, importers, exporters and freight logistics companies to develop land bridge trades using the port as a gateway.
Madam Speaker, there has been some publicity over recent months over Swires Shipping Line having links between Darwin and Singapore. The government has encouraged that link and we are very excited about it; it opens up a lot of potential with a company like Swires coming into that route. Discussions are ongoing with regional shipping service operators and major main line shipping service operators like Maersk, ANL and APL about the possibility of establishing expanded shipping services through the Port of Darwin.
I was very pleased to meet with senior Australian executives of Maersk who were at the Global Connect freight conference here recently. They are very optimistic about the future of the port and links into Asia, particularly with Singapore and Malaysia.
The Darwin Port Corporation is engaging with regional ports in the BIMP-EAGA region and developing cooperative marketing and inter-regional trade promotion arrangements. The chief executive and marketing manager of the Port of Darwin will be visiting Brunei and Malaysian ports later this month to further promote the benefits of the AustralAsia Trade Route and shipping through the Port of Darwin.
The port is also establishing strategic regional alliances on issues related to port design, operations, engineering and technical services as well as developing cooperative arrangements on port management and human resource development.
The offshore oil and gas support industry is an integral part of the Port of Darwin’s business, and the Darwin Port Corporation is working to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure and operating environment are available in the port. The port is supporting the development of the Phillips LNG plant with significant levels of imported project cargo coming through for construction of the plant.
At a recent briefing with the CEO of the port corporation, he said that they were starting to have a little bit of a space problem because all this freight is coming through for the LNG development here, both onshore and off shore. It is a welcome problem, but that is a problem they have. That freight into Darwin will increase. As well as the plant, the Darwin Port Corporation is working with companies to facilitate logistics for the onshore pipeline.
This is a significant infrastructure project with over 350 tonnes of pipe to be laid and some 600 000 tonnes of Armour rock to protect the pipeline to be laid by specialist pipe handling barges and vessels over the next eight months. The Darwin Port Corporation is providing increased port infrastructure to support the establishment of the new joint user fuel facility at East Arm. This development will also have flow on consequences in freeing up the current area of the tank farm in Stuart Park for future development. I was pleased, along with the Chief Minister, to go with the CEO of Vopak and make that announcement. Some of the negotiations have been tortured, particularly in the last six months. There was some doubt as to whether one of the fuel companies would come on board, but I comment all those public servants who worked very hard to ensure the Vopak proposal is a success. It has been around for a long while and this is something that we worked hard, along with our public servants, to ensure the success of this $50m proposal.
Vopak Terminals Australia has recently entered into contracts with the major fuel distributors to develop this $50m bulk liquid terminal in the East Arm area. Speaking with the CEO of Vopak, I saw some diagrams of what has happened elsewhere in the world. When Vopak opens up, they bring in the bulk handling of these liquids. Other industries spring up around them and they facilitate those industries, so it is a very import development. It has been supported by the government. I am advised that there has been $20m to facilitate the liquids handling infrastructure at the wharf and also $10m to construct a bulk liquids pipeline and related infrastructure. This has paid dividends in securing this major project. Vopak terminals around the world are commonly located adjacent to rail and Vopak see this as a major advantage with a view to possible expansion into bulk liquids handling, additional to bulk petroleum. The bottom line with that is that we should not just see it in terms of petroleum; there are liquids as well. That could very well be a two-way street with the development of the LNG and ancillary industries.
The Port of Darwin continues to be Australia’s pre-eminent port for live cattle exports and continues to work with producers and exporters to retain its market share. Tonnages of livestock and fodder total approximately 120 000 tonnes per year through DPC infrastructure. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries outlined before that the live cattle trade into Asia is worth approximately $160m a year to the Territory pastoral industry. I believe that approximately 60% of those cattle exports go into Indonesia, and the majority, from my understanding, go to feed lots in southern Sumatra.
It was my privilege in December of last year to visit those facilities with the cattlemen and meet those involved in the live cattle trade on the Indonesian side of the equation. It was very interesting. I had a very good look at a feedlot there that is run by AustAsia, which of course is a company with Australian and Indonesian interests, and substantial interests just out of Katherine as well. This feedlot was in southern Sumatra near the city of Lampung. I was shown great hospitality there. I visited another feedlot in the Lampung area that is run by Consolidated Meat, and that is owned by Kerry Packer. There is an Australian operator there who is in partnership with them. I met with some of the people from the Indonesian government, such as the vets and the quarantine people who facilitate this trade.
Picking up on some of the points that were raised both by the member for Greatorex and the Opposition Leader about continually showing your face, being in a place and building up relationships, I was absolutely amazed to discover when I visited this place, which is the main destination of our live cattle industry, that I was the first – now, this is what I was told and I asked several times to confirm it - Northern Territory minister to visit that place in eight years or probably more. Eight years or more!
Here is a major export industry out of the Northern Territory into South East Asia and it belies the hypocrisy of the opposition when they say: ‘Your government is not doing enough into Asia, not building up relationships’. Eight years or more! I was very proud to be there and represent the Northern Territory government, see first-hand and meet those involved in that very important industry.
I met with the Minister for Primary Industries from Indonesia, and they see the live cattle trade as being a very important part of the relationship between Australia, Northern Territory, and Indonesia.
Indonesia took up a fair bit of the Opposition Leader’s time in his response. He seemed to be focusing on Kupang because that was a place that he most recently visited and, like many other Territorians, I have been to Kupang many times along with my family, it is a very interesting place, but there is more to Indonesia than Kupang. The Opposition should be paying a bit more attention to places like Lampung in southern Sumatra.
When I was in Jakarta, I met with the Indonesian fisheries minister, and I extended an invitation for him to come to the Territory. As a government, we have been trying to facilitate a conference on outstanding fisheries issues between the Northern Territory and Indonesia in relation to management issues because their fishery butts right up to ours, and issues such as marine debris, which has caused quite a lot of angst in Arnhem Land with fishing nets coming down and catching turtles and other sea creatures. I have heard recently that the Indonesian fisheries minister is coming to Darwin, so that, again, was a very important contact.
The Opposition Leader mentioned Merpati. I met with senior executives of Merpati when I was in Jakarta and I was led to understand from them that they are negotiating with Airnorth about a route from Darwin through Kupang to other places in Indonesia. That would be a very important partnership between a Territory company and Merpati. Those discussions are ongoing. As a government, of course, we will do all we can to facilitate that becoming a reality.
Returning to the live cattle for a minute, and it does relate to our trade generally, the high Aussie dollar is seen as a bit of an impediment to our trade, but they are issues that we can work through. It has affected our live cattle exports to some degree and could affect others. Unfortunately, that is something over which we, as government, do not have a lot of control, but it is a factor.
Returning to the main portion of my speech, it is significant to note, as the minister stated, that one in four jobs in the Territory are linked to trading goods and services, and I congratulate the minister for his work in developing the International Trade Strategy that he released in 2002. The International Trade Strategy sets out a series of goals and objectives. This government is driven by goals and objectives, each and every one of us, individually and as a team. We set ourselves goals and objectives and we strategise and work hard to achieve them on behalf of Territorians.
The practical solution of the strategy is overseen and monitored by an implementation group that includes representatives of industry associations and the export sector. This is another demonstration of our minister’s approach to consulting and involving industry groups in developing the Territory.
I congratulate the minister on his initiative in developing the Trade Support Scheme. This scheme was announced by the minister in this year’s budget. The scheme includes financial assistance for export marketing activities, trade advice and market research. As the minister said, more than 50 applications for assistance have been received to the end of last month, and 28 applicants have received financial assistance under the scheme to develop trade initiatives. So trade is an essential part of any economy.
I mentioned my trip to Indonesia. I was also in Singapore for some time, meeting with travel and trade representatives, and a whole range of people. There is a lot of interest in the Territory, the port and the rail link. People in Singapore are very keen to further build on relationships in that regard. I suppose some of them feel as though they are in a hostile region and they need to reach out to Australia, and there is a great deal of friendship there. We can build on that. As transport minister, over the next year or 18 months, I intend to travel in the region, as I have done in the past, and strategically build up those relationships and trade into the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, in short, I congratulate the minister and his department for the great work they are doing in developing Territory markets and their work in facilitating access for Territory companies to export markets.
My little anecdote about the live cattle trade and the lack of visitation that Sumatra has had over at least eight years illustrates the point that I know the minister has made on a number of occasions: yes, we are going to do things differently. We might not do things the same way as the CLP in engagement with Asia. There were some very positive things that the CLP did over many years. We will build on and recognise the importance of that, but what the Opposition has to realise is that we will do it differently. We have a different style – successful, I believe - that will lead to much success. I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud of the minister’s statement. We will build trade over the next year, particularly into the Asian region.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate, in most part in a very positive way. It goes to show that, as Territorians, we can get our heads around this issue in a positive way. I hope we can keep most of the politics out of it because, at the end of the day, we have to present a united front in Asia; commitment to the region is there for the long term. They are not interested in petty politics and point scoring. As my colleague, the member for Johnston just said, when we are in the region, we do compliment and talk about the long history that we have had in the region that was, in part, a result of earlier CLP governments push to the region. We are continuing that, but we are doing it differently. We are being very strategic about our approach. Towards the end of the previous government’s reign, it was really a bit scattergun, and that is not the approach that we are taking now.
Responding to speakers in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition started off talking about the cattle industry. That is the icon of Territory trade, particularly with Indonesia. When you take out those exports figures - minerals, oil, gas into the future, the next biggest commodity we trade is live animals, particularly cattle. If you take those out, there really is not a great deal of discrete industry substance, produce and service expertise we export. The cattle industry was a clear vision. It is certainly something we are working on as a government.
We can assist Territory business to export in two ways. We obviously work with individual companies on an enterprise basis, but that has limited returns given how difficult it is for individual companies to secure long-term contracts and relationships in the region. It does take many years and a lot of effort, research and commitment to the region to start building those relationships. Therefore, we have to work with individual enterprises but, more importantly – and it is a strategy we are developing - with industry sectors that are ready to export as a sector, as opposed to individual enterprises.
The cattlemen led the way. The next sector that is leading the way, which I am very excited about and for which my colleague, the member for Stuart, made initial inroads is the ICT sector. That industry in the Territory has come together and recognised that for their industry to grow, they have to export. They cannot keep cutting each others’ throats for diminishing government work; they have to export. To do that, they have come together as an industry cluster, forming alliances both internally and offshore, complementing each others’ capabilities, and really starting to making tentative, to start with, but significant plans for the future. I pay tribute to that industry tonight, and to the former Minister for Communications, the member for Stuart, who worked with the industry to establish the framework.
I acknowledge that there is a debate about the way we are doing it differently. It is a matter of what comes first: the chicken or the egg? In this case, it is relationships or trade. I make absolutely no apology as a minister in the Northern Territory government that our focus is in the best interest of the Territory economy. The first thing we have to do, given the size of the Northern Territory with a population based of 200 000 people as opposed to 500 million people within four hours flying time to our north, is to be very clear about what our trade objectives are. We have to understand what we have to sell, who in the region may want to buy that product, and become very focussed and strategic about where we are going to target.
Once we have understood what those trade objectives are, we then need to look at what relationships we need to build to open those opportunities for Territory business. That is our focus. I believe very strongly that the trade outcomes and objectives need to be identified in the first instance. We must have industry sectors working alongside us. It is absolutely pointless for minister to go jetting around in the region knocking on doors and finding that there is nobody who wants to enter into the room to pursue a deal. That is not the way that I intend to do business in the region. I believe that, on the whole, I have the Territory business community working along with the department to identify outcomes for Territory business. This is what this is all about. It is not about MOUs and photo opportunities and positive media for the minister; it is about genuine partnerships in the region that are going to lead to win-win outcomes for the Northern Territory, increased exports from Asia either to or through the Northern Territory and seeking investment from companies in our region in the Northern Territory economy partnering with Territory business. That is our focus and vision. I admit there is a debate out there about the chicken and the egg; trade versus relationships and engagement.
I do not share the Leader of the Opposition’s vision to re-establish a stand alone bureaucracy, the old Department of Asian and Relations and Trade. It had its point in time, but the structures are now in place across government, as a result of our Asian Relations and Asian Engagement Strategy, and agencies are working together in a coordinated way to engage with the region in a strategic way. I do not believe more public servants are in any way going to increase our trade performance. What will increase our trade performance is a very strategic and focussed effort by industry coming together collaboratively in partnerships and clusters, working with government. With all due respect to some great public servants who have done an enormous amount of work over the years, more public servants will not achieve the goal of greater trade.
The Opposition Leader talked a lot about West Timor and our relationship there. Quite honestly, that relationship stalled when the airline access stopped and it stalled with the Asian financial crisis in 1997. I am not sure which year the airline access to Darwin stopped, but it was not long after that. We then had the tragedy of the lead up to East Timorese Independence and very severe travel advisories issued by DFAT about West Timor and, more broadly, Indonesia. That is the only reason why some education initiatives and sporting links have stalled. Whilst those very explicit travel advisories are in place, it is not for this government to be ignoring those and promoting educational exchanges. We also have legal advice that this is something we should not be doing. Taken into the context of the climate that we are in at the moment, there is not a lack of will; it is the reality of the global climate and the Commonwealth’s position, particularly travel advisories.
I have written to Foreign Affairs Downer seeking an explanation as to why the strength of the travel warning on West Timor is still in place. He has not seen fit to answer that correspondence. I know from the East Timor point of view, they would like to see that relaxed.
I do not know why the member for Greatorex harped on about trade going backwards. The reason those figures are down $300m is because of the rapidly declining reserves in the Laminaria oil field. That is exactly why the overall GSP trade figures and exports have dropped from the Northern Territory and will increase commensurately, probably even greater, once the LNG exports to Japan take off. What is important, though, is to dig beneath those big, lumpy resource-based figures and look at the non-oil export figures for that financial year. They are up 15%. It is easy to play games with numbers, but the reality of our trade is that it is small when you take out the resource sector. Laminaria was the biggest oil producing field in Australia. It is in significant decline and that is the reason for the down turn in those figures.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the general support for the statement. I will perhaps leave the story about minister Palmer and the mangos incident in the Philippines when he virtually single-handedly collapsed the entire Australian cattle industry. That is a story for another day.
I thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for an update on what his department is doing and what he plans to do. It is a dynamic department that has been working for many years to improve relationships and, more importantly, improve economic outcomes in the region for countries that receive our live cattle in particular. I had the privilege of being the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for nearly a year and I know those people do a great job. I am sure they will continue and that the minister will put his shoulder to the wheel to assist them.
The member for Greatorex has a lot to contribute because of his obvious links to the region, but I wish he would not be so patronising. He does not need to tell me I need to understand things and how to do business in Asia. I am not pretending to be an expert; I have never been a businessman. I have never tried to export anything, but I have lived here long enough and worked with Asian people and, as Asian Relations and Trade Minister, I understand my role. Yes, my role is to open doors and to maintain those high-level government-to-government contacts and we are doing that.
We are focussing quite specifically on Singapore at the moment, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the previous government didn’t put some significant effort and focus into Singapore because in our region, it has been one of those tiger economies, a country with which we have established air links and have had for many years. It is a country with which we should be seeking investment and partnerships. A lot of work is going to go into partnering with Singapore and understanding the opportunities there, particularly now the Free Trade Agreement is in place, and a number of ministers will be pursuing opportunities in Singapore this year.
BIMP-EAGA is important. It did go cold after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, but the Philippines, again, is leading the way trying to get that forum up and running. We are engaged. In November, there was a ministerial forum in the southern Philippines. I could not attend because of Parliamentary sittings, but senior members of my department were invited to make a presentation to ministers from countries in the region about the railway. That presentation went down very well and, as a result, we had a significant attendance from the region at the Freight Connect conference in Darwin a couple of weeks ago. We are reciprocating by sending a delegation to a freight conference in the Philippines very soon.
The member for Greatorex was saying that we have done nothing until recently on promoting the railway and port. Either he does not listen to debate in the House, or he does not want to listen. I am not sure on how many occasions, but I have made presentations in the region about the railway, port and investment opportunities in the Northern Territory on numerous occasions in Jakarta, Singapore, Manila, Tokyo, Brunei and Kuala Lumpur. The Chief Minister has done the same in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Other ministers have done the same on visits in the region.
The difference now, and it a very stark and specific difference and was highlighted in Jakarta in January, is that at long last, we can now say that not only are the railway and port up and running, but here is the person to talk to about doing the business. He has the rates, he is the one who can sit down and talk turkey. Until that time, it was all about what is coming. People looked with interest, but there was no capacity to sign on the dotted line. FreightLink had not even been looking to enter into any contractual arrangements in the Asian region until John Parkes, the Trade Development Director, was employed in October or November last year. People wanted to see that the trade route up and running, proven reliability, firm quotes and until such time as the commercial operators could provide those, nobody was going to do any business. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the member for Greatorex does not understand that.
FreightLink is very pleased with the support that they have from the Northern Territory government in opening doors for them in the region. I believe we will very soon see some tangible outcomes from the recent visit by FreightLink to Brunei and Jakarta, with more to come.
I again acknowledge my colleague, the member for Stuart. It was his initiative, his department that worked with the ICT industry, which determined that it wanted to export and target Singapore. We were working with them, and he did a great job.
The member for Greatorex’s trite comments about the member for Stuart having to hold my hand on a trip to Singapore ill behove him. I can tell the member for Greatorex that his media release to that effect has gone to every ICT business in that industry cluster group, and they think it is an absolute joke. They are very pleased with the support that they have from the NT government for very good reason. The member for Greatorex talked about relationships. The previous minister opened those doors and established those relationships. It was very important at the most senior levels of some very significant companies in Singapore, and at ministerial level, that there was a handover. That is what occurred. It is a four hour trip to Singapore. There was nothing amazing in it.
I would remind the member for Greatorex of the number of times Daryl Manzie, the previous Asian Relations and Trade Minister and Shane Stone had joint visits to the region to show a united front and a government that is very serious about doing business. If the member for Greatorex talks to a few people in the ICT industry, he will see what a goose he has made of himself as a result of those comments.
My colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, has a new role, a different hat, but I know that he will be out there promoting the port. It is great to see that the port now has a marketing budget. Representatives will be in Brunei with me at the end of next week. We are off with 15 business people to Brunei to present at the Brunei International Trade Exhibition. Those links, port to port, are occurring in the region, supported by shipping companies in the Northern Territory and supported by FreightLink. It is good to see the Port Corporation in marketing mode.
All in all, we do have our shoulders to the wheel. We are engaged. We are doing it differently, and time will tell how that approach goes, but we have set targets, we have set objectives and the public sector is focussed. We are working in a spirit of cooperation with business and industry. Let us hope that the Australian dollar does not go through the 80 cents barrier, but we will achieve the targets that we have set and we will do that because of Territory business, not because of the Northern Territory government.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, since this is my first adjournment for the year, I hope all my colleagues in the House, all my constituents, friends and fellow workers had a great Christmas and a great holiday and that they are fully recharged. Certainly, I noticed that many of my colleagues came here fully recharged …
Mr Henderson: And fully charged.
Mr VATSKALIS: And fully charged. We have returned to the Chamber and students have returned to school, making a lot of parents happy. I do not how the teachers feel, but I believe they are also happy to be back at school.
I had the pleasure of attending a morning tea at Nakara Primary School last week where I enjoyed meeting new and old staff. I wished them a happy new school year. I intend to do the same next week at the Alawa Primary School. I will continue to support the primary and high schools in my electorate. I have always supported education and teachers, not only because my wife is a teacher, but because I hold the view that education is an extremely valuable tool for people to have a successful life.
I was also very pleased, on 26 January, to contribute to the success and the opening of the Leanyer Recreation Park. Many thanks go to Delia Lawrie, member for Karama, and Len Kiely, member for Sanderson, who worked for a long time to finalise a very successful recreation park in Leanyer. You only have to take a drive down there to see the number of children, especially on the weekend, enjoying the water park, with that fantastic bucket dumping 1000 litres of water every three minutes. The scream of the kids enjoying being dumped with water is incredible. Also at the Leanyer Recreation Park is the provision of parking facilities, change facilities, and I believe now the department is going to provide lockers as requested by the patrons of the park.
Recently, I was very happy to announce multicultural grants for the Territory’s ethnic community worth $120 000. I was very pleased to be able to help the Pakistani community with a grant of $9000 for them to teach Urdu language to their kids and the community. They already have a teacher and asked me if I could help them to find an educational facility. I was very pleased to speak to Mr Barry Griffin, the Principal of Nakara Primary School, and he was kind enough to provide a room at the school for the Pakistani community to access every Saturday to teach Urdu.
On Saturday 25 January, my electorate office received the traditional Chinese New Year blessing by the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Group. The day before, we were in Bali and I was very surprised to see the Chinese community in Bali celebrating the traditional Chinese New Year. From what I read in the local press, it was the first time that the Chinese community was allowed to celebrate Chinese New Year in Indonesia. We observed the Lion Dance in hotels in Bali, much to the surprise of some of our colleagues and friends who were not very fussed about it. When they asked how we knew about it, we explained we come from Darwin, one of the most multicultural cities in Australia, where the Chinese New Year celebration and blessing by the lions occurs every year, so it is nothing new to us and we are very familiar with it.
This is going to be a very busy year again. My electorate office, despite that it is only the beginning of the year, has been inundated with requests. We have had many visits from constituents. I extend thanks to my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland, who has been very busy while I was away and, of course, now that I am back. Being electorate officer to a minister is a very difficult job. It tends to be very isolated and, in reality, that person is the second member for the particular seat because she receives a lot of complaints. On many occasions, she does all the work and provides the member with a solution. It is great when you have an electorate officer who is so dedicated and works so well in the community.
I thank all those people who have visited my booth at Casuarina Square in the past few Saturdays that I have been there. It is great to be in the shopping centre, to have people come to speak to you. It does not matter if you come from your own electorate or from anywhere else. People have issues and problems and they would like to speak to somebody and I am quite happy to receive their complaints or concerns and direct them to my colleagues in order to resolve them. I have been pleased in the past to direct complaints to ministers and members who resolved them quickly.
In the last few weeks my wife, Margaret, and I had the pleasure of attending a number of ethnic celebrations: the Chinese New Year banquet hosted by the Chung Wah Society; a dinner hosted by the Sri Lanka-Australia Friendship Association in celebration of Sri Lanka National Day; and a dinner hosted by the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory in celebration of the Eid-Ul-Adha Festival. I would like to thank these organisations for their hospitality and congratulate them for maintaining their traditional social, cultural, and religious values and, in this way, adding to the cultural diversity of the Northern Territory.
On a very sad note, I pay tribute to a very popular constituent who passed away late last year, Mr Orazio Parisi of Nakara, at the grand old age of 81 years. Mr Parisi, who was of Italian descent, came to the Territory as a young migrant. He was married to a Greek lady and they lived in Nakara. I knew him, and his family, very well. I send my condolences to the Parisi family on the loss of their husband and father.
It is great to be back in parliament, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, with my colleagues. I am looking forward to the rest of the year.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the House of a very successful community event, which I hosted on 7 December 2003. It was my pleasure to host a community Christmas function, Christmas in Nightcliff, at the Nightcliff Aquatic Centre and I thank the Darwin City Council for making the venue available to the people of Nightcliff.
It was a wonderful family event with group performances from the Nightcliff School Band, and I congratulate the teacher of the students, Monika Lee, and all the members of the band. The Greek Orthodox School of the Northern Territory performed with both a senior and junior dance group. I thank the Greek community for their gracious support of this event and for their enthusiastic performance. I also thank the many teachers and parents who attended with the students.
One of the pleasures of being the member for Nightcliff is the multicultural nature of my electorate, and Greek people are especially represented in my electorate. It has been a real pleasure to meet and get to know so many Greek families and to be invited to celebrate with them the many special cyclical events in the Greek calendar.
I also thank the Ricardo Dance Studio, in particular Shauna Ricardo, for the spectacular modern dance performance. Similarly, I thank Joeline and the JAZ Dance School for their excellent presentation.
It was a pleasure that the Nightcliff Dolphins Swimming Club was there, sharing their Christmas function with the community and providing a sausage sizzle. It was great to have the Nightcliff Primary School provide a food stall for the event and my special thanks go to Acting Principal Brian Bennett and Senior Teacher, Marion Bryce.
No Christmas function would be complete without the arrival of Santa, and it was whispered to me that Len Shea of Nightcliff had for the second year stood in for Santa at this event. A special thanks to Len and the Evergreens for their participation.
This is the second year that I have hosted this event. In the first year, there were around 250 people and in 2003, there were around 500 people. I can only imagine how many people may come this year. I look forward to hosting this function again and in to the future.
There is a lot of work that goes into organising these events and I thank my Electorate Officer, Chris Draffin, and to members of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party for their hard work and assisting with organising this function.
On New Year’s Eve, it was my pleasure to be a participant and sponsor of the Nightcliff New Year’s Eve Party held in Nightcliff Mall. This was the first time that such an event had been held and it was a great success. The event was held where the Nightcliff Markets usually are and, despite the extremely wet conditions, Darwin families turned out in their droves to enjoy a fabulous family new year. I would especially like to congratulate Kim Pradier, the Coordinator of Nightcliff Markets, Paul Bayetto and Pauline Joy of The Groove at Nightcliff for their enthusiasm and hard work in establishing this great event. There were also performances by the Stocktons, Kiribati South Sea Island Dancers, Sunameke, JAZ Dance Studio, Midnight Oasis, who are belly dancers, and Jamela belly dancers.
There was great entertainment for the kids: the jumping castle, Bubbles the clown, face painting and a beaut kids train that looped the market area all night with excited kids on board. There were many market and craft stalls.
I opened my electorate office for the night, and offered an informal retreat area for young children and their parents with children’s videos showing through the night, thanks to our local Video 2000. It was a real pleasure sharing in this celebration with so many Nightcliff residents. The evening went from 6pm until 2am and more than 600 people attended. It was a great success and I look forward to it being repeated this year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the North Darwin Regional Business association to honourable members. In October 2003, I convened a meeting at the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall regarding small business in the Nightcliff, Rapid Creek, Millner and Coconut Grove areas. The meeting was attended by around 30 business people and the group was addressed by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, Paul Henderson, and two senior staff from the Department of Business Industry and Resource Development, Mr Doug Phillips and Mr Graeme Kevern.
The aim of the meeting was to ascertain whether there was an interest in local businesses establishing a local business association to focus on business in our local area. Business operators were interested in the development of the association and Mr Greg Sharam of Night and Day Auto Care was elected as interim chairperson. It was agreed that a newsletter, together with a business survey, would be distributed to the 290 businesses in the area and a further meeting would be held on 5 February at the Nightcliff Sports Club. Greg Sharam and I then worked on preparing and distributing a newsletter and survey and following up with many businesses regarding the association.
There was an excellent response to the survey and many queries from businesses about establishing an association and about specific issues they wanted addressed. The meeting went ahead on what was a very wet night, with 35 attendees and around 30 apologies. Attendees listened to guest speakers on business strategies and solutions, financial planning and television advertising. Issues raised by attendees related to matters such as GST, BAS, insurance, particularly public liability insurance, payroll tax, assistance for business, marketing and how businesses can better work together in the area.
An executive was elected from the floor of the meeting and consisted of Greg Sharam of Night and Day Auto Care, Kevin Thomas of Bob Jane T-Mart, Kath Ieraci of Rocktown Music, Alan Anderson of Unique Antiques and myself. An initial executive meeting has occurred and a further meeting of the association is being planned for March, with special guest speakers to be requested from DBIRD. In the meantime, the executive will pursue incorporation of the association.
Small business is a very special section of our community, and it is my real pleasure to work with these enthusiastic business operators. I look forward to reporting to the House further on this matter.
I congratulate the Nightcliff Evergreens, a group organised to provide community activities for seniors. The President is Mr Peter Mitchell, a very special person who dedicates his life to working for this community and who provides a special service to many seniors in the community by providing a free bus to transport people to and from many events. The Vice-President and Immediate Past President, Mrs Rhonda Blaser, is a very gracious lady who works hard for seniors and others in the community. As an aside, Rhonda is remembered very fondly as a preschool aide at the Nightcliff Preschool by many young and not-so-young people in the Nightcliff area, and I include my children in this group.
This pair is ably assisted by their Secretary, Mr Chris Draffin, the Treasurer Mrs Audrey Ellis, Social Secretary Pauline Plummer and committee members, Merv Brown, Betty Newton, Marilyn Glover, Norah Smiles and Muriel James. It is my pleasure to act as the Patron of this group, and it was an honour to join with the members with they visited Parliament House on 11 February.
I place on the record my admiration for this group. They are active, enthusiastic and provide a wide range for activities for seniors. They have already held some functions for the year and next week, they will be playing indoor bowls at the Nightcliff Sports Club for the No Bowl Trophy – I am not absolutely sure of how that works - against Palmerston. In March, they will be having a speaker at their meeting from Camp Quality and later in their month, they will have their heads down for a game of bingo. They also play carpet bowls every Monday, lawn bowls every Wednesday, and Canasta every Friday. It is a fantastic community group, and one with which it is my pleasure to be associated.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to finish my report, and I will be brief. I have a written report, which is available for those who are interested, and there are a couple of other matters upon which I was going to touch.
Last night, I reached the stage where I was talking about the Mexican portion, but I want to backtrack a tiny bit. Whilst I was in Florida, I took the opportunity to visit a place called the Technology Coast. That is from Fort Lauderdale up to Orlando and includes Cape Cod, which is of course, where NASA launched the space shuttle. I had an up-close- and-personal tour, courtesy of some representatives at NASA. I looked at enormous construction areas, the launch pads, and I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss the amount of money they spend and other possible launch sites, including talk of launching satellites from somewhere in Australia.
I said that I was from the Northern Territory and that part of my electorate contained an area once considered to be a potential site, that is near Gunn Point, and to my surprise, they actually knew about it. They knew about Gunn Point and they knew about Cape York. There are options which exist and that people are aware of in a country such as the United States. One day, it will probably be appropriate for a government, perhaps the Territory government, but probably more appropriately for a federal government, to really pursue these options, because the amount of money that is pumped into the area, the number of high tech jobs, the number of university graduates who secure well-paid, intellectual jobs flowing from the space industry was overwhelming and a credit to the system.
Getting back to the journey that I started in Europe, I went to the caves at Altamira in Spain. When you look at the evolution of human beings, we are all really natives of Kenya who walked up through the Middle East. There are some bones on the Iberian Peninsula that are about 90 000 years old. The caves at Altamira are between 16 000 and 20 000 years old, and they were the same sort of paintings you would see in France or in Arnhem Land. There were hands and animals, bison, of course, and over here we have barramundi. There was not an enormous difference between the type of art you could see in these places.
I followed the footsteps of how human beings spread around the world and continued that trek when I was in Mexico. I met with a number of native Mexicans of Mayan and Inca descent. I had a number of very interesting conversations. I have articles and other material that may be useful one day in solving some of the problems the Northern Territory will face in dealing with many similar issues.
As I said, the message that comes from them is land tenure. There has to be security of land tenure, you have to start treating people with dignity and respect and equality. You cannot have this system of reserves where people are lumped together. It might be romantic and sweet to have 50 or 100 people, but when it gets to 1000, 2000 or 10 000, the system simply does not work. You have to move with the times, you have to empower people, and you have to allow them to mortgage, sell, buy, and have freehold of their property.
From the Mayan perspective, you really have to take responsibility for yourself; you cannot look backwards. I gave them the scenario that many Australian governments have decided to say the symbolic ‘sorry’. The response from one young fellow was: ‘Sorry for what?’ It is a different generation and there are obviously some philosophical arguments there.
In any event, I have lots of material here. I do not want to consume numerous adjournment speeches …
Dr Burns: I want to get to the Calgary Stampede.
Mr MALEY: I did not go to the Calgary Stampede. I did not go there, I was in the south. I went to Florida and Mexico.
Overseas travel, indeed any travel, will always be viewed sceptically by the Territory taxpayer and, quite frankly, with a fair bit of justification. If you look at what the Labor Chief Minister did – two trips to the Greeks Islands in under three years – it is very difficult to justify that. However, that has occurred. I view it as a privilege. As a bloke who was born here and lived his entire life in the rural area, to travel to Europe for the first time really was a privilege and opened my eyes. I saw that the world is not just Humpty Doo and Howard Springs, though sometimes I wish it was. It was a great experience. I have already attended one of the rural schools and given them the Peter Maley summation of Europe and the Americas and told them of my travels.
Actually, there is one other thing that I remember. I left the Territory parliament, travelled around the joint and reached Mexico. Of course, as I left here, I think the last headline I read was the formation of the new Labor Party glostick – I am sorry: the gay and lesbian officers in the police force. I thought it was a bit of a turn up for the cards. I got to Mexico and they have also just formed a new department in their police force and they call it the Tourism Protection Group. There is a group of police officers dedicated to look after tourists. I left my home jurisdiction where we have the new gay and lesbian officers - this is the new Labor Party initiative. People are getting bashed in Mitchell Street, but do not worry about that - we are worried about being politically trendy and all that kind of thing. Then you go to Mexico and they are dealing with the real issues: tourism, protecting all people. It was an interesting parallel that was fairly obvious. They are dealing with some of the real issues which affect people and not just window dressing, it seems.
As I have said, I have a written report here for those who are interested. All honourable members are welcome to sit down and …
Dr Burns: Are you going to table it?
Mr MALEY: It is hand written, but I can probably type it and table it, but I have ...
Dr Burns: That would be fantastic.
Mr MALEY: Yes. I am happy to sit down with the member for Johnston any time and go through my little album and all the newspaper clippings. Any time that it suits you, it would be a pleasure.
Dr Burns: Fantastic.
Mr MALEY: It would be a pleasure.
The other matter I want to touch upon with only a few minutes to go in my adjournment is the arrival of the first train in Darwin. It was a momentous occasion and, in my electorate, unfortunately, there were a number of people who worked on the old train between Darwin and Larrimah and a number of drivers who still reside at Berry Springs. The one who has certainly done the most work in putting together a very impressive photo album is a fellow called Robin Jessup. Robin and Jackie Jessup live at Berry Springs; they are good rural people. He was a driver on one of the locomotives between 1968-69 and I believe he did some work in 1970-71. What he has done off his own bat at his own cost is that he had a number of slides from the old railways and he has put them onto a computer and printed them out on photographic paper. They are absolutely amazing. There are pictures of Robin Jessup back in December 1968 before I was born standing next to these large Commonwealth railways locomotives.
You would be mistaken in believing there were lots and lots of train crashes it seemed, because his photo album is full of these really graphic pictures of pretty serious looking train crashes that occurred back in those days. I can hold it up for all honourable members, the Chamber is full. He has been kind enough to give me a copy and he said: ‘Here is a spare copy. This can go to the NT Library’. So I can state on the record that this is a project someone has done off their own bat for the benefit of future generations. There are some wonderful rare pictures and I am not sure whether I table or just put on the record that this is something that might give to the Northern Territory Library to be looked after into the future.
This particular man, Robin Jessop, and his family and the group of people with whom he regularly maintains contact deserve a lot more credit than they received. They should have been treated like VIPs when the first train arrived. They said they got a couple of tickets, but they could not get the interest going despite the fact that they apparently contacted some members of the Martin Labor government or minders and the like. They were disappointed on the day regarding the access they were given and the respect that should have been given and clearly was not.
In any event, these are good rural people. They are not going to hold grudges. He has done his work. He is donating this to all Territorians, and I said it would be a privilege and honour to present it to parliament.
Another thing I want to touch upon in relation to the railway, and I flag it now, although it is not something that is worth a question in Question Time, but it might be. There is going to be a very serious weed problem. There are weeds growing on this railway corridor. At Duncan McKenzies’ place, Santavan Station just the other side of Noonamah, it is going to be a problem. There are going to be fires and no one is dealing with the weeds. There is no contractor; no one is spraying them. We all know what happens with a hot fire: it damages the steel, it changes the temper of the wire and it will potentially be dangerous to the train.
Duncan McKenzie is a concerned Territorian. There are a number of other people who have been flagging this issue. I am flagging it on public record. I am asking the Martin Labor government to look at it. Perhaps they can put pressure on the powers that be regarding who is responsible for maintaining the corridor. Is it ADrail, is it contractors, is it something that falls within the scope of the Weeds Act? Ultimately, it is a problem. It is something the government has overlooked and it needs to be addressed.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my privilege to rise tonight to speak on a number of electorate issues.
Towards the end of last year I attended the Brolga Awards ceremony at Jabiru. I know the member for Sanderson was there along with others and that was a great night for the tourism industry. Although I am no longer tourism minister, I really value the friendships and contacts that I made during that time. I will continue to be a very strong advocate for the tourism industry and its very important place in the Northern Territory. I know that that portfolio is in very good hands with the Chief Minister taking it on. It just shows the importance that this government puts on tourism as an industry and its contribution to the economic and social fabric of the Northern Territory. I congratulate all winners of Brolga Awards.
On 5 December 2003, it was my privilege to attend the Jingili Preschool end of year concert. It was great to see all the little kids. They were dressed up in many different uniforms, everything from Spiderman to traditional German dress. It was great. Mim Regan has been in charge for many years. The school has a very long waiting list because of the work she does and her popularity. She has the confidence of parents right across Darwin; they all take their children there. Every function she does stands out as creative, the kids are really happy and you can see them developing and growing almost before your eyes.
Our very own Helen Allmich was on piano. She did a fantastic job belting out the songs. The kids really got into the spirit of it. I was not aware that Helen was a pianist par excellence, but she is and she did a great job that night. Apparently she is asked to return every year because she does a fantastic job.
There were many functions over the Christmas period. On 9 December, it was my privilege to attend the Jingili Primary School concert and awards ceremony. It is a very special time because Year 7 graduates are on the step between primary and high school, and it is a ceremonial departure from the school that has an element of sadness, but also an element of expectation and joy as these young people move to the next stage of their lives at high school. The Jingili Year 7 graduates are a great group: Melanie Goodall, Emily Hawe, Tahnee Hunt-Lew Fatt, Nicollette Inkley, Rebecca Minniecon, Emma Sampson, Jessica Shalders, Jessica Wivell, Siwi Boonmanee, Tarrant Haami-Jones, David Paull, John Pfeiler, Jesse Pugh, Atthaphol Rotjarung, Jack Simpson, Allan Sommerville, Cameron Voysey and Shannon Woodford.
I was honoured to present Student Representative Council awards to Tre Conlan, Sara Mikic, Max Kenna, Kiriana Pugh, Josie Trayte, Jack Anstey, Delkeisha Washington, Sam Sommerville, Sharlie Steele and Allan Sommerville. I wish all the Year 7 graduates from Jingili Primary School all the best with their high school studies. I know they will have very fond memories of Jingili Primary School.
Towards the end of last year, I was honoured to attend the Wagaman Primary School presentation assembly, and presented class awards and see Year 7 certificates presented to Christopher Anderson, Justin Ashley, Michelle Ashley, Steven Bell, Haymie Camposo, Tyson Cigobia, Peter Cox, James Deveraux, Tahl Gill, William Godfrey, Ashlee Goodwin, Kirsten Heslop, Sienna Jensen, Sam Lee, Stevie Mcdonald, Tina Merritt, Jared Nebro, James Neilson, Taise Ottley, McQuinnie Rosenberg, Jude Santa Maria, Jose Tagaro, Ella Thomson, Gemma Truscott and Susan Wauchope. I wish all those Year 7 graduates from Wagaman Primary School the best with their high school careers. Wagaman is a great school and turns out great students. High school is a big step, but I am sure they are all going to handle it very well.
During the Wagaman assembly, I heard the great story behind the naming of the replacement school bus. Instead of having the school logo and a name emblazoned on the bus, it was decided to go for more discreet signage on the doors to show who they are and where are from, for both aesthetic and economic reasons. The bus has been named Miss Melinda as the community’s way of saying that they value and acknowledge the worth and effort that Melinda Herridge demonstrates in her role of Receptionist and Administrative Officer at the school. That is why Wagaman Primary School runs like a top, because of the great work that Melinda does. She knows everyone, all the staff. She makes the place work. She has a great sense of fun with parents and students alike, and the school knew that she would not be offended to have the school vehicle named after her. The kids think it is great, and they cheered loudly when the bus pulled up with its new signage.
Another great from school was the production, under the guidance of James Mangohig, of the Wagaman People CD. James was an artist in residence at the Wagaman School. It is a fantastic CD with tracks from Year 6-7 Patterson, who lead with the title song Wagaman People; Years 5 and 6 Jefferson; J26 Band with experience; The Skateboard Song; Years 2 to 3 anti-smoking jingle, that was a great one, and I know a lot of the parents, including Di Rayson really liked that anti-smoking jingle because it is an issue that is close to our hearts to try and see that fewer and fewer young people take up tobacco. However, one of the most impressive tracks on the CD was Joe Smith, otherwise known as NT JoJo, with his environmental rap song, which I really liked. The CD now forms an integral part of life at the school, being played over the intercom. The kids really love it and a lot of families have bought copies of the CD to play in the car and at home. It is a great CD.
On 11 December 2003, unfortunately, I was unable to attended the Moil Primary School Assembly as I was overseas, however it was great to hear that the following students received their Year 7 Certificates: Magenta Bennett-Kellam; Kirsty Bird; Michael Cavanagh; Zarra Chapman; Maria Ciarla; David Creeper; Bryony Crowe; Adriana Da Silva; Pritika Desai; Tiana Dippel; Ellen Downes; Hamish Fejo; Ryan Fejo, Xanthe Fowler; George Hatzimihalis, Jordan Jones; Puanna Kapi - who also gave a fantastic Valedictory address, which I have read; Marissa Kyle; Carly Lehmann; Andrew Lewis; Josh Lindsay; Breeana Lock; George Mamousellos; Stacey McKenzie; Justin Merrett; Joshua Mitchell; Arron Murray; Matthew Nelson; Katina Papazoglou; John Parker; Nikki Patsalou; Todd Ratajec; Dean Reynolds; Nicole Roots; Rekisha Russell; Belinda Savage; George Smalios; Zacharlija Standish; Calvin Steele; Sarah Toy-Harmsen; Vasilis Tsoukalis, Sean Turnball; Cameron Virgo and Aiden Zyka.
I wish each and everyone of those Year 7 students all the best as they under go the transition to high school. I wish them and their families all the best. I know that Moil Primary School does a great job and turns out great students, and they can be very proud. I am sure all those students are going to go very well in high school and in their life beyond high school. I certainly wish them the best.
I was away for some time overseas between 10 and 19 December. I attended a number of functions on New Year’s Eve, 31 December, the first being at the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia. That was held at the Greek School in Nightcliff. I really want to thank Mr John Nicolakis for his friendliness and warmth and the way he afforded us a lot of hospitality. My thanks to John and his wife, Nicki. There were 100 to 150 people there, family groups, all having a fantastic time and it was great to join in those special celebrations.
As you know, many groups have functions on New Year’s Eve. My wife and I then went to the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club, and there, once again, we were shown great hospitality by the President, Mr Joao Silva, and the representatives of the Portuguese Consulate in the Northern Territory, Mr and Mrs Castro, who live in Wagaman. They are great people and I always enjoy their company and their conversation. Working hard behind the bar at the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club was Ms Ana Bentes, who runs the Darwin Gourmet Deli, makes great sandwiches and a great breakfast. She is a very hard working young woman and a stalwart of the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club. There was a very good crowd there, with dancing and everyone just getting into the spirit. It, too, was a great night.
