2003-06-18
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
NT WorkSafe
NT WorkSafe
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it was my pleasure last week to officially announce that government has implemented a new and improved safety watchdog for Territory workplaces. The new NT WorkSafe will take over the role formerly carried out by the Office of Work Health, but with an enhanced capacity to deal with occupational health and safety issues in existing and emerging industries here in the Territory. Working in any industry in the Territory presents unique challenges; the historic Alice Springs to Darwin rail is a perfect example. It is vital that we have a service such as NT WorkSafe to identify potential risks in the workplace and advise employees and employer groups on how to minimise those risks.
Now the go ahead has been given for the Wickham Point LNG plant, government needs to be sure that we have the capacity to deal with the specific safety challenges it presents. Wickham Point will be classed as a major hazard facility and, as such, will require particular fields of expertise for regulation and control. The Office of Work Health simply did not have the staffing levels or expertise to oversee such an operation. At the same time, we want to ensure that occupational health and safety support provided to existing industries in the Territory is not only maintained, but enhanced. That is why government committed an extra $500 000 to NT WorkSafe in this year’s budget. The funds will largely go towards the employment of an additional six officers to boost WorkSafe’s capacity in the areas of policy and planning, technical services and engineering.
Focus on enhancing WorkSafe’s capacity will not be confined to Darwin; one of the new officers will be based in Katherine and one in Alice Springs. NT WorkSafe has a brief to provide a new focus to occupational health and safety, workers compensation, and rehabilitation advisory support services to government, industry and employees throughout the Territory. It will have a broader focus on eight key industry areas. They are: building and construction; oil and gas; tourism and hospitality; road transport; railway; agriculture; child care; and the public sector. Each of the industry areas has the potential for major growth over the next decade, and new projects as well as rising numbers of employees and employer groups in these sectors will create a greater need for specialist occupational health and safety advice and consultation.
NT WorkSafe will offer a greater range of services to employees and employers throughout the Territory. It will continue the job of lifting occupational health and safety standards across Territory industries in the first instance through education, consultation and cooperation, but then through regulation and enforcement where the need arises. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Trades and Labour Council, the Territory Construction Association, and the Minerals Council have all thrown their support behind NT WorkSafe and made invaluable contributions to its creation. I thank them for their support and guidance in the development of NT WorkSafe.
Madam Speaker, the government has placed a greater emphasis on workplace safety. We are starting to see early signs of success. In the past 12 months, workplace injuries decreased by 7.8% in the Territory, well above the 4% per annum target set under the National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy. It is an excellent start, but we do need to remain ever vigilant and capitalise on those efforts they can only be done through greater education and consultation Territory wide. The Northern Territory government is committed to putting safety first for Territory workers. NT WorkSafe will help government to achieve that goal.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, members on this side, of course, understand the importance of safety in the workplace. It gives me the opportunity to raise an issue that has been brought to my notice, which I am currently investigating to ascertain the role that Work Health has played in a matter involving asbestos in the workplace.
The issue relates to a private child care operation which, in the best interests of their clients’ children and families, explained to parents that the demolition occurring next door gave rise to asbestos in the workplace, particularly affecting children. When they brought it to the attention of Work Health, rather than to respond to the issue of the dangers of asbestos, which is increasing in prominence as a serious health issue, Work Health turned their attention to the private operator and drew undue attention to any unsafe work practices in their domain. This seemed to be an inappropriate way of responding to what they saw as an issue of the primary care of the children in their care. It resulted in some costs to them.
This is an issue that has only just been brought to my attention. It does warrant further investigation. It appears, on the face of it, that we have a case of bullying by Work Health in this instance. I would like to have the allegations that have been made put to rest. I will do my best to ensure that these issues are fully explored so we have full confidence in Work Health’s capacity to ensure safe work environments in the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am aware of the issue to which the member for Blain refers. It has been ongoing for some time. There are two sides to every story. He is putting one view; I am pretty comfortable that I have heard both views of the situation. I am happy to share with him the contents of a ministerial briefing that I have. It has been updated a number of times because it is an issue that has been around for some weeks.
In relation to where it stands at the moment, I understand there is a review of WorkSafe’s processes and the way that everything was handled in respect of the complaints from the child care operator. I am happy, if the member for Blain is interested to speak to me, to share the contents of that brief with him. I am confident that WorkSafe have done everything they need to, and I am happy to work through it with him.
Inaugural Regional Crime Prevention Conference
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, on 29 and 30 May, delegates from our regional crime prevention councils and local crime prevention groups met in Darwin for the first annual crime prevention conference in the Northern Territory. This government is committed to working