I was privileged to go to the Cyprus Community Hall and celebrate New Year’s Eve with them. I really want to thank Kerry Kyriacou and her family for showing hospitality, great food and great atmosphere. I got to know the people in the Cypriot community in Darwin a lot better. They are very hard-working people, but when they party, they really like to enjoy themselves. I had a great time there.
Also on New Year’s Eve, I was privileged to go to the Kalymnian Brotherhood Club, and there was a fantastic crowd there. There must have been 1500 people there, with great Bouzouki players who had come up from Sydney. They really know how to party. I want to thank Leo Athanasiou for the hospitality he afforded myself and my wife and, of course, Con Hnaris and his family, who live in my electorate. They were very hospitable. I moved around that evening and talked to a whole lot of people in the Kalymnian Brotherhood. It was packed out, it was a great night, and everyone just partied on.
In my electorate, I am very proud to have a number of young sportsmen and sportswomen who are developing, and I am proud to support them. Sarrita King of Moil has recently accepted a scholarship with the Northern Territory Institute of Sport. Sarrita also won a national ASIS state achiever award, late last year for her fantastic efforts in netball and basketball at school, club and national level. She was part of the victorious Under-17 side that competed in the Territory Netball Championships, and also as a league basketball player with the Eagles in the Darwin Basketball Association.
Tim Garner and Callan Richardson, also of Moil, are great sportsmen. Tim recently won Player of the Carnival when he competed in the Queensland Under-15 Cricket carnival. I was pleased to support him in that, along with many other people. The Territory team, superbly coached by Callan’s dad Peter Richardson, claimed competition honours finishing ahead of last year’s champions, the Sunshine Coast. Tim impressed with an individual performance of 56 runs and 4/11 in the first match of the competition, while Callan took 3/19 and hit 43 runs on the last day.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, they are some of the goings-on in the Johnston electorate. I am very proud to represent and live in the electorate. I will never cease to be proud of it.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also live in my electorate and I am very proud of it, member for Johnston.
Tonight I want to talk about tourism and some of the recent activities within the industry. On Friday 13, which was a lucky day, I attended the National Cultural Tourism Conference held at the Birdswood Convention Centre in Perth. The conference was themed Journey Further with additional descriptive text that said:
all of which we have in abundance in the Territory. There were over 270 delegates from all over Australia and New Zealand with distinguished guest speakers including Michael Lynch AM, the Chief Executive of Southbank Centre London; Jonathon Tourtellot, who coined the term and concept ‘geo-tourism’, which is defined as:
Other speakers were Kathy Lette, who has worked as a newspaper journalist and television sitcom writer for Columbia Pictures in Los Angeles; the Honourable Jeff Kennett, former Premier of Victoria; Peter De Jong, the CEO of Pacific Asia Travel Association; Lindy Hume, Artistic Director of the Perth International Arts Festival; Larry Helber, a professional planner who has concentrated on tourism master planning; Major General Steve Gower AO, Director of the Australia War Memorial; Meryl Jupp, a policy advisor for the Ministry of Tourism, New Zealand; John Morse, Chairman of Tourism Victoria; Dr Richard Walley, OAM, Chairman of the Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board. There were other notable speakers, the calibre of whom I am sure you would agree, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, is excellent.
Of the 270-plus attendees at this conference, the Northern Territory was represented by two delegates: one from the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and me. I attended because I know the importance of networking in tourism, of keeping abreast of the industry and trends. This is all the more important because tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, with research indicating that by 2010, tourism is expected to run a close second to agriculture globally. In conjunction with the cultural tourism conference, the federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, held a meeting for all state and territory tourism ministers to discuss the additional boost of $600m plus to tourism in Australia.
Unfortunately, the Chief Minister, who is also the fourth Labor Minister for Tourism in this term of government, was not present at the meeting. The absence of the Minister for Tourism highlighted that this Labor government still does not really understand tourism. It is an insult to the Northern Territory tourism industry that the Chief Minister made the comment that she didn’t need to go to this meeting because she had seen minister Joe Hockey in Darwin recently and she had discussed all she needed to with him then. I need to remind the Chief Minister, who is also the Minister for Tourism, that she definitely needed to be there; she needed to be flying the flag for the Northern Territory.
Following the tourism ministers’ conference and cultural tourism conference, the annual Australian Tourism Awards were conducted at the Burswood International Resort Casino, with over 700 tourism representatives from every state and territory attending the prestigious black tie event. Of the 28 categories of finalists who were competing for national recognition, for the first time, the Northern Territory was not successful in any category. Western Australia had eight winners; Queensland, seven; South Australia, five; Victoria, four; ACT, two; New South Wales, one; and Tasmania, one.
This reinforces just how far the Northern Territory has slipped behind and how much work is needed to regain the high standards and the respect in which we have been held in the past. The one highlight of the evening for the Northern Territory was the induction into the Hall of Fame of Anangu Tours, which is based at Yulara. To be inducted into the Tourism Hall of Fame, your tourism operation has to have won three awards in different years in the Northern Territory Tourism Brolga Awards followed by winning the national award three times, a great acknowledgement for consistency in standards of excellence. I congratulate Anangu Tours for their continued commitment to the highest standards in their tourist operation; their induction into the Hall of Fame is well deserved.
I was pleased to hear the Chief Minister say yesterday that she would be travelling to China and Singapore later this year to promote the Territory. China is the fastest growing inbound tourism market to Australia with around 200 000 visitors expected by the end of this year. The federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, is targeting the Chinese market to have one million Chinese visitors to Australia by the end of the next 10 years. According to one local operator to whom I spoke two weeks ago, his business has had three groups of Chinese tourists, with an average of 20 in each group, visit in the last six months. These are the first Chinese groups he has ever hosted. That indicates we are poised for a great influx from China, and I look forward to the positive outcomes from the Chief Minister’s visit to that country.
I would also just like to mention The Ghan. I cannot possibly talk about tourism without mentioning The Ghan. My first association with The Ghan was about 15 years ago when my husband and I boarded it in Port Pirie, in South Australia, to visit Alice Springs. The Ghan had just been refurbished at that time so it was pretty plush. We thought we were pretty cool travelling up the middle of Australia. It was a fabulous trip; we thoroughly enjoyed it. As it turns out, I have lived next to the railway line and watched The Ghan go past for probably 20 years. I used to measure the length of it in my kitchen window. I was a kilometre across the paddock and I could never quite get it right into my kitchen window, it was so long.
It was a great excitement to see The Ghan arrive Katherine. We were far more fortunate than people in Darwin because it arrived on time, we were able to get up close and personal, and I would suggest that probably half of Katherine was there to meet The Ghan. We are very happy to have it in Katherine. It has opened a window of opportunity for a different tourism market to the Territory, and it is something that we all have to learn to cater for just a little better. That is the leisure market. We have not had the leisure market in the past; normally, we have the fly-drive, who are in a hurry, or we have the grey nomads who are travelling on the road in their caravan or their camper, but this is a different market and we have to learn to cater for it a little better. I welcome The Ghan. The people of Katherine are embracing it.
I will conclude by saying that when I took a walk through the mall today at lunchtime, it was the busiest I have seen it for a very long time. It was full of tourists. I took the opportunity as I was walking along to look in each shop, and I was very pleasantly surprised to see customers in there and of those who emerged from shops, most had shopping bags. I look forward to seeing the continuation of these visitors to the Top End. It is a good sign for Darwin and it is a good sign for the Territory, especially in February, which is consider a low time in the tourism industry.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was expecting somebody else to jump, but I will take this opportunity. I wish to discuss an issue that has been raised with me, and I touched on it during earlier debate today on local government issues.
During the debate, I mentioned that I twice had cause to travel to Willowra in recent times because residents invited me to have a good look around. What I saw was hardly edifying. Willowra is a community that made some unfortunate decisions in the not so distant past in relation to how they spent local government money, and consequently lost their local government council. The community has suffered for it.
I am fully aware of the policy of this government and the former government to encourage amalgamation in areas and that is really the direction in which Willowra is being pushed now. The amalgamation process is currently being done in the Western Macs area and throughout the Northern Territory, and with the communities of Nyirripi, Yuelemu, Yuendumu and Willowra.
I am deeply concerned that, as I said today, the administrative tail is wagging the dog of these communities. What I mean by that is that administrative convenience is being seen as the primary motivator for these communities in how they share their resources and the like, but communities should not be forced into a process of amalgamation.
I know that the government has announced on several occasions that communities would not be forced, but Willowra is in a very unusual situation inasmuch as it will not - and it certainly does not appear to be the case from this government - have its community government restored despite the fact that the Minister for Local Government wound up Ngukurr council in his own electorate under similar circumstances. The minister has since move to restore that council, and I imagine the reasons for that restoration are he well understands the cultural needs of the people at Ngukurr mean that they will have to be self-governing as much as they can.
Such a privilege has not been extended to Willowra and that is a clear inconsistency by the approach of this minister into how he is going to deal with councils that have problems.
While I was at Willowra, the houses that I saw were unfit for human habitation. Humans did not inhabit them. Indeed, the houses had donkeys in them. The humans were living in humpies dotted around the community. Willowra is supposed to be under the guidance and tutelage of the Yuendumu Community Government Council, but here we have a very awkward situation because these people pay rent on these houses, and are still paying rent on these houses, which is being paid to Yuendumu, which then has the responsibility, as the local governing authority to repair the houses. People in Willowra feel they are not receiving proper servicing for the rent they are paying.
This is not entirely unreminiscent of the ideal of taxation and representation. When people pay for a service, they want some sort of representative ability on their governing body. I would resent paying taxation in Australia without having a say in who sits in the seats in Canberra. Many people pay taxation in the Northern Territory would resent it if they did not vote in the elections that place us in this Chamber. Likewise, there are people who live at Willowra who want to see some sort of representation on their local governing body. They are deeply concerned that such representation is not forthcoming. They are allowed to make submissions, but they do not actually have a seat. When you drill into it, it does not surprise me that this has occurred.
As we all know, the cultural structure of Central Australian people, traditional people, is such that even within language groups, there are still subdivisions under those language groups and even within families, the base social unit. So even in small communities, there is tension between families quite often. When you address that between communities, then you have a much greater problem lurking: there is always some sort of resentment that develops out of the belief, be it right or wrong, that the people who are supposed to be administering money that is supposed to go to your own family is being kept for their own. And it is for this cultural reason that I have reservations about the process of amalgamation as a whole. What is happening at Willowra is indicative of the fact that there might be shortcomings in the way that those services are being delivered.
If it is possible for the government to find its way clear to restore the council at Ngukurr, then it is entirely within the government’s power to restore the council at Willowra and allow that community to re-establish itself and get on with getting on. I find it difficult to understand why the minister would refuse to re-establish the council at Willowra when he has done it in another place. The Ngukurr council was wound up for about six months and the administrator placed in there before the minister sought to re-establish the council.
The Willowra community has been without an effective council for over three years since the former government had to wind up the council. Now, I am not making any apologies or excuses for the council, but I do take what was said at the Indigenous Governance Conference seriously inasmuch as that there was a clear message that indigenous people as a whole do want to have a say in their own governance. That is not so surprising, but members of this House are now used to the concept that indigenous people in the Northern Territory are not a single homogenous body who speak one language and think one thought; quite the contrary.
There are some 30 or 40, easily, major language groups in Central Australia. There are seven identifiable languages and cultures in my electorate alone. Inside those language groups - I digress for a moment - there are still structures that are quite autonomous from each other. So inside my electorate where I have so many language groups and cultures, there are still autonomous structures inside those language groups. Now Willowra has a situation where the traditional people who live in Willowra have an urge to have the self-governing process returned to them. That is not an unreasonable request. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the amalgamation is not forced upon these people prior to the next election - and I do not think it will be; I think the process will take longer than that - under my ministry, as the Minister for Local Government in the next CLP government, I will be making certain that the people of Willowra have their local government authority returned to them and that they are allowed to govern themselves within the rules of self-governance.
I have a firm belief that they have learnt from the mistake that was made in the past. I will support them by giving them their self-governance back, trying to help restore their dignity, and making sure that they move ahead as a community, and I will assist them to do so.
I do not believe the people of Yuendumu would feel particularly aggrieved if the people of Willowra became a self-governing entity again. Willowra’s problems were to a degree forced on the Yuendumu community. Yuendumu will have done their best but, at the end of the day, it is the people of Willowra who are best positioned to be able to decide for themselves their own future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I give that guarantee, subject of course to the CLP being elected and me surviving in politics for another term. However, if I find myself in the driver’s seat, the people of Willowra will have their community council back.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise you that, in accordance with usual practice, in order to allow members to attend the ceremony commemorating the Bombing of Darwin tomorrow, this Assembly will meet at 12 noon, and the luncheon suspension will be from 1 to 2 pm.
PETITION
Renaming Steve Irwin Locomotive
Renaming Steve Irwin Locomotive
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 285 petitioners praying that Great Southern Railway rename the Steve Irwin locomotive. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. This petition is similar to a petition presented during the November 2003 sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We the undersigned respectfully showeth the locomotive to power the Alice Springs to Darwin railway
is named after media personality Mr Steve Irwin.
It is our belief that his public persona and television antics with crocodiles are not representative of the
people or spirit of the Northern Territory.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Northern Territory government
to persuade Great Southern Railway to rename the locomotive to better reflect the spirit and history of the Territory
and her people, who have pursued the railway’s construction for more than a century, and your petitioners, as in
duty bound, will every pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Building our Police Force
Building our Police Force
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, today I update Territorians on the progress of the Martin government’s four-year $75m Building our Police Force plan.
As honourable members will recall, in February 2003, the government appointed former Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan to carry out an independent assessment of the resource requirements of the Northern Territory Police Force. The report, which was debated in this House, was a frank and honest account, detailing the factors and events surrounding more than a decade of under-funding and under-resourcing of our Northern Territory police force.
In response to this report, last August I announced the government had endorsed the recommendations of the report and committed $75m additional to build our police force. This injection of funds was the single largest injection of resources that the Northern Territory police have seen. Six months later, I can advise honourable members that the plan is progressing well. However, there is still a lot of work to do.
The plan, at its core, will deliver 200 more police on the street by the end of 2006. I am pleased to advise honourable members that the Police College is now recruiting at record levels to deliver on this commitment: 120 constables and five recruit squads will join the police force in 2004; 60 constables have finished training; 14 new Aboriginal Community Police Officers and five new police auxiliaries have started duty. It was great to be at the latest graduation parade in December where we had just over 80 police officers in training on parade. That was great to see.
Independent crime statistics for September 2003 show already house break-ins across the Territory are down 25% over the 12 months compared with last year. Break-ins to commercial premises are down 22%. There has been $214 000 of property forfeited already under the criminal property forfeiture legislation, with another $1.58m under seizure.
That as an aside, I congratulate the police force on the effort that it is being asked to make and the money that is being spent. It is good. However, I do wish to ask the minister some questions very quickly. The first question I have is that O’Sullivan reported that in Katherine Police Station, because of complications with PROMIS computer system, some 5% to 10% of matters were not being entered on to the system. The PROMIS system is the source for these much lauded crime statistics. I am concerned that the problem is being amplified through the rest of the Northern Territory.
Added to that, it is my understanding that the Australian Capital Territory, which was running the PROMIS system, has now abandoned the system. The PROMIS system was in such need of repair that this year, $1.8m has been committed to its repair in the Northern Territory. I know that it is still causing problems for police officers in the field. This being a concern, it goes to the very heart of the integrity of the statistics on which the minister so heavily relies.
Second, if the statistics are accurate, would the minister care to explain to Territorians and this House why it is that, although crimes against property seem to be on the decrease, crimes of violence are on the increase in a very large way, those crimes of violence affecting Territorians in their homes as well as out on the streets? Further, why have the efforts to control itinerants and those sorts of things failed so miserably?
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, the opposition spokesman cannot have it both ways: he cannot challenge the validity of the statistics of property crime and break and entry and then rely on the same statistics to prosecute the point that there are extraordinary increases in violent crime.
We accept that there are increases in violent crime and it does concern this government. A lot of work is being done, particularly reviewing the Liquor Act, to look at those issues. He cannot have it both ways.
I wish that members opposite would stop attacking the police and the statistics that they provide. They are independently audited and accounted for, and I can advise the honourable member that the police will soon be launching a centralised call station where data will be input at source away from individual police stations, which will further enhance those statistics. Crime is coming down in the Northern Territory; one only has to talk to Territorians who recognise that fact.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Onshore Petroleum Exploration Permits – Sweetpea Corporation Pty Ltd
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, earlier this month, on 4 February, the Northern Territory’s petroleum industry took an important step forward with the granting of two onshore petroleum exploration permits to Sweetpea Corporation Pty Ltd.
At a function to celebrate the formal signing of the exploration permits, everyone was impressed by the progressive and insightful approach of the key driver behind the project, Mr Thomas Dugan, President of Sweetpea Corporation.
Mr Dugan has significant experience in negotiating agreements in New Mexico, United States, with American Indians, and he has used that experience and expertise in negotiating the Sweetpea agreement.
Sweetpea Corporation is an American company that can see the vast potential the Territory offers in regard to onshore exploration and it wants to be part of our future success. The granting of two permits, EP 98 and EP 99, is significant in that they are the first Northern Territory petroleum exploration permits to proceed through the right to negotiate process of the Native Title Act.
The two permits are for an area within the McArthur Basin in the Daly Waters-Newcastle Waters area, and cover approximately 14 000km and extends on either side of both the Stuart and Carpentaria Highways from just south of Larrimah to some distance south beyond Elliott. It is anticipated that $15m will be invested in the exploration project. This represents a significant economic injection in the Northern Territory, and I am sure that local suppliers will have opportunities to be involved.
The McArthur Basin is considered a greenfield frontier basin, which has only been sparsely explored by the petroleum resource industry. The basin has not been validly tested for its petroleum potential, and is ripe for exploration and prospectivity. The granting of the exploration permits shows productive partnerships can be achieved between the Territory government, the minerals and energy industry and indigenous stakeholders.
The granting of these two permits is a credit to the commitment of Sweetpea Corporation, the Northern Land Council, the native title holders, which includes 13 main groupings of traditional owners, and the Territory government. The agreement sets out the parameters for both exploration and production, and includes important safeguards for the environment and sacred sites.
It is expected that the Sweetpea Corporation permits will pave the way for further petroleum exploration permits in the Territory through the right to negotiate process. The onshore petroleum industry is committed to exploring all avenues to progress the granting of petroleum exploration permits in the future. Negotiations for several onshore petroleum titles are currently continuing under the right to negotiate process and are expected to be granted soon.
The petroleum industry in the Northern Territory is entering an exciting phase. The grant of the Sweetpea permits is testament to the commitment of the Northern Territory government, the minerals and energy industry, the Northern Territory land councils and Aboriginal stakeholders to develop productive partnerships.
I reiterate that the granting of petroleum exploration permits EP98 and EP99 to Sweetpea Corporation is a significant step forward for the Northern Territory resource industry and supports the government’s commitment to building the Territory’s resource base. This is good news for jobs, good news for economic development and good news for strengthening the opportunities for regional communities.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement made to the House this morning. We will continue to watch with interest the development of this initiative and this project.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support, and I assure the House that this government is doing everything to support this kind of initiative, to support negotiations between the interested parties, including Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal interests, the land councils, the mining companies that want to explore the Territory.
Recently, I visited Tennant Creek and was very impressed by the activities taking place there. A few months ago, as I said, Tennant Creek was a very pessimistic town. Today it is buzzing with optimism and I wish this to continue.
East Arm Leprosarium
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I wish to report on action that is being taken to recognise the people who lived and worked at East Arm Leprosarium.
The settlement at East Arm was established in 1955 to provide accommodation and treatment facilities for leprosy patients who had previously lived on Channel Island. It was the last and best leprosarium in Darwin. Lepers were originally taken to the northern-most tip of Wickham Point, also known as Mud Island, offered little treatment and lived in poor conditions. This facility became the subject of a scandal in 1922, and a facility was subsequently built on Channel Island.
Initially, the East Arm Leprosarium had dormitories, a convent, administration and hospital block, a water tower and reticulated supplies, a dressing clinic, a school, kitchen, refectory and laundries.
Over the next 20 years, the settlement was developed with the addition of Catholic and Australian Inland Mission churches, additions to the hospital and construction of a gatehouse, separate cottages for non-indigenous and mixed race patients, a swimming pool, a community hall, as well as several sporting facilities, including basketball and tennis courts, and a large oval.
In 1956, Dr JC Hargreaves arrived in the Northern Territory and began a career that greatly improved both the physical and social wellbeing of the settlement’s patients. I remember Dr Hargreaves very well. As a child, I regularly visited the leprosarium with my mother, watching as she trained and worked with Dr Hargreaves and the Catholic nuns as one of the many first indigenous health workers or domestics, as they were known then.
With other dedicated health professionals, as well as church and community workers, Dr Hargreaves radically reoriented health services and patients’ accommodation. The earlier regime of isolating and stigmatising lepers was disbanded. The success of new drugs and remedial surgery, the deaths of many elderly patients and the overwhelming public confidence in the newer treatments all led to significant reduction in the number of people needing treatment during the 1970s. Because the newly-diagnosed patients could be offered outpatient services or accommodation in newly established wards in mainstream hospitals, the East Arm settlement closed in 1982.
After 1982, the site housed several tenants, including a joint Australian-Thai fishing venture, and then caretakers working for the Trade Development Zone. By the mid-1990s, almost no maintenance was being carried out. Some of the buildings, deemed to be dangerous because of termite damage, were demolished. Other buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by fire. In around 2001, the last remnants of the leprosarium were removed and relocated to the new industrial complex at East Arm.
Concerns have been expressed that the heritage values of the East Arm Leprosarium have never been recognised. While there is little physically left to remind us of the story of those who suffered from this terrible disease and the courage and dedication of those who helped them, steps are being taken to ensure the site receives recognition. Interpretive signs are being introduced into a viewing platform overlooking the site. In addition, designs are being prepared for a plaque and monument to be established at the entrance of the old leprosarium site on Berrimah Road. These will be located in a specifically identified section of the road reservation that will incorporate some of the gmelina trees that originally bracketed the entrance.
Madam Speaker, I wish to put on record my commitment to ensuring that the story of the East Arm Leprosarium is not lost. We are well on the way, with the interpretive works and allocation of land for a memorial. I thank the member for Nelson for his efforts. He has raised this issue on more than one occasion, and has been on-site with staff from the Office of Environment and Heritage. I believe he has a personal connection with the site, and I am sure we will to continue to have discussions on how best to appropriately acknowledge this part of Darwin’s history.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for this report. It is a very important site and has a lot of history attached to it. I also visited the site when it was operational. It is a sad shame that leprosy became such a critical disease for the Northern Territory that such an establishment had to be set in the early days. It is probably a shame that it was dealt with in that way, where isolation was the only way that was known at the time, in the early part of last century, to deal with leprosy.
The minister made great mention of Dr Hargreaves. There has been a lot written about Dr Hargreaves and the fantastic work that he did. I hope, in the site recognition and the signage, that he gets a special mention along with all of the people who went out - particularly in the bush in the 1950s and 1960s - and treated Aboriginal people in particular for this terrible disease. It is one that we do not see in our communities at all these days, and that is because of the work of people like Dr Hargreaves.
I congratulate the minister for this site recognition. It is a part of our heritage - not a nice part, but one that we should still recognise. I am sure the member for Nelson had a lot to do with recognition of that site as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what can I say? Thank you, Minister for Environment and Heritage. You have summed up perfectly the importance of that area.
My wife lost her mother to leprosy. Her name was Kitty. That was the first contact I ever had with the disease. She was a happy woman until the day she died. She had no legs; she used to get around the house literally on her backside. She was a very cheerful lady; she was well looked after at East Arm Leprosarium by Dr Hargreaves, the nuns and many other people. I presume your mother, member for Arafura, was part of that group.
The leprosarium is a very important part of our history. I am pleased to see that we are going to retain the gmelina trees in the driveway, because that is basically all that is left. That is the only memory I have of the area. There is probably much more I could say, but thank you very much to the government for listening to those concerns - not only my concerns, but the concerns of Aboriginal people. Another person who raised the issue was Shane Stringer. He also felt that was a site that should be preserved.
Once again, thank you for that. Maybe in an adjournment debate, we can look at it in a little more depth.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to put on the public record that last night, it was my understanding that the government Whip and I agreed on three speakers from each side for the ministerial statement on health. Several government ministers are implying that the deal was two-two. This is incorrect and impugns my integrity as opposition Whip.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 205)
(Serial 205)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act to ensure the ongoing operation of the Tow Truck Operators Code of Practice.
Since 1996, a code of practice in relation to tow truck operators has existed in the form of regulations under Part 13 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. The code of practice was a joint initiative of the Motor Traders Association and the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs and, essentially, sets up a roster system for tow truck operators attending police-controlled accident sites. It also seeks to avoid undesirable behaviour in jurisdictions where attendance at accidents is unregulated and results in payment of spotter’s fees or commissions to tow truck operators, and the loading of these fees into repair costs.
Tow truck operators in the Northern Territory have been informally or formally regulated in this regard for many years. The code of practice replaced a roster system operated by the Motor Traders Association, which itself replaced an informal roster system run by the police for about 30 years.
The code of practice was the subject of a National Competition Policy review, which found it created significant public benefit through setting minimum operational standards, increased transparency in the contracting process between tow truck operators and their clients, and the requirement that all operators have insurance so consumers are protected against costs arising from damage to their vehicle during towing. The review considered other forms of industry regulation and ultimately recommended that the code of practice be retained.
Madam Speaker, section 51(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act provides that regulations under Territory legislation can only authorise behaviour that may otherwise breach restrictive trade practices provisions for a maximum of two years. No such limitation is placed on Territory acts that authorise behaviour that would otherwise breach the relevant provisions. The regulations setting out the code were initially made in 1996, but, due to a sunset clause, had to be re-made in 2002. Without this amendment, the regulations authorising the code of practice will cease to have effect past May 2004.
This amendment operates by moving the authorisation for the code of practice from the regulations to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Without the enactment of legislative authority, the roster system may constitute a breach of the restricted trade practices provision of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
As required by clause 2(1) of the Competition Policy Conduct Code Agreement, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will need to be notified of the amendment to the act within 30 days of its enactment. Given the finding of significant public benefit in the National Policy Review and the recommendation that the code be retained, it is not anticipated that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have any difficulties with the amendment.
The code of practice has operated successfully for a number of years and has the support of industry, the police and the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. This amendment to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act and the relevant regulations will ensure the ongoing operation of this successful code of practice. The opportunity has been taken to make some statute law revision amendments to remedy incorrect cross references that arose during the re-numbering of some sections of the act a number of years ago.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 176)
(Serial 176)
Continued from 9 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yesterday, we in opposition had the opportunity to outline a vision for the future, a vision that understands the capacity of Territorians to face a future and to make decisions that allow us to take complete control of the way we deal with issues of primary concern to the citizens of the Northern Territory.
Those of us involved in decision making at this level are aware of other agencies in our community that also make such decisions, such as local government. Many of us deal directly with local government. Local government representatives spend an extraordinary amount of time and energy to service the communities they represent. It is time that we formally recognise, after 26 years of self-government, the third tier of government, the councils, whether they be city, town or community councils.
A CLP government will enter to negotiations with councils and LGANT that will lead them to being far more independent and no longer subject to directions from the Territory government or the department. We will give greater autonomy to local councils. Part of this would be to seek an amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, which is virtually the constitution of the Territory, to recognise the role of local government.
The Constitutional Convention came up with a form of words that could perhaps be used. Members may recall that at the time of the convention, the CLP argued against such recognition. Recognition of local government was not needed; that was the position held by the then CLP government. However, the weight of argument at the convention led to wholesale support of the inclusion of the third tier of government in the draft constitution.
The clause in the draft constitution is this:
- PART 9 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT
under which local governing bodies are constituted with such powers as the Parliament considers necessary
for the peace, order and good government of those areas of the Northern Territory that are from time to time
subject to that system of local government.
functions, duties and responsibilities and all matters incidental thereto, shall be determined by or under an Act.
We do not have to wait for statehood because we can recognise local government via the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. A CLP government would ask the federal government to amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act accordingly.
As well as the symbolism of words, the reality must change. A CLP government will move those local government functions and the public servants who perform them out from the Local Government Division in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, and place them under the control of the councils. It may be that LGANT is the appropriate representative body to house this new council secretariat, but that will be worked out in negotiation with councils.
The budget for this division within the present super-department will be transferred at the same time from the control of the minister to the control of councils. The simple aim is to ensure the autonomy and independence of the operations of the third tier of government. No longer will they have to go cap in hand to the minister or the department for every little thing. Of course, there will still be need for a Local Government Act that establishes the structure, but it will no longer be prescriptive.
We argue, of course, that the Territory is ready for statehood, and there is no one in this House who thinks we are not ready. We are a mature political entity, we no longer need the federal government’s supervision, and we deserve all the powers of other states. What I propose is that we recognise the same elements for local government.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I would have expected that on an issue as important as local government, the government would have more speakers. It is a tragedy to see that they do not. It is indicative of the way that this government approaches this House and what happens in it.
It was not that long ago at the Indigenous Self-Governance Conference in Jabiru that a presentation was made by Dr Will Sanders, a Fellow of the ANU’s Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy and Research, in relation to local government reform in the Northern Territory. He touched on the Northern Territory Local Government Act and, among other things, he said:
- I understand that the Northern Territory government has not yet developed a firm view on whether this act should
undergo a major reconstruction.
The act has been up for a major reconstruction for quite some time, so much so that the process of looking in to the operation of the Local Government Act goes back to the former CLP government. Indeed, part of the extensive consultations to which the minister referred when he got to his feet and said: ‘We have consulted widely’, which does not appear to be true, but goes back to the days when the CLP consulted with local government authorities, LGANT and such organisations.
From the feedback I received, a lot of people are very dissatisfied with the style of consultation that has occurred, when it has occurred and, frankly, did not feel that they had been particularly consulted with; in terms of tough issues, they had simply been ignored. It is a little disappointing to hear that the minister is claiming wide consultation when, clearly, even last week, they were still trying to tic-tac with organisations like LGANT to nut out issues.
Indeed, they will be coming into the House today with amendments in relation to this bill because it was not negotiated out in the first instance, and subsequent negotiations after the bill had been tabled meant there were going to be amendments. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition enunciate a philosophy that is entirely at odds with what this bill is trying to achieve and forecasts what a future CLP government will do.
Madam Speaker, I hearken back to the Indigenous Governance Conference in Jabiru. The thrust of that was the ability for people to make their own decisions, to be able to make structures to suit their own cultural environments. I am inherently attracted to that because all too often – history is full of it, especially regarding the spread of European culture – the colonising cultura has become the dominant culture; it has overridden the indigenous culture and has not worked particularly well because there was no ownership at the ground level. So philosophically, there is a problem with the way that this act is starting to shape up.
I have to be very careful here because there are some very good things in the act in protecting CEOs and setting certain standards and the like. I want to make it clear that my comments are not applied to anything in particular in the act, but the philosophy of the act itself. The act itself, and the bill which is now before the House, is designed to make government control, departmental control if you like, much more invasive into the local government area. It is designed to give the minister a great deal more ability to massage what happens on the ground. That is a response to a situation that has occurred over the years whereby greater demands are placed on the department to get into those local government communities and make sure that they are doing their job properly. This is where the amalgamation push comes from. The department, quite rightly, goes back to the minister and says: ‘If you expect us to do this, minister, then we need the tools’. That gives you this permeating philosophy of invasiveness.
Let us look at this in a global context. Departmental staff are going to be thinking: ‘Okay, I have to do this job, and I have to do it to the best of my ability, and we are going to make sure that what we are being asked to do is something that we are capable of doing and capable of enforcing’. However, these things have a habit of stepping up on themselves. At each level there is a step to: ‘We expect greater accountability; we need the tools to police that accountability’. It is a self-perpetuating argument. Before too long, with the very best intentions in the world, you end up taking up a role that is very prescriptive indeed, and very invasive in the local government environment.
Considering the arguments we heard at the Indigenous Governance Conference and the flavour of the Kalkarindji Statement and those sorts of things, this invasiveness is an affront to traditional Aboriginal people. They are not particularly happy with this invasiveness on that level, and they said that repeatedly during the governance conference in Jabiru. However, on the non-Aboriginal side, it is also somewhat resented because there are municipal councils out there that are the jobs effectively on a daily basis without any major concerns.
The Leader of the Opposition has made this abundantly clear: we, on this side of the House, do not think it is necessary to have power over municipal councils. Those councils are quite capable of making all sorts of decisions by themselves but are, nevertheless, caught up in this act.
The principles that have been outlined this morning by the Leader of the Opposition - I have had some conversations with him over this stuff - is that we wish to, as a government, say: ‘All right. We believe there should be constitutional recognition in the Northern Territory - effectively through amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act – of the third tier of government.’ This is something that councils at the Australian Constitutional Convention argued. It was successfully argued at the Constitutional Convention in the 1990s for the development of the Northern Territory constitution, and it is clear that it is something that local government desires most passionately. I can well understand why they would, because the philosophy of permeation that is now starting to appear as a result of the amendments to the Local Government Act causes them concern. It is a philosophical idea to give them an element of integrity.
The Leader of the Opposition enunciated the shift in how the CLP in future will approach the structures of local government. What we would like to see is greater independence of the local government system and the local government associated body - LGANT at the moment, but whatever it is called. We would like to see an environment in which that local government body has a much greater say in what happens.
At the moment, local governments and municipal councils have to walk cap in hand for all sorts of reasons to the minister and say: ‘Minister, may I?’ That is demonstrated in the bill before us by clause, and I will turn to it as I go through it. Because local government debt is rolled into the overall debt of the Northern Territory, the government wants to control the ability for local governments to borrow so it knows what is on its books, etcetera. However, at the end of the day, surely we can trust local councils to make those sorts of decisions.
I am not saying that we should entirely wash our hands of local government and say: ‘You are over there; operate independently’. There will always, for structural reasons, need to be a Local Government Act in the Northern Territory. However, there should be negotiations entered into to find out exactly how the Local Government Act works. Those negotiations should be between the local government authority itself, be it LGANT or the local government institutions, and the Northern Territory government to create a structure that effectively gives an organisation like LGANT much greater control of what happens in the local government sphere.
The CLP, in future, will explore ways in which those sorts of levels of autonomy can be granted to local government authorities. Therefore, philosophically, the CLP has a problem with the flavour of this bill. The act already has certain invasive qualities to and now we are being asked to create a more involved process for the minister. I understand the rationale for that, which is, as I said before, that the minister wants great control as to what happens.
Madam Speaker, I will turn to the act itself and touch on a few issues. I am aware that in relation to clause 13, the minister will be proposing an amendment. I would like to discuss that amendment with him. The first issue that I wanted to raise, and I have raised this with him during a briefing, deals with Division 2. Clause 14A creates the ‘role of member’. My concern about that amendment is that the clause effectively dictates the member’s role. It does it in broad terms, but it still says that the member has to direct and control the affairs of the council in accordance with the act; has to operate in the best interests of the council itself. This has the potential to engineer a small problem, and I turn the minister’s memory to history. When the Commonwealth formed the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, there were moves at the time to get people voted on so that they could totally disband the Assembly as their first act of parliament and put themselves out of a job. There are precedents in the Westminster system whereby parliaments have voted themselves out of existence. The one that springs to mind was the Scottish Parliament during unification of the United Kingdom. It does happen.
If someone stands up in front of the population of their local council area and says, ‘This council stinks, I don’t think it should exist. I want to get elected and I want my colleagues to get elected so that we can disband this council because we don’t like it and we get rid of a local council body. We vote ourselves out of existence’. The problem we run in to is that people who are legitimately elected as representatives of the people then are stuck between a rock and a hard place because this legislation would not allow them to vote for their own disbanding of the council. It is part of this percolation, this intrusion by government in to the local government area that this act starts to show its colours. If someone is elected to do something that is contrary to the provisions outlined in clause 14, they are being elected to do an unlawful thing. It creates an awkward dichotomy because if they are elected, they have a mandate to do that. So, how exactly, do the mechanics of this work if such an unlikely scenario were to occur? That is probably an extreme scenario, but there may be other policies that a person be elected upon that are in contravention of the legislation. I would like some advice from the minister as to how he intends to deal with that issue and whether he intends to bring any amendments to that part of the bill.
I turn members’ attention to clause 36, which proposes the introduction of a new section 122A, ‘Core functions of councils’:
The Regulations may prescribe -
(a) that a function is the core function of the municipal council or community government council; and
(b) the standard of performance that the council must achieve or exceed in carrying out the function.
This is an example of the prescriptive nature of where this act is going. The parliament is being asked to give the minister a power to say to a council: ‘You have a function and this will be a core function of your existence’. I know the rationale for that is that the minister would like to be able to say to a community government council: ‘You will pick up rubbish’ and that does not sound unreasonable, because it is an appropriate instruction and should be a core function of the council. However, I am concerned that the minister has cast his net very widely in this instance because he is also applying it to municipal councils.
Municipal councils are made up of intelligent people elected by electorates in some instances that are larger in numbers than our own. These people are capable of making decisions, yet the minister is asking us for the authority to assign core functions to them. The CLP has a great deal of trouble supporting such a concept because it is against the philosophy that I outlined earlier, which is a philosophy of greater autonomy and independence from intrusion by the Northern Territory government.
The bill has other areas that are very positive. One is to make the role of the CEO quite clear, and I can well understand why the act has to be amended to reflect that, and it allows for some ministerial intervention in relation to holding off a decision to sack a CEO. Members who have had much to do with local government, especially community government councils, know full well from time to time there may be an inclination to make a decision to sack a CEO that is ill-considered. The protection that this affords the CEO to the processes of holding off and a cooling off period and those sorts of things are attractive. It is very difficult to sit here and say that the bill is all bad or all good, but that is a positive step.
Also positive is the ability for the CEO to hold up the Local Government Act when they are asked to do something beyond their power. The circumstance might be dealing with certain types of expenditure; maybe it will help councils realise that sometimes the purchase of restaurants is not necessarily in the council’s best interest. The protection structures that are built into it are quite reasonable, however following that philosophy on, it would be possible under a future CLP government for a council itself to determine what the role of the CEO is and to establish that in its own constitution. It is something that would have to be talked about, but in creating a more autonomous council system in the Northern Territory, that would be something open for negotiation.
In such a future act, the process would be subject to a decision of the council itself unless there is a rider to the effect of ‘Unless otherwise stated, the role of the CEO will be…’. That would open the way for councils themselves to set their own direction both in the municipal sense and in what is happening in the philosophical thrust of Aboriginal self-governance, about which this government is trying to make acknowledgements. Indeed, the minister himself has said on repeated occasions that he is a supporter of Aboriginal self- governance. So are members on this side.
The human resource management principles that are outlined as a part of the role of the CEO could be treated in a similar fashion. I am not suggesting for a second that the council should be allowed to act unlawfully and beyond their powers in the Anti-Discrimination Act and other legislation, but it should be allowed to set its own human management principles if it so chose. It would be appropriate to deal with it in a fashion similar to what I outlined before.
Briefly, I would like to touch on the business plans. At the moment, there is a process by which local councils have to provide an annual report. They do not have to report to any particular structure. Clause 49 seeks to introduce section 161A, which creates a legislative requirement for councils to put together a business plan and, once again, it is reflective of this philosophy of: ‘we need to police, we need to control’. This is starting to permeate all of government and their decisions and I will make, during debates in relation to another bill, comments about this. They are trying to seize, grab control of all aspects of the Northern Territory and its life without an appealable process. That is not really the case in this instance, but the flavour of it is starting to permeate the way that this government operates. It is one of the more dark aspects that people have not realised yet. You have drill into the legislation to see how it actually operates.
I wish to point out some things in relation to autonomy. There has been a process in government in relation to the amalgamation of councils. Having a large bush constituency, I have seen some of the problems that this amalgamation philosophy has created. There are good reasons to do it, financial reasons and the like. It is very tempting to say: ‘If you bring those three or four communities together, they can operate as one council and get to share all these resources and it will be very good for them’. That is true, but there is an element of the administrative tail wagging the community dog. What I mean by that is where these amalgamations are being explored, there seem to be consistent problems with the local traditional people in the area. That is not surprising because traditional people, from a customary perspective, like their autonomy, not only at a language group level, but even further down the line to families. Basically, family, as all members will know, is the social unit of the traditional culture. Those families often have disputes with each other. To take communities that often have their own disputes internally and then push them into a direction where they are now having to deal with three or four other communities, which, on paper, looks like it makes perfect sense, has the potential to run into trouble and ultimately may end up costing more than what is gained from the process.
I have been to Willowra a couple of times in the last few months, particularly to examine how this process works. As members will be aware, Willowra had its council basically taken away from it and they made some pretty poor decisions which led up to the government making that decision. Indeed, the minister himself had the experience of having to shut down Ngukurr for similar reasons. Curiously, the minister has seen fit to re-advertise and re-establish Ngukurr, and Willowra remains steadfastly ungoverned in terms of local governance. The toll is starting to show. What has been made abundantly clear to me, after a couple of meetings with some of the people who live there, is that they are particularly unhappy with the services they are gaining from Yuendumu. They feel that the only way they can be properly represented at a local government level is by having a local government council. I have to say that I have some sympathy, having travelled around the community and examined some of the humpies people are sleeping in next to houses that are in such poor condition that they are now only fit for the habitation of donkeys. Clearly, there is a problem for the people at the community of Willowra. What I am saying is the pressure being applied for the amalgamation of Yuelamu, Yuendumu, Nyirripi and Willowra is having poor outcomes for the people of Willowra. I will be deeply concerned if the government continues to go down this path of saying to Willowra: ‘No, you are not going to have any form of local government council’ when they have recreated the Ngukurr council. There is an inconsistency with the way these things proceed.
Regarding what was said at the Indigenous Governance Conference, this self-autonomy concept does not just apply to Aboriginal people as opposed to European people; it applies to Aboriginal people who want autonomy in their own communities. What is happening in Willowra is starting to look to be a process by which this government is not giving those people the things they had hoped arising from the self-governance conference.
What we are at odds about is that we have a philosophy of approach to local governance that is entirely different from the government’s. The government’s philosophy at the moment is: ‘We will become more involved and more active and more intrusive into what happens at a local government level. We are going to make more decisions on local government’s behalf. We are going to drill down with our new legislation …’ and whatever subsequent legislation they bring before this House, in an effort to clamp their stamp on local government authorities in the Northern Territory.
The philosophy of the CLP is quite the opposite of that. We hope, through a process of negotiation with LGANT and other local government representative organisations, as the Leader of the Opposition put so well, to recognise local government at a constitutional level, define what functions can be given to LGANT in an effort to make it a more effective organisation, with a clear view to getting the best outcomes for local councils, and to get those functions happening as quickly as possible with support of the next CLP government. This is not going to happen in a vacuum. There will be staff and support made to whatever organisation, such as LGANT, to make sure that they are able to do their job more effectively because they will be taking on some of the roles of the department under the next CLP government.
To that end, for philosophical reasons and despite the fact that there are some good things in this bill, the opposition is not in a position to support it because of the nature of what it is trying to achieve, and the fact that it exposes this government as wanting to exert greater and greater control on the lives of Territorians. The opposition’s position is quite the opposite. We will seek to create greater independence for Territorians across the board.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I must admit I am extremely pleased to hear that at least one part of the parliament has decided to support local government having constitutional recognition. That is long and well overdue. Until that happens, local government will always be at the whim of the Minister for Local Government. For many years local government has asked for that to happen. There was a move at the statehood convention towards it but, from memory, it had strings attached. Local government wants to be recognised without those strings.
I would love to hear from the government whether it would support the move by the opposition to allow local government to be where it should be: recognised in the constitution as a legitimate form of government within the Northern Territory.
The reason I have always supported local government, and I know many people argue that we are over-governed, is because it gives people the right to have a say in their own community. One of the arguments I used to use about town planning - and I know governments of both persuasions have always opposed town planning being a function of local government - is that town planning is such an important part of local activity. It decides whether you can have a shed next to your fence, a shop next door or a 33-storey building put on a small block of land. Those are things that affect a lot of people. If it is a mechanical workshop being set up next to you, you are not too happy about it; it affects you. They are local issues, and I have always felt that people need more control over their day-to-day lives.
I am not talking about the big picture. Governments certainly have a role in town planning for the overall picture, but there are times when the community should be able to have a group of people represent them who are democratically elected and who are responsible to the community, who make decisions on behalf of them, and if they do not like those decisions, they can kick them out. Local government fills that role. It fills the role of what they call pot-hole politics. That is the sort of level of politics at which it operates. You can ring someone and say: ‘My road is all pot-holed’ or ‘the council hasn’t graded the road’ or ‘the drains are blocked’. It may be mundane for some people, but for a lot of people, it is important and local government fills that role.
The idea of giving more autonomy to councils through the use of the local government association is also welcome. I remember a number of years ago when I was on the local government executive, this was raised as a possible way to go. People would ask: ‘Why do we have a Department of Local Government?’ We are not saying it should be abolished altogether, but once the functions of local government are set out, why can’t it run itself? I am not saying that the local government association is the controlling body. That is something that needs discussion with them and with councils in general, but I think the principle of what has been mentioned today is worth exploring. I would be interested, minister, to see whether you thought there was benefit in that approach.
As regards the act, I will also talk from a philosophical point of view. It is important that councils are similar. If you read the long title of the Local Government Act, it includes that the act is:
- … to provide for a similarity of power and function between self-governing authorities, and for other purposes.
That similarity needs to be reflected in democratic principles. I do not care which local government council you are talking about, whether it is out bush or in town. The fundamental principle is that people are elected fairly, without coercion, without any form of corruption, to represent people in an area. It is our job to make sure that the system is in place to protect the people whom the council will represent. The government has a role to make sure the basic principles of democratic government are enshrined in this legislation. That does not mean to say councils cannot have autonomy; that is an issue that will raise a lot more debate in this parliament and among local government themselves, but the government has a role to make sure that there is a set of rules that protect democratic principles and prevent people from abusing their roles in local government.
Many of the amendments I will propose today are specifically designed to do that. They are based on: one, the similarity of power and function; and two, trying to protect those democratic principles from being watered down or adjusted to suit certain circumstances without any guarantee that those changes in circumstances are water tight when it comes to protecting constituents’ rights.
There are a couple of other issues, and some of them I will get to as we get into the committee stage. There is the section in the act that the member for Macdonnell raised, and that is section 14. This is a nightmare, going from one book to another. ‘Division 2A 14A Role of Member’ and ‘14B Role of presiding member’. This would highlight more than anything why councils should have autonomy. Councils, if these democratic principles are defined and are adhered to, will be elected by the people. The people will then have the right not to re-elect them if they do not do what is required of them.
By putting these sections in the act, you are saying that you are breaking the law if you do not do these things. Let us have a look at some issues.
- … to ensure the most effective and efficient allocation of the council’s resources for the benefit of the council area; …
How is someone going to say that a councillor failed to do that? It is a pretty broad statement at the best of times; it is very subjective. Those best to determine whether they agree that someone has ensured the most effective and efficient allocation of council’s resources are the constituents, and they will make their decision. It is not for government to make a decision on that. That is where you will have ministerial interference, government overriding what really should be the role of the people. The same applies to the role of the presiding member.
I agree that the role of the CEO should be defined, but the CEO is not an elected member. These people are elected members and they are, first and foremost, responsible to the people who elected them. That proposed section should be deleted.
I should raise an issue about which the member for Macdonnell is well aware. He was talking about the autonomy of councils and protecting them, but I cannot help but remind members of the days when Yulara lost its right to have local government. The member for Macdonnell will know very well, because he was the bunny – pardon me…
Mr Elferink: Yes, I was.
Mr WOOD: I flew to Yulara. That is how serious we thought it was. There was a meeting of about 300 people with about 200 apologies. I have never seen a meeting that big to discuss local government in my life. Margaret Vigants was there. The poor member for Macdonnell had only been in the job for about a week, I think, and all the people said: ‘We do not want to lose our local government’. Of course, the members for Katherine and Daly, we know very well, were the ones who signed off on the demise of Yulara. To this day, I think that was a terrible thing.
When I was at that meeting, I saw so many people say they wanted local government, then the government said: ‘No, too bad’ and that was terrible. Putting local government councils in the constitution is a way around that; it would protect them. It is the right of the people to say whether they want local government, and they do that through elections.
However, that is history and life moves on. There is one other question, minister, that you may be able to answer. I will not be proposing an amendment, but I noticed that the second reading speech mentioned PBIs or public benevolent institutions. I know that councils have had trouble with PBIs, but you said:
- A new subsection is being added to section 58 to make it clear that such commercial business operations, or the portion
of the activity that is clearly of a commercial business nature, are statutorily excluded from qualifying as PBIs, and
thereby claiming exemption from rates.
How does that fit in with Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul and such groups that you could argue are commercial ventures but operating for charitable reasons? In other words, they are not trying to become the Murdochs of the world; they are operating some commercial activity from their premises as a charitable organisation. Where do they fit in? Are they subject to the same fees? If they are sitting on a bit of Catholic Church land, for instance, do they pay rates? How does it work? If you could clarify that, I will be interested to hear it.
I will discuss some of these issues as we go through the amendments. I would have liked the amendments a bit earlier than half of an hour before I walked in here. I have had a briefing and provided my amendments two months ago. It would have been nice to have these a little bit earlier. We did discuss some of the changes, but some of the changes, I do not recall. For example, clause 35, maybe I missed a beat there, but that is a fairly important change. Sometimes, especially with complicated amendments like this when we are tyring to deal with amending the bill as well as the principal act, we need reasonable time. It is a fairly complex approach to changing things. I would have liked more time to have mulled over it and seek opinions from people. Be that as it may, I will be interested as to whether I have support for my amendments and that will determine whether I vote for the changes to the bill.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments proposed by the minister. I thank the member for Macdonnell for shooting himself in the foot once again.
Whilst I acknowledge the bill ranges over the entire act, the focus of the amendments is to reduce the difference between the municipal and community government councils. It is intended that, over time, the differences will be eliminated completely and, as indicated by the minister, these changes will only occur after full and lengthy consultation with all appropriate stakeholders.
A significant change to the act will allow councils to develop protocols for members to attend meetings, using modern technology such as teleconferencing or by video link. This will have significant benefits to councils, which cover large areas, and will enable councils to fully participate without the need for constant travel or restriction by seasonal conditions. It may also assist in attracting quality members who, because of time and travel constraints, may well accept the important role of councillor by being able to attend these meetings.
I am surprised that this did not occur previously. I naturally assumed that councillors were able to participate through these means because I can imagine a situation where a Tennant Creek business man sits on, for instance, the Tennant Creek Town Council, indeed someone from Borroloola, a business person. He then has to go up to Darwin to engage in discussions and negotiation in respect of their business, and they were prohibited; they were not allowed to participate. The changes proposed by the minister are very timely and bring the Local Government Act up to date in respect of the needs of those people who have something to contribute to their community.
The other point, which I welcome, is that council staff and officers are now able to nominate for the Legislative Assembly and federal parliament, with access to revokable resignation. This corrects an injustice towards staff of councils and increases the chances of quality candidates standing for parliament without the prospect of not having a job if they are unsuccessful.
The bill also introduces a change in what councils can call themselves. This is considered important as councils evolve, merge and grow. Council names may be an important aspect of recognition and acceptance by constituents, and it is considered inappropriate to restrict the title of the council, although they must fall within the parameters approved by government.
For the first time, the act will include a definition of the role of members of council. This clearly will assist smaller councils, which sometimes struggle with responsibilities without really understanding what their responsibilities are. This provision will assist greatly with understanding the importance of their role.
The other thing which must occur here - and I have actually spoken to the minister about this – is that there must be a role in regard to educational seminars or workshops in respect of those councillors. Perhaps LGANT can play a more important role with regard to developing those educational programs.
In addition, there will be a defined role for the chief executive officer, which will make it easier for elected members and constituents to understand what that person does and is required to do. It puts up-front the role so that it is transparent, easily understood and there is no need for the ongoing confusion and doubts that sometimes exist. By providing clearer roles for both members and CEOs, councils, particularly those in remote areas, will have a much better grasp of how things should be done.
I would like to relate a series of events or incidents which occurred a couple of years ago in relation to the role of CEOs and how important it is for councillors to be aware of the roles of those people. About two or three years ago, a CEO who was employed by an indigenous organisation in Western Australia had his contract terminated. He took off with a Toyota along with a trailer containing a lot of goods belonging to the local organisation. The matter was reported to the police and he was obviously pursued. Within two weeks, he returned the vehicle to Kununurra. That person rolled up in Tennant Creek about two to three weeks later looking for work and was obviously directed to an indigenous community out of Tennant Creek. I will name that community: it is Canteen Creek. That person arrived on a Thursday afternoon and, by the Monday, he had changed the whole pay system of the CDEP, ordered motor vehicles and, essentially, was placing the community in a position whereby it was obviously at risk regarding its ongoing administrative and management capacity.
I sincerely trust that the bill and the amendments before us today will mean these examples will no longer exist. However, the reality is that they are going to exist, but affording councillors a better understanding of the role and conditions of CEOs may go part of the way to addressing that.
Another important amendment is the permissible functions which can be performed by a community government council under its constitution. This amendment will allow the declaration of functions to be specific by approval, or all the functions of the existing Schedule 2 of the act other than those that may be excluded from approval. This provides greater flexibility to councils and less complex constitutions.
The minister will declare core functions for those councils who fail to meet minimal levels of service delivery. This is very important for constituents of those councils that fail to do the job. Not only will government now focus on financial and regulatory requirements, but will monitor the level of services provided. If they fall below acceptable standards as outlined in their business plan, then, of course, the minister may act. The requirement now to provide an annual business plan will also enable councils to focus clearly on their priorities and stick to them. It is fair to say - and I am not being critical of a lot of councils throughout the Northern Territory – clearly, there has been a culture built up over a very long period of time in which near enough is good enough. By proposing these amendments, the minister is basically sending a very clear message to councils, whether they be indigenous or not, that they are a professional organisation and they have to discharge their duties in the best interests of their communities. As I said, unfortunately it is not happening. I sincerely trust that this amendment, will serve notice on those councils and, of course, the CEOs who choose not to act in the best interests of the community.
In some cases, as most members will be aware, intense pressure is put on CEOs to provide money for wages in advance or a Toyota or some other demand. Clearly, some of these demands are inappropriate and the act will be amended to provide protection to CEOs who can point out such demands are illegal. Councils have to become real and realise that people cannot go around demanding these things. People have to learn that it is time to get their act together and act in the best interest not only of their constituents, but also to provide support to their CEOs.
The other amendment that the minister referred to is that some CEOs have been poorly treated by some councils and have quite often been dismissed for petty reasons. This bill contains an amendment that following a resolution by the council to dismiss their CEO, it will have no effect until 14 days after the minister has received that written resolution.
A significant and welcome amendment is the new provisions that will allow the minister to appoint a manager to the council following its suspension if it fails to meet its obligations under the act. This action will provide for council services to be returned to normal without necessarily going to a full commission of inquiry. In cases where councils are struggling, this amendment will provide a quick intervention without dragging councils and residents through a prolonged period without representation, but will allow things to be fixed quickly. Naturally, if issues such as fraud were uncovered, then clearly, full application of the act would follow.
These amendments to the Local Government Act have taken a long time and originated under the previous government. It is unfortunate that they failed to address some of these concerns.
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government, yourself, Madam Speaker, and the member for Nelson in respect of their involvement in this bill.
I want to take up a point raised by the member for Macdonnell whose assertion was that this is another attempt on the part of the Labor government to intrude upon the operations of governance at a local community government level. I would like to make very clear that I certainly do not see it in this respect. I honestly believe it is a very sincere attempt by members of this House, members in government, to come to grips with governance issues in regards the operations of councils throughout the Northern Territory.
The member for Macdonnell also referred to the Building Effective Government conference, which was held in Jabiru in November of last year. I conclude by saying, in response to the member for Macdonnell’s assertions, that I will almost guarantee, member for Macdonnell, that whilst we may have some philosophical difference in respect to this debate, the majority of indigenous organisations, the majority of indigenous councils, the majority of organisations out there in the Territory, black or white, it does not matter, would welcome these moves and not interpret it as an intrusion upon their lifestyle or their capacity to manage at a local level, but as a means to get in to the real world, for organisations to be professional. If you do operate in a professional manner, clearly, governments of whatever persuasion are more likely to treat you in a manner that you deserve. Basically, this is just bringing a whole lot of issues back in to reality and providing a mechanism of support to those councils.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to LGANT. They play a very important role. I believe that they will play an ever-increasing role. I acknowledge members from LGANT in the gallery. The fact that they will not be involved in the assessment of CEOs in partnership with government is a very good move.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments as proposed by the government.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member for Barkly’s final comments because I believe he said them in all sincerity. If anyone looks at this legislation, reads the second reading speech and had discussions and experience of some of the issues that affected bush councils primarily over many years, there is no doubt in my mind that there are aspects of this legislation that certainly go to giving a sense of professionalism and realisation that under the old American adage, government by the people for the people has to be transparent and proper.
There is no doubt that there have been instances in the past, of which we are all aware, in particular councils that really throw that whole notion into question. There are too many deals that have been done under shades of grey that really needed fixing and I applaud LGANT and the government for the work that they have done in fixing those issues.
I read through the second reading speech again today to refresh my memory. If one reads through the second reading speech, the first thing I would say is: ‘You are right, member for Barkly’. If you just read the second reading speech and believe that is what this legislation deals with, you would obviously reach those conclusions, but it doesn’t.
I was looking in the second reading speech for the explanation from the minister as to why he has now taken upon himself such intrusive powers as to determine the sorts of functions that local government will have in the future and also set the standards for those functions himself for the future and, at a whim of the minister, decide that he will impose new functions or remove functions from councils.
That is the major issue in this legislation. It has not to do with what the CEO may or may not do, important as that may be. It has not to do with technical issues as to whether or not a member declares a conflict of interest in some aspects of debate in local government. Important though those things are, the second reading speech goes nowhere, and one would have to reach the conclusion and ask the question why the second reading speech in itself provides no explanation as to why the minister has taken upon himself such arbitrary and intrusive powers.
Member for Barkly, you said that the Local Government Association has worked wholly and completely in the framing of this legislation. I do not know what the visitors to the Chamber think of this, but I would be amazed, stunned, that the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory is aware of the amendment to clause 35 that hit the table this morning. It is nowhere referenced in the second reading speech. It says:
- The minister may, by notice in the gazette …
Under the old act, it was the Administrator, after advice from Executive Council only, could declare functions and powers. We now have:
- (1B) The minister may, by notice in the Gazette:
Administrator in relation to a community government council;
or added by the minister under paragraph (a).
This is what is wrong with this legislation: we now have a situation where the act provides explicitly for the minister to act arbitrarily against any council, not a little bush council only: Darwin Council; Palmerston Council; Alice Springs Council; Katherine Council; Tennant Creek Council.
Mr Wood: Do not forget Litchfield.
Mr BURKE: Litchfield Council. There is a council you would have some trouble with, I can tell you. What we have in this legislation, supposedly supported by LGANT, is that arbitrary powers have been given by the minister to set responsibilities, vary responsibilities and, not only that, set standards on those responsibilities. Have a guess what some of them are! Schedule 2 in the current act has a whole list of functions of councils. What has now been inserted is animal welfare. What does animal welfare mean to, say, Palmerston? Animal welfare at Palmerston means you collect the dogs, you impound them, they come and pay for them and you get them out. What could animal welfare mean in the real sense? Animal welfare could mean that all of those issues with regard to the overall welfare of animals are passed from the Northern Territory government down to local government. Mr Ah Kit would not be explaining his horse away to the RSPCA and having to deal with it at some ministerial level; some poor local government would be dealing with that issue with him as the owner of the land.
These are the schedules that LGANT has worked closely with government to have inserted in the new act: animal welfare; communications and broadcasting; marketing and promotion; public safety and security; economic development – there is a doozy; economic development is now a local government responsibility; that is a good one for the minister: ‘We are all for regional economic development. Over to you, Tennant Creek’. You have a good track record there. Ask him how well libraries have been going. Libraries is one of the functions that has been foisted on them and it still has not been sorted out.
A new one is – the member for Arafura would be interested in this: substance abuse prevention and control is now a new function of local government if the minister, at his whim, decides to prescribe it. That will be a doozy. We have had committees running around the Northern Territory for years, all of the resources of government are trying to handle substance abuse and control, and now we have it inserted in the schedule as a possible power to be delegated to local government. Ablution blocks and laundries, that is reasonable. Collection of water, sewerage and electricity charges, as an agent only – cannot give them too much responsibility – adult vocational and other training. Adult vocational and other training! Community employment programs, cinemas, barge landings and wharves. They are the insertions. I do not see any deletions except for zoos.
Mr Wood: I think it has been added in somewhere.
Mr BURKE: Zoos! The member for Barkly would be pleased with that. You do not have to worry about the zoo at Tennant Creek. If the government puts in a zoo at Tennant Creek, do not worry about it; it will not be your responsibility.
Really, the heart of the argument here is that two things have not dawned upon the government. The first is the fact that the second reading speech is totally duplicitous. It makes no reference to the threshold insertion in this Local Government Act and the threshold reason. Whilst the opposition supports many aspects of the legislation, it cannot support these powers being given arbitrarily to a minister, any minister, to act at whim against any local government authority in the way that it is prescribed in this act. It should not be done in the way that it is being done and, frankly, it is treating them more and more like children.
No government, CLP or ALP, has a great record in the past on dealing with local government in many aspects. I do not deny that …
Mr Ah Kit: I am glad you acknowledge that.
Mr BURKE: Yes, I will. It is a new era, though. Importantly today, and proudly, I heard the Leader of the Opposition lay down what should dawn on everyone as a new direction for government. The new direction is this: that government by the people for the people will be a truism. If you put in your second reading speech that we are dealing with the third tier of government, let us do it properly. The Leader of the Opposition has said that immediately upon attaining government, the CLP will move, by plea to the federal parliament, to have the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act amended. That is overdue. It is also a demonstration of the bona fides that will be the first step in making sure that constitutional recognition of local government is a fact of the Northern Territory.
That is a challenge that has been laid down to the Labor Party by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. There is the challenge: do you treat them continually as children; do you want to introduce legislation that is more intrusive, puts the hand around their neck and slowly squeezes it more and more, or do you treat them as mature councils? Obviously, for some of the bush councils, there will have to be a transitional process that may take some time. However, when it comes to municipal councils, let us put our money where our mouth is. The Leader of the Opposition has said how he will do it, that no longer will the department or office of local government, whatever it is called nowadays, act as the supervisor of local government. How it will act is in a supportive and subserving role on a model to be established. Certainly, the resources, the administrative support of the Office of Local Government will work for local government and not for the minister. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. That is the guarantee he has given in a new policy statement for the CLP in the future.
One thing that the large councils can take from his words is: immediately, they will be treated legitimately as the third tier of government in Australia, and particularly as the second tier in the Northern Territory; resourced properly, funded properly, structured so that they are more and more autonomous and, as the member for Macdonnell said, not under the current situation where they have to come cap in hand with the begging bowl, hoping that they would get some minister’s attention. More often than not, they get a minder.
I know in the case of Palmerston Council, under the new minister, they have been up about three times. All you ask for is more information. They want to borrow some money for a library. Does Palmerston Council have the capacity, with all its resources and the expertise and the staff who are there, to borrow money for a library? Ask yourself that question. But no, you have to go to see Dr Burns. They cannot even get to Dr Burns; you have to go to the department first, and the department says: ‘Go away. Go away, we are not giving you any money. We are not going to approve the fact that you can borrow for a library’. So cap in hand they come to the minister: ‘Mmm, go away and do some more work. Come back and see me again’.
That is the situation with local government in the Northern Territory. No wonder they have been pleading for more responsibility. Those pleas have been unheard. However, you see the new statement and new challenge laid down today.
Mr Henderson: What about planning? Give that to the local government?
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri says: ‘What about planning?’ Well, that is what the Labor Party has been saying for years. ‘What about planning?’ What about planning? Let’s give local government more planning responsibilities’. As soon as they get into government they say: ‘No way. No way’.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Isn’t amazing? It’s amazing how the worm turns.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri, order!
Mr BURKE: It is amazing how the worm turns. This is, what? This bill has been two or three years in the making and the most you can come up with is a few measly statements as to why a person should absent themselves from a meeting and defining a few powers for CEOs, important though a few of them are in elections, etcetera, in bush councils. But, at the end of the day, the important clause in this bill is: we want more power. Not only that, we don’t like the current situation because it stalls us too much. We want arbitrary, absolute, unconditional power given to the minister. That is what new clause 122A gives and that is why the opposition does not support it.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition is recognised for the challenge that he has laid down, and for his innovative and forward looking policy because it is way overdue in the Northern Territory, and I was pleased to hear his words today.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am pleased to advise that in the gallery this afternoon we have high school students who received state awards from the Rio Tinto Australian Science Olympiad. Present are Amy Colbert, Andy Casseeram, Adam Davis, Joshua Hamil and Cameron McDonald from St Phillip’s in Alice Springs; Steven Highet and Rebecca McLellan of Katherine High School; Sarah-Jane Matthews of Kormilda College; and Cassandra Pearce of Casuarina Secondary College. The students are accompanied by Cathy Highet and Cath Nixon. On behalf of all members, I congratulate you on your achievement and extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Chief Minister
Chief Minister
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this day on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 176)
(Serial 176)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate the support in principle from most contributors to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that this bill is similar to proposals developed under the carriage of this portfolio by a number of previous ministers, including yourself and the members for Greatorex, Daly and the former member for Karama. Most of these changes had their beginnings in the policy work done at the time the former CLP government started its reform and development agenda. That policy review process engaged departmental officers, LGANT and individual councils in a very thorough process of discussion and debate.
These amendments have had a long gestation period. Because of the delays experienced in presenting the amendments, a number of additional changes have been identified by some members and councils as being necessary. Most of the new proposals relate to new initiatives or policy issues, and I am not proposing that they be accepted at this time.
I believe, however, that there are some that should be considered further. I have asked my department to take them into account in discussions proposed to be commenced within the next six months. These discussions will centre on a further series of amendments that would appear likely to be required to provide for full implementation of the government’s Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy.
While the bill contains a variety of amendments, the overall aim and intent of the current Local Government Act is not changed. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, a number of the proposals contained in the bill are designed to reduce or minimise the legal differences between municipal councils and community government councils.
The member for Nelson has indicated that he would like to see these differences reduced even further or removed altogether. While I understand and agree with some of the principles that underpin the member for Nelson’s philosophical position, I do not share it. It is simply neither practical nor feasible in the Territory to try to achieve a one-size-fits-all solution. Differences in culture provide differences in view about what structures will be considered legitimate. Unless our structures are considered to be legitimate by the people being governed, the structures will be ineffective. We must achieve flexibility and balance it with requirements of transparency and accountability.
The member for Nelson has also expressed concerns in the past that the word ‘council’ may not be used as part of a title of a council established under the act. Whilst ‘council’ is used to refer to local governing bodies, the terminology is not used exclusively to refer to local governing bodies, and is commonly used by other bodies, such as church councils, ministerial councils, ATSIC regional councils, land councils and many other bodies convened for consultation, deliberation or advice. Flexibility is required for the naming of new councils established under the act and, in particular, with the naming of regional authorities, as I set out in my ministerial statement on the Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy on 14 May last year. The changes will allow the minister to settle on a title after proper discussions and negotiations with the people who will operate under that title.
Some concerns have also been expressed about the provisions that define the roles of presiding members, elected members and the CEO of the councils. There are no provisions in the current act that clearly define the role of the presiding member, elected members or the CEO of a council. In the interests of transparency and accountability of local government councils to their community, it has been found necessary to include these provisions for the information and clarity of all concerned, and to ensure proper accountability by councils. A proper balance must be struck between the roles of elected members and those of officers and employees of the council, and the provisions concerned achieve this. These provisions will apply to both municipal and community government councils.
An issue that has been raised by some members opposite relates to the provision that allows the minister to declare the core functions of a council. While there are some excellent councils in the Territory, there are also councils that fail to deliver even basic services to their constituents. At present, the act does not allow for ministerial intervention, even when there are no services at all being delivered by a council. I make no apology for creating the capacity for this level of intervention. The minister already has considerable power to intervene where financial accountability is a problem. A lack of ability to intervene where service delivery accountability is also a problem means that constituents have nowhere to go when a council fails in its duties. Clearly, constituents can wait until the next election; that can mean a very long wait when the garbage is not being collected and there is no road maintenance whatsoever. The provisions will allow government to establish some core functions - such as roads maintenance and waste management and disposal - to ensure that basic services are being provided to the community. I have given an undertaking to LGANT that there will be consultation before any function is declared a core function.
Performance standards will also be established as outcome standards. The intention is that it would not matter how a council achieves a result, just that it achieves it. The member for Brennan became a little carried away on this point. He has interpreted the power to include functions that a council ‘may carry out’ to be a power that the minister ‘may require that a function be carried out’. The changes to section 122(1)(a) that he is complaining about will allow functions to be added to lists already included for community government councils. These changes will allow us to cover all of the functions that councils routinely carry out.
A number of points have been made about this bill allowing greater intervention by a minister in the affairs of a council. It is, of course, always difficult to achieve and maintain the best and most appropriate balance between the need to give local governments the power to do their job, and the need to ensure that they do it properly. On the one hand, we want councils to exercise real power; on the other, we want them to deliver services to their constituents. We have achieved the balance necessary by maintaining the general competence power of councils, the strongest expression of power that can be provided by this Territory government. We have balanced that with provisions that ensure that councils will be more accountable to their constituents.
Transparency and accountability are at the heart of the changes we are making to articulate the roles of members and the CEO, and in creating the capacity to prescribe core functions. On the one hand, we are extending the functions that can be carried out; on the other, we are insisting that they carry out some specific core functions. Let us not forget that councils expend considerable resources. They receive a total of $42m each year through my portfolio, additional money from a range of other portfolio areas and, of course, from the Commonwealth government. Clearly, transparency and accountability to constituents and funding agencies is a priority.
The member for Brennan took the opportunity to criticise LGANT for not objecting to amendments being proposed. LGANT is a professional organisation, which is prepared to talk and negotiate with government. When LGANT disagrees with us, and they sometimes do, they have no difficulty saying so; when something makes sense, they support it.
Concerns have also been expressed about the provision that sets the employment principles to be observed by councils. Whilst councils are expected to generally follow human resource management principles practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelt out for councils in the current act. The proposed new section 143A will correct this deficiency.
In addition, concern was also expressed with the wording ‘or other ground’ in section 143A(2)(h). Basically, the provision ensures that a CEO is responsible for upholding the law, and that there is no unlawful discrimination against officers or employees or persons seeking employment with the council. It provides a status quo. However, it may not necessarily be unlawful to dismiss someone or not to employ someone who has a criminal history that is of relevance to the position or council. Whilst section 143A(2)(h) lists the most obvious or common forms of discrimination, it is not intended to cover all forms of discrimination now or in the future. Therefore, the words are necessary to ensure that the provision covers any other or future situation.
The member for Macdonnell raised a question as to what would happen if all the members of a council decided to dissolve the council. While it is possible for a council to so resolve, only the minister has the power to abolish a municipal council pursuant to section 30 of the Local Government Act. Only the Administrator can repeal a Community Government Scheme pursuant to section 265 of the act on the advice of the minister. Clearly, a council cannot dissolve itself of its own motion.
This series of amendments have been a while coming. They tidy up the act in a number of important areas and they make some changes that are important. As I noted earlier, there will be discussions about further changes starting within the next six months to carry through changes announced in the Building Stronger Regions Future strategy. These will set up a framework that will take local government in the Territory to a new and more significant level of power and responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that the proposed amendments support the overall aims and objectives of the Local Government Act. Whilst comments on some aspects of the proposed amendments were received from LGANT and some councils, generally good support for the proposed amendments has been received. I thank honourable members for their comments and support for the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Local Government Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 176), together with Schedule of Amendments No 57 circulated by the Minister for Local Government, Mr Ah Kit, and Schedule of Amendments No 62 circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.1, which amends the definition of the CEO in paragraph (b) of clause 4 by amending an incorrect reference in the definition of CEO. The definition of CEO is amended by omitting the incorrect reference in the definition of CEO, that is section 142(1)(a) and substituting the correct reference, which is 142(1).
Mr ELFERINK: That is just a straight typo, I take it.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.2, which amends the definition of Deputy CEO in paragraph (b) of clause 4 by amending an incorrect reference in the definition of Deputy CEO, that is section 142(1)(b), and substituting the correct reference, that is 142(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.1.
Some people might say that this is being pedantic and that it should not matter whether you call a local government council by any name, but there is a fairly important distinction to be made here. Local government is about councils, meaning duly elected bodies representing their constituents. If you read a dictionary definition of ‘local government’:
- Local government is a system of administration of a city, town, municipality, shire, etc by the elected
representatives of those who live there.
It is a generic name, whereas ‘council’ means:
- … an advisory, deliberative or administrative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly.
It also can be:
- … the elected local administrative body of a parish, district, town, city or administrative county and its paid
officers and work force.
It is important that the name be retained. You have to remember that when the minister gave his second reading speech, he was specifically relating this change to the issue of Tiwi Islands local government. The Tiwi Islands organisation is not a local government; it is a local government council. In fact, I believe its name officially in the records has the word ‘council’ attached, but it is not used in the public arena.
The idea of having a local government association in the Northern Territory and then having one of these councils calling itself the Tiwi Islands Local Government will give you the impression that there is local government for the Northern Territory and there is local government for Bathurst and Melville Islands, and that is not the case. There is local government for the whole of the Northern Territory, which is made up of a series of councils. Whether you want to call them the left-handed council, the right-handed council, the back-footed council or whatever does not worry me in the slightest, but the word ‘council’ tells people who live in those areas that they have an elected local administrative body looking after their welfare.
‘Council’ itself means a group of people getting together to discuss issues. That word itself is important. ‘Authority’ is not a council. You have the Swimming Pool Authority; that is not democratic - well, sorry. What I am saying is that it is not an elected body of people. You have regional authorities and they are groups of councils that get together and discuss regional roads or tourist matters. They are not a council.
It is important that we retain some basic names that should be seen by people for what they are. Local government is a generic name for the third tier of government; a council, regardless of the words preceding the name, is the body of elected people who make up local government. If the government wants to introduce a fourth tier of government, let us look as authorities as a separate issue, but authorities are not necessarily local government councils.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, whilst I understand what the member for Nelson is arguing, I made the comment in my reply in debate just a while ago, and I will refer to it once again because it is not that the word ‘council’ needs to be retained across the board.
The Tiwi Islands Local Government, as we understood it, from the early days, and I think it was then under minister Lim, had a number proposed names. One was the Tiwi Regional Assembly, Tiwi Islands Regional Authority. They ended up with Tiwi Islands Local Government Council. It is up to the Tiwi people how they refer to themselves. Most of them, as I understand it in my discussions with them, talked about TILG, Tiwi Islands Local Government.
As you drive throughout Queensland, as with other states and territories, not so much the ACT but other states, you drive through shires. I want to make the point on behalf of our government in discussions that we are having and now, with the advent of Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy, that we really owe it to the people who are going to live under this body that they have the flexibility to name it appropriately as they wish, as long as, at the end of the day, they are able to work together, to share resources and information, to look at economies of scale and deliver valuable services. That is what we were aiming for. I believe we are being too restrictive in going along with what is being proposed by the member for Nelson.
The proposed amendment to clause 5 of the bill is not supported. The proposed amendment, as it stands, provides the capacity for titles other than those currently specified in section 5 of the act. That is, as I said earlier, city council, town council, shire council or community government council to be used as part of the title of a council established under the act. Whilst ‘council’ is used to refer to local governing bodies, the terminology is not used exclusively to refer to them and is commonly used by other bodies, such as church councils, ministerial councils, ATSIC regional councils and many others convened for consultation, deliberation or advice.
As I said, flexibility is required for the naming of new councils established under the act, and that is what I would like to see happen and the government would like to maintain that flexibility, which is why I choose not to support the amendment proposed by the member for Nelson – reluctantly.
Mr WOOD: Well, we must fight on. Minister, what is your definition of ‘local government’? That is the name the Tiwi Islands use. What is that, as it is?
Mr AH KIT: I have made my explanation to you quite clear. We can be here for many hours and we can go to and fro. What we need to establish from the outset – and it is not that I have not given consideration to your proposed amendments, and I am glad to be able to adopt at least one of them – but we have fundamental philosophical differences. I understand and respect your experience in working as a former town clerk of the Bathurst or Nguiu Council.
Mr Wood: Shire council.
Mr AH KIT: Shire, shire - and your experience with Litchfield Shire, etcetera. We have consulted. This has been happening for five years. The feedback has not been: ‘We are adamant that we must have the word “council”’. The people we have consulted through LGANT and the other councils are quite happy to allow that flexibility.
If you are saying: ‘Councils in the bush under the Community Government Council Scheme must be brought into line with the Palmerston and Darwin City Councils’, that is something that we can all, hopefully, achieve one day in our time. At the moment, we need to build capacity and to work together. It would be so onerous to say to Lajamanu: ‘You need to have a system in place similar to Palmerston or Katherine Town Council’. One day we would like to see that, but it is a fair way off.
As I explained this morning, we have the situation where there are a lot of community government councils out there that we need to work with to start turning it around in the bush. We saw what happened with a particular community out at south-east Arnhem Land. There are others that we are monitoring to make sure that they do not go off the rails. That is a big task.
However, to restrict their capacity to provide a title is minor in regards to where we end up because, at the end of the day, we have Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures and councils, through these amendments and future amendments of the Local Government Act, are going to be able to recruit good CEOs, have the ability to share resources, to work as a region and independently move their community forward. That is the result we are seeking. We should not debate for hours about a particular council title.
Mr WOOD: I understand that you would not want to labour this for a long time, minister, although I have waited a long time to debate it. In fact, it was on the Notice Paper for many, many months. I did not come here to debate it in a frivolous manner; it is important that the government sets some parameters. It is not about whether Yirrkala becomes the same as Palmerston Council; it just tells people of the Northern Territory that they have a council under local government. You said in your second reading speech:
- While the amendment is required to protect the title of the existing Tiwi Islands Local Government it will also
assist in establishing sensible titles for other re-forming councils.
However, one of the main reasons it came in to being is because no one - and I am not sure it was your government – took some leadership to say: ‘We are quite happy to have any name you like. However, as you can see in section 5 of the Local Government Act, ‘council’ is used behind every other name’. One would presume that when you put:
- (e) a form approved by the minister.
Obviously, you were not going to allow ‘city, town, shire, community government’; you were going to allow something else, but you would have put the word ‘council’ at the end of that as well.
Therefore, I understand that you may think it is pedantic, but it makes the clear distinction that Tiwi Islands Local Government is not ‘local government’, it is a council of local government. That is the problem with the name and that is why you need to make that distinction.
I do not know whether anyone else wants to speak on that matter. Obviously, minister, as you said, you are not going to accept that.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.2. For people who do not have it before them, the section says:
- … unless otherwise provided by a community government constitution.
That is a common phrase through the act. Here we are referring to some restrictions on who can be a member of a council. Those restrictions, according to this act, can be overridden if it is written within a community government constitution. There is very good reason for it being there, but I do not believe that they should be written into a constitution and that is why I have asked for the words ‘despite anything to the contrary’ because, minister, we are changing the act to upgrade it from what has been in existence, you might say, as a trial act. As I said earlier today, the long title of this act is:
- … to provide for a similarity of power and function between self-governing authorities, and for other purposes
Minister, this is one of those core principles, so I am asking in this case that the amendment ‘despite anything to the contrary’ stays in and, without debating the next section, there is there the out, that the minister still can make an approval over and above that. It is not saying that it is not possible for it to happen because you still have the power to make a decision in a specific case, but it is saying that it should not be in a community government constitution and, if it is, then the act will override it.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, this amendment to the proposed new sections 9A(3) and 9A(4) and to substitute a new section 9A(3), simply states that the minister’s approval for an officer or employee to be a member of council should only be in a specific case. Whilst this may be appropriate in most cases, some flexibility is required to allow consideration for some future special instance. The amendment proposed by the member for Nelson is therefore not supported. However, we can get there in a roundabout way if the member for Nelson supports my amendment 57.3.
As a preamble of subsection 9A(1) provided an exemption …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Just one moment. For clarification, in commenting on your proposed amendment, the minister may explain his proposed amendment that we will deal with next in the context of his answer to your amendment. But we will deal with your amendment first.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I am just wondering whether we have drifted from …
Mr AH KIT: Could I, Madam Deputy Chair, just clarify?
Mr WOOD: Amendment 62.2 was what we were really debating.
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I think we have moved into the 62 point …
Mr AH KIT: Sorry, member for Nelson. Madam Deputy Chair, if I could just clarify: in regards to amendment 62.2, clause 9, the amendment to proposed section 9A(1) is not necessary as a result of my proposed amendment 57.3. I agree with the member for Nelson that the provision should apply to all councils.
Mr WOOD: Yes, minister, but to clarify that, you need that amendment at the top, because, from my reading of it, you would have one section saying one thing and the next section saying something else. I do not know whether they are complementary; I think they might be at odds because one will say, and I will read section 9A(1), according to your changes, you would have:
- … unless otherwise provided by a community government constitution …
which I am saying should not be there. Are you scrapping that all together? Are you getting rid of section 9A(1) totally?
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 9A(1): omit the whole subsection.
Mr AH KIT: My amendment 57.3 seeks to substitute the following subsection:
- (1) Unless approved by the Minister in writing-
(a) a person who is a officer or employee of the council cannot hold office as a member of the council;
and
(b) a person who is a member of council and becomes an officer or employee of the council cannot
continue to hold office as a member.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I have to introduce the next section. I am asking whether that would only be given for a specific case. Are you saying that you are not giving a general approval here; you would look at each case on its merit?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, that is right.
Mr WOOD: All right.
Mr ELFERINK: For the purposes of clarifying – and I am trying to follow this as closely as I can because I am bouncing the two proposed clause 9 amendments from each other – I ask that the minister makes clear the intent of his proposed amendment 57.3 and how it affects the operation of the rest of the subsection. I am sure he has notes there and it may help to have 57.3, 62.2 and 62.3 heard together for the sake of expediency. Perhaps the member for Nelson would agree, but I think an explanation by the minister as to what he is intending to do might solve some…
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: May I propose how we could deal with it? We are ostensibly dealing with the member for Nelson’s proposed amendment. If that is negatived, we then would move to 57.3. Regarding the logic and the abilities of Hansard, I would prefer to keep on the path we are currently on.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I will wait for an explanation from the minister when he is ready.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Sure.
Amendment negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, for the sake of clarification, is my reading of it that because 62.2 was negatived, 62.3 is also.
Mr WOOD: We are on to 57.3 now?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I follow that.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We will deal with 57.3 and then we will move to your 62.3.
Mr WOOD: No, that…
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It falls with 62.2.
Mr WOOD: I see what you mean. Let us see where we go with 57.3.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.3, which proposes to omit subsection (1) and substitute a new subsection.
As the preamble of subsection 9A(1) provided an exemption from the application of this provision to a community government council where its constitution allowed an employee to also be a member of the council, this was not the original intention. It was proposed that the provision would apply to all councils. Subsection 9A(1)(a) has therefore been amended to ensure that an officer or employee cannot be a member of council. Section 9A(1)(b) is included so that the application of the provision does not apply to a person who is a member of council and also an officer or employee. That is, at the time these proposed amendments become law.
The word ‘becomes’ in section 9A1(b) has future connotations, which means it does not apply to current situations. That is, the provision does not have retrospective effect on any person who is currently a member and an officer or employee. However, at the expiry of the person’s current term of office as a member of a council, the provision will apply to prevent the person from standing again for election without the approval of the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: That was pretty much the way I read it, however, I seek some guidance from the minister in relation to this. I presume that when you are talking about omitting the whole subsection, it also includes subsections (a) and (b), then in the bill before the House, the final words ‘without approval in writing from the minister’ appear in the bill itself. I presume from this that the minister is intending to remove those words from subsection (1) as well and, if that is the case, the substituted subsection (1) reads as an absolute. The minister has no discretionary power to then move on to subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the bill. Am I reading that correctly, minister? Or is there a mechanism in place whereby you can still give some sort of approval?
Mr AH KIT: No. It is explanatory in 57.3 with: ‘(1) Unless approved by the minister in writing …’ Okay?
Mr ELFERINK. Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, do you still propose to move 62.3?
Mr WOOD: Yes, thank you. I move amendment 62.3, which relates to section 9A(3) of the act. The act says that the minister’s approval under subsection (2), where he gives permission for someone to hold office, may be given generally or for a specific case.
My understanding of the word ‘generally’ is that it is too broad and leaves it open for councils to be allowed to approve people who hold office all the time. By just allowing for special cases, this stops over-use of the clause. I would be interested to hear how the minister interprets ‘generally’ in this clause.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment to omit proposed new sections 9A(3) and (4) and to substitute a new section 9A(3) that simply says the minister’s approval for an officer or an employee to be a member of council should only be in a specific case. Whilst this may be appropriate in most cases, some flexibility is required to allow consideration for some future special instance. The amendment by the member for Nelson is therefore not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, can you give me an example of when you would need to give approval ‘generally’?
Mr AH KIT: Yes. If we could give you examples, member for Nelson, we would have them covered in the act. We want to ensure that we do not restrict and limit ourselves and that we provide for instances in the future, which is exactly what I explained not so long ago.
Mr WOOD: That might be true, minister, but the reason we are trying to maintain some specificity in this section is to make sure it is not abused. Normally, you could not be an employee of a council. That is the normal process throughout Australia. However, we are recognising that there are difficulties, especially in community governments. It has always been recognised that there are difficulties. Therefore, we should make sure that this section of the act is as tight as possible. In other words, this is the exception to the rule.
By using the world ‘generally’, you are making it too flexible. If a person has a specific need to be on a council, then it should be a case-by-case decision by yourself where we can see in a transparent manner why you have approved it.
By adopting my amendment, you are, once again, maintaining the principles I spoke about before: something that is not normal and we accept the reasons why, but we are making sure that there cannot be any abuse of that extra power. I hope, minister, you will support the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Very briefly, Madam Deputy Chair, the opposition concurs with the position of the member for Nelson on this issue.
This is basically the equivalent of what would be considered, at our level of government, a separation of powers issue. I understand the flexibility needed from time to time to allow it to happen on a community level, but specific attention will have to be given by the minister to particular situations when this occurs. I am sympathetic to the member for Nelson’s position on this.
Mr AH KIT: I understand the member for Nelson’s concern, but I did say in my closing of the second reading that under Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, we have already had a situation where, through LGANT and councils, new initiatives that they believe should be picked up in the act have been proposed. They will come before us, no doubt, later on in the year.
I said that within the next six months, I certainly hope that we will be discussing, as we continuously do, with the councils throughout the Territory and their representative bodies, any new ideas or thoughts that they feel could strengthen the act to allow them a lot more flexibility in the way they are able to conduct the business of their council. We are quite happy to sit down and talk to them about those.
I predicted that there will be further amendments coming up later on in the year. We will have to go through the consultation stage. I am saying to the member for Nelson that I am not going to support your amendment. Allow me that flexibility. If we see problems, we will monitor it and we can report back later in the year on whether I was right in building in that flexibility or you were right in saying we should tighten it up.
Mr WOOD: I am happy to hear that, minister. I will probably still disagree with you, but I am happy to hear what happens. Then one of us can say: ‘I told you so’, but yes, we will go for it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.4. Section 11 in the existing act is referred to as clause 12 in the Local Government Amendment Bill. The section I am referring to says that the office of a member of a council becomes vacant where the member, except as otherwise provided by a community government constitution, is absent without leave of the council from all meetings of the council, disregarding committee meetings, held during a continuous period of three months.
Once again, minister, I refer to those core democratic principles that it should be the requirement, surely, of an elected person to attend meetings of the council. Generally speaker, as you know, in local government councils, if you do not turn up for three meetings, you are out. Part of the reason it is there to make sure that local …
Mr Stirling: We have that rule here. It is the same rule in here.
Mr WOOD: That is right, and I will add that to my arguments for this. Built into these community government constitutions is a rule that you may not have to do it. Again, trying to stick with those core principles of democracy, people should expect their councillors, no matter where they come from, to attend council meetings otherwise they should not have stood in the first place. They should know they are the rules and if they cannot stick to those rules, do not even nominate to stand for election.
Once again, I am moving a clause that uses a phrase you will hear me say a few times and I am saying it should apply to all councillors. Anyone who takes on this job must be responsible, must turn up, must represent their people. It is not just about a matter of good governance, it is about the people they represent getting the best deal. The amendments I propose would do exactly that.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment to paragraph (a) of clause 12 of the bill to amend section 11 of the act is not supported. Section 11(1)(c) of the act states that the office of the member becomes vacant if the member is absent without leave for all council meetings held during a three month period. Section 11 is being amended to make it clear that the meetings referred to are council meetings and not committee meetings of the council.
It has been found that some members are attending committee meetings of council, but are failing to turn up for council meetings. This makes it difficult to establish a quorum for a meeting and to conduct council business in a professional and timely manner. It is not the government’s intention to force its will onto councils, but to allow some flexibility to continue, particularly where there is provision made in a current community government constitution concerning attendance at council meetings. As constitutions are amended or new constitutions are commenced, this issue will be looked at closely to ensure that members are required to attend meetings of council on a regular basis. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: I can imagine if this was in the constitution of Litchfield Shire Council. If we were allowed to have some of the amendments that are proposed, such as you only had to have one meeting every two months, that means that a councillor could miss nearly half a year of meetings and still belong to the council. Governments have a duty to make sure that the principles they lay down for local government are good principles based on, again, trying to maintain the democratic focus of what local government is about.
Some people might say that this is airy fairy stuff, but it is not. We have a danger of setting in place systems that will become habitual and will be extremely hard to move away from. Some of the systems that we have in place at the moment leave local governments open to abuse of power. We see in other countries where systems are not in place, where certain family members have more power than other family members. I do not believe that we should risk that occurring in some of our communities.
We have had a broad set of rules for community government councils, and one could argue that was put in place as a sweetener because we know that people will find these changes difficult. Here is an opportunity where we are amending the Local Government Act to bring things in line not because I want to be the same as Palmerston Council or Litchfield Shire Council, but I want those guiding principles to be exactly the same for all people, not whether they are black or white, but for all people, not whether it is the Westminster system, but the people who elect me do so according to due process and I am comfortable with that.
Here you have a system where you are basically not encouraging people who are elected to do their job by allowing that to continue in a constitution. Here is an opportunity for the government to say: ‘Okay, we’ve had that period of time where you had that in your constitution, but now you are becoming more professional. You are dealing with more issues…’ – we are talking about taking on more functions – ‘…therefore, the professionalism of your council, the democratic principles of your council are extremely important and you will have to attend council meetings, otherwise you will lose your job’. As I said, if you read on further, where there are amendments with which I do not agree, that some councils may only have to have a meeting once every two months, then you may not see a councillor for six months. That is a regressive step, not a progressive one.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Deputy Chair, I have listened fairly closely to the member’s arguments and an ideal world, you would have nothing but support for them, but we live far from an ideal world. The dichotomy of debate is interesting because in the second reading debate, the member for Brennan was saying: ‘Here’s the big black hand of government and the minister all over this controlling councils and what they can and cannot do’, yet during this debate, I have heard the minister argue the need for flexibility in the arrangements and in the amendments, particularly as they have to apply across the board.
What I am saying is here, I would see operations that are vaguely familiar with the operations of community government councils in my electorate such as Yirrkala, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku. They would have some prescription around this in their constitution. If we were to go the way you are suggesting, we would overriding those constitutional clauses at that local level and that would be the big hand of government sitting right on top of community government councils and prescribing something that works very well for Palmerston and Darwin City Councils, but would not be very effective at, say, Galiwinku where perhaps as much as a third of the population could be attending a ceremony at a neighbouring community and there is a need for a council meeting. Those sorts of things could conceivably occur and clash with meetings in a community to the point where you would simply be scrubbing out membership.
We have a long way to go in terms of where you would want to be and where we would want to be as a government. We have to face the facts and reality of the bush and the way community government councils operate.
Whilst I recognise and have empathy with your argument, you must have the flexibility to allow these organisations to function at all at this stage of their development, if I could put it like that. The whole idea of councils serving the people and the concepts that we take for granted are not always as clearly understood in the bush as we would like to think they are. There is a fair way to go to reach the ideal world where you would have it prescriptively in the act so everyone would have to comply or else they are off. Whilst I hear what you are saying, we have to err on the side of flexibility, as the minister argued.
Mr WOOD: I agree in general with what you are saying, minister, but you will note that in that section of the act it says:
… without leave of the council.
No one gets sacked from a council if they have given an apology. The issue is: how much do you care for your council that you cannot even be bother to give an apology? That is what is bad. By all means, there will be funerals, floods and business matters that people have to consider, but everywhere says that you can do that, as long as you have leave of the council, but this says you don’t require the leave of council. That is a bad habit to get in to.
I take your comments about the black hand leading local government. Perhaps you would not need this if, say, the principles had been better implanted into the original concepts of local government. We set up a third tier of government through this parliament. I was always told that local government was a servant of this parliament. This parliament is the one that sets up the structure, the core, and that core needs to be stable, and the flexibility that operates around that it is a different matter. I do not believe the core itself should be as flexible as what is being proposed today.
I am trying to bring more similarity to what was flexible, as I have repeated, is in the long title of this act. I do not believe my changes do any more than put a bit of pressure on people to say: ‘Excuse me, I cannot come to the meeting tonight’, because that is really what it is all about.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.5. The reason I propose this is, again, I do not think it is needed. Section 11(1)(d) of the existing act says an office of a member of a council becomes vacant when the member fails to complete a prescribed declaration in section 10, or lodge it with the – your proposed amendment is - with the CEO, or if there is no CEO, a person nominated by the council before the expiration or three months after the election or appointment as a member. I believe that if a person cannot get their act together and fill in the prescribed declaration three months after they have been elected, they are going to be a great councillor. I would say: too bad. What your amendment says is that even if they have failed to do that, I have the power to override that and fix the problem. I know that this might have occurred in our briefing to specific problems that occurred with councils some years ago. That may be well and good. However, we are moving on and becoming more professional. If people want to work on councils, surely they make the effort to find out what they have to do, and if they have three months; I wonder how many meetings they attended in that time yet had not completed the prescribed declaration form. There is a bit of hand-holding stuff here. The act allows plenty of time for people to do what they need to do, and if they cannot be bothered, perhaps the community needs someone else.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment to omit paragraph (c) from clause 12 of the bill relies on proposed amendment 62.4 being supported. As amendment 62.4 was not supported, it is not necessary to omit new section 12(1)(a) as proposed by the member for Nelson in amendment 62.5.
New section 12(1)(a) has been added to provide some flexibility where the declaration required under section 10 of the act has not been made within the required time. The new section will allow the minister to override an automatic vacancy in the office of the member should the circumstances be justified.
The new section allows an extension of time to be granted to lodge the required declaration. This would overcome the necessity to hold a by-election to fill a vacancy and could also validate the actions of council for those members who have failed to make declarations unwittingly. The amendment is not supported.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendment schedule we received this morning deals, to some extent, with this clause. My concern about that amendment is that it says:
- A person who is an officer or an employee of a council and who is, or is to be nominated for election to the
Legislative Assembly, House of Representatives or Senate may give notice in writing to the CEO of the council
of the person’s resignation from the office or employment with the council under this section.
The word ‘nominated’ could mean anything and if a party decided to endorse and announce someone three months before the election, they would have to resign. I am presuming that what I was after, which is not quite the same, is covered in (2) of the proposed amendment, which says:
- A notice of resignation under this section cannot be expressed to take effect more than one month before the date
on which nominations for the election are to close.
I ask for the minister’s explanation and if his explanation is satisfactory, I will invite defeat of my proposed amendment. However, I am presuming (2) means that if you want to nominate for the House of Representative or the Legislative Assembly, your resignation will not take effect until one month before the date on which the nominations for the election are to close. That might be all right for a municipal council because you would know when the election was to be held, but how would you know what is one month before a community government council election, which is flexible?
Mr WOOD: Minister, I was not particularly worried about that. I was trying to get an explanation of (2) because my clause may be overridden by your proposed clause 13A(2). I was not going to debate my amendment; I was going to see if yours would do the same job. Then I was going to ask how (2) works for a community government council, which does not always have a set date on which it is going to have its election.
Mr STIRLING: But it is not the council election, it is the Assembly or Reps election.
Mr WOOD: We do not know when that is going to be, either.
Mr STIRLING: That is true. But it is not the council election that is the question, it is the …
Mr WOOD: Yes, I may be reading it incorrectly.
Mr STIRLING: No. They know when the nominations date is.
Mr WOOD: You will not know when nominations for the election close until you know the date of the election.
Mr AH KIT: Sorry, member for Nelson, I am not quite with you on what …
Mr WOOD: What I was trying to do …
Mr AH KIT: Could you just explain again, thanks?
Mr WOOD: Yes. The reason my amendment is there was to make sure that no one nominated themselves for a House of Representatives or Senate election, say, six months before the election. When I read your amendment originally, such a person immediately had to resign. It did not give a date. You have to go to the principal act because the bit that everyone crossed out is the bit I reckon that you should have kept. It was very specific and said:
13(3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice of resignation under subsection (2) takes effect on the day on which the nomination for election to the Legislative Assembly of a person to whom this section applies is lodged with the Chief Electoral Officer.
So there was a specific time at which a person had to resign because it is fairly important. It could become fairly messy if someone nominated and the council found themselves without that person or a replacement because this is not exact enough.
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, your concern is about resignation. The resignation, as I understand it, does not become formal until the nomination is handed in to the Electoral Office with the nomination fee, if so required. Whilst I understand what you are saying, I can only inform you that the resignation does not have any effect as such until a nomination is actually lodged.
Mr WOOD: It may be a ‘suck it and see’ situation, but I hope someone does not get caught because the words ‘nominated for election’ are a fairly broad term.
Mr STIRLING: I was misreading it exactly along the lines that you were. When you take it and you look at it the other way: ‘to take effect more than one month before the date on which nominations for the election are to close’, it does not matter. It does not matter that you do not know the date. However, when the date is known, and this is the point that the member is trying to make, they cannot be called on: ‘You have to go. Your resignation has taken effect’. They have the protection at least that it cannot take effect more than one month before the date on which nominations for the election are to close.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am satisfied with that. I mean, that is where it has been complex and I will just invite defeat.
Amendment negatived.
Proposed new clause 13A:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.4, which inserts proposed new section 13A into the principal act and will allow officers and employees of a council to be reinstated to the council after resigning to contest an election. As announced by the Minister for Local Government in the media on 8 October 2003 and in his second reading speech for the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 176) on 9 October 2003, the Northern Territory government would consider reforms to allow an officer or an employee of a council to be reinstated after resigning to contest an election.
The Australian Services Union also raised concerns in relation to the ability of council staff to stand for elections. Currently, council officers or employees are not able to submit revocable resignations as is the case for council members and public servants in the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Public Services.
Proposed new section 13A will allow an officer or employee of a council to resign from council to nominate for election to the Legislative Assembly, House of Representatives or Senate. The resignation can only be made within one month of the date on which nominations for an election are to close.
The officer or employee may apply in writing to be reinstated to the position from which they resigned before the election if the person withdraws their consent to be a member of the parliament, if elected, or the person ceases to qualify as a candidate for the election.
Council must reinstate the person as an officer or employee of the council effective on and from the day of receipt of the written application by the CEO of the council. The person should be reinstated at a salary equivalent to the salary the person had before resigning or, if the position has been filled, as near as possible to the position previously had and at a salary as near as possible to the salary that the person previously received.
The amendment is based on the principles contained in proposed section 13 of the Local Government Act concerning members of a council standing for a Territory or federal election, and the principles contained in section 38 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act for reappointment of persons resigning to become candidates at elections and, in particular, in relation to the timing of the resignation, reinstatement and salary conditions and requirements with respect to leave entitlements.
Mr ELFERINK: Very quickly, it is worth placing on the record that the requirements under the Northern Territory Public Sector Employment and Management Act - and I believe the Police Administration Act contains similar provisions - are to avoid a very specific doctrine that operates in the Westminster system: the doctrine of separation of powers.
It is not appropriate for any member of parliament to earn the Queen’s penny and vice versa; it is not appropriate for a person who works for the executive to be an elected official in either the highest or middle sphere of the parliamentary system. It is for that reason that the principles outlined in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the Police Administration Act exist. I am curious to know whether the minister can advise the House as to whether or not that is the thinking behind this proposed section.
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, it maintains that separation, as I just explained.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I ask is whether or not the principle of the doctrine of separation of powers is offended by a person who is an employee of a council standing for either federal or state parliament.
Mr AH KIT: It ensures, member for Macdonell, that they resign before they nominate.
Mr ELFERINK: I will ask the question again. Is the doctrine of separation of powers offended by a person who is an employee of a council standing for either state or federal parliament?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question is the proposed new clause 13A be inserted.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked a question of the minister. I take it by his silence, he is not prepared to answer the question, or …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I understood the minister answered it and chose to remain seated.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, I have answered the question.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you have not. The question is very specific. All I needed to know from the minister is whether or not if an employee of a council who takes a decision to stand for a Territory or federal election offends the doctrine of the separation of powers.
When I was briefed on this and the issue was raised, I was told that it was similar to the provisions contained in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The provisions are similar, but the rationale for those provisions may not be, which is why I am specifically asking the question: does a council employee standing for state or federal parliament offend that separation of powers? Now, if the minister does not want to answer that question, that is fine; that is his business. However, if the minister says he has answered the question, he clearly has not.
Proposed new clause 13A agreed to.
Clause 14:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Amendment 62.7 for you, clause 14.
Mr WOOD: I picked up the wrong set of amendments.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is okay. I have several sets here, too. I fully understand the mistake.
Mr WOOD: We are dealing with clause 14, which is the role of a member, is that correct?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is the one.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. As I said in my opening, I do not believe - and I will speak to the next clause as well so we do not take up extra time - that either clauses 14A or 14B, the role of a presiding member, should be in the act. I have no problem with it being in a guide book for elected members - there it is, beautiful! - but I do have a problem if something goes in to legislation that requires a person to provide leadership and guidance to the community. That is pretty difficult to prove, and some people might not be comfortable making a speech to the common folk about an important matter in the community; they might be there because they want to help. Is someone going to make a judgment on whether they provide leadership and guidance? I do not think so. Further, they must facilitate - I love the word ‘facilitate’ - assist, aid, help communication between the community and the council. These are very broad clauses that should not be in the act.
As I said before, I do not mind when we deal with the CEO. The CEO is not an elected member, and you need to define that role. However, for the role of a member, sure, I have no problem with the department bringing out a list of what they are expected to do, but in the end, they are accountable to the people who elected them. If we get that core function I keep talking about right, then this will take its place. People will make people do their job. It may take some time, but I think that is what will happen.
If I may ask a question while I am on my feet: under 14A(2) as distinct from 14A(1), which says:
- The role of the member as a member of a council is…
Clause 14A(2) says:
- The role of a member, as a person elected to represent the community, is…
Now, doesn’t the member represent the community to direct and control the affairs of the council to ensure the most benefit, effective and efficient allocation to participate in the deliberations of the council? Why is there a distinction between the role of the member as a member of the council and the role of the member as a person elected to represent the community? Surely, the two are the same thing.
Mr AH KIT: The amendment proposes to omit Division 2A from clause 14 of the bill, which relates to two new sections, 14A and 14B, which define the role of member and role of presiding member respectively.
There are no provisions in the current act that define the role of members or the role of a presiding member. It has been necessary to include these provisions for the information and clarity of all concerned, and to ensure proper accountability by councils. There needs to be a balance between the roles of the elected members and the role of officers and employees of the council. This new division will apply to both municipal councils and community government councils.
Proposed new section 14A will define the role of all members of a council. The role specified will make it quite clear how a member should conduct and manage the affairs of council. At no time does a council member have direct authority over an officer or an employee of the council in the performance of their duties.
In the same way, proposed new section 14B will define the role of the presiding member - that is, mayors and presidents, as the case may be – of each council which will be in addition to the role specified for a member. The presiding member will chair all meetings of council, is the principal spokesperson of the council, carry out specific and ceremonial functions of council and any other functions as determined by the council from time to time.
New clauses 14A and 14B are cognate provisions to proposed new sections 142A and 143A, which define the roles of the CEO and the human resource management principles to be observed by the council. It is important that the members and presiding members of council have a clear understanding of their roles. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Notwithstanding clause 14A(3) is a fair clause to include in that section, that a member has no direct authority over an officer or employee of the council, I accept that should stay, if you include this in the act, who makes the judgment and what are the penalties for not complying with this section of the act?
Mr AH KIT: The constituents obviously make the judgment. The penalty will obviously be removal at the next election.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is your act; this is an act of parliament. That is why it should not be there; it should be somewhere else where the people can make that judgment.
Mr AH KIT: It establishes the accountability mechanisms. Member for Nelson, as I said earlier, I understand your experience, but I have been around for some years also. I want to check out the process of your consultation. You may say that you do not need to consult with LGANT or councils and that you, as an Independent member of this Chamber, can question, as is your right, legislation as it passes through the Chamber.
I have had my department conduct consultations and discussions since I have been the minister. This has been going on for five years. LGANT, in the main, as I said in my speech today, supports most of what we are proposing here. I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to consult about this stuff or the shadow minister, member for Macdonnell, but while I understand it is your right and we can stay here until the cows come home - that is not a problem with me – it is frustrating in a way that a situation is developing where very little consultation has happened. My people have been good enough to arrange briefings, and more of those could have been organised. If you have not taken the opportunity to further consult, I do not know why we should continue to play funny buggers for quite some time in the Chamber.
Mr WOOD: May I reply to that?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, please do.
Mr WOOD: I take exception. It is not about my experience in local government, although of course I have a desire to make sure that local government bills are properly debated in this parliament. However, I have discussed this with other councils. I have material from Palmerston Council and Darwin City Council. They do not always agree with LGANT. I was on LGANT and I know that councils do not always agree with them. I have taken some of the matters that they have given me into consideration.
Forget that I am an Independent. I am a member of the Territory parliament. I am not worried about being an Independent. I represent my electorate and I also represent, I hope, the people of the Northern Territory. It is my job to ask you as minister and for you to explain so that I know that you have an understanding of your own act. I am going to put some questions to you that I think are relevant, and I think this is important. I am not doing it to keep you here until the cows come home. I am here because I presume the process of dealing with legislation – and I regard myself still as a newcomer to this place – is to thoroughly go through these bills so we do not have problems down the track and that people know that, as members of this parliament, we are doing our job thoroughly.
I certainly do not want to drag this debate on any longer than it should run, but I take exception to the assertion that I have not been to briefings. I have. Your ministerial advisor will know the history of some of this stuff when I was in local government. It goes way back before I was in parliament. This is the first chance I have had to debate some of these important issues. I am not going to be hurried through it because you have some reasons that I do not believe are valid.
Mr ELFERINK: I also have to place on the record my exception to the minister’s comments. This has been a process that has, by his own statement, taken five years to get to this House. Now it has to be proceeded with at a million miles an hour? I place on the record that I am trying my hardest to keep it short. The reason that I did not pursue the separation of powers stuff is because it does not offend the separation of powers insomuch as I am aware, and the reason that is an issue is: why are we not protecting the jobs of the Plumbers’ Guild or mechanics or anybody else? That is the problem I have with that section. I am thinking to myself: ‘All right, it does not bother me, if that is the way the minister wants to go, then fine. I am not going to argue the point’.
Then to allege that we are prevaricating and trying to waste time, every time I get to my feet I could talk for 10 minutes, and that is not an option I am taking. I am trying my hardest, as I believe is the member for Nelson, to be succinct and to the point. I am not going to sit here and give lectures about the reasons for my questions in relation to things like the separation of powers. I was not being flippant or glib. I could not understand why we were protecting the people of one particular industry but not another. It is not on point so I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
In relation to the matter that the member for Nelson raised, I have a simple question: in the first instance, is a member of a council answerable to you or answerable to their electorate?
Mr AH KIT: To the electorate.
Mr ELFERINK: If you accept that then you must accept that your decision to ask for us to place in your hands a power to limit the role of those members to what you have listed in here is a breach of that concept. If you agree that a member who is elected as a councillor is first and foremost responsible to their electorate, why are you limiting or trying to limit their parameters of operation in this legislation?
Mr AH KIT: All this clause does is simply set out the role of members so that they can be accountable to their constituents.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you have, in other parts of this bill, asked this parliament to give you powers to intervene in councils when they do not adhere to the sections outlined in this act. It is incongruous that you are telling me that in once instance, they are responsible to their electorates first and foremost, and in the second instance, they have to then, as part of their responsibility, fulfil their role as a member as you dictate. It cannot be but supported by you, the member for Nelson’s proposed omission of this division. If you believe that they are responsible to their electorates first and foremost, then this section is prescriptive and therefore invasive on that liberty.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, slowly, the shadow minister is starting to get into full swing. In 1997-98, the annual report of the Department of Housing and Local Government forecast that there would be legislative change. One of those changes under the Department of Housing and Local Government was the introduction of changes to the Local Government Act arising from the reform and development process.
Also, the Department of Local Government annual report Directions for 1999-2000 cited legislative change. Three things, all important: introduce and implement new animal welfare legislation; introduce and implement new legislation relating to swimming pool fencing. You sit there and shake your head. This is stuff your mob was supposed to do.
Mr Elferink: I am shaking my head because you are not answering the question because you can’t. You can’t answer the question. It is very specific.
Mr AH KIT: Let me finish, Madam Deputy Chair, with the third one.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Macdonnell, please do not interrupt the minister.
Mr AH KIT: The third one is: introduce amendments to the Local Government Act. Never acted on any of that. You had carriage of it; you had government; you had three ministers involved. Eighty per cent of the stuff I have picked up is stuff that I am responsible for after all the consultations have been held. Now we sit here and you take issue with this stuff, which is arguing.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You talk about predicaments. You are in an awkward situation there.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Most of this stuff has been supported by your ministers, your government and your former Chief Minister. Yet you now sit on that side and chose to argue against it. I cannot understand your logic.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: No. We have communities out there …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr AH KIT: If you shut up and listen, I might be able to explain. Your government doesn’t have a very good track record over the last 26 years.
Mr Elferink: Attack us, fine; answer the question.
Mr AH KIT: Just shush and I will answer your question. But you have to understand that all these headaches haven’t been created since we won government. What you need to understand is that the situation out there was left in an appalling state right across the Territory. You should be supporting us in trying to turn it around. You spoke about Willowra, which has a history and we are trying to work our way through that.
Mr Elferink: Not very effectively.
Mr AH KIT: Well, what’s your track record? What is your track record? Not a very good one. Now, when we are trying to do something about turning the situation around, introducing Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, getting indigenous economic development stuff happening, looking for more opportunities to get things going in the bush, turning around the health and education stuff, you sit there and criticise. That, I suppose, is how you understand the role of the opposition; to sit there and criticise.
I believe the consultations have been appropriate. Whilst we are going to fundamentally disagree on certain things here, in the main the amendments I am proposing will be satisfactory to most of the councils. As I say, there will be new material on the table and my department and I will be meeting with councils and LGANT to look at further changes to strengthen the act and give them more power.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I am not going to drive this any further. The minister, when trapped, immediately resorts to the automatic self-confessed Idi Amin process of common abuse. That is fine and it is his business. The fact of the matter is that there will continue to operate in this act a potential problem for all future councillors in the Northern Territory. Those who are caught between the rock, which is the minister, and the hard place, which is the responsibility they have to their electorates. As much as the minister wants to yell at me about things over which I have never had any control and matters of history, the fact of the matter is that he is asking for a power to effect a change when a councillor does not perform the way he wants that councillor to perform. His assertion that a person who is a councillor is responsible to their electorate is primary is not consistent with the power that he seeks in this legislation. He has no answer to that. Consequently, the opposition cannot do anything but support the member for Nelson’s proposed amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, may I point out that I believe we have jumped over 57.5 and 57.6.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I was moving to 57.5 now.
Mr WOOD: You are dealing with clause 14?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes. 62.7 has been dealt with. I will come back to 62.8, 62.9 etcetera.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.5. This amendment adds to the preamble of proposed subsection 14A(1) to make it quite clear that a member of council can only exercise authority as a member of the council and not as an individual. That is, the member has no authority to act alone. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.6. As the original wording of clause 14B(c) was confusing, this amendment is a redraft of the clause to make it clear that the other functions of the council specified in the original wording relate to the other necessary activities or responsibilities of the council and not to the functions of the council listed in Schedule 2 of the act.
A council is required to undertake many activities and responsibilities on behalf of its ratepayers as part of its everyday affairs. That is, all of the council’s powers and functions under the act. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: I wonder why that should not be counter-balanced with a definition of what ‘council-related’ means. Can it be so broad that someone could claim that something is council-related? If you are going to include the term, it should be defined. Most people would have said ‘to perform other council functions’, if you were talking broadly, it could be going to have a cup of tea with the old-timers down the road. Normally, we would expect council functions to be a pretty broad brush, but if you are going to use the term ‘council-related’, do you need a definition?
Mr AH KIT: The draftsmen do not believe so, member for Nelson. I know you do not have a lot of faith in them and their ability to put to the right words together …
Mr Wood: Where do you get that from?
Mr AH KIT: … with the intention …
Mr Wood: Look what they did for me! They are pretty good people.
Mr AH KIT: I take your point.
Mr Wood: Okay. They are only human.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Mr Wood to move amendment 62.8.
Mr WOOD: No, we have spoken enough on that one, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Do you invite defeat or do you want us to move on it?
Mr WOOD: Just move it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.9. I have to make sure I find the section here. It is under Division 3, clause 17(1)(b) of the amending bill, which says that an ordinary meeting of community government council can be held at least once in each two-monthly period, so that at least six meetings are held in each financial year.
I could argue that I would like that as a core function of councils – well, not a core function but it is one of those guiding principles of democracy that people attend meetings regularly. However, there is more in that, because there is a practical outcome from having a meeting once a month. Councils deal with business. If a person is owed money, will they have to wait two months before the council has a meeting? It should be left as once a month. I do not see there is any problem with that.
You have all these references to the constitution, and if it says that someone may be excused from a meeting, you do not have to turn up for a meeting. Further on we will deal with technological advances that facilitate presence at meetings. There are enough elements there to allow people to turn up for a meeting once a month. That is 12 meetings a year. Surely, it is not too much to ask members of the council, and that is the very least you would expect as a member of a council, that your councillors made the effort to turn up for one meeting a month to deal with transactions and business and to keep in contact. In a lot of cases, council issues are sometimes daily issues that occur fairly quickly. If you have to wait two months before they are dealt with, I do not believe one is serving one’s community well at all.
I believe this section should be changed, and the amendment that I propose is that an ordinary meeting of a council must be held once in each month. It is as simple as that.
Mr AH KIT: The amendment proposed is to omit clause 17(1) and substitute a new clause 17(1) which simply states that a council must hold a meeting at least once a month. The amendment, yet again, fails to recognise the needs of community government councils. Government will not force councils into meeting monthly at this time, particularly where there is a provision made in a current community government constitution concerning the conduct of ordinary council meetings. New section 17 sets out the minimum requirements for conducting ordinary meetings of council and enables council to transact its business. The proposed amendment is therefore not supported.
Mr WOOD: You are prescribing how many meetings they have anyway. If you accept what you say is correct, that it is not our job to tell councils what to do, why bother including anything? Why not just say: ‘community council shall hold meetings’? You are prescribing there. All I am saying is that your prescription is too slack. You should prescribe at least one meeting a month so residents at least have some faith in their council. Otherwise, as I said, if I accept what you are saying, then you would say: ‘community government councils shall have meetings’ and let them determine it.
Mr AH KIT: I understand what the member for Nelson is saying, but this is a situation where we have to agree to disagree.
Mr WOOD: Then why did you nominate six meetings? If you will not accept my 12, then you must have a reason for including six. What is the reason behind this clause?
Mr AH KIT: It is a minimum, not a maximum.
Mr WOOD: Mine is a minimum of 12. Why did you pick a minimum of six? There must be a reason.
Mr AH KIT: I can assure the member for Nelson that there is nothing sneaky about this.
Mr WOOD: I was not saying that.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you are looking for a reason. Look, I have provided the government’s response, and I suggest we move on.
Amendment negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, with your indulgence, the Chair proposes a five-minute suspension. I am the mother of two children; I can last so long on the Chair. If there be no objection, the committee will suspend for five minutes.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I call to order the committee in session considering the amendments to the Local Government Amendment Bill 2003. The committee has before it Mr Wood to move amendment 62.10.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.10, which refers to clause 19B(1) in the amending bill. This amendment was requested by a number of councils. As I said, I was listening to what the council said as well as LAGNT. This clause provides that a special meeting of the council may be convened by the presiding member or three or more members directing the CEO to summon a special meeting.
Councils have asked that in addition, a council may by resolution decide to convene a special meeting to transact business. On that basis, I propose the amendment.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause 19B(1)(a) into the act to allow a council by resolution to decide to convene a special meeting of the council. Under accepted rules of practice for meetings, it is the responsibility of the presiding member to call special meetings. There is provision under proposed clause 19B for the presiding member or three or more members of council to direct the CEO to call a special meeting. The proposed amendment is ambiguous and inconsistent with the new clause 19B and is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, could you explain why you think it is ambiguous? Are you saying that three or more members is the same as having the council convene a special meeting? We are dealing with (1)(a) and (b) and after that, we are seeking to insert a clause to say the council can convene a meeting by its own resolution. You are saying that is ambiguous. What is the ambiguity?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, under proposed amendment 62.10 you are seeking to add to proposed section 19B(1):
- (1A) In addition, a council may, by resolution, decide to convene a special meeting to transact business.
Under clause 19 of the bill, notice of meeting of council, you have three days notice of an ordinary meeting and four hours notice of a special meeting, however, that can be convened under clause 19B:
(1) A special meeting of council may be convened by –
- (a) the presiding member; or
(b) three or more members
- directing the CEO to summon a special meeting.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, my proposed amendment 62.11 is consequential to proposed amendment 62.10, which was negatived. That being the case, I withdraw proposed amendment 62.11.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.12, which allows a council to establish a quorum when members are not physically present at a meeting. I heard the member for Barkly talk about local governments coming into the 21st Century. Some may be a bit slower than others, but the issue is whether people are absent or not. Some of that can be overcome simply by making sure there are enough councillors on a council; by people planning. They know that there will be a council meeting every second Wednesday and fourth Wednesday of the month, so councillors who are serious about their job would certainly know when meetings are scheduled and, I presume, would manage their affairs accordingly.
Now, be that as it may, I understand that there will be times when councillors cannot physically be present at meetings. In some of the outback communities, that could be the result of floods, the roads being out or any of those sorts of reasons. However, the danger of clause 19E(3) without any limitations on it is that, in theory, you could have an entire meeting by teleconference. People might ask what is wrong with that My response to that is: ‘Try here. Let us start it off here as a good example. We will run parliament by teleconference’. Would you support that?
Members interjecting.
Mr Henderson: Seconded!
Mr WOOD: Okay, save some money on that. Very good. Yes, I can see the blue sky at home, at least. So it is not good enough for this parliament because we come together as human beings, face-to-face, to deal with issues and that contact is important. What I propose is that, bearing in mind there are some issues, there are some problems that some of these communities have, have a limited amount of technological flexibility, if you want to call it that, to run meetings. What I have done with my amendments is to limit that to two meetings in any period of 12 months. That would allow this so-called new technology, this new amendment proposed by the government, to at least be tested.
Once again, like you changing to one meeting every two months or saying the constitution allows this even though there are times when I do not believe that they should be doing that, we need to ensure that the person council represents is represented well and fairly. It could be that someone out bush on a telephone with the TV going, the kids all running around and the dogs barking is not in the ideal place to be dealing with an issue of who will take the $1.3m contract for the new road development. You know, there are times and places that it may be inappropriate use of that technology.
The amendment I propose basically says: ‘All right, let us try some of this teleconferencing at meetings’, but let us put a limit on it so that people are required at some time, that is, at least for another four meetings if you have only six meetings a year, to come face-to-face and discuss issues. Otherwise you could end up with a farce. If the government really thinks this is the way we should go, as I said before, let us apply it to this House, too, and we can all sit at home and do the deliberations from there.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Deputy Chair, appreciating the intent of this amendment from the honourable member, it is a denial of the capacity for technology to facilitate attendance at meetings that people might otherwise not be able to make. If we are looking at increasing participation in council meetings and forums, then the adaptation of technology should be encouraged. I would imagine that most people would want to get to meetings in person. As human beings, we all work better when we have personal interaction.
However, the reality is in this day and age, to deny that technology does facilitate communication to an extent that was unthinkable years ago is really looking backwards, not forwards. There are all sorts of forums - board meetings are held via teleconferencing facilities. As often as I can, I would rather spend time in the Northern Territory instead of personally attending ministerial councils. I do any number of ministerial councils via teleconferencing. It is totally acceptable; you get your point across and participate in the debate without the requirement of being away from home for three days.
Government does not accept this amendment. We do not think technology would be to the detriment of the operation of councils and, in fact, will probably facilitate greater attendance than otherwise occurs.
Mr WOOD: The government is saying that is good for local government; it should therefore be good for us as a parliament. The Chief Minister is away today – sorry; I should not say that, but I am using it as an example and do not intend any denigration …
Mr Stirling: I do not think she looks too good to put her on a video link.
Mr WOOD: I see. That is basically what you are saying: Why isn’t this type of technology …
Mr McAdam: No, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Why not? Why can’t we have it for this parliament? You are saying it is okay for local government. My fear is that if you leave it open-ended, without some controls on it you could have a council that never meets in the council chambers. That is important.
The government does not accept it, from what you have said, Mr Acting Acting Minister for Local Government; I am becoming confused. You need some guidelines on it and my amendment attempts to impose some sensible guidelines, at the same time promoting the notion that local government is about meeting face-to-face so that you can make the best decisions that you can. I will leave it at that.
Mr HENDERSON: Just a further clarification: I am advised that following representation from councils and LGANT, the proposed amendment 57.7 adds new clause 19E(3A) to the bill, which will allow council to decide whether a member could attend a meeting by technological means. Therefore, it would be for individual councils to determine the protocol. The object of this amendment is to facilitate attendance, not limit it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.7. Whilst it was always considered that a council has the right to determine whether a member could attend a meeting by technological means, the proposed amendment makes this quite clear. A member does not have the right to attend a meeting by technological means unless it is approved by the council and the conduct of a member attending a meeting by technological means is in accordance with any procedures determined by council. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: That is fair enough, minister. I understand that. Sometimes when propose changes, I do not do it from the point of view of LGANT; I do it from the point of view of the people they represent. It is not that I disagree that some technological means can help, but I am unsure that by having this clause and the clause you have under 19E(3)(b) that the people represented by the council are protected. They need the best quality council to represent them. They need a situation where the best quality decisions are made.
I do not believe that by allowing a council to have open slather on technological meetings that you are going to achieve that result. It is the people who will have a poorer decision-making council representing them if you leave this wide open. Even though that amendment has some limitations, it is only limited inasmuch as if the council passes a resolution that we all have technological conferencing once every two months. Then they can do it, anyway. I am coming from the point of view of what is best for the people whom councils represent.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I understand the member for Nelson’s position, but this is another area where we obviously disagree. I have provided my response. I do not think I can accept what he has proposed, even though I understand it. It is another case of agreeing to disagree.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.13 relating to clause 19E, which says that if a community government constitution provides that a member can appoint a proxy to attend the meeting in the member’s place, the proxy is not included for the purpose of establishing a quorum.
I do not believe you should have proxies for council meetings. Having a proxy dilutes a council. You should have enough people on the council to ensure you have a quorum. Do not use this as method of getting around not having enough members. The people elect the member, not a proxy. The proxy does not represent the people. Therefore, on a council we should not allow proxy. There is an opportunity to accept my amendment, which says that a member may not appoint a proxy.
I raise the issue that when you start to have teleconferencing and you have someone on the telephone, where do proxies fit there? Will you have: ‘Oh, hang on, my brother here wants to talk, too. I am going out for a while’. It is a pretty loose arrangement if you are not careful. People expect the person to represent them at a council meeting to be their elected representative. Proxies cannot do that.
Mr AH KIT: This amendment is not supported. A number of community government constitutions contain provisions relating to the appointment of proxies and it is not the government’s intention to override these provisions at this time. Many councils have had proxies for quite some time and have become used to the situation to allow them to conduct their meetings. We do not like it, either, but we need to phase it out in a sensible manner rather than knock it on the head very quickly.
Mr WOOD: I am saying that this is the phasing out period. This is the old act. This is the chance to do something. Again, I will harp on it: proxies are not democratic, especially for a council. They are not elected. That is why local government has to have a strong foundation in democracy. If it does not have that, you are wide open for all sorts of interpretations of so-called local government.
By all means, be flexible on the outside, as I said, but these principles have to be steadfast. Here is a chance to fix those things that you admitted yourself, minister, you are not happy with. Somewhere, someone has to bite the bullet, otherwise these things are going to be here forever and a day.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the Local Government Act is across the board for community government councils and municipalities, as the member for Nelson understands. In reality, I would say that there would be very little use of proxies in a municipality meeting situation, but we know from experience that in the community government council scheme, the opportunities to use proxies exists in many councils and they have become used to it.
That is why I point to the remote area community government council scheme type situation and say whilst we are not comfortable with the proxy system and how it operates there, councils in some cases will not be able to have meetings. It allows people who are interested, on behalf of their clan, to attend those meetings, to have input, provide advice and be involved in decision making on behalf of their clan. That continues to operate, but, as I say, we need to monitor and phase it out to have them come in line with municipalities. That is something that I can commit to the member for Nelson and members of this House that we need to monitor.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I accept that. I ask, therefore, how do proxies fit in with clause 14 A, which deals with the role of the member? A proxy is not a member as the person elected to represent the community. Is a proxy outside the requirements of the role of the member?
Mr AH KIT: Through the chair, I am advised that proxies operate as a member. We are now in a situation, member for Nelson, where, once again, I have given my answer. It is not an answer that makes you happy. I said earlier that we will be continually discussing with councils, LGANT and the municipalities - I include them when I mention councils - about further changes to strengthen the act and give more responsibilities to them. I am unable to support your amendment.
We would be best served by monitoring the situation. As I say, in the remote areas, change takes quite some time. Yes, we need to phase this out. I hope that the more Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures takes hold and more responsibility and capacity building occurs that we will be able to do away with the proxy system.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you do not have to keep me happy. I am happy enough as I am. There is a real question mark as to where proxies fit within your act now that you have this role of members there. I have taken on your answer, but there are some real doubts as to how proxies fit within this act, but I will leave it at that, minister.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.14, which is very similar to one of the minister’s proposed amendments. Obviously, mine was drafted by a different person, otherwise we would have pretty much the same words. My 62.5 and the minister’s 57.8 …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we are on 62.14, which is…
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon. No, we are past that.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, we just did 62.13.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: What I propose is that perhaps, given the defeat of 62.13, you invite defeat of 62.14.
Mr WOOD: Yes, sorry. I will put it to the vote.
Motion negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, your comments regarding 62.15 and the drafting people?
Mr WOOD: I ask the minister if he sees any difference between the amendments; is his amendment better than my amendment? They are both about trying to show your hands behind a telephone, which is a bit hard to see in a meeting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It is a comparison between 62.15 and 57.8.
Mr WOOD: Mine relates to 19J(b), the minister’s relates to 19J. They are both about voting when attending by telephone.
Dr Burns: If you were in a caucus, you would know.
Mr WOOD: Ah, but the act specifically says that you must have a show of hands, and I have been trying to work out how you show your hands on the telephone. That is why this amendment has come into being. I ask the minister, is one of these amendments better than the other, or can I get one through myself?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, I believe mine is better.
Mr WOOD: Oh, fair go! A point of order.
Mr AH KIT: It boils down to different styles of drafting. I do not know whether it is right for me to discuss mine while we have the other one sitting there, or if I were to do that, then the member may …
Mr WOOD: I will put mine up for the vote then, minister. Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.15.
Amendment negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.8. If a member is participating in a council meeting by telephone or teleconferencing, etcetera, as provided under proposed new clause 19E, it will not be possible for the member to vote by a show of hands. Amendment 57.8 proposes to insert new clause 19J(2), which will allow the member to voice a vote in these situations. The amendment has been included at the request of LGANT.
Mr WOOD: I will say one thing: it is funny how we talk about being culturally appropriate, yet we have told them to say yes or no. So if they say qua, we cannot count that. This is specific: it is a yes or no, but a minor point, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw proposed amendment 52.16, Madam Deputy Chair. That was part of the controls over the misuse of technology so we did not have random technology occurring all over the country.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.17. I have to refer to the act for this. Madam Deputy Chair, I am having trouble finding which part. I might need some help there.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Clause 30, amendment 62.17 ‘after paragraph (a) insert (aa) by omitting ‘six years’ and substituting 10 years’.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but that refers to …
Mr AH KIT: Council may sue for rates and charges.
Mr WOOD: That is it, thank you, minister. The reason I moved this is because when you are dealing with the Honourable GW Smith who lived in Glasgow for most of his life and did not realise he owned a block of land in Litchfield or Coomalie, chasing up rates from that gentleman can certainly take a while. Councils wanted to have a time that was a bit more generous than the six years provided by section 92 of the act.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment is not supported. The proposed amendment to section 92 seeks to increase the time permitted under the act for a council to recover unpaid rates and charges from six to 10 years. This is a new initiative and cannot be justified at this time.
My department will need to discuss this issue further with LGANT and seek advice from the Department of Justice on the proposal before accepting such an amendment. I propose, member for Nelson, that we monitor this because, as I said earlier, we are always looking to strengthen the act and consult with councils and the representative body, LGANT. We need to seek advice from the Department of Justice, so we need to work our way through it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is fair enough, minister, but I point out that the amendment did not come from me. I am sure it came from a council. I was trying to represent a council there. I have taken in what you have said. Let us see what happens.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.18. It relates to clause 30(2), which provides that a council may recover its costs. Again, this was raised by a number of councils. The main change here is that reasonable legal expenses incurred in recovering the rate or charge be added in there.
In the briefing, I was told that it was a bit suspect and may require the Department of Justice to look at it. However, it is an issue that councils are concerned about because sometimes the legal expenses are more than what they are chasing in rates or charges so it is hardly worth them following up.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed is not supported. The amendment proposes to provide by statute for the recovery of legal expenses associated with the recovery of unpaid rates or charges. This is inappropriate as a council should be required to justify its legal costs associated with any recovery action to the courts for decision, the same as any other business or individual.
Again, I say to the member for Nelson that it is something that we can work through and monitor. If we have had consultation with councils and LGANT and they are quite happy and able to put a very strong case, then I will give a commitment to look at it and, depending on the outcome of those consultations, move further amendments tied to the Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.9. Paragraph (f) of clause 31 in the bill omits section 97(2) of the principal act. As this only left one part to section 97, it was not necessary to retain the heading to 97(1), which was therefore omitted by paragraph (a) of clause 31 in the bill. As amendment 57.10 now adds a new section 97(2), it is necessary to re-insert the heading subsection (1) to section 97.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.19, which seeks to amend section 97 under Division 2, Constitution of Community Government Councils, and says:
- 97. Contents of community government schemes
(1) Subject to this Part, a community government scheme may make provision for or in relation to…
Here is a whole section in which the government is going to enshrine things that could be different from other councils into a community government council constitution. This is a fairly important section if one is to relate democratic principles - and I won’t go on anymore about that or I will wear myself out. However 97(n) says:
(n) the procedure for calling elections and the manner in which elections shall be held;
In other words, a community government council may make provisions for the way elections are held. This comes to the central part of what I have been arguing. My amendment - and I thank the Parliamentary Counsel for their drafting because my words were a little different from these – is premised on all elections having some basic principles. One is they should be in secret, and two is, as elections are held throughout the Territory, Commonwealth, federal and in municipalities, they should be preferential. The reason that should happen is that we want to protect the people councils represent. The people need to know that their representatives have been elected fairly.
I have worked on councils for a number of years and, without a doubt, some council elections were definitely not fair. They were neither secret, nor were they conducted pursuant to a preferential voting system. That is not good enough in this day and age. The longer we leave those systems in place, the harder it will be to introduce change and to ensure that councils do their job of representing their community properly and fairly.
The changes I am seeking, the calling and conduct of elections in a way that is consistent with the calling and conduct of elections of members of the Legislative Assembly, are purely code for the way we would expect an election to be conducted anywhere else in Australia, at least in most states. There is optional preferential voting elsewhere, but in the NT, the proposed changes to our Electoral Act include full preferential voting.
Not only do we have a chance to enshrine what I call good voting practice, but we also have a means of teaching people how to vote for bigger elections in the Territory. They are learning at local government level what preferential is about, they are learning that is should be done in secret, and that is teaching them the process that is used in other, bigger elections. Traditional methods can also come into play. For instance, at Bathurst Island, you are elected onto the council by your skin group. Each skin group has a secret election, which is done preferentially. One of the advantages of this is that a lot more people would nominate for election. A lot more women would be on councils, too, because I know in some cases it is very difficult for some women to go through the power structure to be elected.
By allowing this amendment to this section, we are making it clear that there is a basic principle that must apply to all elections and that will not be varied except for, as I said, options where you are voting from a particular skin group, but the basic principles remain.
Mr STIRLING: Just a couple of points of correction, I suppose, in view of the last two Queensland state elections, both fought on optional preferential voting where voters were actively encouraged to simply place ‘1’ against the candidate of their choice. I do not think even the member for Nelson would be saying that the Queensland election was fought other than on democratic grounds or that the election result was flawed as a result of having optional preferential.
May I give an example, and I am not putting this up as strong argument in defence of what he is saying, which goes to cultural practice. I have been at different school council elections throughout my electorate over the years and I was struck by one: the election of a school principal for the Laynhapuy Homelands group of schools. The full school council was there and up went seven or eight names on the whiteboard. The meeting was conducted in language, which made for less than optimal understanding for me. There was animated discussion, lively discussion throughout the room resulting in someone going to the whiteboard and erasing one name. This discussion continued for about 35 minutes, the result being that one name remained on the whiteboard. At that point, the room was in spontaneous applause.
Democratic? Undemocratic? I do not know. I was not privy to the discussion that preceded the removal of each name, but in traditional means of getting a result that all understood and all supported, how would I go saying: ‘We cannot accept that. That is not going to work. You must have a secret ballot’? These are the realities. I am certainly no expert on Aboriginal culture, but I have witness to that on a number of occasions. No one questions the results. They are some of the realities we have to bear in mind.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, without getting into a long debate over optional preferential and preferential voting, the Territory is recommending what I believe is a good system, full preferential, and if they cannot count to three, four or five, I give up.
Be that as it may, I accept what you say, but as you said, you did not hear it in language either and I do not know how I would debate that with you. It may be fine, but I am taking examples of elections I have seen that have nothing to do with democracy; it was about who had the power, the most force, and the weaker people can sometimes be excluded from the system because there is not a secret ballot, which is paramount. The preferential system, we could argue about, but the secret ballot is paramount. You can have variations on the theme, but at least implement a secret ballot system so that we know that people have voted without being intimidated.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the proposed amendment is not supported. The amendment proposes to replace section 97(1)(n) and impose a requirement on how a community government council should call and conduct its elections. The proposed amendment again fails to recognise the needs of community government councils. How a community government council conducts its elections is currently provided for in most community government constitutions and it is not the government’s intention to override these provisions at this time.
Mr WOOD: Minister, if it was proved to them that a constitution allows what is flagrantly an undemocratic system of voting, do you mean the government would say: ‘That is your system by your constitution. Too bad’? That is what I am trying to protect against.
Mr AH KIT: No, not at all, member for Nelson. Every constitution is tabled in this House and is subject to disallowance or approval.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move that amendments 62.20 and 62.21 be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 62.20 and 62.21, which address sections 97(1)(p) and (q) of the principal act. Section 97(1)(p) provides for:
- (p) the removal and replacement of members, whether permanently or temporarily, as a result of their
unauthorised absence from council meetings;
And (q) provides for:
(q) the appointment and powers of substitutes to act for members who are absent from a council meeting;
Subsection (q) is about proxies, and (p) allows councils to set out whatever guidelines they want to remove and replace members. Again, that is something that should be consistent across councils, and I do not believe it should be enshrined in constitutions. Once again, I believe we are making a rod for our back. We are going to make a whole range of council structures that will end up permanently operating in a manner I consider undemocratic.
Minister, you mentioned the issue of proxies. Amendment 62.21 is exactly what that will allow. If you are serious about getting rid of proxies, do not allow it in any new constitutions. For sure, if it is already in a constitution, yes, leave it there. This says you can put it in to a constitution, and it would be far better to take it out.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson are not supported as they fail to recognise the current needs with respect to community government councils and community government constitutions. It is not appropriate to omit paragraphs (p) and (q) from section 97(1) of the act at this time
Amendments negatived.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.10. This amendment is necessary as some recent community government constitutions have established specific committees instead of leaving it to council to establish committees pursuant to Division 5, sections 134 to 136 of the Local Government Act. For example, see clause 9, Executive Committee of the Tiwi Islands Local Government Constitution; clause 11, Management Committees of the Thamarrurr Community Government Scheme, etcetera. Whilst the amendment ratifies those committees established under a constitution, it does not limit councils from establishing other committees under sections 134 to 136 of the act.
Mr WOOD: To clarify, amendment 57.10 does not tell me where I am going; it just refers to paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) of what? Clause 31, is it?
Mr AH KIT: Yes. New paragraph (f).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Proposed New Clause 32A:
Mr WOOD: Did you want to do it in numerical order or am I next?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You are, you are up on 62.22, proposed new clause 32A.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 62.2. Again, this falls under section 105 of the principal act, which provides that the Administrator must not approve a draft constitution unless satisfied, etcetera.
I will not debate clause 32A(a) or (b) because the minister has already put his point of view about those. However, I will discuss the new clause 32A(c) that deals with a substantial majority of residents of community government area are in favour of the matter only if at least 65% of the residents vote in favour of the matter in a referendum. This amends section 105(2)(b)(vi) of the principal act as well as clause 32 of the bill.
The words ‘substantial majority’ is something you could debate until the cows come home. I believe in referenda, usually there is a figure. I cannot think what the figure would be, but it would save a lot of argument if you set a figure. I set 65%. I am only roughly thinking what Litchfield Council used to use as a substantial majority once to get the roads sealed. However, for a referendum you need a definite figure, otherwise you leave yourself wide open to people challenging what the referendum was.
Mr AH KIT: The proposals contained in this amendment for new clause 32A cannot be supported at this time. As indicated in my comments with respect to clause 31, the proposed amendments fail to recognise the current needs with respect to community government councils and community government constitutions. It is not appropriate to support the proposed changes by the member for Nelson with respect to community government councils without conducting a complete review of the act and its application with respect to community government councils.
Might I add that I am talking to the department about a total review of the act. I understand that it has not been reviewed since 1993 and, whilst legislation is amended from time to time and consultations are carried out and it strengthens the act and allows for more powers to be passed onto local governing bodies, a review of the act every 10 or so years is warranted to ensure that what the act is supposed to provide is delivered, especially to the government of the day.
I am not supportive of your amendment, member for Nelson, but I can announce that we will be discussing with the department and working out the terms of a review. I will announce a date, hopefully in the next couple of months, when that review will take place and what the terms and conditions of the review will be.
Mr WOOD: You mean we are going through all this again? I thought you said this took five years and that this was a fairly substantial review of the act. Anyway, I accept that. Here we go again! It went out for a lot of consultation and has been around a long time for discussion. This was a fairly hefty review of the act. I would be interested to see what the new act is going to look like. I should be able to say what was said at the briefing: the new regional authorities will probably come in to a new Local Government Act. I imagine there will be major changes to this act. However, I was surprised when you hinted that this was not a major review of the act because it has been going on for a long time.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, it was a major review in the sense that it has been happening since 1999, that is five years. However, even when you conduct reviews of this nature, it is important that all legislation, whilst it is amended from time to time, is reviewed. You need to stand back from it and have a look at the bigger picture and ask: ‘What is the real intent of this act? Is it fulfilling everything we want it to?’ As Territorians in parliament, we want to move regions forward and give more powers to councils. What I am saying is that this has been a major review. I understand that. It is something we inherited. It has taken a long time to get where we are right now and some councils have been disappointed with the process. These things happen.
Overall we will have a look at whether there needs to be a major review of the act to see that it is operating effectively, and I will announce that later on. If people argue with me in this House that they do not believe there should be a review, I am quite open to listen to those sides of the arguments.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused now, Madam Deputy Chair. The first observation I make is that if the minister thinks that this act is not working effectively and he wants it looked at, why is he trying to amend it now? If the first thing he is going to do is admit that the act is not working effectively and will not work effectively as a result of these legislative changes, why are we making those changes? Why are we not bringing on this review as a matter of urgency?
Or is it the fact that this review has now been announced at 5.57pm on Wednesday evening as a reaction to the policies proposed by the Leader of the Opposition? Have they suddenly realised that they are going to have to make up a lot of ground with local government because they realise that what the Leader of the Opposition has enunciated is actually what local government authorities are after?
Mr STIRLING: I am not quite sure of the member’s point. It was a review that did kick off some time in the past. There has been extensive consultation in and around it. Obviously it was a work in progress that was not completed and it was picked up by this government. That is a normal function of government. These amendment packages have been worked through. Local government was consulted extensively right throughout the process.
I am not sure of the point the member is making. But it seems to me a normal function of government that you review all the legislation on the books, all your programs and projects, recurrent ones, over time. There are things that come across my desk that had not been looked at throughout the life of the time they have been in place. That is not a healthy thing for government. You do need to have a fresh look over time. The secondary review is an example. The school-based constable regime is an example. Driver training and licensing is an example - a good program put in place in 1993 but tweaked and changed over the years. There was never a review in terms of the qualitative outcomes. What was government achieving for its expenditure? So, reviews are a healthy thing. This is the outcome of that process and this body of amendments has been around the traps for a long time.
Mr ELFERINK: I am surprise that the Deputy Chief Minister is surprised by my comments. At the end of the day, this is a process of five years of consultation, of review, if you like, and now all of a sudden the local government minister is telling us that no matter what we do with this legislation now, it is going to be looked yet again in the next couple of months. The whole process is going to start off again. I can only presume that the minister thinks that the process we are going through now will produce a substandard item. If he wants to have review in the next couple of months, for God’s sake bring it forward, get on with it and amend the act appropriately rather than coming out of here with an act, which is, by the minister’s own admission, substandard.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 33 and 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 35:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 57.11. Parliamentary Counsel was not happy with the original drafting of proposed section 122(1A)(a), so it has recast the provision to make it easier to understand. The amendment has not changed the intent of the provision, which allows the declarations on functions given to a community government council to be only those functions listed in the Instrument of Approval under proposed section 122(1A)(a) or as proposed by section 122(1A)(b):
- … all of the functions of local government specified in Schedule 2 other than those (if any) that may be excluded
in the Instrument of Approval.
Mr WOOD: I need clarification. Did you not just read (b)? We are actually substituting (a), is that correct?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Paragraph (b) of proposed section (1A)(a).
Mr WOOD: I am sorry. I might have misheard what you said. You read (a), did you?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, (1A).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 57.12, which inserts subsection (1B) to section 122 of the principal act, which is being amended by clause 35 of the bill. Under the current provisions of the act, a community government constitution sets out the permissible functions that may be performed by the community government council.
As these functions have become virtually standardised, all council functions, that is both municipal and community government council functions, will now be included in Schedule 2 of the act. This will enable less complex constitutions to be prepared for community government councils in the future. Schedule 2 presently lists the functions of municipal councils only, but is being amended by clause 71 of the bill to include the functions for both municipal and community government councils.
Whilst clause 35 of the bill will insert new section 122(1A) into the act, which enables the minister to declare the functions of a community government council, no provision has been made to add, amend or remove a function of a community government council. Amendment 57.12 therefore adds a new subsection, 122 (1B), to the act, which will allow the minister to add, amend or remove a function of a community government council at any time. The minister is unable to amend, extend or repeal a function of a municipal council under section 121 of the act.
Mr BURKE: A point of clarification, minister. I gather by your statements that in the powers of the minister to add functions of local governments and standards associated with those functions, those things only apply under this legislation to community councils?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, they do.
Mr BURKE: Therefore, you can clearly state in this House that this legislation does not in any way interfere with the current functions of municipal councils and would not impose additional standards on those functions by your direction?
Mr AH KIT: May I ask, through the Chair, is the member for Brennan referring to issues that were raised earlier in this debate in regards to Schedule 2 and my response in closing debate about the consultation that will occur, not about the core functions? Sorry, member for Brennan.
Mr BURKE: It is wrapped up in those two, 122A and your amendment 57.12. The point I am making, I will clarify it for you.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, please.
Mr BURKE: In my opinion, you criticised my comments with regards to the fact that I do not believe that LGANT was the organisation that asked wanted this inserted in the legislation. If they were, I would like you to state clearly that they were because you criticised me supposedly for criticising LGANT. What I said was that I could not believe that LGANT would have been the organisation that would suggest you should have inserted in the act the amendments that are contained in 57.12. I would like you to clarify to me that that was the case, that you did this on the recommendation of LGANT, which is what you stated when you wrapped up your second reading speech.
Mr AH KIT: As I said in my reply closing debate, when I mentioned your criticism of LGANT, I said they are a professional organisation that is prepared to talk and negotiate with government. When LGANT disagrees with us, and they sometimes do, they have no difficulty in saying so, and when something makes sense, they support it. LGANT, in fairness, had reservations, I am advised. They were concerned that the minister would have the power to add to the core functions, and I have given them a commitment that that is not going to be done without full and proper consultation. They have accepted that commitment.
Mr BURKE: Well it would be nice if you apologised for the criticism you made of my comments. That aside, could you give me an example of how you would prescribe a function, existing or one that you might wish to insert in the schedule, and how you would set the standards associated with that function?
Mr AH KIT: Well, I thought I did that, member for Brennan, through the Chair. In my second reading speech, I gave an example, from memory, on Nhulunbuy. They had a problem with animal welfare. The Nhulunbuy Corporation does not as such have municipal council status, given the complications with the lease of the land in regards to the mining company and the traditional owners, but they do look for ways in which the government, through me as the minister, can provide an opportunity for them to have powers and to have in place regulations that can allow them to control animal welfare problems. We have other situations with cemeteries in regards to Nhulunbuy.
We have a list of about 51, but there are certain situations that need to provide something equivalent to, or just as good as, powers to allow them to make decisions as a council in their particular situation.
Mr BURKE: Well, you gave me the example of Nhulunbuy. Given the gestation on the issue of libraries and the fact that you now have these wide-ranging powers and libraries are a responsibility of local government, but a pretty temporary responsibility, could you tell me how you intend to proceed with libraries in terms of responsibilities and standards?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, clause 36 we will be dealing with shortly. That goes to core functions. However, we will also be dealing with clause 35, which is amendment 57.12, and we will be discussing the notice in the Gazette and going through functions of local government specified in Schedule 2, etcetera.
As I understand it, in regards to libraries, councils have a choice of complying with the functions they have. There is no compliance, administrative or ministerial direction that forces them. If they choose to take on and operate a library, that is a choice of that particular council. There is no provision, as I understand it - and I stand to be corrected - that forces councils to take on functions that are provided under Schedule 2 arrangements or, for that matter, any other new arrangements that may be core functions that are added to the schedule after full and proper consultation with councils and LGANT.
Therefore, there is no compliance and it is a choice that they have if they wish to operate a library or if they do not. I remember a particular situation, and I had a letter that I was going to table that I wrote back to the Mayor in Katherine, stating exactly that position; it is a choice for them whether they wish to operate a library. It is not for me, as the minister, telling them that they should have a library and that they should maintain, operate and service that library or that the library provides services for their constituents.
Mr BURKE: I gather by your comments that this really has to be taken on faith. You are a good minister, you have a good relationship with local government. You treat them well; they have a good communication with you and everything is hunky-dory. Wouldn’t you agree, tough, that the legislation does not say that? The legislation does not say anything about ‘with the agreement with the council’, ‘in consultation with the council and only those points that the council agrees’.
I understand that the member for Nelson has an amendment to that effect. Given your words in this Chamber, I take it from your comments that you would not have any disagreement with his amendment because that would provide the comfort that councils want.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, how the function is carried out is determined by each council. The functions are permissive, not mandatory.
Mr BURKE: I accept you are saying that, but can you show me in the act where it says that? As I understand it, the act says the opposite. Perhaps it is in the principal act, I am not sure.
Mr AH KIT: Under Functions, Division 2 in the Local Government Act, I refer the member for Brennan to section 121, Functions of the Municipal Councils:
- (1) A municipal council has the functions given to it by or under this or another Act.
(2) In relation to the functions of local government specified in Schedule 2, the Administrator shall, as soon as
practicable after a municipality is constituted under section 29, by notice in the Gazette, declare that the council
of the municipality has –
(a) only those functions of local government specified in the notice; or
(b) all the functions of local government other than those specified in the notice,
and, subject to subsection (3), the council has those functions accordingly.
(3) A function of local government referred to in subsection (2) may be subject to such conditions, if any, as
the Administrator thinks fit and specifies in the notice under that subsection.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) may, by notice in the Gazette, be amended, extended or repealed by the Minister.
Mr BURKE: You have not answered to question. What you said is the fact that the Administrator, with Executive Council recommendation, obviously puts his stamp of approval as to what the council will or won’t do. But that does not go to the heart of what you have said, which is that none of these will occur without consultation and agreement by the councils themselves. That is the whole spirit of this act as it has been explained to us today. I would have thought that in this amendment, we would have seen those words: The minister may, with the agreement of the council, do whatever. Why isn’t that there?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Brennan, in answer to your question I refer you to section 120 of the principal act, which reads:
120. Councils charged with peace, order and good government of area
A council, in the performance of its functions, is charged with the peace, order and good government of its
council area and has the control and management of that good government.
Mr WOOD: To clarify, because I am becoming confused, can you, as minister, order a council to take on a function that it does not want? Does amendment 57.12 say that? Is there anywhere that says you have the power to order a council to have a function? I am not talking about core functions here, just any function.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, as I said, it is not up to us to tell the councils what to do. There is no compliance or conditions placed on them. It is a decision that they choose and, as I reiterated, it is permissive and not mandatory.
Mr WOOD: I know we are coming on to core functions. According to the second reading, the proposed new section of the act will allow the minister to declare a function of the council as a core function. You can actually say: ‘That will be a core function’. We haven’t discussed what core functions are yet, but any of those functions, you may declare as a core function. So there is a section in this act that says: ‘You have to do that’.
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Is there any appeal mechanism for a council, or do you have the ultimate power?
Mr AH KIT: We are coming to that clause.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I realise that, but the whole issue around here is: are councils protected against an arbitrary decision by the minister to say: ‘You will take on toilets and ablution blocks’?
Mr AH KIT: I gave examples. Let us say a community government council receives funding to pick up rubbish in the community. If they are not doing that, then I will have the ability to ask questions on why they are not undertaking that function when they are receiving dollars to carry it out. I suppose there is a fear amongst municipalities, but as far as I am aware, most of those councils have no problem carrying out the functions and delivering the services that monies are provided for them to do.
We have situations out in the bush whereby some councils sit back and want government to do everything for them. We all know about these and should realise that some things need to be done in some of these communities. I convinced my caucus and Cabinet to allow me to come in, I suppose, in a heavy-handed way, saying: ‘Hey! You are receiving dollars from government to carry out certain functions, especially the core functions, and you need to start to deliver on those.’ For too long, and I have said it in this parliament, we have continually rewarded councils that have gone under by throwing money at them and hoping to provide a short-term fix and we have forgotten about rewarding good councils that have been accounting for dollars that they receive from government.
The time has come when some of the core functions that councils, especially in the bush, should deliver must deliver. There is nothing more disappointing than to know that they are receiving funding, these community government councils, in places where it is disgraceful; there is rubbish everywhere. You know that there is a CEO who is not doing their job properly along with the council president and the councillors who have been elected by the people.
We need to start turning this around and I am going to create a situation that will show these people, especially in the bush, that we are serious and we want them to meet us halfway. If you want us to help you, then you also have to start wanting to help yourselves.
Mr WOOD: I agree there should be core functions, and I know we are coming to that, but it would have been better to state clearly what the core functions are. I have previously mentioned roads, rubbish and perhaps reserves. All councils should be required to maintain those. The concern I have is that if you can basically add things on to that, is there a danger that this is an exercise in cost shifting from NT government responsibility to local governments?
We know the pain that many local governments have had in having to take on things that I do not believe they should have taken on. They should have, as you said, proven their worth with the core functions and not taken on some of these things like health or post offices, which have contributed to making it very hard for some councils to exist. That is my concern.
I have a concern about this amendment generally. I have not had enough time to discuss it with local government. I would like to have looked at it more thoroughly. It belongs to an amendment you are already proposing. You have an amendment here, and you have added an amendment to the amendment. It has made it difficult to understand how it works in practice. Is there a danger that the minister can come in heavy-handed and say: ‘You will take on regional development’? Regardless of whether it is municipal or community government, I am concerned that the minister could basically do what he likes. If the council was a bit belligerent, the minister can say: ‘Yes, well that is it’.
They are my concerns. I do not think that there has been enough time in local government to discuss the implications of what this amendment means.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, there is nothing new with sections 120 and 121. These functions have been there for many years, since 1994. I understand the members for Nelson and Brennan and the points they are making. Maybe there is more discussion or debate around section 122A, which is about the core functions and which we will be moving to next.
Mr ELFERINK: One very quick question: would the minister care to explain what exactly is the difference between a ‘core function’ and a ‘function’?
Mr AH KIT: I am suggesting, Madam Deputy Chair, that we discuss it in relation to section 122A in regards to core functions.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, I missed that. Would you say that again, please?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The minister is recommending that the discussion on core functions and functions be contained to the amendment in relation to core functions.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, well, can the minister tell me?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So we are proposing to move forward to that section. We are not on to that amendment yet.
Mr ELFERINK: Where does that come up?
Mr BURKE: Maybe the minister can explain to us because we are dealing with one principal act, an amending bill and two amendment schedules. One amendment seems to amend an amendment. On the first amendment to the Local Government Amendment Bill, 122A - Core functions of councils. Do those amendments stand, that the regulations may prescribe (a) and (b)? Are they not amended by 57.12 or have they been amended?
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, that is dealt with under clause 36, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Clause 36, yes, which is what we are discussing.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are on clause 35. If you want to move to the discussions on clause 36, I will put the amendment.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mr WOOD: Are we dealing with the core functions?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. We are dealing with section 122A. I have two amendments. I move amendment 62.23, which is basically a drafting change to reflect any council rather than specifying both municipal and community government councils.
I move amendment 62.24, which is the important amendment. In proposed section 122A, at the end insert:
- (2) A regulation may be made under subsection (1) for a council only if the council agrees to the function being
prescribed as a core function.
That is basically a guarantee that the council has to agree to it. I have a few notes here, and the minister might understand where I am coming from. Basically, any core function prescribed under the regulations cannot come into effect until an agreement with the affected council and the minister has been reached over the core functions, which must include a minimum consultation period of 90 days and the right of appeal to a Local Government Tribunal. The drafting people said if we stick with the words proposed, there are parts of the act it will cover the situation if a council does not agree.
We are saying that you just do not force those functions on council; we sit down and have a discussion with them and do it in a way that takes away any belief that this is a draconian regulation being imposed on local government.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson are not supported. New section 122A contained in clause 36 of the bill will allow the minister to declare the core functions of the council.
It is not clear what the member for Nelson is trying to achieve with his amendments, although he just enlightened me a bit. While some concerns have been expressed in relation to the new provision, it is becoming increasingly necessary for government to establish some core functions for councils, such as roads and rubbish, to ensure that basic services are being provided to the community. The minister is accountable to parliament for all prescribed matters, so it is unlikely that a minister would prescribe a core service without proper consideration.
Mr BURKE: That really is the heart of the difficulty I have in this area. One of the biggest problems with the Local Government Act is that it is centred on the difficulties of bush councils. There is no doubt that they had many difficulties, and I cann see the logic in many of the amendments. However, it seems to me that municipal councils are being lumped into the same band wagon. They are being lumped in, which suggests that they have similar problems, at a time when they should be given greater comfort in respect to their own maturity.
Nothing the minister has said denies that he can act arbitrarily if he so wishes, notwithstanding that he says he would not do it. The reality is that he could set standards and functions that a municipal council may or may not want. An example would be: we do not have the situation in the Northern Territory at the moment, but you could have a municipal council that became politically aligned, and it could be belligerent to the current Northern Territory government to a point where the government, using this legislation, could act punitively against that council.
We hope that such things will not occur, but the act provides for those powers for the minister to be exercised if he so wishes. If the minister can say he cannot do that by virtue of this line in the act, show me where it is. In the absence of that, the amendment suggested by the member for Nelson would give sufficient satisfaction. That is, amendment 62.24:
(2) A regulation may be made under subsection (1) for a council...
- … only if the council agrees to the function being prescribed as a core function.
That is what you suggest the legislation intends to provide, so why not include it?
Mr AH KIT: In my reply closing debate - and I want to go back to that when we talk about these core functions - I said:
- An issue that has been raised by some members opposite relates to the provision that allows the minister to declare
the core functions of a council. While there are some excellent councils in the Territory, there are also councils that
fail to deliver even basic services to their constituents.
At present, the act does not allow for ministerial intervention, even when there are no services at all being delivered
by a council. I make no apology for creating the capacity for this level of intervention. The minister already
has considerable power to intervene where financial accountability is a problem.
A lack of ability to intervene where service delivery accountability is also a problem means that constituents have
nowhere to go when a council fails in its duties. Clearly, constituents can wait until the next election; that can
mean a very long wait when the garbage is not being collected and there is no road maintenance whatsoever.
The provisions will allow government to establish some core functions - such as roads maintenance and waste
management and disposal - to ensure that basic services are being provided to the community. I have given an
undertaking to LGANT that there will be consultation before any function is declared a core function.
Performance standards will also be established as outcome standards. The intention is that it would not matter
how a council achieves a result, just that it achieves it.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I accept what you say, but a way around it is to declare a group of functions as core functions so councils know exactly what would come under this section. We have talked about roads and rubbish. I do not think any council would ever say that they are not core functions. If that was set in place, and then all the other functions became add-ons, you could argue the case on its merits.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I have made my position clear. I understand and respect the comments made by the members for Brennan and Nelson. If I look back and say that in my time in this Assembly, for almost seven years in opposition, we had a government that had all this legislation with very little restrictions. They cannot argue against what I am proposing. I make no apology for it. We need to have it in there. Why should the ball change very quickly because there is a change of government? I am not going to accept that argument. I have put my position clearly. Maybe we agree to disagree again.
Mr BURKE: I won’t labour the point any more except to say, and it will be the last word for me on the subject, it is a pity that the new government cannot move forward, particularly in respect of municipal councils.
As I said, I understand the problems with bush councils, but what you are saying you make no apology whatsoever for taking upon yourselves arbitrary powers to move against municipal councils. Now, I reckon we have moved past that point and I believe municipal councils have moved past that point. I do not believe this is supported by LGANT. I do not believe it will be supported by the large councils of the Northern Territory. I will be telling them that the minister was emphatic that he makes no apology to municipal councils for the arbitrary way he will move against them if he so wishes.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I am a little offended by the comments made by the member for Brennan in the way he is misconstruing the position that I have put. He seeks to make political mileage out of it, and that is a choice of any politician who sits in this Chamber. If he does not fully understand our position, then I cannot help that.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I invite defeat of clause 40. It deals with human resource management principles. One has to ask: what are they doing in the act? We have an industrial relations and other acts, so what are they doing in this act? These are all things that have already been legislated for. I would have thought the CEO had to do most of what is in clause 143A(2) anyway. Subsection (1) states:
- The CEO must ensure that sound principles of human resource management are applied to employment in the
council and must ensure as far as practicable that those principles are known to the council’s officers and
employees.
This is big brother stuff. Glory be! How can you have that in an act? Who is going to make the judgment of ‘sound principles of human resource management’? You are really going to have trouble trying to enforce this, and you would have to ask why it is there. We have the role of the CEO. I do not have a problem with that. Let the CEO do his job and don’t start putting all this stuff in the act. Who is going to make the judgment whether the CEO has done it? Some of these things, as I said, are already in legislation outside the Local Government Act anyway, so why bother?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am probably going to differ with the member for Nelson on this to a degree simply because I understand what this is being driven at. If I were a CEO in one of the bush communities in my electorate who, from time to time, is challenged to do certain things, it would be a very handy shield to be able to hold up legislation that says: ‘No, this is what the law says I have to do and I cannot, I am afraid, go out and buy you a new Toyota with the road building funds’.
Although I understand the prescriptive issue that the member for Nelson has, I do want to place on the record that, as far I and the CLP are concerned, we do not like the prescriptive nature and flavour of what is occurring here, but if you are going to go down this path, you are going to have to at least provide protection. So the prophylactic exercise that this section represents is not such a bad idea.
Mr AH KIT: I thank the member for Macdonnell for his comments because he hit the nail right on the head. This is about getting away from awkward situations facing CEOs. I am not saying that all CEOs out there are perfect, and we need to monitor their performances, as we do. Many of them are put in an awkward situation if there is a president or council members, sometimes from the same family, who put pressure on CEOs by saying: ‘You will give me this or I will get the numbers and sack you’. This is about accountability to the community and to constituents and will provide added protection.
If and when we do see a situation like that arise, a number of things can happen. One could be that the person is dismissed unprofessionally and the council is in court on unfair dismissal charges, etcetera and that could cost tens of thousands of dollars. We could also end up with the situation where CEOs give in to requests that are being made of them, turn a blind eye and cover their tracks. It is about accountability to constituents and councils.
The member for Nelson invites defeat of this new provision, however the government does not agree with the member and will not support the proposal. Proposed new section 143A sets out the employment principles that are to be observed by councils. Whilst councils are expected to generally follow the human resource management principles as practised in the Northern Territory public sector, the details are not spelled out for councils in the current act. Proposed new section 143A will correct this deficiency.
Mr ELFERINK: Relax; it is not a big issue. In fact, the minister already went a long way towards answering this in anticipation that I was going to raise it during the second reading, but I simply ran out of time. On the matter of clause 40, section 143(2)(h), dealing with the general issue of interpretation, I thank the minister for his comments in his conclusion of the second reading debate when he addressed the issue I raised in earlier briefings. I am well satisfied with his explanation.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: May I ask the minister whether these human resource management principles come from another act? That was my argument. While they might be fine, are they covered somewhere else? That is why I am asking why they should be in this legislation.
Mr AH KIT: Through the chair, no, they’re not. They come from another act, but they’re not imposed on local government under the act.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.13. Clause 44 of the bill inserts a new section 148(2) into the act to provide a requirement that a resolution of a council to dismiss their CEO cannot take effect until 14 days after the minister has received written advice of the resolution.
Experience indicates that some protection is warranted from impetuous and unfair dismissals. However, the amendment is not designed to prevent a council from initiating instant dismissal in cases where fraud, dishonesty or misbehaviour is involved. New section 148(3) therefore allows the minister to agree to a shorter period for the dismissal where appropriate. This amendment has been requested at the request of LGANT.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 68, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 69:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.14. The reference to subsection 122(1B) in Schedule 2 is necessary as a result of changes to the act by the amendment 57.12 considered earlier. This will ensure that the functions of local government are exclusively contained in Schedule 2 of the act.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.15. It was originally proposed by clause 69(b) of the bill to rename the heading in Schedule 2 from ‘functions of municipal councils’ to ‘functions of councils’. It has now been decided to change the heading in the schedule from ‘functions of municipal councils’ to ‘functions of local government’. Amendment 57.15 achieves this objective.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move that amendments 62.25, 62.26 and 62.27 be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 62.25, 62.26 and 62.27. The reason I included these, and I know they will be defeated, is that some of the changes proposed are simply a case of Northern Territory government cost-shifting.
Why is substance abuse a local government function? It is a government function; it is not a local government function. Regional and economic development are primarily Northern Territory government functions. On the issue of animal welfare, there was an example of a council that wanted to take it over, the question is: is it the job of the NT government? Are they including these matters to cost-shift some of the responsibilities they should have?
I am not against councils taking over certain functions, but the minister highlighted the problems with some communities with lots of rubbish and poor roads and the emphasis has to be on those issues, not so much on looking at other things. I would rather see those councils operating effectively on a small number of those core functions and we will worry about all these other things later. We need to be fairly clear as to what are Northern Territory government functions and what are local government functions.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I reiterate that there are no cost shifting matters that you need to be concerned with, member for Nelson and other members of this Chamber.
As I said earlier, it is permissive, it is not mandatory. It is the choice of the councils. If they want to take on a particular function, then the choice is theirs. It comes back to that choice; it is not mandatory. It is not government insisting that they comply.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 and 71, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 72:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 57.16, which inserts new clause (1A) to the savings provisions in clause 72 of the bill. Clause 72(1) of the bill provides a savings provision to ensure that community government schemes approved under the principal act before the commencement of the amending act will continue in existence and be taken to be a community government constitution following the commencement of the amending act.
It is now considered that the savings provisions contained in clause 72(1) are not adequate to ensure that the current functions of a community government council will be saved by the amending bill. Therefore, new clause 72(1A) will ensure that a community government council will continue to have the functions given to it by its constitution.
Mr ELFERINK: One very quick question that probably does not relate to this: what is the current rate of a penalty unit? $110?
Mr AH KIT: Penalty unit is $110.
Mr ELFERINK: That is $110, right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together:
Mr ELFERINK: Just very quickly in relation to the remainder of the bill, we are talking about schedules and I was pre-empted in my question in relation to the penalty units, I note that, effectively, some of the fines have gone up fourfold. For example, where a fine was $500, it is now 20 penalty units, which is $2200. I presume that is only because those fines have been on the books for some time and that $2200 is about commensurate of a fine of $500 when the act was introduced or have the penalties or offences suddenly become more serious?
Mr AH KIT: I am just trying to ascertain, member for Macdonnell, the penalties you are talking about are the penalties …
Mr ELFERINK: In Schedule 1.
Mr AH KIT: … under Schedule 1. The penalties specified for offences under this act are in line with contemporary standards one expects to find …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Okay.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, a penalty unit is $110 and, yes, the fines are commensurate.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to reiterate the position of the CLP in relation to the passage of this bill.
As I said, our philosophical approach is fundamentally different and we cannot support the bill because of its invasive nature. As I said during the second reading debate, we want to see a local government environment that is less under the thumb of the state level of control than is intended by this bill.
I certainly understand the thrust of this bill and what it attempts to achieve, but there is a dichotomy that operates in this environment, and that is the balance between the needs of small local government authorities in the bush and the large municipals. It is not entirely unreminiscent of the problems we had when the Associations Act was passed with such a broad brush stroke, touching everything from the bridge club to multi-million industries. I wonder, by way of submission to the next review of the Local Government Act, if we should examine what this act is intended to achieve in light of multi-million dollar municipal councils and small local government authorities in the bush. I would be happy to see that as one of the terms of reference for the review that the minister announced this evening, to examine how those dichotomies can be addressed, because I think it is a worthwhile examination.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also have opposed the bill because it fails to protect the democratic rights I sought to have covered in my proposed amendments. I do not care whether it is a bush settlement or a municipal community in the big city, there are some fundamental rights that should be protected for all people and we have not advanced those in this debate today. I will continue to try to have those changes included in the act to ensure that people who fall under the jurisdiction of under local government, like the little lady under the mango tree at Milikapiti, have their rights protected so that they can have faith in a system; they know that the people who are there to deliver essential services have been fairly elected to their positions.
Even though I just mentioned Milikapiti, one of the concerns I have when I talk about local government is that in some cases, we have gone backwards. Some rights have disappeared, and I refer specifically to the concept of community management boards in communities where councils were elected but now have groups that do not perform the functions the councils formerly performed. This has been a regression. I will continue to argue for changes to that system because there is a lot of discontent out there, especially on Melville and Bathurst Islands. I have a fairly thick file on some of the issues affecting them.
Some of what I have been talking about today needs to be incorporated into the act to ensure that people’s rights are protected. I will continue to fight for those rights because they are essential for good local government.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, in closing, I welcome the contributions from the members who participated. I recognise that they are sincere in wishing to ensure that the legislation is healthy, picks up their concerns and strengthens the act.
As the minister responsible, I have a lot of work to do, as does our government, to turn the situation around in the bush. I have good intentions. There are no thoughts whatsoever about cost shifting or being too onerous on councils. We have to take into account municipalities along with community government councils. We are heading in the right direction.
The act will always be open for debate and discussion. The only way we are going to strengthen it is to continue to review it. We have set up very good mechanisms by way of consultation with between departmental officers, the municipalities and LGANT. In fact, LGANT is doing a great job in providing elected member training and other services throughout the Territory. They are now involved with recruitment, and they are helping us to help the community councils improve, and we will keep moving in that direction.
Some concerns were raised. I would like to assure members that those concerns are not warranted, and I will continue to work as hard as possible to ensure we move the councils forward, both in the bush and in the major towns and cities throughout the Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2002-03
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2002-03
Continued from 16 October 2003
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer pats himself on the back for his achievements in 2002-03, as outlined by this report, and well he should. He managed to grab an extra $20m in taxes from Territorians, and that is an extra $100 for every man, woman and child; he got an extra $128m out of the federal government, and that is excluding the railway; and he charged Territorians an extra $17m in government fees and charges for goods and services.
That is an increase in revenue of $165m and if you throw in interest, income and other revenue sources, the Treasurer had an extra $181m to spend excluding the railway. But he managed to increase his spending by only $65m, and that included an extra $13m in interest payments and $4m increase for the nominal superannuation interest expense. So the revenues are up 7% and expenses up 2.3%, dead on line with the consumer price index increase for 2002-03.
In other words, the government has done nothing but match inflation this year when it comes to its overall expenses while pocketing a 7% increase in revenue from taxes, charges, and the federal government. These are not my figures; they are the audited figures provided by the Treasurer in this report. I wonder how many empty shop fronts, closed restaurants, struggling businesses in the Darwin CBD would still be operating if they could increase their revenues by 7%, but hold their costs to inflation. I wonder how many would still be operating if the government had chosen to actually spend some of that extra revenue on stimulating the economy instead of keeping the revenue. Even the Treasurer is prepared to admit that he cut back on spending in certain areas. Some $20m of what his predecessors said would be spent on capital works was not spent in 2002-03. Plus the Treasurer had an extra $80m in the bank at the end of 2002-03. This is not my estimate; the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report explains it on page 53. I quote from the report:
- Cash held by the Territory government in excess of immediate requirements is invested by the Northern Territory
Treasury Corporation on behalf of the Territory government.
The government, in the past few months, has made big announcements about how it is going to spend an extra $75m on police over the next four years and an extra $27m on tourism over the next three years. Both are very welcome and desperately needed initiatives, but why did the government have to be dragged screaming to do this when it had the money and could have factored it into the budget? The extra expense for these initiatives in this financial year is only $17m, hardly a dent in the excess cash that the government has of $307m.
While I am on the budget, I wonder whether the Chief Minister remembers her comments when she delivered her first budget, the mini-budget of 2001. She railed against the old system, which she claimed gave government departments unrealistically low budgets and then topped them up as the year went on. The Chief Minister and Treasurer said that was not going to happen while she was in charge. Chief executive officers were going to be held accountable, and the onus would be put on them to produce financial outcomes within annual budgets.
If you look at the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, you will find that eight departments or agencies failed to meet this requirement. Have the CEOs been spoken to? Have they been counselled? Were they perhaps given an unrealistically low budget and had to, like Oliver, ask for more? Or has the government finally realised that things can change during a year and budgets and appropriations need to change? The Treasurer said in his report:
- During the course of any financial year situations can change which necessitate variations to allocation.
Does the Chief Minister now acknowledge that? Nine agencies are shown as coming in under budget and overall, the appropriation approved by this Assembly in the 2002-03 budget fell by $4.151m, thanks largely to the cut in capital works I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, according to the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report issued in January but not yet tabled in this parliament, 15 departments and agencies had their operating expenses adjusted upwards for 2003-04 on what they were given in the budget. However, we will get to the issue of the mid-year report and its revelations when it is brought to this parliament for scrutiny and debate, presumably in the next day or so.
Returning to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report on which we are finally allowed to comment, four months after it was tabled here and eight months after the financial year ended. As I said, the figures I referred to about departments and agencies exceeding their budgets is revealed in the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s report. In past years, this was the very section that was audited. Once again, we have a document that cannot be compared with previous reports. I accept that this is not a deliberate ploy by the government to hide anything. The change is caused by Working for Outcomes, an initiative of the previous government; the transition to accrual accounting; and the fact that we have had a change of government. This has meant no financial document has been directly comparable with that produced in the previous year.
As the Treasurer notes in the overview in this document:
- … the format of the 2002-03 TAFR differs significantly from that in previous years.
For a start, this year the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is considerably slimmer. Last year, it was 151 pages; this year, it is 124. In this figures dominated context, it is appropriate to say that that is a 17.9% shrinkage factor. Apart from the basic reporting and accounting charges I have mentioned, the report is a complete reversal of the 2001-02 TAFR.
Instead of changes to department budgets being in the audited section and examined in depth, they have been relegated to the unaudited section. For full financial information, one now has to go to each department’s annual report, which is why you look at TAFR and find the allocation of Health and Community Services increased by $11.127m mainly due to the $15m injection in February. However, when we look at the department’s annual report, we find that they finished the year with $17m cash in the bank. Look at Employment, Education and Training in TAFR, their appropriation increased by $4m. Their annual report shows that they finished the year with $11m in the bank.
I realise there are carry-overs of some form of another in most agencies, particularly the big ones, but I find it hard to rationalise how Health and Community Services ended up with $17m in the bank, especially when the then minister told us in February that she needed an extra $15m to address an anticipated shortfall and:
… ensure that core services continue to be available.
It is doubly hard to understand when it is quite clear from the annual report of Health and Community Services that some core services were not maintained. I refer to page 71 of that report, which says there was a lack of available beds in our two large hospitals, Royal Darwin and Alice Springs, in 2002-03 to accommodate admitted patients. The annual report says that these patients awaiting admission then put pressure on the emergency departments and they, in turn, had a reduced capacity to attend in a more timely manner to patients. I would have thought that they were some of the core services the $15m was meant to ensure. Apparently not, because there is still $17m left over at the end of the year.
I am sure there is an explanation to these striking anomalies somewhere in the open, accountable and transparent system we now have. I am sure the Treasurer will be able to point me to the pages of TAFR or the annual reports where it is explained, especially as one of them is a department for which he is responsible.
This year, the audited section covers the financial statements by UPF sector, but budget comparative data is not provided. In previous years, the UPF reports were in the unaudited section. While the audited report provides some 35 pages of notes to the accounts, these notes refer to the operating statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement of the total public sector, a sector report we have not seen before.
This gives us two major problems: anyone attempting to analysis these accounts, particularly anyone who does not live and breathe accounting and auditing, has as yet no valid comparison to make between TAFRs and the budget on which it is reporting and no way of comparing it with the previous year; second is to discover what chart, what list of accounts, to which anyone is referring when they make comparisons.
To give you an example, I was at a Chamber of Commerce and Industry breakfast late last year at which the Treasurer was guest speaker. He made a presentation that included such figures as what Territory tax was collected in 2002-03 and what he anticipates collecting this financial year. The figures he used were $553m in 2002-03 and $351m next year, a nice little point for a Treasurer to make it to business: ‘See, the government is reducing the tax burden on you’.
Unfortunately, I cannot find this figure of $353m in tax collected in 2002-03 anywhere in these accounts. TAFR reports at page 48 that taxation revenue for 2002-03 was $241 342 000, up $17 987 000 on what was collected in 2001-02, and the budget delivered in May predicts taxation revenue to be around $254m in 2003-04, or an increased take of some $13m. I am sure the Treasurer will be able to explain the differences here of some hundred million dollars between his statement to the Chamber breakfast and his report to this parliament.
However, as he and his Chief Minister keep saying, this is the most open accountable and transparent government when it comes to financial reporting. Why, then, can’t I read that figure he presented to the Chamber of $353m in taxation revenues in these accounts? Perhaps the answer might be that the higher figure, the figure he presented to the Chamber, includes the taxes the government pays to itself while the TAFR figures do not. Perhaps mineral royalties of $39m are not included in taxation revenue in TAFR. If that is so, where are they accounted for? Perhaps it could have been more relevant to the business people at the breakfast have heard the comparison between what the non-government sector paid in taxes last year and what they are expected to pay this financial year. Perhaps it would help if the government could sing from one sheet of music rather than picking and choosing from a variety of estimates and actuals. We can only hope that before this government’s term ends, and I am not saying that it is your fault or Treasury’s, we will have financial documents such as budgets, TAFRs, and mid-year reports that are directly comparable with the equivalent report of the previous year.
We may even reach the day when we can track to and fro between the different documents to make some sense of where we are going, where we have come from and how we are faring financially. The Treasurer concluded his remarks when tabling this report in October that this was:
- … the Territory’s first accrual report, and demonstrates considerable and ongoing improvement in the Territory’s
financial reporting framework.
The problem is that we keep working so hard on the framework that the picture is becoming obscure. Documents such as TAFRs are vital to the proper functioning and scrutiny of government. I thank the hard working Treasury staff for their efforts to keep us informed. In the past two and a half years, they have produced four budgets, three TAFRs and a mid-year report and have had to accommodate a different format, different reporting, and a different accounting system for each one. They are to be commended.
How much the Treasurer is to be commended is slightly more doubtful and I await the Auditor-General’s report on this TAFR.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his somewhat churlish remarks, Madam Speaker. I can only recommend and offer that he have a full briefing on all these matters.
It has been made fairly clear on a number of occasions that the difference the 2001-02 and 2002-03 reporting is always going to be tricky around the margin because of the move to adopt full accrual accounting in the 2002-03 financial year. The points the Opposition Leader made are valid because we have had a different system of treatment of accounts and you will find straight comparatives down the line when we get around to 2003-04 as against 2002-03 because they will all be in the full accrual system.
If I can just go back to the $400m windfall that somehow we have mysteriously pocketed away, a windfall of course that never existed in the first place, tonight is $307m. So we have lost $93m somewhere along the line for the Leader of the Opposition. He is trying to peddle a story that somehow this government has pocketed $307m as a war chest for an election. If we are sitting on $307m out of so-called GST windfall, why are we still running budget deficits? Why wouldn’t we be paying our way and having a surplus on our budget? It does not make sense to have money in your pocket but to be running up your daily expenses against debt and having borrowings. It would make sense, of course, to use that money. The fact is there is no $307m secreted away.
I will go back to the introduction of the GST. In order to get the states and territories on side, the Federal government made a pact and said this to each of the states and territories: ‘You come on board with this tax reform, this GST, and this is what we will do: we don’t know what the size of the GST pool will be because we have never had a GST before. We don’t know what your share of Grants Commission funding will be until we work through and get an idea of the size of the GST pool for the first year of effect’. That was not very comforting, as you might imagine, to the states and territories. So the Commonwealth said: ‘We will give you a guaranteed minimum amount, and that will be what you got last year and a bit more because your revenue goes up every year’. Under the old system, it went up every year; under the GST, it goes up every year and so do costs to government. When you talk about a 1% wage rise across the public sector, it is $30m-odd, and they do no settle for 1% these days.
Mr Henderson: 11% for nurses.
Mr STIRLING: Nurses just got 5%, 3%, 3% over three years. Doctors are in the same margin. I do not have a global figure on that, but it is millions. It costs millions more each year for wages movement and the cost of goods and services.
I am going back to this guaranteed minimum amount because it is quite important that you understand it. If you did not make the guaranteed minimum amount from the GST pool, they gave you what they called budget balancing assistance. It was a figure derived from what you would have had under the old system, what you are getting under the GST plus budget balancing assistance under the guaranteed minimum amount to make sure you were not worse off under GST. That was the whole principle on which the states and territories went into it.
In 2001-02 the nett effect of the GST to the Northern Territory was zero because we were receiving budget balancing assistance to get us up to the guaranteed minimum amount. New South Wales will be receiving that all the way through to 2007 on current estimates because the size of the pool will not be big enough to get them what they would have had under the old system.
In 2002-03, we received more than we would have under the guaranteed minimum amount under the old system, which was all worked out, and they gave us $9m. We received $9m more. We are one of the first jurisdictions to move into the green field, if you like, under the GST.
At the moment, in 2003-04, the best estimate is around $76m more this year under GST. It is undetermined until you get to the end of the financial year because the Commonwealth cannot tell you what the size of the GST pool will be. No one can, because it depends on consumption, consumer sentiment, how much people purchase, how good the GST collection system is and how much rorting there is of it, of course, until you get the final amount. But if you add the two amounts together, from the time of the inception of the GST - $9m last year, $76m best guess at the moment this year – it is $85m.
The NT has received $85m more since the inception of the GST than we would have received under the former federal arrangements with the states and territories. So the $307m you have out of your head because it is around $85m - it is only a best guess - that the GST has put us in a better position since its inception. The other $315m we would have received under the old arrangements with the increases year by year.
In relation to whether health had money left and whether they asked for extra money, you have to take the fact that budgets are a line in the sand on a given day. Purchases and expenditure simply don’t work like that. You could have ordered quite expensive capital items in the case of health; equipment needed, often very expensive, some delays in receiving that equipment. So it is ordered, it is expected to be spent against the budget in the 2002-03 financial year. Come 30 June, the equipment has not arrived, it is en route from the United States or the United Kingdom, or it might be on its way from Melbourne or Sydney, but it has not been received by the end of the financial year, midnight on 30 June, which is when you draw the line under it, and it is simply expenditure that cannot be incurred in that financial year notwithstanding that the agency got the budget to buy that, they planned for that, everything was in place, but the stuff did not arrive. That expenditure slides over into the 2003-04 financial year, and probably quite early in new financial year, those items came on deck and were paid, and that was the reason, of course, we were tracking for a $31m deficit and finished up on paper with a $9m surplus because of the carry over of $40m plus.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer need to understand how this works, that with accrual there can be no hollow logs, there can be no money salted away. I wish we did have $307m or $400m to play with, but you have to understand that, at the bottom line, government is no different from a household. You have an income stream, whether you rent properties, or whether you have wages or salary coming in, the same as government has income, and you have expenditure. You try to keep, and government does the same, that gap as narrow as possible with a view to the 2004-05 budget coming in as a balanced budget so that the revenue we receive throughout 2004-05 will be about the expenditure that government incurs along the way.
We deserve more credit than the Leader of the Opposition is willing to bestow on us. We deserve credit for having reined in the excessive deficits of the CLP, which saw government debt outstanding today, if you throw employee liabilities and superannuation into the mix, around about $3.5bn. If you want to compare that against the other states, it is the worst in the nation by a long way on a per capita distribution.
Notwithstanding that, the Shadow Treasurer simply need contact my office at any time. There are various areas of Treasury from which he would benefit by a briefing. Of course, there is the revenue side, the taxation side, budgets and expenditure, and the area that deals with the Commonwealth and inter-governmental relations.
Before I move on, in relation to the taxation, it is a pretty hard story to peddle that we are a high taxing state, that our taxes went up, therefore we tax more. In fact, we reduced tax. If we receive more revenue through taxation, it is the result of greater activity out there in the labour market. A range of taxes went down in the 2002-03 budget, and again in the 2003-04 budget. So it has to be greater activity out there in the marketplace. Stamp duty is one. The economic base in the Northern Territory is such that a major transaction of conveyancing and stamp duty can really distort the figures. You might have one or two one-offs and your revenue can be way up there.
I want to read across the bottom line, which puts a lie to this high taxing Northern Territory government, and if we compare recurrent state taxes and charges on a typical small business with 15 employees, so we are looking at an equivalent business operating in the CBD of each capital city, with wages of $600 000 per year: New South Wales, $25 880 the government extracts from that business; Victoria, $23 879; Queensland $14 714; Western Australia - $17 114; South Australia - $14 393; Tasmania - $17 675; ACT - $15 259; and Northern Territory - $7554. That is the effect of the Northern Territory government and its recurrent state taxes and charges on a small business with 15 employees on wages of $600 000 per year.
You want to look inside that tax mix. For example, the land tax that the Leader of the Opposition said we ought to be reducing the other day notwithstanding the fact that we do not have one at all, in New South Wales, the land tax realises $12 680 on the same sized company; Victoria $6230; Queensland $5750; Western Australia $2430; South Australia $1205; Tasmania $4443; ACT $7500; and Northern Territory zero. Is it any wonder they shudder when they begin to realise that the Leader of the Opposition and the Country Liberal Party might be looking to inflict a land tax in the Northern Territory and the effect that that will have …
Members interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: These are the sorts of things that are recommended in the Productivity Commission, which the Leader of the Opposition is looking to glean ideas from, based on the way he is going.
Fire services levy - an estimate in New South Wales of $8500; $8500 in Victoria; $1000 in Queensland; $7000 in Western Australia; $331 in South Australia; $7000 in Tasmania; zero in ACT; and zero in the Northern Territory. I am not surprised that small business might start to become very nervous when the Leader of the Opposition says he is going to knock off payroll tax because they will be thinking: ‘My god, what else is he going to inflict on us given that we are not in the payroll tax system now?’.
The offer is on the table. The Shadow Treasurer is welcome to a briefing on any of these areas. It is in our interest for the opposition to understand. It is in the interest of the Northern Territory for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Treasurer, to understand how it all fits together. He made comment in relation to the difficulty of comparison between 2001-02 and 2002-03. He understands, but he did not acknowledge the fact, that it was the introduction of full accrual accounting in the 2002-03 year.
Over successive years prior to that, we always had difficulty in opposition of judging apples to apples budget to budget - not because they introduced accrual or any major systems like that, but because the Country Liberal Party consistently changed the way they treated various items in the budget and changed their categories and structure simply to make a year-to-year comparison impossible.
There were so many times when we were only able to get to the bottom line through the Committee of the Whole because the different treatment year to year. You will not find that this year. We have been praised by overseas analysts with, in one case, an analyst from New York saying: ‘This is the best set of papers I have ever had to work with and you are to be commended’.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 6 relating to debate on the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2002-03 be called on forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Report – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2002-03
Note Report – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2002-03
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise speak to the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report. The 2002-03 financial year has been one in which the committee was required to adapt to change as the circumstance of committee membership and responsibilities of the committee as a whole altered significantly.
A major milestone for the committee occurred on 20 August 2003, when a motion by the Honourable Syd Stirling, then Leader of Government Business, empowered the members of the Public Accounts Committee to become core members of the inaugural Estimates Committee. The then Chairman, Dr Chris Burns, assumed the role of Chairman of the new committee during the public hearings held on Tuesday 17 September through to the evening of Thursday 19 September 2002.
Many members in this House have debated the workings of that first committee and, as I believe the issues raised have already been carefully considered by government, there is no need for me to cover old ground with the tabling of this current Public Accounts Committee report.
I need only reiterate the views expressed by the Leader of Government Business that the process was not one set in concrete from the outset. Flexibility by the government was a key objective in ensuring the Estimates Committee examination of appropriation bills and budget related papers. We saw a methodology that was able to achieve acceptable outcomes.
Only four weeks after the completion of the Estimates Committee public hearings, the chairman, Dr Chris Burns, was appointed to the ministry. The newly elected chair of the Public Accounts Committee was Mr Elliot McAdam, the member for Barkly.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I have tolerated some of the infringements that the member for Sanderson has made. He knows that he should not refer to any member of this Chamber by name at all. For the last five minutes of his speech, he has been using names quite freely. He should be referring to members by their electorates. You should rewrite your speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you do know that.
Mr KIELY: I apologise if I have offended members in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Refer to them by electorate, please.
Dr Lim: It is standing orders, do you not know that?
Madam SPEAKER: It is standing orders; refer to them by their electorate.
Mr KIELY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not hear you over the talking.
Another milestone for the committee then occurred on 27 February 2003 when the Leader of Government Business moved a motion appointing a further Estimates Committee to consider the Appropriation Bill 2003-04 and budget-related papers, with the member for Barkly being appointed as the Chairman of the new committee.
Madam Speaker, members of the Public Accounts Committee once again comprised the core membership of the Estimates Committee during the public hearings held from Tuesday 24 through to Friday 27 June 2003. On the evening of 27 June, immediately following the public hearings, the Leader of Government Business announced that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Barkly, was discharged from the committee in order to take up the position of Chairman of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee found itself in the unique situation of being actively involved in two Estimates Committee processes in the space of nine months as well as losing both chairmen to other areas of government.
Apart from members’ time, these two processes were extremely labour intensive for the committee secretariat. The preparatory work for the first series of public hearings involved the physical processing and recording of in excess of 1200 written questions. While written questions were not part of the second public hearings in June, the follow up required prior to release of final transcripts and the inclusion of questions taken on notice with appropriate replies had to be completed.
Madam Speaker, the committee was briefed by the Auditor-General on two occasions during the year. In August 2002, the newly appointed Auditor-General, Mr Mike Blake, presented the committee with his future strategy planning for the Auditor-General’s office. In February 2003, the committee was again briefed by Mr Blake on issues contained in his November 2002 and February 2003 reports to the Assembly. He also discussed an information technology audit strategy within the Northern Territory public sector as well as the performance focus of the Office of the Auditor-General for 2003.
The committee acknowledges the important role the Auditor-General has in overseeing public sector accountability and it constantly relies on obtaining detailed briefings on specific issues from and prior to commencing any formal inquiries. This flow of information is in line with they key corporate objective of that office for provision to the parliament of independently analysed and credible information.
The extent to which Treasury officers communicate and liaise with agencies was clearly demonstrated by the support provided by Treasury staff in the preparation for the inaugural Estimates Committee hearings. The Under Treasurer, ably assisted by key senior officers, personally scrutinised every one of the 1200-plus written questions to be sure they would be referred to the correct ministerial portfolio area of responsibility. In addition, a number of skilled operators were transferred to the committee secretariat to process and set up the database, which was to house the written questions.
I know that acknowledgements for the work carried out during the inaugural Estimates Committee occurred during debate in this House, but the assistance of the Under Treasurer and her dedicated staff is now officially recorded in this report of the Public Accounts Committee. On behalf of the members, I take this opportunity to express our gratitude for a job well done. When the committee tabled its report, number 38, locally known as the Accuracy of the Budget Data report, it was not able to conclude its findings into an issue of a $6m adjustment to the Department of Education’s allocation. The decision was taken to conduct a separate investigation into the matter rather than prolonging the tabling of the overall report.
As stated within the committee report tabled today, after reviewing the Hansard transcript of evidence as well as an additional submission from the Department of Education and having received a detailed briefing from Ms Jane Large, Specialist Financial Advisor to the Committee, the committee agreed that there was a complexity surrounding interpretation of budgetary terminology that had caused the original misunderstanding to arise and no further investigation was warranted.
In reaching this decision, the committee took into account the fact that this was the first occasion on which agency officers had appeared before an Estimates Committee in a public hearing and under scrutiny of the media. With this in mind and with the knowledge gained from the extensive briefing regarding the interpretation of budget terminology, the committee took the view that it would address this matter by formally reminding all agency officers of their responsibilities when providing information to any parliamentary committee.
There were no similar issues that arose during the second round of Estimates Committee hearings.
There are a number of other matters the committee has inquired into that have been satisfactorily resolved.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of all members of the committee, I place on record our appreciation for the support offered by the Secretariat to the committee throughout the 2002-03 financial year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I want to add a few words in respect of the PAC report. I should draw members’ attention to the fact that for the first time in the history of this parliament and the PAC, there is no dissenting report. We decided that we would leave things unaltered and create history for Territorians.
We also note for members’ information that in relation to the former chair of the PAC, the member for Barkly, we commend his chairmanship of the committee. We thought he did it very well. His time as chair through the estimates process was very fair and something that members of the opposition felt could not be criticised. Many members in this Chamber praised his efforts immediately after the estimates process. For the life of me, I do not understand why he was then sacked from the chair. It is a pity that a man who has done a job so well has not been duly rewarded for his efforts.
The PAC report summarises the activities we have undertaken. Over the last 12 months, the committee has not been very active, but the several investigations we have undertaken have been of particular use and have provided members with further information on a variety of matters.
Members of the opposition look forward to continuing the work of the PAC and would like to thank the officers of the secretariat, in particular Terry Hanley, the Secretary of the committee, and the ladies who have assisted him so capably in producing all the reports and other papers that the committee needs in a timely manner to make our lives a lot easier. I congratulate the committee members for their efforts and look forward to another 12 months.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Territory Trade
Building Territory Trade
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I rise to deliver a statement on the positive outcomes for the Northern Territory’s international trade in goods and services, which are rising as a result of the Martin government’s strategic approach to trade development.
In delivering this statement, I would like to detail the numerous trade-related initiatives the Martin government has implemented since coming to office in August 2001, and record some of the tangible benefits already arising. They are an illustration of how seriously this government takes trade and how it sees trade as a cornerstone in the economic development of the Territory.
Trade is a key feature of the Territory’s economy and is linked to one in every four jobs. Our strategic in structure to approach relies on five key principles:
current period of structural change and emerges with a more business-to-business, outward looking focus than
has historically been the case;
important foundations for successful trade;
Asian region to include, over time, the world; and
Our systematic and strategic approach replaces the ad hoc, scattergun approach taken by the previous government, which spent big but achieved little.
Members will recall that when I launched our International Trade Strategy last year, I noted that it sets significant performance targets. With this strategic plan in place, it was then appropriate to review the structure in the trade support area of my department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. As a result of that review, the trade group within the department has been strengthened to give more prominence to the status of trade as a driver of the economy, and to link departmental roles to the delivery of quantifiable trade outcomes as measured by the Trade Strategy performance targets.
To underscore the importance of relationships as a foundation for trade, this government developed and implemented its Asian engagement strategy, Building Stronger Asian Links. I will talk more about the positive outcomes of this particular strategy a little later in this statement. As an extension of this departmental strengthening, we have adopted a more strategic approach to Northern Territory overseas representation, focussing on offices in Jakarta, Manila and Dili. Trade imperatives have been included in the scope of services being provided by these representatives, along with a requirement to adhere to carefully managed budgets.
The Trade Support Scheme, which supersedes the former government’s Export Marketing Assistance Scheme, has emerged as a much more robust mechanism for assisting trade-focussed firms to prepare themselves for trade ventures, and to undertake the market development work required to maximise their chances of trade success. With a budget of $330 000 in its first year, and clear eligibility guidelines, it has already proven to be both accessible and successful. Our intention is to boost funding over coming years for this scheme, depending on demand, to $500 000 per annum.
The initial response from the Northern Territory export community has been positive, with 55 applications under the Trade Support Scheme being received in the seven months to January 2004. Twenty-eight applications have so far been approved, giving rise to a commitment of $140 000. Examples of successful outcomes under the scheme include:
Earth Dreaming Pty Ltd, an indigenous swimwear design company which, with TSS funding, participated in a
promotional display in Europe in late 2003. As a result, the company is negotiating for immediate sales of up
to $50 000, with the potential for even larger volumes of sales in the longer term;
is a Katherine-based plant wholesaler and has secured its first orders into Singapore Airport and has advised that it
has commenced negotiations to supply plants for two major public infrastructure projects in Singapore;
CSG, a local information technology group, has reached an agreement to sell its logistics management software to
a Singapore shipping company. This was achieved during the Northern Territory government sponsored delegation
to the IX2003 Information Technology Exhibition, held in Singapore in early October last year;
in a forthcoming trade exhibition called Celebrate Australia in Singapore in March this year. This is exciting news
and will help the firm on its way to sustained growth in its business and export figures.
Importantly, the Trade Strategy and Trade Support Scheme both recognise the importance of indigenous enterprise to Northern Territory exports, particularly that which is flourishing in the arts and crafts sector. Indigenous firms and enterprises are actively encouraged to take full advantage of the scheme.
My international visitation plans are now developed on an annual basis in conjunction with industry stakeholders to ensure that our energies are directed to give best effect to our trade imperatives. This government is committed to engaging with our regional neighbours and has plans for an extensive range of visits to the region by the Chief Minister, my ministerial colleagues and myself during the course of 2004 about which I will go into in more detail shortly. At every opportunity, we are accompanied by business people as part our delegations.
The Northern Territory treats its role as invited observer to the Brunei Indonesia Malaysia Philippines East Asian growth area, more commonly known as BIMP-EAGA, with a great deal of honour. I am determined that we take full advantage of our relations with this group and increase our involvement with BIMP-EAGA to create some real and positive trade outcomes for Territory companies. To that end, the department is arranging for a delegation, including the private sector, to participate in the forthcoming BIMP-EAGA 2004 Transport and Trade Conference to be held in Manila at the end of March.
Let us look at the statistics. As most members will be aware, Australia’s imports have increased significantly in the past 12 months due to the rise in the Australian dollar. At the same time, the export climate has been hampered by a number of factors including our rising dollar, global uncertainty created by the ongoing terrorist threat, and last year’s SARS epidemic.
Last financial year, NT exports totalled $2.6bn, which is down $300m on the previous year. This figure is largely attributable to a significant reduction in output from the Laminaria oil field in the Timor Sea. Interestingly, for the same period we experienced a 15% increase in non-oil exports from the Territory largely driven by a growth in food and live cattle trade. In light of Australian and global trends, I believe the Territory has weathered the economic storm remarkably well from a trade perspective, and we are on track with our ambitious trade targets.
As we all know, the recent completion of the AustralAsia Trade Route creates a competitive alternative for trade within Australia, and this route, along with the Darwin Business Park, which replaces the ineffective TDZ, will be key drivers of the development of our economy. With the Northern Territory so well placed in geographic terms, it makes sound sense to develop increased trading links for the benefit of all Territorians.
The realisation of passenger services on The Ghan should not be underestimated as a driver of growth in trade in the tourism services sector, which will be welcomed by all firms operating in the sector. It represents a significant and positive boost to a business sector that has been hard hit over recent years by a series of setbacks.
I also draw members’ attention to the very successful global Freight Connect Conference, which was sponsored by the Territory government, last week here in Darwin. Our efforts to grow Territory trade will count for nothing if we are not able to engage fully with our private sector counterparts, the real deliverers of trade outcomes. Of paramount importance is the strength of our relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s International Business Council. As well as many ongoing projects, our strategic collaboration with this key organisation becomes most apparent with the staging of NT Expo and the export awards each year. In a spirit of genuine collaboration, FreightLink, the operator of the AustralAsia Trade Route, has become a regular participant in the various delegations that have been led by the Chief Minister and I to various regional centres over the past year.
In order to grow aviation trade, this government entered into a partnership in 2002 with the Northern Territory Airports Corporation to jointly fund an airline executive, Mr Peter Roberts, whose role it is to work strategically with airlines to grow passenger and freight links into and out of the Territory. This is yet another practical outcome of our strategic approach to growing trade.
In the ICT sector we have been working closely with the Australian Information Industry Association to grow the business-to-business and international ICT services sectors. To date, our joint efforts have manifested themselves most prominently in two very successful ICT forums and high level delegations to CeBIT 2003 in Hannover and Sydney, as well as IX2003 in Singapore last year. I will talk in more detail about the ICT aspects of my recent trip to Singapore shortly, but there is no doubt that these collaborative efforts will continue into the future.
Moving on to look at the livestock export trade, I note that within the trade strategy framework we continue to work closely with the NT Livestock Exporters Association, the NT Buffalo Industry Council and the Central Australian Camel Industry Association to grow live beast exports. It is a measure of the success of the industry and government that the 2004 figures for live cattle exports through Darwin are the highest in six years, at 22 286 head. This is 5000 more than in the same period last year, and this is despite the Aussie dollar riding as high as it is against the US dollar.
As members may know, Australia now has in place free trade agreements with Singapore and, of course, New Zealand. An Australia-Thailand FTA is yet to be ratified but, when it is concluded, it may well present trade opportunities to Territory firms. I note also that a deal was struck last week with the USA, which gave rise to an Australia-USA FTA upon the passing of legislation in both countries. I was on a phone hook-up with trade ministers and the federal Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, this afternoon for a briefing on opportunities under the FTA.
Whilst we are aware of significant opportunities to develop our trade links with Singapore at present, the reality is that the agreements with other countries may not have any significant beneficial trade aspect impact on the Northern Territory for some time. Nevertheless, it is important as trade minister to take the opportunity to fully explore the scope of these agreements in conjunction with interested industry stakeholders to ascertain whether there are, indeed, opportunities to be pursued at present. As I will discuss in more detail shortly, I propose to visit Thailand this year.
With the strategic framework in place and with significant funding available to support trade initiatives, it is opportune to record some of the exciting projects that are being undertaken by Territory firms at present. In the services sector, Study North Australia, a consortium of education service providers coordinated by Charles Darwin University, is attracting overseas students to study in Darwin. Swires Shipping commenced in November last year its crocodile route, a regular container shipping service between Darwin and Singapore with weekly sailings. Toll Holdings has taken its place as the foundation business at Darwin Business Park, having invested nearly $18m in the construction of dedicated facilities at East Arm to house its Cool Chain Management commercial operations and, since the launch of the international trade strategy, Excel Australia, one of the world’s leading logistic management companies has set up operations in Darwin. I was pleased to open their premises to take maximum advantage of the trade opportunities emerging with the completion of the AustralAsian Trade Route.
I will go into more detail later, but I note here that Rooney Shipping is currently negotiating with potential partners to position itself to take advantage of a number of very significant trade opportunities in Eastern Indonesia and beyond. This government values the contribution made by the Australian government representative offices located throughout the region. We actively encourage a strong relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and seek to draw on their resources wherever possible, as well as the Australian Trade Commission. As I mentioned earlier, this has allowed us to develop a more strategic approach to our overseas representation.
When we came to government we inherited no less than 27 separate memoranda of understanding, or MOUs, with a number of our regional neighbours. This is as impressive collection of wall hangings, but the reality was they were not implemented and they were not seen to be useful by the people who needed them most: our private sector entrepreneurs. Consequently, they gathered dust on the wall. From my point of view, it was important that we sharpen our focus onto the achievable. Accordingly, we have chosen to adopt a more strategic approach to the use of MOUs, not just as unsupported wall hangings.
We will continue to support the operations of the Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility in Darwin and to encourage the expansion of its use as a convenient and efficient service for goods being shipped into Eastern Indonesia. I was surprised to learn from the head of BP Indonesia in the context of recent talks in relation to the BP Tengguh project, I promoted the facility and they quickly grasped the significant benefits to be gained by shipping goods to the site through Darwin.
All this bodes well in my view for the role of Darwin as a supply and service hub for some very significant development projects in the region. The travel undertaken by various government ministers in the last 12 months provides a good platform for enhancing and extending the Territory’s engagement. As I mentioned earlier, the program of engagement is further reinforced in the government’s proposed 2004 travel program. In 2004, we will see the Chief Minister, minister Vatskalis …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The Leader of Government Business knows full well that he should identify members by their electorates and not by formal names. He is the Leader of Government Business, for goodness sake.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I think what the member for Greatorex is saying has been pointed out before. If you would …
Mr HENDERSON: I will defer to the extraordinary sensitivity of the member for Greatorex.
In 2004, we will see the Chief Minister, the member for Casuarina …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Arnhem …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have made your point.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Arnhem will undertake a range of official visits - he does not want to hear the interesting stuff, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - to the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan and South Korea. These will complement visits I have already made to Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia thus far.
I present two specific highlights of the first 12 months of the Martin government’s Asian engagement plan. Activities in relation to the Arafura Games that will include a component of the Business of Sport in the next games to be held in 2005, and continuing successful outcomes from cattle management training, which is being provided to regional customers through DBIRD and Charles Darwin University, all as an extension of our growing livestock export program.
One important area we have not left out of our plans is the re-engagement with the government and the people of West Timor. They have suffered greatly since the independence struggle in Timor- Leste in 2000-01. Kupang is the closest Asian city to Darwin and we have enjoyed many years of cooperation with West Timor. As members know, Darwin is home to a sizable expatriate population of West Timorese people. The Martin government has lobbied the federal government to review its serious travel warning for West Timor and ask that that situation be reviewed so that people can once again travel freely between Darwin and Kupang.
It is regrettable but understandable that Merpati Airlines cut its air links shortly after Timor-Leste’s independence, although this government met with Merpati executives and lobbied in support of trials to reinstate the Darwin-Kupang service. I am pleased that the first trial flights took place in December 2003 and congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I hope to see Merpati return on a regular basis in the near future.
Specifically in relation to trade, this government has also continued to support West Timor and Indonesia’s other eastern provinces in the fields of education through exchange and livestock breeding programs and health programs conducted through Menzies, and through regular discussions at ministerial level.
The government is well aware of the historic and more modern contributions made to trade by members of our ethnic community. It is with this in mind that we have begun exploring options to increase the number of business and skilled migrants choosing to invest and settle in the Northern Territory and that is why this government has developed a discussion paper on business and skilled migration for the Territory. We will hold community consultations across the Territory to assist us develop a fully representative business and skill migration strategy. I encourage all members and their constituents to consider contributing to this consultative process.
Business and skilled migration is not about taking the jobs of hard working Territorians; it is about broadening our skills base, increasing the diversity of our economic base, creating new and improved trade links, creating new inbound investment across a range of industries, and having new arrivals settle here and go on to promote the Territory to their regional network of family, friends and business associates and, very importantly, becoming Territorians.
I am pleased to be able to announce that today, a senior officer from my department left for China and Taiwan to participate in a business and skilled migration program. Next month, the same officer will travel to Surrey in the UK to participate in the Emigrate 2004, the largest migration exhibition in Europe attracting 15 000 people over three days. This is the first time in eight years that the Territory participated in this type of exhibition.
I would now like to focus on some significant developments taking place for our food industry in the USA. The Territory is blessed with unique high quality foodstuffs that are often subject to seasonal influence on availability. To assist producers find niche export markets for Territory foods, my department has formed the Northern Territory Food Group. The department has been instrumental in creating a Northern Territory presence at America’s Taste Down Under contest, which was used as a promotional vehicle to access the high end USA market for Northern Territory farm barramundi, and which has resulted in sales of farmed Territory barramundi going from zero to approximately $1.2m.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I now report on my two recent successful trade delegation visits to Singapore, Indonesia and Brunei. The Indonesia visit, which occurred between 19 and 22 January, was a further step in our engagement with our regional neighbours and will be the first of many into the region by ministers in 2004. Whilst in Brunei en route to Jakarta, I participated in meetings that are likely to have a very positive impact on the growth of AustralAsia Trade Route. I am thankful to Mr Graeme Lacey, the CEO of Rooney Shipping and Trading, who arranged for me to meet with executives of a major regional shipping company to discuss their plans to expand operations to Darwin. Whilst the details of these discussions are commercially sensitive, I am confident that an announcement will be made in April on the commencement of a new shipping service linking Darwin with Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and Korea. This is great news and will further boost trade between Australia and Asia through our new port and railway, providing obvious opportunities and benefits for Territorians.
I put on the Parliamentary Record, with the indulgence of the House, my congratulations to Mr Graeme Lacey, the CEO of Rooney and Trading, an enormously talented and tenacious man who spends months in the region. It is very hard to crack work in the region in probably one of the most competitive shipping sectors in the world and he puts everything into it. He is a great Territorian and I wish him all the best.
Let me now talk about the prime role of my visit over and above my work in the promotion of improved economical and political relationships with our nearest and most populous neighbour, Indonesia, and the potential positive impact this will have on the Territory’s economy. The primary purpose of my visit was to promote the new AustralAsia Trade Route to Indonesia’s corporate and government sector representatives. This was timely, as my visit followed the official opening of the trade route by three days.
On 20 January, I presented the keynote address to the prestigious Centre for Strategic and International Studies on the trade route. I believe the CSIS invitation for me to address them on the AustralAsia Trade Route is clear evidence of its regional significance and its very real potential to change the way Asia trades with Australia. Along with staff from my office and department, the delegation comprised the following private sector members: Bruce Fadelli, as we all know, is President of the Chamber of Commerce in the NT; Mr John Parkes, General Manager International Marketing, FreightLink; Dr Ross Ainsworth, Australian Livestock Services; Mr Graeme Lacey, CEO Rooney Shipping and Trading; and Mr Bob Tormey, CEO AusLink.
My address to CSIS outlined the wide range of opportunities available in the freight and logistics area for Indonesian and other Asian companies in switching their cargos to the AustralAsia Trade Route to enable faster access to and from Australia. I also outlined opportunities arising from the development of facilities at Darwin’s new business park. I urged them to seriously consider Darwin as an alternative route for the trade of goods with Australia.
As Chamber president, Mr Fadelli used his speech to provide a snapshot of our economic prospects, advising the CSIS delegates of the very positive long-term outlook he holds for the Northern Territory’s economy. The 150-strong audience, drawn from a cross-section of Indonesia’s shipping, freight, logistics and government executives, were extremely responsive and genuinely interested to hear of the AustralAsia Trade Route and the opportunities it presents.
I have since been advised by Mr Parkes of FreightLink that the visit provided him an excellent opportunity to promote an increased awareness of the AustralAsia Trade Route to a diversified audience of decision makers from government, shipping companies, importers and exporters. He advised that his participation in the delegation to Indonesia and Brunei is seen by FreightLink as the beginning of a new partnership that will open up both new trade routes and associated business opportunities for his company.
Dr Ross Ainsworth is establishing a veterinary products company in Indonesia, and now has established a formal business partnership as a result of participating in the delegation. He said that the visit was a great success, largely due to business introductions arranged by my departmental staff. Dr Ainsworth has now engaged a company to utilise office space and administrative staff in Jakarta.
I would like to touch on the outcomes of the high level meetings I attended during my visit. The first meeting in Jakarta was with Mr Bill Schrader, President of BP Indonesia. The reason for this meeting was to stress to Mr Schrader and BP Indonesia’s executives that the Territory is keen to assist with the development and supply of BP’s remote area LNG prospects at Tengguh in West Papua. The $4bn project is planned for a remote site in West Papua, only 1200 km north of Darwin. I understand a major announcement on the project will be made as early as next month.
I also met with Hon Manuel Kaisiepo, Minister for the Accelerated Development of Eastern Indonesia. The eastern part of Indonesia is a key focus of development strategies by the Indonesian government, and the minister and I agreed to examine a number of concepts to expand trade and strengthen relations between Eastern Indonesia and the Northern Territory. The eastern part of Indonesia is our closest trading partner and I am confident that we can soon reinstate our links with cities such as Kupang and Ambon. Minister Kaisiepo and I also discussed ways in which we may be able to reinvigorate the existing Memorandum of Understanding the Territory has with Indonesia.
I was privileged to again meet with the Honourable Dr Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Indonesia’s Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources. Our meeting provided me a further opportunity to brief the minister on the AustralAsia Trade Route and developments in the LNG sector. Minister Purnomo was very keen to explore a joint approach in the service and supply of a number of Indonesian gas and petroleum reserves that lie in close proximity to the Territory’s coast. I have invited minister Purnomo to visit Darwin in the near future and suggested that he considers making his visit coincidental with a major event such as the forthcoming South-East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, or SEAOC, which is scheduled for Darwin in June.
On return to Darwin via Bali, I met with His Excellency, Mr Dewa Made Beratha, Governor of Bali. The Governor and I discussed a range of ways in which Bali, Lombok and the Territory may benefit from the use of the AustralAsia Trade Route. The Governor was keen to explore methods of exporting furnishings, architectural fittings and craft to Australia. Currently, these products are trans-shipped from Bali northbound via Singapore to be sent south to Australia. We also discussed the possible supply of food to the Balinese hotel and food wholesale markets.
The proposed Darwin to Bali Yacht Race 2004 was also discussed and I have invited the Governor to visit Darwin in late July to officiate with our Chief Minister at the start of the race. This race will contribute to positive publicity for the Territory’s and Bali’s tourism industries. Governor Beratha and I also discussed ways in which we may regenerate the once significant European backpacker market, which once used Bali as a stepping-off point for Australia.
As mentioned, I also undertook, on 4–6 February, a joint visit to Singapore with my colleague, the member for Stuart. This visit was undertaken as part of my Trade portfolio, but also as part of my new portfolio of Communications. While much of what was discussed was of a commercially sensitive nature, I can advise that we explored with our Singaporean counterparts a proposal to establish a Joint Trade Development Centre, or JTDC, in Darwin and Singapore that will involve the latest information technology and bring together a collaborative team from the Territory and Singapore governments and members of our respective ICT industries.
While in Singapore, we also met with the Honourable Dr Lee Boon Yong, Singapore’s Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. Dr Lee is fully supportive of the JTDC proposal. He has instructed his Development Authority to begin working with the Territory government and our ICT industry and the Singapore ICT industry to progress the development of the centre.
I am pleased to report that similar support for the JTDC was given by the Honourable Brigadier General George Yong Boon Yeo, Singapore’s Minister for Trade. My meeting with minister Yeo also provided an opportunity to brief him on developments associated with the AustralAsia Trade Route. With Singapore being one of the world’s most advanced trading economies, the AustralAsia Trade Route was of great interest. He was fully supportive of our growth plans and offered his ministry’s help in further promoting the trade route in Singapore, a very significant offer and one we will be taking up. I look forward to continuing to work with minister Yeo on that initiative.
We also discussed the implications of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and its potential for trade with the Northern Territory, along with the potential for new opportunities for our professional service industries.
It is my intention to continue this year’s already extensive regional visits program later this month. I have been invited to participate with the Territory’s delegation to Brunei’s International Trade Exhibition, or BITE, which will be held in late February. I am advised that the delegation to BITE may total as many as 15 Territory-based companies from a diverse range of industries including livestock shipping and transport, building and construction, petroleum industry service and supplies, health and environmental management.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you can see, the Martin government fully recognises the significance of trade to the long-term interests of all Territorians. As such, it has put in place a range of linked strategic approaches with measurable outcomes that will see us grow our competitiveness, our skills base, and our capacity to grow exports and inbound foreign investments.
I look forward to reporting again to this Chamber on the continuing tangible and positive outcomes being achieved in growing Territory trade for the good of all Territorians as a result of the government’s strategic approach outlined above.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the statement is welcome. I support the thrust and structure of the engagement that the minister outlined, and I welcome the report on significant meetings that have occurred within the region, particularly the focus on our closest neighbour, Indonesia.
There has been some very welcome progress in recent times with regards to strengthening a vision that many Territorians have had for a number of years. It is a vibrant vision. There is, in fact, a community of people within the Northern Territory who share a common vision about the capacity that we have, as close neighbours to Indonesia and the countries further to our north, of the potential that exists. That is largely borne of active and genuine engagement over a number of years. It is a result of people who have spent time in the region and who understand other cultures. They understand the potential of our neighbours: the potential of trade and of developing, through good relationships, cooperative ways of meeting each other’s needs.
It is those people who have put in that time and have fought those hard yards, such as our cattlemen, who had a need, and they wanted to gain greater penetration and access to markets in the north. They got out there and worked exceptionally hard and were propelled by a clear vision and would not be put off by any obstacle. They have done an extraordinary job and I compliment the cattlemen of the Northern Territory for the way in which they have actively and progressively engaged the region.
They really fit the example of a clear vision with hard work, dedication and constant activity that drives that vision and leads to the vision becoming reality. We see that from the cattlemen in the Northern Territory.
The real vision for those who have worked in the region and those who are familiar with working cross-culturally is that if we restrict ourselves to trade outcomes and talk strictly in economic terms and pay less attention to those things that assist us to build relationships, we will not be able to gain the maximum benefit. Anyone who works cross-culturally in the region knows that it is the relationship that must come first. It is aspects of that relationship building that I would like to have heard more about in this statement. That would give me a sense of confidence that the understanding of how we are going to drive this forward is based on an understanding of how we can actively and realistically engage the region. We must engage with an understanding of the culture and the environment in which we work.
This comes back to basic things that I did not pick up in the minister’s statement; not directly trade related, but you must have a bridge in order carry freight across and that is the bridge of relationship. A relationship is formed through an investment in things that do not provide direct trade benefits, but is an investment in sporting exchanges. Granted, we have the Arafura Games here, and, sadly, we missed one, which provides an excellent vehicle for the strengthening and maintenance of relationships. Also through our education links through exchange programs, which may appear, in the minds of those who work in Asian Relations and Trade and the mind of the minister, to be not completely relevant. However, if you understand how to engage the region, they are very important. To my knowledge, the exchange program in education has fallen away. They are the very building blocks that we need to engage the regions.
The focus on language within our school system in learning the language of our nearest neighbour, the emphasis and the focus on such things are very important if we are serious about working in the region. Otherwise, things will just take care of themselves; people will just discover the trade route. They will find an easier way. Every self-respecting merchant is going to do their own research and they will find a way to gain - we have to start all over again.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be best if we just continue in the vein …
Mr MILLS: You think so?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it may well be the way to go.
Mr MILLS: I am a bit of a stickler for Standing Orders and all that sort of thing.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will refer it.
Mr MILLS: Okay. Nobody is to say anything to anybody.
A member: What happened?
Mr MILLS: Oh, nothing. It is all right.
In a meandering sort of way, I need to draw attention to an understanding of that core vision so we know what it means to engage the region; we know what it means to have a vision for how we transact business.
It starts with relationship and an understanding of who we are as a people, where we are located, what our real potential is and, more importantly, about our neighbour; who they are, what are their needs, who are those people? We must understand the important role that government plays in making the official point of contact and brokering the diplomatic nexus so that we can begin the process from that point of contact. It is so important that there is active and constant engagement at the level of government to government. We know from working in the region that is how it begins.
You can have no end of activity, meetings with business people and you will walk away from those business meetings thinking you have achieved wonderful things, and you will be told very pleasant things, and you will be given a sense that something is going to happen, but unless it has been effected and ticked off at the highest level, at the diplomatic level, government to government, progress is considerably slow and we may not see a result at all. Anyone who has had experience working in the region knows that is the case.
It is for that reason that I believe we need to more actively and progressively fund and support a stand alone agency to engage the region. It would bring together important elements such as sporting and education links to make sure that what is happening in education, sport and recreation and in other departments is all brought together so that we are all pointing in the same direction and we achieve maximum benefit.
If we restrict our engagement to the region and define it strictly in economic terms, we will not make the necessary progress. We will not kick the goals. We will think we are making activity. We will comfort ourselves with information about programs and strategies; we’ll give it whatever name we like and we will all feel that something is happening when we are not gaining traction.
Once, the Northern Territory had genuine traction and genuine engagement within the region. Anyone who has regularly visited the region need only walk around and visit people, and they remember the Northern Territory. They remember Shane Stone, Marshall Perron, Mick Palmer, former members of the Northern Territory government. They know them by name, by personality. A relationship has been built, and they feel that we have walked away from that relationship.
You know that if a relationship stops, it is not a matter of just picking it up again, particularly if there has been gap of about two years. You find that people’s affections have been drawn elsewhere, their interests have gone somewhere else. At the same time, there is a sense of hurt because there were expectations; they thought something was going to happen and we disappeared. That may seem unreasonable, but I will give you an example. I made regular visits to West Timor conducting educational exchanges. I studied in West Timor at University Nusa Cendana. There was a period during which there was a lot of contact between our university and the university in West Timor, between the respective education departments and schools. There was an active program of exchange and it was building upon itself.
Then there was the economic crisis. It was too difficult for our friends in West Timor, too expensive, for them to travel to Darwin, so that part of the exchange stopped. Fortunately, some schools maintained their connection and the university continued its connection. Then there was the problem in East Timor. We were fully informed, though our media, of what was going on there. Parents no longer wanted to send their children to West Timor, understandably. The education exchange programs between the universities stopped. There were once sporting exchanges; they stopped.
Why they stopped was quite understandable from our perspective, but as someone who had built relationships over there, I could not help but feel concerned for my neighbours in West Timor. I know how their media system works, and I felt that perhaps they did not understand what occurred. We do; we have an open and active media.
Fortunately, in 2000 I had the opportunity to make a quick trip to West Timor to visit the Governor and the Mayor. Whilst I was there, I visited a number of the schools with which I had previous engagement. Wherever I went, I kept hearing: ‘Where have you gone? Where has the Northern Territory gone? What have we done to offend you that has caused you not to come here any more?’ I was thrown, and I realised that they did not understand what had happened internationally; they simply knew that at one time we were actively engaged, interested and maintaining a real friendship, and then we just stopped coming. The relationship was damaged as a result.
I use that as an example because once you have a real relationship, you can start talking about how you can trade. I am using that as an example because that is the sort of vision you need and the understanding you must have about relationships in the region so that you can build real trade. I am not just talking about schools and education and touchy-feely things; I am talking about the active maintenance of a relationship that must occur on a constant basis, otherwise all this will not amount to much.
In fact, it is going to cost a considerable amount to gain the momentum that we need to engage the region. We need to build a greater understanding of how to engage cross-culturally. We need a greater level of investment in our own capacity to understand the language and the culture. We need more effort in that path. We need to ensure that we adequately fund the agency that is to deliver the vision. We also need to ensure that we have a clearly articulated and coordinated plan that combines the key and varying aspects of the relationship capacity to build that trade.
Despite all we heard in the statement, which I support in a notional sense, there is an element missing and that is the level of expenditure of the Northern Territory government, based on the Estimates Committee briefing notes, is at similar levels to previous years. In fact, the cost of our active engagement within the region has dropped off. It is maintained in Jakarta, it has reduced in Manila and it has dropped to zero in Bangkok. I understand that there is a fee for service arrangement in Thailand, a country with which we have a new MOU. I note the same arrangement in Sabah, but it appears to me that the level of funding behind this is not adequate to give it real grunt and to build the necessary relationships.
When we look at the number of people within the department, it seems to be a rather small number and it is hard to gain a sense of what coordination there is across government. In the broader context, we need to see how we are tracking in terms of exports. We see that we have a percentage change of -36.9% in international trade, the export of goods. That is from the January 2004 Territory Economic Review. For international trade, the export of goods, for the September quarter 2003, the change is now -36%. International trade, the import of goods, is down also, -19.2%, so we have a long way to go.
I genuinely support what was outlined in the statement. I would like to see, however, inclusion of that depth of vision and articulation of how we transact business and how we gain some momentum within the region. We must start talking about wider ways of combining our common interests and specialist knowledge, how we can harness that in a way that is going to deliver the outcomes we all desire so that trains departing Darwin will increasingly be loaded with freight and ships to our north will see Kupang as a stopping off point on the way to the port of Darwin.
As I mentioned before - and I guess I would like to speak Indonesian better than I do - it was quite clear from my meetings in West Timor that there was surprise that the railway had been completed. Maybe it is as a result of Jakarta not communicating with Kupang, or perhaps it is this neighbour not communicating quite clearly with West Timor. Whatever the reason, there is great potential, great opportunity, to deliver shipping from Surabaya and Kupang to Darwin. It could start small and from small things, big things can grow. The focus should be the capacity and needs of Territory businesses. That must be directly connected to what is possible for trade within the region. We should have clearly defined targets of what we can achieve.
There are a number of initiatives that I would like to talk about. I will touch on one: the opportunity to strengthen the relationship between three key cities, Dili, Kupang and Darwin. Merpati, we understand, is keen to open the link to Indonesia through Darwin. A way of doing that would be to develop dialogue. Some party is going to do it. I know that the baton has been taken up by West Timor in this instance in talking to Dili about forming a link between Dili and Kupang. However, Darwin should come into that as well so that rather than depend on the viability of that link being made just with Darwin to Kupang, it would be far more viable if we could arrange flights from Darwin to Dili and Kupang and have three legs. There is some work already being done, as I said, through the Governor’s office is West Timor on that matter. I ask the minister if he is able to report to the House any activity from this government in progressing negotiations to that end.
We could go further and underlay that with the opportunity of sporting exchanges between Dili, Kupang and Darwin and tie those three discrete but related regions together. We have historical connections. We have real people connections with people from East and West Timor who live in Darwin. Many people in Darwin have an active and comprehensive knowledge of the region. Therefore, there is potential and I just toss that out to the minister to see what he is able to report on strengthening the links between those three cities.
I urge the minister to continue his activity and lobbying with regards to travel warnings in the region. There will be a win-win if we can get some mileage on that. As we know, tourism has dropped off in the backpacker market that once accessed Indonesia through Kupang from Darwin. Because those flight are not operating regularly, our tourism flow in that direction from the Northern Territory has reduced considerably. It now occurs from cities like Perth with the entre through Bali. We miss out on significant trade there.
I might add, for the interest of our close neighbour Kupang, they also have suffered immeasurably as a result of the dropping off of that flight link. Their domestic economy has suffered in extraordinary ways. If we believe we have suffered because of a loss of tourism here, spare a thought for our neighbour West Timor in, Nusa Tenggara, for their loss of tourism revenue. There would be a win-win there if we are able to clear that travel warning, which is a major hurdle. Going back, we would also be assisted if we could strengthen the tripartite agreement between Dili, Kupang and Darwin.
With those few comments, minister, I support the statement. I wish you and your department well in fulfilling the vision that lives strongly in many Territorians; that our real potential and building of trade lies to our near north.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I speak as a minister for Primary Industry, resources, and Mines and Energy since they all contribute significantly to our exports.
The Northern Territory is located strategically close to South East Asia. As a matter of fact, we are closer to Singapore and Jakarta than we are to Adelaide or Melbourne. Of course, our location is unique because it gives us the opportunity to access markets that provide goods and services to hundreds of millions of people, many more than the Australian economy.
In the last financial year, total exports from the Territory contributed more than $2.6bn to the Northern Territory economy despite a downturn in export of oil owing to the decline of production in the Laminaria oil fields. Clearly, trade is a key component of our economy and offers a unique opportunity for growth and expansion of our business and industry sectors. The completion of the railway and the East Arm Port development gives us a real opportunity to increase our efforts, to identify and penetrate new markets.
I would like to comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said. My departments of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy contribute a lot to our trade effort. However, the Office of Ethnic Affairs is one that can increase our chances for better relationships, better trade with our northern neighbours. That is because the Office of Ethnic Affairs has access to multicultural communities in the Northern Territory, and in particular, the communities that come from South East Asia. We have the opportunity and ability for better understanding of culture, better understanding of our neighbours in the north, better understanding of their traditions and, what is more important, direct access to people who speak the language, know the culture and have the connections.
One thing the Leader of the Opposition pointed out correctly is that trade is not the only thing we must have with our neighbours; it is cultural exchange and understanding between the Northern Territory and Indonesia or other countries to the north. Recently I visited Bali and was very surprised when many people asked where I was from. When I mentioned Darwin, they could not place it. They were really surprised to learn that we are only two hours flight to the south, we share a lot of the plants, the animals, and we are closer to Bali than any other Australian city. As a matter of fact, they were more familiar with Perth, Melbourne and Sydney than they were with Darwin.
The other thing that surprised me was the disappointment of the Balinese people and the with the travel warnings issued by the Australian government that resulted in a significant downturn of tourism in Bali. We were walking in Kuta, which is usually, I am told, is full of Australian and western tourists, and unfortunately, on the days we were there, you could count them on the fingers of one hand.
My Departments of Mines and Energy, and Primary Resources and Fisheries contribute significantly to the export effort of the Territory. We export animal, fruit and fish products; we export minerals and processed minerals from the Northern Territory. Let me highlight some of the products that contribute to our export effort. Live cattle trade contributed more than $160m last financial year. I am very pleased to say that despite a downturn of the number of live cattle exported from Darwin to Brunei and Indonesia, there was a significant increase of Northern Territory cattle exported to these two regions. In Brunei in 2002, there were 12 000 cattle exported from the Territory, while in 2003 there were 13 500. In Indonesia, there were 133 000 cattle exported from the Territory, while last year there were 145 000 cattle. I hope this year there will be more. Unfortunately, the continuous increase in the value of the dollar does not help the situation, but hopefully the improved economic conditions of Indonesia and other countries in South East Asia, together with the situation with Avian Flu and Mad Cow disease in America may help our exports in live cattle.
Live buffalo and camels provide opportunities for new markets. Recently, we saw a report in the NT News about the significant number of camels that can be exported from the Territory to South East Asia, the Middle East, even to America. Current live camel exports include 800 head for Egypt, the largest order ever, and 400 for Malaysia. A report was commissioned by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development and the Cattlemen’s Association for the creation, establishment or reopening of a multi-species abattoir in the Northern Territory. It indicated that there will be significant opportunities for exporting manufacturing meat, buffalo and camel, especially if the abattoir obtains a US licence, a European Community licence and a Halal licence.
There is significant demand for camel meat and products in the Middle East and other countries in the region because the local camels have been devastated by diseases, especially the camels that come from Africa. Markets in Saudi Arabia, the Middle East and Africa are looking for a new source of camels. It is important that we look at what we produce and the opportunities we have for value-added and export products, not only live cattle but processed manufactured meat and processed meat, and double our efforts to identify new markets and market our products better.
Our horticultural products are unique. We have vegetables, cut flowers, grapes, hydroponic products and some of our tropical fruits are in great demand in South East Asia and other countries. Seafood exports are increasing from the Northern Territory. There are exciting developments in the United States with farmed barramundi. As my colleague, the member for Wanguri, said:
- We are blessed with relatively small quantities of unique, high quality foods that they are often subject to seasonal
influence on availability. To assist producers find a niche export market for the Territory, my department has
established a Northern Territory Food Group.
We are trying to find markets, to target our products for people who have high disposable income and want to find something but they cannot find it regularly available in supermarkets, but you can find it at special times through the year in small quantities, something more exotic from somewhere else.
Territory foods like barramundi or some of the tropical fruits give us this advantage because no one else can copy these foods. No one else can produce the same kind of foods anywhere else in the world. We are trying to identify the right business development partners in the United States and we were very fortunate when an expatriate food trader and professional marketer, Mr David Doepel in America, used America’s Taste Down Under contest that was held in February 2003 in Miami, Florida as a promotional vehicle to market some of the products from the Northern Territory, especially farmed barramundi.
As the member for Wanguri mentioned, during the 15 months since its conception to the Taste Down Under cook-off finals, sales for farmed Territory barramundi went from zero to approximately $1.2m. This includes fish from the Territory’s Humpty Doo and Marine Harvest barramundi farms. For the contest period, sales of Northern Territory barramundi experienced a sustained 25% increase in United States markets. At the same time, upmarket restaurants in America have told our representatives that banana prawns from the Territory are in great demand because they are clean, tasty, world class and they are replacing other imported products in the United States.
In addition to that, the Johnson and Wales culinary university in Miami and Charles Darwin University are exploring ways to share staff and establish a student exchange program as a result of Taste Down Under events. The Northern Territory Chefs Association has identified an opportunity for staff and students from Johnson and Wales University to come to the Territory to undertake a working holiday during the Territory’s peak period, which coincides with the Unites States summer break period. This will be extremely opportunistic as it is estimated unfilled demand will exist this year for at least 40 additional chefs in the Top End during the Dry Season. The contest created specific awareness in the USA, which is one of our key target markets.
It is funny that a product like barramundi and some of our tropical fruits would put Darwin and the Top End on the map in the United States because when you mention Australia, what the Americans think - and not only the Americans, but the British and Germans - they think of Sydney or, in a worse case scenario, Melbourne, but they never think of places outside Sydney and Melbourne, places like Alice Springs or Darwin. We have to increase our efforts to promote our products.
Recently, I was visited by the Ambassador of Kuwait in Australia. He has never been to Darwin. He is the first Ambassador ever to Australia. He was very surprised to learn that we have a date farm in Alice Springs. When I explained how it was developed and why it was developed there, he was very interested. He promised that next time he comes to the Northern Territory, he will visit the Alice Springs region to see the dates because he himself, before he became an Ambassador, was a grower of dates and he has a large property in Kuwait where he grows grapes.
My parents visited the Territory years ago and one thing that impressed them was the quality and availability of meat products. They were not very impressed with the fruit and vegetables at the time, but things have significantly improved, with grapes at Ti Tree, hydroponic production in Alice Springs, and efforts to establish market gardens in places like Ali Curung and Katherine.
The mineral sector makes an enormous contribution to the trade of the Territory. We have Alcan exporting alumina; McArthur River Mining exporting zinc; manganese from Groote Eylandt, and now, with the revival of mining in Tennant Creek, export to London from Giants Reef Mine and the Warrego plant of gold in large quantities. As a matter of fact, my department will soon issue exploration licence number 700 since the government came to power, which is a significant indication of our support of the mining industry, how we believe that mining will contribute to the continued growth and development of the Territory and, of course, to bring foreign currency into Australia and the Territory.
I will be working very closely with these sectors. I have already spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association, the Horticulture Association and the mining sector. I have indicated that I am very keen to undertake trips to Asia in order to promote our products. I am planning a trip to Singapore to attend a food fair in order to promote the Territory and its products. I am informed that the mango winery from Palmerston will be represented at the food fair, promoting some of the wine that he produces from locally grown mangoes. I also intend to visit the Philippines because it is an emerging market for our cattle export, and despite the fact that cattle prices are quite high now, approximately two kilos on the hoof, and the increasing value of the Australian dollar, there are still significant opportunities in the Philippines and Indonesia for our products.
One thing I also wish to promote is the railway. In the 10 days I was in Bali, I bought the Jakarta Post nearly every day, there was not one item about the arrival of the train in Darwin. The only news was on the ABC Asia Pacific program, but there was nothing in the newspaper. Obviously, we have to go out and promote the railway and our port if we are going to develop the port as a transport hub for exports and imports in the Territory. It will be an export hub since a lot of people down south identify the value of the train. There are increasing calls now for Sydney Harbour to close to commercial traffic and for the Navy to be removed completely. Recently, in a conference for the Year of the Built Environment, there were calls even for container ships to be relocated out of Sydney Harbour, imposing a kind of curfew similar to the one at Sydney Airport. It is a unique opportunity for us to grasp this opportunity and promote Darwin as a port that is very close to Asia, serviced by road and railway, and promote the opportunities of Darwin Harbour.
In the next 12 months, as I said, I will be working very closely with all these sectors and travelling with my colleagues, the member for Wanguri and the Chief Minister, in various countries in South East Asia in order to identify new markets. I will be travelling with the representatives of the sectors, the Cattlemen’s Association, people involved in agriculture, horticulture and in the mines sector.
A significant contribution is made by our community, as I said before. We have to utilise our multicultural community. They have the skills, they speak the language, they have the contacts and they know, of course, the habits and customs of these countries. We have a significant Filipino population in Darwin. They have worked closely with the government before. They help during the Arafura Games and even helped established a Filipino Expo in their hall at Marrara. We should also be able to use the Indonesian community that works very closely with the Indonesian Consulate. From our Chinese community, a lot of people regularly visit China, Hong Kong or Taiwan, and we should be able to build on those relationships, their knowledge of the customs and the language in order to promote the Territory.
Recently, we had the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, I have not seen the full text yet because it has not been released. It is going to be released on 23 February. At first sight, I do not think that we are going to see many benefits for the Territory. In beef, the tariff will be removed, but in 18 years time. Maybe we will see some improvement in the export of fish and some of the horticultural and tropical fruit products. However, until we see the full text of the trade agreement we cannot really know what the benefits, if any, will be for the Territory.
However, it is important that we increase our trade with our northern neighbours. It is important we actively visit our neighbours and try to identify new markets and new opportunities for Territorians because there will be continuous pressure by industry for government to assist in developing new markets and to assist the sectors; mining, primary resources, fisheries, fruit, and horticulture. After all, we can all work together to benefit the Territory.
I was very pleased to hear the support by the Leader of the Opposition for the statement by my colleague, the member for Wanguri. Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and commend it to the House.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and many of the things he said. It is, indeed, a pleasure to see that, at long last, this Minister for Asian Relations and Trade has a plan to promote the Northern Territory to our nearest neighbours, to see that he has, at long last, taken this job seriously and embarked on a concerted program to ensure that the benefits and capacity that the Northern Territory has to offer our northern neighbours will be put on display, as he has not done previously. I wish he had produced this plan two and a half years ago. Had that happened, many of the problems that this government faces about use of Darwin port would have been obviated.
I listened carefully to what the minister proposes to do. In particular, I was interested in how he was going to introduce Northern Territory businesses to potential buyers north of us. The minister needs to understand in dealing or doing business with Asia, they do business with people they know. They do business with people with whom they have a relationship. They do not do business purely on a western contract. That is not the way people in Asia, in particular, do business. They want to know you; to see who you are and work out whether they can trust you or not before they go into business with you. The fact that this minister has a plan to go out there and do that is very encouraging.
The minister needs to know his government does not really and truly do business. His purpose is to open doors for businesses in the Northern Territory to go through and for them to engage with other businesses so that there is a business to business relationship. That is the role of this minister. I am glad to see that after two and a half years, he has learned that he has to do that.
I was interested in the minister’s comments about BIMP-EAGA, something the former CLP government had been pushing for a long time. We were invited to be a part of BIMP-EAGA as an observer many years ago by no less that President Ramos himself. There was a time when, with President Ramos’ patronage, the Northern Territory was given the lead to represent Australia in an observer status at BIMP-EAGA conferences, taking part in the debate and providing opportunities for Australian companies to link through the Northern Territory into BIMP-EAGA. Unfortunately, one President Ramos lost his presidency, the drive for BIMP-EAGA was not as strong and involvement by the Northern Territory was not as strong as it had been.
People like Senator Gareth Evans, then the federal Minister for Foreign Affairs in the days when Labor was in government, was very encouraging of the Northern Territory’s involvement with BIMP-EAGA. He gave his approval for his Department of Foreign Affairs to assist the Territory wherever possible in order to be involved in BIMP-EAGA. The government’s promise that it will be involved with BIMP-EAGA again is good and I look forward to a useful dialogue between the Northern Territory and BIMP-EAGA nations to ensure more positive outcomes from the relationship.
The minister spoke about the AustralAsia Trade Route. You have heard me speak on this many a time. I still believe that this government has been particularly slow in responding to the building of the railway. Had they commenced marketing of the Darwin port and the railway line from when they first won government, we would gnashing our teeth, worrying about when and how long it is going to take for us to achieve our desire to have at least 50 000 containers passing through the Darwin port. I said yesterday in another debate that it would be good for the government to start talking to Perkins and try to entice them to come in and be part of the port activity. That would help enhance the activity and the number of containers passing through the port. Anyway, it is in the minister’s hands and if he is going to sit on them, there is nothing much more we can do about that.
As regards the minister’s comments about CeBIT in Hanover and Sydney, yes, that is fine. I accept that his department might have had something to do with it, but had it not been for the former Minister for Communications and his personal and particular interest in these matters, I don’t think anything like this would have happened. I am informed that the member for Stuart has a particularly strong personal interest in these matters and, through his personal interest, it went further than it otherwise would have. I hope this minister will follow in his footsteps to ensure that we continue to promote our ICT industry that is now starting to blossom.
It is ironic, though, that the current Minister for Communications was so insecure that he had to take his colleague to Singapore to be shown around the place. That is a wonder; you have two ministers going across to do one minister’s job. If the minister could not do the job, then he should not have been given the ministry. If he has the ministry, do the job. To take another one to hold his hand and lead him around Singapore – well! Let me assure him, and I hope he knows by now, that Singapore is a very safe country to visit and he would not have been lost.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Dr LIM: It is such a tragic - you know, you would cry if it was not so stupid.
With regards to the Darwin port, the improvement of facilities, the increase in shipping will always be of great interest to people across the nation. I was in Brisbane last week and a horticulturist came to speak to me about it and was very keen to use the port to send his produce overseas. I was keen to learn more from him and urged him to come to Darwin as soon as he can to inspect the facilities for himself and to make use of the port for exporting his goods rather than through his home port of Brisbane.
The minister was quick to criticise and to ridicule the number of MOUs that have been signed between the Northern Territory government, other governments and businesses. That is a reflection on the hard work that our public servants have done to engage those countries, to negotiate terms that form the basis of an MOU. They, the public servants, worked with all the dedication they had to ensure that the interests of the Northern Territory were looked after. The minister had nothing but ridicule for this hard that the public servants had done to bring us the MOUs. These MOUs are the first way to open doors that can then be strengthened by relationships developed by the minister himself to ensure that people then will look toward the Northern Territory for continued development.
I am glad to see that Merpati has resumed its flights. It helps those of us exiting from Darwin to get to places in South East Asia. At least it will be easier now than it was previously. There are not enough overseas flights connecting Darwin to countries north of us. It is a pity that Qantas will not increase its frequency of flights. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was one of the first people to fly Merpati when it resumed flights late last year.
The minister promised that he would now start to travel more. He talked about his two visits to Singapore and to Indonesia, he undertook to do more and promised to demonstrate how important his government regards travelling north. That is good. He is going to get up and say I was churlish in my congratulations about him. Well, churlish in the sense that it took him a long time to get to know what he was doing. Now, at least I see a plan that will help enhance what we have.
To prove to the minister that his last two and a half years have been particularly wasted in this portfolio, have a look at figures in the Territory Economic Review. In the page on Northern Territory state final demand and gross state product, under the state final demand, it shows that there was an annual percentage change in the negative of 36.9%. That is export of goods. For imports, it is -19.2%, so that is not good enough. When you go down to the comparative economic indicators, comparing the Northern Territory with every other state and territory in Australia - and these figures were published in January 2004 - again, the Northern Territory is -19.8%. If you look at the figures across the columns, we would have been one of the worst performing states or territories around.
If that is not indicative of how the minister has not performed, what else can you use? Had you performed from the very beginning when you became the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade two and a half years ago, we would not be faced with these dismal figures. It is important that the Northern Territory continues to engage with South East Asia. We did it for years under the CLP government, we worked very hard at it, and had you continued to do it, we would have a much better operating port, a much more viable railway line and freight service than exists now.
For the minister’s information, it was nearly nine years ago when all these issues about trading with South East Asia started to burgeon. It was predicted that by year 2012, eight of Australia’s top 12 export markets will be in East Asia. There are lots of opportunities, minister, and I urge you strongly to go for broke and try to win as much as you can from these countries. You can only do that by developing personal relationships with people over there. There is no other way to do it. The obvious benefit for us if that happens is that there will be more jobs in the Territory, both in the private and public sectors. By introducing our public servants to this international market, we will have our public service attuned to free market enterprise thinking and promote an ethos within the public service that will enhance our competitiveness with our neighbours in South East Asia.
When you start talking about trade with South Asia, remember, it is not all one way. What they want from you is not just what you have to sell, but what sort of intellectual exchange you can have with them, what intellectual transfer they might benefit from this relationship. It is important to understand that what they are looking for is expertise not available in their countries, they are looking for us to help them to develop and retain as many of those needed skills that we have. While we might be a small jurisdiction, we are within a first world country with first world technology and first world intellectual property. They need those sorts of facilities and services to enhance their own countries. When you develop a relationship with them, there is an expectation that there will be some sort of assistance provided for them to have that intellectual transfer, and for them to retain that intellectual capacity for their own country’s development. It is important to understand that Asian mentality, so very important. Without understanding that, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, your job will be poorly done.
Asians do not trade with people they do not know. It is important for you to be there frequently; travel as much as you possibly can. You will not be criticised by the opposition for travelling across to those countries to promote Northern Territory, to sell what we have. Indeed, we have a lot to offer those countries. Get there, do the best you can and we will praise you for it. We will not be talking about you going on junkets. I remember a time when the member for Stuart was sitting on this side of the House accusing ministers of the CLP government for having junkets and saying that they should be doing their research on the Internet. You cannot do that. You cannot develop a relationship with a person over the Internet; you have to be there face-to-face. I offer you this encouragement: go and do it. You will not be criticised by the opposition for doing it; you will only be criticised by the opposition if you do not do it.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I support the trade statement delivered by my colleague. One of the many natural advantages of the Territory economy lies in our proximity to the markets of Asia. Darwin, in particular, with its high-quality deep water port, has long been recognised as possessing natural advantages that will ensure it develops into a key trading centre linking Australian and Asian markets. This potential is now on the threshold of major advances with the completion of the Australasia Trade Route, the north-south rail link and the development of intermodal capacity at the Port of Darwin. These developments have long enjoyed bipartisan support in the Northern Territory. They have made up a significant proportion of the record capital works budgets over the last two years.
We live in historic times in regard to the development of the Port of Darwin. The port now boasts over 750 m of continuous berth space. The general purpose berthing is now 600 m long, and a dedicated bulk liquids berth of 154 m is under construction. Two hundred metres of the wharf provides priority access for container vessels adjacent to the rail port intermodal facility. The intermodal container facility now has the capacity to handle in excess of 250 000 containers per year. The facility also provides for rail sidings and mobile terminal operating equipment.
In 2002-03 total import and export tonnages through the Port of Darwin were approximately 1.060 million tonnes. Almost a 500 000 tonnes of this total was made up of imports of bulk petroleum products. The budget estimates for 2003-04 are for total imports and exports to grow by approximately 13% this year to reach slightly less than 1.2 million tonnes. In the current financial year, the anticipated tonnage of container trade through the Port of Darwin is approximately 115 000 tonnes. Over the next three years, the Port Corporation projects that the container trade through the port will grow to over 275 000 tonnes. That is solid growth of 140% over three years.
As outlined in the minister’s statement today, the government is putting in place a series of actions and assistance measures that will work towards the achievement of the Port Corporation’s container throughput projections. The completion of the rail link also provides the opportunity for development of mineral deposits along the transcontinental rail line. The movement of bulk minerals to port by rail has as significant positive effect on the economic viability of such proposals. The Darwin Port Corporation and FreightLink are working with resource developers to develop logistic solutions for the export through the port of the bulk mineral resources along the Central Australian corridor. I have been briefed on this very recently and it is a very exciting development.
A number of proposals are under active consideration at the moment. Potential tonnages from new mineral developments have not been included in the tonnage forecast for the Darwin port. Of course, the development of new mines has the potential to increase the tonnages throughput at the port by a very large quantity. A number of projects could commence in 2004-05 and potential tonnages could be as high as 750 000 tonnes per year. The Darwin Port Corporation is also working closely with FreightLink, importers, exporters and freight logistics companies to develop land bridge trades using the port as a gateway.
Madam Speaker, there has been some publicity over recent months over Swires Shipping Line having links between Darwin and Singapore. The government has encouraged that link and we are very excited about it; it opens up a lot of potential with a company like Swires coming into that route. Discussions are ongoing with regional shipping service operators and major main line shipping service operators like Maersk, ANL and APL about the possibility of establishing expanded shipping services through the Port of Darwin.
I was very pleased to meet with senior Australian executives of Maersk who were at the Global Connect freight conference here recently. They are very optimistic about the future of the port and links into Asia, particularly with Singapore and Malaysia.
The Darwin Port Corporation is engaging with regional ports in the BIMP-EAGA region and developing cooperative marketing and inter-regional trade promotion arrangements. The chief executive and marketing manager of the Port of Darwin will be visiting Brunei and Malaysian ports later this month to further promote the benefits of the AustralAsia Trade Route and shipping through the Port of Darwin.
The port is also establishing strategic regional alliances on issues related to port design, operations, engineering and technical services as well as developing cooperative arrangements on port management and human resource development.
The offshore oil and gas support industry is an integral part of the Port of Darwin’s business, and the Darwin Port Corporation is working to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure and operating environment are available in the port. The port is supporting the development of the Phillips LNG plant with significant levels of imported project cargo coming through for construction of the plant.
At a recent briefing with the CEO of the port corporation, he said that they were starting to have a little bit of a space problem because all this freight is coming through for the LNG development here, both onshore and off shore. It is a welcome problem, but that is a problem they have. That freight into Darwin will increase. As well as the plant, the Darwin Port Corporation is working with companies to facilitate logistics for the onshore pipeline.
This is a significant infrastructure project with over 350 tonnes of pipe to be laid and some 600 000 tonnes of Armour rock to protect the pipeline to be laid by specialist pipe handling barges and vessels over the next eight months. The Darwin Port Corporation is providing increased port infrastructure to support the establishment of the new joint user fuel facility at East Arm. This development will also have flow on consequences in freeing up the current area of the tank farm in Stuart Park for future development. I was pleased, along with the Chief Minister, to go with the CEO of Vopak and make that announcement. Some of the negotiations have been tortured, particularly in the last six months. There was some doubt as to whether one of the fuel companies would come on board, but I comment all those public servants who worked very hard to ensure the Vopak proposal is a success. It has been around for a long while and this is something that we worked hard, along with our public servants, to ensure the success of this $50m proposal.
Vopak Terminals Australia has recently entered into contracts with the major fuel distributors to develop this $50m bulk liquid terminal in the East Arm area. Speaking with the CEO of Vopak, I saw some diagrams of what has happened elsewhere in the world. When Vopak opens up, they bring in the bulk handling of these liquids. Other industries spring up around them and they facilitate those industries, so it is a very import development. It has been supported by the government. I am advised that there has been $20m to facilitate the liquids handling infrastructure at the wharf and also $10m to construct a bulk liquids pipeline and related infrastructure. This has paid dividends in securing this major project. Vopak terminals around the world are commonly located adjacent to rail and Vopak see this as a major advantage with a view to possible expansion into bulk liquids handling, additional to bulk petroleum. The bottom line with that is that we should not just see it in terms of petroleum; there are liquids as well. That could very well be a two-way street with the development of the LNG and ancillary industries.
The Port of Darwin continues to be Australia’s pre-eminent port for live cattle exports and continues to work with producers and exporters to retain its market share. Tonnages of livestock and fodder total approximately 120 000 tonnes per year through DPC infrastructure. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries outlined before that the live cattle trade into Asia is worth approximately $160m a year to the Territory pastoral industry. I believe that approximately 60% of those cattle exports go into Indonesia, and the majority, from my understanding, go to feed lots in southern Sumatra.
It was my privilege in December of last year to visit those facilities with the cattlemen and meet those involved in the live cattle trade on the Indonesian side of the equation. It was very interesting. I had a very good look at a feedlot there that is run by AustAsia, which of course is a company with Australian and Indonesian interests, and substantial interests just out of Katherine as well. This feedlot was in southern Sumatra near the city of Lampung. I was shown great hospitality there. I visited another feedlot in the Lampung area that is run by Consolidated Meat, and that is owned by Kerry Packer. There is an Australian operator there who is in partnership with them. I met with some of the people from the Indonesian government, such as the vets and the quarantine people who facilitate this trade.
Picking up on some of the points that were raised both by the member for Greatorex and the Opposition Leader about continually showing your face, being in a place and building up relationships, I was absolutely amazed to discover when I visited this place, which is the main destination of our live cattle industry, that I was the first – now, this is what I was told and I asked several times to confirm it - Northern Territory minister to visit that place in eight years or probably more. Eight years or more!
Here is a major export industry out of the Northern Territory into South East Asia and it belies the hypocrisy of the opposition when they say: ‘Your government is not doing enough into Asia, not building up relationships’. Eight years or more! I was very proud to be there and represent the Northern Territory government, see first-hand and meet those involved in that very important industry.
I met with the Minister for Primary Industries from Indonesia, and they see the live cattle trade as being a very important part of the relationship between Australia, Northern Territory, and Indonesia.
Indonesia took up a fair bit of the Opposition Leader’s time in his response. He seemed to be focusing on Kupang because that was a place that he most recently visited and, like many other Territorians, I have been to Kupang many times along with my family, it is a very interesting place, but there is more to Indonesia than Kupang. The Opposition should be paying a bit more attention to places like Lampung in southern Sumatra.
When I was in Jakarta, I met with the Indonesian fisheries minister, and I extended an invitation for him to come to the Territory. As a government, we have been trying to facilitate a conference on outstanding fisheries issues between the Northern Territory and Indonesia in relation to management issues because their fishery butts right up to ours, and issues such as marine debris, which has caused quite a lot of angst in Arnhem Land with fishing nets coming down and catching turtles and other sea creatures. I have heard recently that the Indonesian fisheries minister is coming to Darwin, so that, again, was a very important contact.
The Opposition Leader mentioned Merpati. I met with senior executives of Merpati when I was in Jakarta and I was led to understand from them that they are negotiating with Airnorth about a route from Darwin through Kupang to other places in Indonesia. That would be a very important partnership between a Territory company and Merpati. Those discussions are ongoing. As a government, of course, we will do all we can to facilitate that becoming a reality.
Returning to the live cattle for a minute, and it does relate to our trade generally, the high Aussie dollar is seen as a bit of an impediment to our trade, but they are issues that we can work through. It has affected our live cattle exports to some degree and could affect others. Unfortunately, that is something over which we, as government, do not have a lot of control, but it is a factor.
Returning to the main portion of my speech, it is significant to note, as the minister stated, that one in four jobs in the Territory are linked to trading goods and services, and I congratulate the minister for his work in developing the International Trade Strategy that he released in 2002. The International Trade Strategy sets out a series of goals and objectives. This government is driven by goals and objectives, each and every one of us, individually and as a team. We set ourselves goals and objectives and we strategise and work hard to achieve them on behalf of Territorians.
The practical solution of the strategy is overseen and monitored by an implementation group that includes representatives of industry associations and the export sector. This is another demonstration of our minister’s approach to consulting and involving industry groups in developing the Territory.
I congratulate the minister on his initiative in developing the Trade Support Scheme. This scheme was announced by the minister in this year’s budget. The scheme includes financial assistance for export marketing activities, trade advice and market research. As the minister said, more than 50 applications for assistance have been received to the end of last month, and 28 applicants have received financial assistance under the scheme to develop trade initiatives. So trade is an essential part of any economy.
I mentioned my trip to Indonesia. I was also in Singapore for some time, meeting with travel and trade representatives, and a whole range of people. There is a lot of interest in the Territory, the port and the rail link. People in Singapore are very keen to further build on relationships in that regard. I suppose some of them feel as though they are in a hostile region and they need to reach out to Australia, and there is a great deal of friendship there. We can build on that. As transport minister, over the next year or 18 months, I intend to travel in the region, as I have done in the past, and strategically build up those relationships and trade into the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, in short, I congratulate the minister and his department for the great work they are doing in developing Territory markets and their work in facilitating access for Territory companies to export markets.
My little anecdote about the live cattle trade and the lack of visitation that Sumatra has had over at least eight years illustrates the point that I know the minister has made on a number of occasions: yes, we are going to do things differently. We might not do things the same way as the CLP in engagement with Asia. There were some very positive things that the CLP did over many years. We will build on and recognise the importance of that, but what the Opposition has to realise is that we will do it differently. We have a different style – successful, I believe - that will lead to much success. I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud of the minister’s statement. We will build trade over the next year, particularly into the Asian region.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate, in most part in a very positive way. It goes to show that, as Territorians, we can get our heads around this issue in a positive way. I hope we can keep most of the politics out of it because, at the end of the day, we have to present a united front in Asia; commitment to the region is there for the long term. They are not interested in petty politics and point scoring. As my colleague, the member for Johnston just said, when we are in the region, we do compliment and talk about the long history that we have had in the region that was, in part, a result of earlier CLP governments push to the region. We are continuing that, but we are doing it differently. We are being very strategic about our approach. Towards the end of the previous government’s reign, it was really a bit scattergun, and that is not the approach that we are taking now.
Responding to speakers in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition started off talking about the cattle industry. That is the icon of Territory trade, particularly with Indonesia. When you take out those exports figures - minerals, oil, gas into the future, the next biggest commodity we trade is live animals, particularly cattle. If you take those out, there really is not a great deal of discrete industry substance, produce and service expertise we export. The cattle industry was a clear vision. It is certainly something we are working on as a government.
We can assist Territory business to export in two ways. We obviously work with individual companies on an enterprise basis, but that has limited returns given how difficult it is for individual companies to secure long-term contracts and relationships in the region. It does take many years and a lot of effort, research and commitment to the region to start building those relationships. Therefore, we have to work with individual enterprises but, more importantly – and it is a strategy we are developing - with industry sectors that are ready to export as a sector, as opposed to individual enterprises.
The cattlemen led the way. The next sector that is leading the way, which I am very excited about and for which my colleague, the member for Stuart, made initial inroads is the ICT sector. That industry in the Territory has come together and recognised that for their industry to grow, they have to export. They cannot keep cutting each others’ throats for diminishing government work; they have to export. To do that, they have come together as an industry cluster, forming alliances both internally and offshore, complementing each others’ capabilities, and really starting to making tentative, to start with, but significant plans for the future. I pay tribute to that industry tonight, and to the former Minister for Communications, the member for Stuart, who worked with the industry to establish the framework.
I acknowledge that there is a debate about the way we are doing it differently. It is a matter of what comes first: the chicken or the egg? In this case, it is relationships or trade. I make absolutely no apology as a minister in the Northern Territory government that our focus is in the best interest of the Territory economy. The first thing we have to do, given the size of the Northern Territory with a population based of 200 000 people as opposed to 500 million people within four hours flying time to our north, is to be very clear about what our trade objectives are. We have to understand what we have to sell, who in the region may want to buy that product, and become very focussed and strategic about where we are going to target.
Once we have understood what those trade objectives are, we then need to look at what relationships we need to build to open those opportunities for Territory business. That is our focus. I believe very strongly that the trade outcomes and objectives need to be identified in the first instance. We must have industry sectors working alongside us. It is absolutely pointless for minister to go jetting around in the region knocking on doors and finding that there is nobody who wants to enter into the room to pursue a deal. That is not the way that I intend to do business in the region. I believe that, on the whole, I have the Territory business community working along with the department to identify outcomes for Territory business. This is what this is all about. It is not about MOUs and photo opportunities and positive media for the minister; it is about genuine partnerships in the region that are going to lead to win-win outcomes for the Northern Territory, increased exports from Asia either to or through the Northern Territory and seeking investment from companies in our region in the Northern Territory economy partnering with Territory business. That is our focus and vision. I admit there is a debate out there about the chicken and the egg; trade versus relationships and engagement.
I do not share the Leader of the Opposition’s vision to re-establish a stand alone bureaucracy, the old Department of Asian and Relations and Trade. It had its point in time, but the structures are now in place across government, as a result of our Asian Relations and Asian Engagement Strategy, and agencies are working together in a coordinated way to engage with the region in a strategic way. I do not believe more public servants are in any way going to increase our trade performance. What will increase our trade performance is a very strategic and focussed effort by industry coming together collaboratively in partnerships and clusters, working with government. With all due respect to some great public servants who have done an enormous amount of work over the years, more public servants will not achieve the goal of greater trade.
The Opposition Leader talked a lot about West Timor and our relationship there. Quite honestly, that relationship stalled when the airline access stopped and it stalled with the Asian financial crisis in 1997. I am not sure which year the airline access to Darwin stopped, but it was not long after that. We then had the tragedy of the lead up to East Timorese Independence and very severe travel advisories issued by DFAT about West Timor and, more broadly, Indonesia. That is the only reason why some education initiatives and sporting links have stalled. Whilst those very explicit travel advisories are in place, it is not for this government to be ignoring those and promoting educational exchanges. We also have legal advice that this is something we should not be doing. Taken into the context of the climate that we are in at the moment, there is not a lack of will; it is the reality of the global climate and the Commonwealth’s position, particularly travel advisories.
I have written to Foreign Affairs Downer seeking an explanation as to why the strength of the travel warning on West Timor is still in place. He has not seen fit to answer that correspondence. I know from the East Timor point of view, they would like to see that relaxed.
I do not know why the member for Greatorex harped on about trade going backwards. The reason those figures are down $300m is because of the rapidly declining reserves in the Laminaria oil field. That is exactly why the overall GSP trade figures and exports have dropped from the Northern Territory and will increase commensurately, probably even greater, once the LNG exports to Japan take off. What is important, though, is to dig beneath those big, lumpy resource-based figures and look at the non-oil export figures for that financial year. They are up 15%. It is easy to play games with numbers, but the reality of our trade is that it is small when you take out the resource sector. Laminaria was the biggest oil producing field in Australia. It is in significant decline and that is the reason for the down turn in those figures.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the general support for the statement. I will perhaps leave the story about minister Palmer and the mangos incident in the Philippines when he virtually single-handedly collapsed the entire Australian cattle industry. That is a story for another day.
I thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for an update on what his department is doing and what he plans to do. It is a dynamic department that has been working for many years to improve relationships and, more importantly, improve economic outcomes in the region for countries that receive our live cattle in particular. I had the privilege of being the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for nearly a year and I know those people do a great job. I am sure they will continue and that the minister will put his shoulder to the wheel to assist them.
The member for Greatorex has a lot to contribute because of his obvious links to the region, but I wish he would not be so patronising. He does not need to tell me I need to understand things and how to do business in Asia. I am not pretending to be an expert; I have never been a businessman. I have never tried to export anything, but I have lived here long enough and worked with Asian people and, as Asian Relations and Trade Minister, I understand my role. Yes, my role is to open doors and to maintain those high-level government-to-government contacts and we are doing that.
We are focussing quite specifically on Singapore at the moment, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the previous government didn’t put some significant effort and focus into Singapore because in our region, it has been one of those tiger economies, a country with which we have established air links and have had for many years. It is a country with which we should be seeking investment and partnerships. A lot of work is going to go into partnering with Singapore and understanding the opportunities there, particularly now the Free Trade Agreement is in place, and a number of ministers will be pursuing opportunities in Singapore this year.
BIMP-EAGA is important. It did go cold after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, but the Philippines, again, is leading the way trying to get that forum up and running. We are engaged. In November, there was a ministerial forum in the southern Philippines. I could not attend because of Parliamentary sittings, but senior members of my department were invited to make a presentation to ministers from countries in the region about the railway. That presentation went down very well and, as a result, we had a significant attendance from the region at the Freight Connect conference in Darwin a couple of weeks ago. We are reciprocating by sending a delegation to a freight conference in the Philippines very soon.
The member for Greatorex was saying that we have done nothing until recently on promoting the railway and port. Either he does not listen to debate in the House, or he does not want to listen. I am not sure on how many occasions, but I have made presentations in the region about the railway, port and investment opportunities in the Northern Territory on numerous occasions in Jakarta, Singapore, Manila, Tokyo, Brunei and Kuala Lumpur. The Chief Minister has done the same in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Other ministers have done the same on visits in the region.
The difference now, and it a very stark and specific difference and was highlighted in Jakarta in January, is that at long last, we can now say that not only are the railway and port up and running, but here is the person to talk to about doing the business. He has the rates, he is the one who can sit down and talk turkey. Until that time, it was all about what is coming. People looked with interest, but there was no capacity to sign on the dotted line. FreightLink had not even been looking to enter into any contractual arrangements in the Asian region until John Parkes, the Trade Development Director, was employed in October or November last year. People wanted to see that the trade route up and running, proven reliability, firm quotes and until such time as the commercial operators could provide those, nobody was going to do any business. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the member for Greatorex does not understand that.
FreightLink is very pleased with the support that they have from the Northern Territory government in opening doors for them in the region. I believe we will very soon see some tangible outcomes from the recent visit by FreightLink to Brunei and Jakarta, with more to come.
I again acknowledge my colleague, the member for Stuart. It was his initiative, his department that worked with the ICT industry, which determined that it wanted to export and target Singapore. We were working with them, and he did a great job.
The member for Greatorex’s trite comments about the member for Stuart having to hold my hand on a trip to Singapore ill behove him. I can tell the member for Greatorex that his media release to that effect has gone to every ICT business in that industry cluster group, and they think it is an absolute joke. They are very pleased with the support that they have from the NT government for very good reason. The member for Greatorex talked about relationships. The previous minister opened those doors and established those relationships. It was very important at the most senior levels of some very significant companies in Singapore, and at ministerial level, that there was a handover. That is what occurred. It is a four hour trip to Singapore. There was nothing amazing in it.
I would remind the member for Greatorex of the number of times Daryl Manzie, the previous Asian Relations and Trade Minister and Shane Stone had joint visits to the region to show a united front and a government that is very serious about doing business. If the member for Greatorex talks to a few people in the ICT industry, he will see what a goose he has made of himself as a result of those comments.
My colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, has a new role, a different hat, but I know that he will be out there promoting the port. It is great to see that the port now has a marketing budget. Representatives will be in Brunei with me at the end of next week. We are off with 15 business people to Brunei to present at the Brunei International Trade Exhibition. Those links, port to port, are occurring in the region, supported by shipping companies in the Northern Territory and supported by FreightLink. It is good to see the Port Corporation in marketing mode.
All in all, we do have our shoulders to the wheel. We are engaged. We are doing it differently, and time will tell how that approach goes, but we have set targets, we have set objectives and the public sector is focussed. We are working in a spirit of cooperation with business and industry. Let us hope that the Australian dollar does not go through the 80 cents barrier, but we will achieve the targets that we have set and we will do that because of Territory business, not because of the Northern Territory government.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, since this is my first adjournment for the year, I hope all my colleagues in the House, all my constituents, friends and fellow workers had a great Christmas and a great holiday and that they are fully recharged. Certainly, I noticed that many of my colleagues came here fully recharged …
Mr Henderson: And fully charged.
Mr VATSKALIS: And fully charged. We have returned to the Chamber and students have returned to school, making a lot of parents happy. I do not how the teachers feel, but I believe they are also happy to be back at school.
I had the pleasure of attending a morning tea at Nakara Primary School last week where I enjoyed meeting new and old staff. I wished them a happy new school year. I intend to do the same next week at the Alawa Primary School. I will continue to support the primary and high schools in my electorate. I have always supported education and teachers, not only because my wife is a teacher, but because I hold the view that education is an extremely valuable tool for people to have a successful life.
I was also very pleased, on 26 January, to contribute to the success and the opening of the Leanyer Recreation Park. Many thanks go to Delia Lawrie, member for Karama, and Len Kiely, member for Sanderson, who worked for a long time to finalise a very successful recreation park in Leanyer. You only have to take a drive down there to see the number of children, especially on the weekend, enjoying the water park, with that fantastic bucket dumping 1000 litres of water every three minutes. The scream of the kids enjoying being dumped with water is incredible. Also at the Leanyer Recreation Park is the provision of parking facilities, change facilities, and I believe now the department is going to provide lockers as requested by the patrons of the park.
Recently, I was very happy to announce multicultural grants for the Territory’s ethnic community worth $120 000. I was very pleased to be able to help the Pakistani community with a grant of $9000 for them to teach Urdu language to their kids and the community. They already have a teacher and asked me if I could help them to find an educational facility. I was very pleased to speak to Mr Barry Griffin, the Principal of Nakara Primary School, and he was kind enough to provide a room at the school for the Pakistani community to access every Saturday to teach Urdu.
On Saturday 25 January, my electorate office received the traditional Chinese New Year blessing by the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Group. The day before, we were in Bali and I was very surprised to see the Chinese community in Bali celebrating the traditional Chinese New Year. From what I read in the local press, it was the first time that the Chinese community was allowed to celebrate Chinese New Year in Indonesia. We observed the Lion Dance in hotels in Bali, much to the surprise of some of our colleagues and friends who were not very fussed about it. When they asked how we knew about it, we explained we come from Darwin, one of the most multicultural cities in Australia, where the Chinese New Year celebration and blessing by the lions occurs every year, so it is nothing new to us and we are very familiar with it.
This is going to be a very busy year again. My electorate office, despite that it is only the beginning of the year, has been inundated with requests. We have had many visits from constituents. I extend thanks to my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland, who has been very busy while I was away and, of course, now that I am back. Being electorate officer to a minister is a very difficult job. It tends to be very isolated and, in reality, that person is the second member for the particular seat because she receives a lot of complaints. On many occasions, she does all the work and provides the member with a solution. It is great when you have an electorate officer who is so dedicated and works so well in the community.
I thank all those people who have visited my booth at Casuarina Square in the past few Saturdays that I have been there. It is great to be in the shopping centre, to have people come to speak to you. It does not matter if you come from your own electorate or from anywhere else. People have issues and problems and they would like to speak to somebody and I am quite happy to receive their complaints or concerns and direct them to my colleagues in order to resolve them. I have been pleased in the past to direct complaints to ministers and members who resolved them quickly.
In the last few weeks my wife, Margaret, and I had the pleasure of attending a number of ethnic celebrations: the Chinese New Year banquet hosted by the Chung Wah Society; a dinner hosted by the Sri Lanka-Australia Friendship Association in celebration of Sri Lanka National Day; and a dinner hosted by the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory in celebration of the Eid-Ul-Adha Festival. I would like to thank these organisations for their hospitality and congratulate them for maintaining their traditional social, cultural, and religious values and, in this way, adding to the cultural diversity of the Northern Territory.
On a very sad note, I pay tribute to a very popular constituent who passed away late last year, Mr Orazio Parisi of Nakara, at the grand old age of 81 years. Mr Parisi, who was of Italian descent, came to the Territory as a young migrant. He was married to a Greek lady and they lived in Nakara. I knew him, and his family, very well. I send my condolences to the Parisi family on the loss of their husband and father.
It is great to be back in parliament, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, with my colleagues. I am looking forward to the rest of the year.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the House of a very successful community event, which I hosted on 7 December 2003. It was my pleasure to host a community Christmas function, Christmas in Nightcliff, at the Nightcliff Aquatic Centre and I thank the Darwin City Council for making the venue available to the people of Nightcliff.
It was a wonderful family event with group performances from the Nightcliff School Band, and I congratulate the teacher of the students, Monika Lee, and all the members of the band. The Greek Orthodox School of the Northern Territory performed with both a senior and junior dance group. I thank the Greek community for their gracious support of this event and for their enthusiastic performance. I also thank the many teachers and parents who attended with the students.
One of the pleasures of being the member for Nightcliff is the multicultural nature of my electorate, and Greek people are especially represented in my electorate. It has been a real pleasure to meet and get to know so many Greek families and to be invited to celebrate with them the many special cyclical events in the Greek calendar.
I also thank the Ricardo Dance Studio, in particular Shauna Ricardo, for the spectacular modern dance performance. Similarly, I thank Joeline and the JAZ Dance School for their excellent presentation.
It was a pleasure that the Nightcliff Dolphins Swimming Club was there, sharing their Christmas function with the community and providing a sausage sizzle. It was great to have the Nightcliff Primary School provide a food stall for the event and my special thanks go to Acting Principal Brian Bennett and Senior Teacher, Marion Bryce.
No Christmas function would be complete without the arrival of Santa, and it was whispered to me that Len Shea of Nightcliff had for the second year stood in for Santa at this event. A special thanks to Len and the Evergreens for their participation.
This is the second year that I have hosted this event. In the first year, there were around 250 people and in 2003, there were around 500 people. I can only imagine how many people may come this year. I look forward to hosting this function again and in to the future.
There is a lot of work that goes into organising these events and I thank my Electorate Officer, Chris Draffin, and to members of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party for their hard work and assisting with organising this function.
On New Year’s Eve, it was my pleasure to be a participant and sponsor of the Nightcliff New Year’s Eve Party held in Nightcliff Mall. This was the first time that such an event had been held and it was a great success. The event was held where the Nightcliff Markets usually are and, despite the extremely wet conditions, Darwin families turned out in their droves to enjoy a fabulous family new year. I would especially like to congratulate Kim Pradier, the Coordinator of Nightcliff Markets, Paul Bayetto and Pauline Joy of The Groove at Nightcliff for their enthusiasm and hard work in establishing this great event. There were also performances by the Stocktons, Kiribati South Sea Island Dancers, Sunameke, JAZ Dance Studio, Midnight Oasis, who are belly dancers, and Jamela belly dancers.
There was great entertainment for the kids: the jumping castle, Bubbles the clown, face painting and a beaut kids train that looped the market area all night with excited kids on board. There were many market and craft stalls.
I opened my electorate office for the night, and offered an informal retreat area for young children and their parents with children’s videos showing through the night, thanks to our local Video 2000. It was a real pleasure sharing in this celebration with so many Nightcliff residents. The evening went from 6pm until 2am and more than 600 people attended. It was a great success and I look forward to it being repeated this year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the North Darwin Regional Business association to honourable members. In October 2003, I convened a meeting at the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall regarding small business in the Nightcliff, Rapid Creek, Millner and Coconut Grove areas. The meeting was attended by around 30 business people and the group was addressed by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, Paul Henderson, and two senior staff from the Department of Business Industry and Resource Development, Mr Doug Phillips and Mr Graeme Kevern.
The aim of the meeting was to ascertain whether there was an interest in local businesses establishing a local business association to focus on business in our local area. Business operators were interested in the development of the association and Mr Greg Sharam of Night and Day Auto Care was elected as interim chairperson. It was agreed that a newsletter, together with a business survey, would be distributed to the 290 businesses in the area and a further meeting would be held on 5 February at the Nightcliff Sports Club. Greg Sharam and I then worked on preparing and distributing a newsletter and survey and following up with many businesses regarding the association.
There was an excellent response to the survey and many queries from businesses about establishing an association and about specific issues they wanted addressed. The meeting went ahead on what was a very wet night, with 35 attendees and around 30 apologies. Attendees listened to guest speakers on business strategies and solutions, financial planning and television advertising. Issues raised by attendees related to matters such as GST, BAS, insurance, particularly public liability insurance, payroll tax, assistance for business, marketing and how businesses can better work together in the area.
An executive was elected from the floor of the meeting and consisted of Greg Sharam of Night and Day Auto Care, Kevin Thomas of Bob Jane T-Mart, Kath Ieraci of Rocktown Music, Alan Anderson of Unique Antiques and myself. An initial executive meeting has occurred and a further meeting of the association is being planned for March, with special guest speakers to be requested from DBIRD. In the meantime, the executive will pursue incorporation of the association.
Small business is a very special section of our community, and it is my real pleasure to work with these enthusiastic business operators. I look forward to reporting to the House further on this matter.
I congratulate the Nightcliff Evergreens, a group organised to provide community activities for seniors. The President is Mr Peter Mitchell, a very special person who dedicates his life to working for this community and who provides a special service to many seniors in the community by providing a free bus to transport people to and from many events. The Vice-President and Immediate Past President, Mrs Rhonda Blaser, is a very gracious lady who works hard for seniors and others in the community. As an aside, Rhonda is remembered very fondly as a preschool aide at the Nightcliff Preschool by many young and not-so-young people in the Nightcliff area, and I include my children in this group.
This pair is ably assisted by their Secretary, Mr Chris Draffin, the Treasurer Mrs Audrey Ellis, Social Secretary Pauline Plummer and committee members, Merv Brown, Betty Newton, Marilyn Glover, Norah Smiles and Muriel James. It is my pleasure to act as the Patron of this group, and it was an honour to join with the members with they visited Parliament House on 11 February.
I place on the record my admiration for this group. They are active, enthusiastic and provide a wide range for activities for seniors. They have already held some functions for the year and next week, they will be playing indoor bowls at the Nightcliff Sports Club for the No Bowl Trophy – I am not absolutely sure of how that works - against Palmerston. In March, they will be having a speaker at their meeting from Camp Quality and later in their month, they will have their heads down for a game of bingo. They also play carpet bowls every Monday, lawn bowls every Wednesday, and Canasta every Friday. It is a fantastic community group, and one with which it is my pleasure to be associated.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to finish my report, and I will be brief. I have a written report, which is available for those who are interested, and there are a couple of other matters upon which I was going to touch.
Last night, I reached the stage where I was talking about the Mexican portion, but I want to backtrack a tiny bit. Whilst I was in Florida, I took the opportunity to visit a place called the Technology Coast. That is from Fort Lauderdale up to Orlando and includes Cape Cod, which is of course, where NASA launched the space shuttle. I had an up-close- and-personal tour, courtesy of some representatives at NASA. I looked at enormous construction areas, the launch pads, and I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss the amount of money they spend and other possible launch sites, including talk of launching satellites from somewhere in Australia.
I said that I was from the Northern Territory and that part of my electorate contained an area once considered to be a potential site, that is near Gunn Point, and to my surprise, they actually knew about it. They knew about Gunn Point and they knew about Cape York. There are options which exist and that people are aware of in a country such as the United States. One day, it will probably be appropriate for a government, perhaps the Territory government, but probably more appropriately for a federal government, to really pursue these options, because the amount of money that is pumped into the area, the number of high tech jobs, the number of university graduates who secure well-paid, intellectual jobs flowing from the space industry was overwhelming and a credit to the system.
Getting back to the journey that I started in Europe, I went to the caves at Altamira in Spain. When you look at the evolution of human beings, we are all really natives of Kenya who walked up through the Middle East. There are some bones on the Iberian Peninsula that are about 90 000 years old. The caves at Altamira are between 16 000 and 20 000 years old, and they were the same sort of paintings you would see in France or in Arnhem Land. There were hands and animals, bison, of course, and over here we have barramundi. There was not an enormous difference between the type of art you could see in these places.
I followed the footsteps of how human beings spread around the world and continued that trek when I was in Mexico. I met with a number of native Mexicans of Mayan and Inca descent. I had a number of very interesting conversations. I have articles and other material that may be useful one day in solving some of the problems the Northern Territory will face in dealing with many similar issues.
As I said, the message that comes from them is land tenure. There has to be security of land tenure, you have to start treating people with dignity and respect and equality. You cannot have this system of reserves where people are lumped together. It might be romantic and sweet to have 50 or 100 people, but when it gets to 1000, 2000 or 10 000, the system simply does not work. You have to move with the times, you have to empower people, and you have to allow them to mortgage, sell, buy, and have freehold of their property.
From the Mayan perspective, you really have to take responsibility for yourself; you cannot look backwards. I gave them the scenario that many Australian governments have decided to say the symbolic ‘sorry’. The response from one young fellow was: ‘Sorry for what?’ It is a different generation and there are obviously some philosophical arguments there.
In any event, I have lots of material here. I do not want to consume numerous adjournment speeches …
Dr Burns: I want to get to the Calgary Stampede.
Mr MALEY: I did not go to the Calgary Stampede. I did not go there, I was in the south. I went to Florida and Mexico.
Overseas travel, indeed any travel, will always be viewed sceptically by the Territory taxpayer and, quite frankly, with a fair bit of justification. If you look at what the Labor Chief Minister did – two trips to the Greeks Islands in under three years – it is very difficult to justify that. However, that has occurred. I view it as a privilege. As a bloke who was born here and lived his entire life in the rural area, to travel to Europe for the first time really was a privilege and opened my eyes. I saw that the world is not just Humpty Doo and Howard Springs, though sometimes I wish it was. It was a great experience. I have already attended one of the rural schools and given them the Peter Maley summation of Europe and the Americas and told them of my travels.
Actually, there is one other thing that I remember. I left the Territory parliament, travelled around the joint and reached Mexico. Of course, as I left here, I think the last headline I read was the formation of the new Labor Party glostick – I am sorry: the gay and lesbian officers in the police force. I thought it was a bit of a turn up for the cards. I got to Mexico and they have also just formed a new department in their police force and they call it the Tourism Protection Group. There is a group of police officers dedicated to look after tourists. I left my home jurisdiction where we have the new gay and lesbian officers - this is the new Labor Party initiative. People are getting bashed in Mitchell Street, but do not worry about that - we are worried about being politically trendy and all that kind of thing. Then you go to Mexico and they are dealing with the real issues: tourism, protecting all people. It was an interesting parallel that was fairly obvious. They are dealing with some of the real issues which affect people and not just window dressing, it seems.
As I have said, I have a written report here for those who are interested. All honourable members are welcome to sit down and …
Dr Burns: Are you going to table it?
Mr MALEY: It is hand written, but I can probably type it and table it, but I have ...
Dr Burns: That would be fantastic.
Mr MALEY: Yes. I am happy to sit down with the member for Johnston any time and go through my little album and all the newspaper clippings. Any time that it suits you, it would be a pleasure.
Dr Burns: Fantastic.
Mr MALEY: It would be a pleasure.
The other matter I want to touch upon with only a few minutes to go in my adjournment is the arrival of the first train in Darwin. It was a momentous occasion and, in my electorate, unfortunately, there were a number of people who worked on the old train between Darwin and Larrimah and a number of drivers who still reside at Berry Springs. The one who has certainly done the most work in putting together a very impressive photo album is a fellow called Robin Jessup. Robin and Jackie Jessup live at Berry Springs; they are good rural people. He was a driver on one of the locomotives between 1968-69 and I believe he did some work in 1970-71. What he has done off his own bat at his own cost is that he had a number of slides from the old railways and he has put them onto a computer and printed them out on photographic paper. They are absolutely amazing. There are pictures of Robin Jessup back in December 1968 before I was born standing next to these large Commonwealth railways locomotives.
You would be mistaken in believing there were lots and lots of train crashes it seemed, because his photo album is full of these really graphic pictures of pretty serious looking train crashes that occurred back in those days. I can hold it up for all honourable members, the Chamber is full. He has been kind enough to give me a copy and he said: ‘Here is a spare copy. This can go to the NT Library’. So I can state on the record that this is a project someone has done off their own bat for the benefit of future generations. There are some wonderful rare pictures and I am not sure whether I table or just put on the record that this is something that might give to the Northern Territory Library to be looked after into the future.
This particular man, Robin Jessop, and his family and the group of people with whom he regularly maintains contact deserve a lot more credit than they received. They should have been treated like VIPs when the first train arrived. They said they got a couple of tickets, but they could not get the interest going despite the fact that they apparently contacted some members of the Martin Labor government or minders and the like. They were disappointed on the day regarding the access they were given and the respect that should have been given and clearly was not.
In any event, these are good rural people. They are not going to hold grudges. He has done his work. He is donating this to all Territorians, and I said it would be a privilege and honour to present it to parliament.
Another thing I want to touch upon in relation to the railway, and I flag it now, although it is not something that is worth a question in Question Time, but it might be. There is going to be a very serious weed problem. There are weeds growing on this railway corridor. At Duncan McKenzies’ place, Santavan Station just the other side of Noonamah, it is going to be a problem. There are going to be fires and no one is dealing with the weeds. There is no contractor; no one is spraying them. We all know what happens with a hot fire: it damages the steel, it changes the temper of the wire and it will potentially be dangerous to the train.
Duncan McKenzie is a concerned Territorian. There are a number of other people who have been flagging this issue. I am flagging it on public record. I am asking the Martin Labor government to look at it. Perhaps they can put pressure on the powers that be regarding who is responsible for maintaining the corridor. Is it ADrail, is it contractors, is it something that falls within the scope of the Weeds Act? Ultimately, it is a problem. It is something the government has overlooked and it needs to be addressed.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my privilege to rise tonight to speak on a number of electorate issues.
Towards the end of last year I attended the Brolga Awards ceremony at Jabiru. I know the member for Sanderson was there along with others and that was a great night for the tourism industry. Although I am no longer tourism minister, I really value the friendships and contacts that I made during that time. I will continue to be a very strong advocate for the tourism industry and its very important place in the Northern Territory. I know that that portfolio is in very good hands with the Chief Minister taking it on. It just shows the importance that this government puts on tourism as an industry and its contribution to the economic and social fabric of the Northern Territory. I congratulate all winners of Brolga Awards.
On 5 December 2003, it was my privilege to attend the Jingili Preschool end of year concert. It was great to see all the little kids. They were dressed up in many different uniforms, everything from Spiderman to traditional German dress. It was great. Mim Regan has been in charge for many years. The school has a very long waiting list because of the work she does and her popularity. She has the confidence of parents right across Darwin; they all take their children there. Every function she does stands out as creative, the kids are really happy and you can see them developing and growing almost before your eyes.
Our very own Helen Allmich was on piano. She did a fantastic job belting out the songs. The kids really got into the spirit of it. I was not aware that Helen was a pianist par excellence, but she is and she did a great job that night. Apparently she is asked to return every year because she does a fantastic job.
There were many functions over the Christmas period. On 9 December, it was my privilege to attend the Jingili Primary School concert and awards ceremony. It is a very special time because Year 7 graduates are on the step between primary and high school, and it is a ceremonial departure from the school that has an element of sadness, but also an element of expectation and joy as these young people move to the next stage of their lives at high school. The Jingili Year 7 graduates are a great group: Melanie Goodall, Emily Hawe, Tahnee Hunt-Lew Fatt, Nicollette Inkley, Rebecca Minniecon, Emma Sampson, Jessica Shalders, Jessica Wivell, Siwi Boonmanee, Tarrant Haami-Jones, David Paull, John Pfeiler, Jesse Pugh, Atthaphol Rotjarung, Jack Simpson, Allan Sommerville, Cameron Voysey and Shannon Woodford.
I was honoured to present Student Representative Council awards to Tre Conlan, Sara Mikic, Max Kenna, Kiriana Pugh, Josie Trayte, Jack Anstey, Delkeisha Washington, Sam Sommerville, Sharlie Steele and Allan Sommerville. I wish all the Year 7 graduates from Jingili Primary School all the best with their high school studies. I know they will have very fond memories of Jingili Primary School.
Towards the end of last year, I was honoured to attend the Wagaman Primary School presentation assembly, and presented class awards and see Year 7 certificates presented to Christopher Anderson, Justin Ashley, Michelle Ashley, Steven Bell, Haymie Camposo, Tyson Cigobia, Peter Cox, James Deveraux, Tahl Gill, William Godfrey, Ashlee Goodwin, Kirsten Heslop, Sienna Jensen, Sam Lee, Stevie Mcdonald, Tina Merritt, Jared Nebro, James Neilson, Taise Ottley, McQuinnie Rosenberg, Jude Santa Maria, Jose Tagaro, Ella Thomson, Gemma Truscott and Susan Wauchope. I wish all those Year 7 graduates from Wagaman Primary School the best with their high school careers. Wagaman is a great school and turns out great students. High school is a big step, but I am sure they are all going to handle it very well.
During the Wagaman assembly, I heard the great story behind the naming of the replacement school bus. Instead of having the school logo and a name emblazoned on the bus, it was decided to go for more discreet signage on the doors to show who they are and where are from, for both aesthetic and economic reasons. The bus has been named Miss Melinda as the community’s way of saying that they value and acknowledge the worth and effort that Melinda Herridge demonstrates in her role of Receptionist and Administrative Officer at the school. That is why Wagaman Primary School runs like a top, because of the great work that Melinda does. She knows everyone, all the staff. She makes the place work. She has a great sense of fun with parents and students alike, and the school knew that she would not be offended to have the school vehicle named after her. The kids think it is great, and they cheered loudly when the bus pulled up with its new signage.
Another great from school was the production, under the guidance of James Mangohig, of the Wagaman People CD. James was an artist in residence at the Wagaman School. It is a fantastic CD with tracks from Year 6-7 Patterson, who lead with the title song Wagaman People; Years 5 and 6 Jefferson; J26 Band with experience; The Skateboard Song; Years 2 to 3 anti-smoking jingle, that was a great one, and I know a lot of the parents, including Di Rayson really liked that anti-smoking jingle because it is an issue that is close to our hearts to try and see that fewer and fewer young people take up tobacco. However, one of the most impressive tracks on the CD was Joe Smith, otherwise known as NT JoJo, with his environmental rap song, which I really liked. The CD now forms an integral part of life at the school, being played over the intercom. The kids really love it and a lot of families have bought copies of the CD to play in the car and at home. It is a great CD.
On 11 December 2003, unfortunately, I was unable to attended the Moil Primary School Assembly as I was overseas, however it was great to hear that the following students received their Year 7 Certificates: Magenta Bennett-Kellam; Kirsty Bird; Michael Cavanagh; Zarra Chapman; Maria Ciarla; David Creeper; Bryony Crowe; Adriana Da Silva; Pritika Desai; Tiana Dippel; Ellen Downes; Hamish Fejo; Ryan Fejo, Xanthe Fowler; George Hatzimihalis, Jordan Jones; Puanna Kapi - who also gave a fantastic Valedictory address, which I have read; Marissa Kyle; Carly Lehmann; Andrew Lewis; Josh Lindsay; Breeana Lock; George Mamousellos; Stacey McKenzie; Justin Merrett; Joshua Mitchell; Arron Murray; Matthew Nelson; Katina Papazoglou; John Parker; Nikki Patsalou; Todd Ratajec; Dean Reynolds; Nicole Roots; Rekisha Russell; Belinda Savage; George Smalios; Zacharlija Standish; Calvin Steele; Sarah Toy-Harmsen; Vasilis Tsoukalis, Sean Turnball; Cameron Virgo and Aiden Zyka.
I wish each and everyone of those Year 7 students all the best as they under go the transition to high school. I wish them and their families all the best. I know that Moil Primary School does a great job and turns out great students, and they can be very proud. I am sure all those students are going to go very well in high school and in their life beyond high school. I certainly wish them the best.
I was away for some time overseas between 10 and 19 December. I attended a number of functions on New Year’s Eve, 31 December, the first being at the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia. That was held at the Greek School in Nightcliff. I really want to thank Mr John Nicolakis for his friendliness and warmth and the way he afforded us a lot of hospitality. My thanks to John and his wife, Nicki. There were 100 to 150 people there, family groups, all having a fantastic time and it was great to join in those special celebrations.
As you know, many groups have functions on New Year’s Eve. My wife and I then went to the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club, and there, once again, we were shown great hospitality by the President, Mr Joao Silva, and the representatives of the Portuguese Consulate in the Northern Territory, Mr and Mrs Castro, who live in Wagaman. They are great people and I always enjoy their company and their conversation. Working hard behind the bar at the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club was Ms Ana Bentes, who runs the Darwin Gourmet Deli, makes great sandwiches and a great breakfast. She is a very hard working young woman and a stalwart of the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club. There was a very good crowd there, with dancing and everyone just getting into the spirit. It, too, was a great night.
I was privileged to go to the Cyprus Community Hall and celebrate New Year’s Eve with them. I really want to thank Kerry Kyriacou and her family for showing hospitality, great food and great atmosphere. I got to know the people in the Cypriot community in Darwin a lot better. They are very hard-working people, but when they party, they really like to enjoy themselves. I had a great time there.
Also on New Year’s Eve, I was privileged to go to the Kalymnian Brotherhood Club, and there was a fantastic crowd there. There must have been 1500 people there, with great Bouzouki players who had come up from Sydney. They really know how to party. I want to thank Leo Athanasiou for the hospitality he afforded myself and my wife and, of course, Con Hnaris and his family, who live in my electorate. They were very hospitable. I moved around that evening and talked to a whole lot of people in the Kalymnian Brotherhood. It was packed out, it was a great night, and everyone just partied on.
In my electorate, I am very proud to have a number of young sportsmen and sportswomen who are developing, and I am proud to support them. Sarrita King of Moil has recently accepted a scholarship with the Northern Territory Institute of Sport. Sarrita also won a national ASIS state achiever award, late last year for her fantastic efforts in netball and basketball at school, club and national level. She was part of the victorious Under-17 side that competed in the Territory Netball Championships, and also as a league basketball player with the Eagles in the Darwin Basketball Association.
Tim Garner and Callan Richardson, also of Moil, are great sportsmen. Tim recently won Player of the Carnival when he competed in the Queensland Under-15 Cricket carnival. I was pleased to support him in that, along with many other people. The Territory team, superbly coached by Callan’s dad Peter Richardson, claimed competition honours finishing ahead of last year’s champions, the Sunshine Coast. Tim impressed with an individual performance of 56 runs and 4/11 in the first match of the competition, while Callan took 3/19 and hit 43 runs on the last day.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, they are some of the goings-on in the Johnston electorate. I am very proud to represent and live in the electorate. I will never cease to be proud of it.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also live in my electorate and I am very proud of it, member for Johnston.
Tonight I want to talk about tourism and some of the recent activities within the industry. On Friday 13, which was a lucky day, I attended the National Cultural Tourism Conference held at the Birdswood Convention Centre in Perth. The conference was themed Journey Further with additional descriptive text that said:
- Take lashings of natural beauty, add a dash of arts and a dollop of culture, and you have the recipe for
cultural tourism …
all of which we have in abundance in the Territory. There were over 270 delegates from all over Australia and New Zealand with distinguished guest speakers including Michael Lynch AM, the Chief Executive of Southbank Centre London; Jonathon Tourtellot, who coined the term and concept ‘geo-tourism’, which is defined as:
- Tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of a place, its environment, its culture,
aesthetics, heritage, and the wellbeing of its residents.
Other speakers were Kathy Lette, who has worked as a newspaper journalist and television sitcom writer for Columbia Pictures in Los Angeles; the Honourable Jeff Kennett, former Premier of Victoria; Peter De Jong, the CEO of Pacific Asia Travel Association; Lindy Hume, Artistic Director of the Perth International Arts Festival; Larry Helber, a professional planner who has concentrated on tourism master planning; Major General Steve Gower AO, Director of the Australia War Memorial; Meryl Jupp, a policy advisor for the Ministry of Tourism, New Zealand; John Morse, Chairman of Tourism Victoria; Dr Richard Walley, OAM, Chairman of the Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board. There were other notable speakers, the calibre of whom I am sure you would agree, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, is excellent.
Of the 270-plus attendees at this conference, the Northern Territory was represented by two delegates: one from the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and me. I attended because I know the importance of networking in tourism, of keeping abreast of the industry and trends. This is all the more important because tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, with research indicating that by 2010, tourism is expected to run a close second to agriculture globally. In conjunction with the cultural tourism conference, the federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, held a meeting for all state and territory tourism ministers to discuss the additional boost of $600m plus to tourism in Australia.
Unfortunately, the Chief Minister, who is also the fourth Labor Minister for Tourism in this term of government, was not present at the meeting. The absence of the Minister for Tourism highlighted that this Labor government still does not really understand tourism. It is an insult to the Northern Territory tourism industry that the Chief Minister made the comment that she didn’t need to go to this meeting because she had seen minister Joe Hockey in Darwin recently and she had discussed all she needed to with him then. I need to remind the Chief Minister, who is also the Minister for Tourism, that she definitely needed to be there; she needed to be flying the flag for the Northern Territory.
Following the tourism ministers’ conference and cultural tourism conference, the annual Australian Tourism Awards were conducted at the Burswood International Resort Casino, with over 700 tourism representatives from every state and territory attending the prestigious black tie event. Of the 28 categories of finalists who were competing for national recognition, for the first time, the Northern Territory was not successful in any category. Western Australia had eight winners; Queensland, seven; South Australia, five; Victoria, four; ACT, two; New South Wales, one; and Tasmania, one.
This reinforces just how far the Northern Territory has slipped behind and how much work is needed to regain the high standards and the respect in which we have been held in the past. The one highlight of the evening for the Northern Territory was the induction into the Hall of Fame of Anangu Tours, which is based at Yulara. To be inducted into the Tourism Hall of Fame, your tourism operation has to have won three awards in different years in the Northern Territory Tourism Brolga Awards followed by winning the national award three times, a great acknowledgement for consistency in standards of excellence. I congratulate Anangu Tours for their continued commitment to the highest standards in their tourist operation; their induction into the Hall of Fame is well deserved.
I was pleased to hear the Chief Minister say yesterday that she would be travelling to China and Singapore later this year to promote the Territory. China is the fastest growing inbound tourism market to Australia with around 200 000 visitors expected by the end of this year. The federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, is targeting the Chinese market to have one million Chinese visitors to Australia by the end of the next 10 years. According to one local operator to whom I spoke two weeks ago, his business has had three groups of Chinese tourists, with an average of 20 in each group, visit in the last six months. These are the first Chinese groups he has ever hosted. That indicates we are poised for a great influx from China, and I look forward to the positive outcomes from the Chief Minister’s visit to that country.
I would also just like to mention The Ghan. I cannot possibly talk about tourism without mentioning The Ghan. My first association with The Ghan was about 15 years ago when my husband and I boarded it in Port Pirie, in South Australia, to visit Alice Springs. The Ghan had just been refurbished at that time so it was pretty plush. We thought we were pretty cool travelling up the middle of Australia. It was a fabulous trip; we thoroughly enjoyed it. As it turns out, I have lived next to the railway line and watched The Ghan go past for probably 20 years. I used to measure the length of it in my kitchen window. I was a kilometre across the paddock and I could never quite get it right into my kitchen window, it was so long.
It was a great excitement to see The Ghan arrive Katherine. We were far more fortunate than people in Darwin because it arrived on time, we were able to get up close and personal, and I would suggest that probably half of Katherine was there to meet The Ghan. We are very happy to have it in Katherine. It has opened a window of opportunity for a different tourism market to the Territory, and it is something that we all have to learn to cater for just a little better. That is the leisure market. We have not had the leisure market in the past; normally, we have the fly-drive, who are in a hurry, or we have the grey nomads who are travelling on the road in their caravan or their camper, but this is a different market and we have to learn to cater for it a little better. I welcome The Ghan. The people of Katherine are embracing it.
I will conclude by saying that when I took a walk through the mall today at lunchtime, it was the busiest I have seen it for a very long time. It was full of tourists. I took the opportunity as I was walking along to look in each shop, and I was very pleasantly surprised to see customers in there and of those who emerged from shops, most had shopping bags. I look forward to seeing the continuation of these visitors to the Top End. It is a good sign for Darwin and it is a good sign for the Territory, especially in February, which is consider a low time in the tourism industry.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was expecting somebody else to jump, but I will take this opportunity. I wish to discuss an issue that has been raised with me, and I touched on it during earlier debate today on local government issues.
During the debate, I mentioned that I twice had cause to travel to Willowra in recent times because residents invited me to have a good look around. What I saw was hardly edifying. Willowra is a community that made some unfortunate decisions in the not so distant past in relation to how they spent local government money, and consequently lost their local government council. The community has suffered for it.
I am fully aware of the policy of this government and the former government to encourage amalgamation in areas and that is really the direction in which Willowra is being pushed now. The amalgamation process is currently being done in the Western Macs area and throughout the Northern Territory, and with the communities of Nyirripi, Yuelemu, Yuendumu and Willowra.
I am deeply concerned that, as I said today, the administrative tail is wagging the dog of these communities. What I mean by that is that administrative convenience is being seen as the primary motivator for these communities in how they share their resources and the like, but communities should not be forced into a process of amalgamation.
I know that the government has announced on several occasions that communities would not be forced, but Willowra is in a very unusual situation inasmuch as it will not - and it certainly does not appear to be the case from this government - have its community government restored despite the fact that the Minister for Local Government wound up Ngukurr council in his own electorate under similar circumstances. The minister has since move to restore that council, and I imagine the reasons for that restoration are he well understands the cultural needs of the people at Ngukurr mean that they will have to be self-governing as much as they can.
Such a privilege has not been extended to Willowra and that is a clear inconsistency by the approach of this minister into how he is going to deal with councils that have problems.
While I was at Willowra, the houses that I saw were unfit for human habitation. Humans did not inhabit them. Indeed, the houses had donkeys in them. The humans were living in humpies dotted around the community. Willowra is supposed to be under the guidance and tutelage of the Yuendumu Community Government Council, but here we have a very awkward situation because these people pay rent on these houses, and are still paying rent on these houses, which is being paid to Yuendumu, which then has the responsibility, as the local governing authority to repair the houses. People in Willowra feel they are not receiving proper servicing for the rent they are paying.
This is not entirely unreminiscent of the ideal of taxation and representation. When people pay for a service, they want some sort of representative ability on their governing body. I would resent paying taxation in Australia without having a say in who sits in the seats in Canberra. Many people pay taxation in the Northern Territory would resent it if they did not vote in the elections that place us in this Chamber. Likewise, there are people who live at Willowra who want to see some sort of representation on their local governing body. They are deeply concerned that such representation is not forthcoming. They are allowed to make submissions, but they do not actually have a seat. When you drill into it, it does not surprise me that this has occurred.
As we all know, the cultural structure of Central Australian people, traditional people, is such that even within language groups, there are still subdivisions under those language groups and even within families, the base social unit. So even in small communities, there is tension between families quite often. When you address that between communities, then you have a much greater problem lurking: there is always some sort of resentment that develops out of the belief, be it right or wrong, that the people who are supposed to be administering money that is supposed to go to your own family is being kept for their own. And it is for this cultural reason that I have reservations about the process of amalgamation as a whole. What is happening at Willowra is indicative of the fact that there might be shortcomings in the way that those services are being delivered.
If it is possible for the government to find its way clear to restore the council at Ngukurr, then it is entirely within the government’s power to restore the council at Willowra and allow that community to re-establish itself and get on with getting on. I find it difficult to understand why the minister would refuse to re-establish the council at Willowra when he has done it in another place. The Ngukurr council was wound up for about six months and the administrator placed in there before the minister sought to re-establish the council.
The Willowra community has been without an effective council for over three years since the former government had to wind up the council. Now, I am not making any apologies or excuses for the council, but I do take what was said at the Indigenous Governance Conference seriously inasmuch as that there was a clear message that indigenous people as a whole do want to have a say in their own governance. That is not so surprising, but members of this House are now used to the concept that indigenous people in the Northern Territory are not a single homogenous body who speak one language and think one thought; quite the contrary.
There are some 30 or 40, easily, major language groups in Central Australia. There are seven identifiable languages and cultures in my electorate alone. Inside those language groups - I digress for a moment - there are still structures that are quite autonomous from each other. So inside my electorate where I have so many language groups and cultures, there are still autonomous structures inside those language groups. Now Willowra has a situation where the traditional people who live in Willowra have an urge to have the self-governing process returned to them. That is not an unreasonable request. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the amalgamation is not forced upon these people prior to the next election - and I do not think it will be; I think the process will take longer than that - under my ministry, as the Minister for Local Government in the next CLP government, I will be making certain that the people of Willowra have their local government authority returned to them and that they are allowed to govern themselves within the rules of self-governance.
I have a firm belief that they have learnt from the mistake that was made in the past. I will support them by giving them their self-governance back, trying to help restore their dignity, and making sure that they move ahead as a community, and I will assist them to do so.
I do not believe the people of Yuendumu would feel particularly aggrieved if the people of Willowra became a self-governing entity again. Willowra’s problems were to a degree forced on the Yuendumu community. Yuendumu will have done their best but, at the end of the day, it is the people of Willowra who are best positioned to be able to decide for themselves their own future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I give that guarantee, subject of course to the CLP being elected and me surviving in politics for another term. However, if I find myself in the driver’s seat, the people of Willowra will have their community council back.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016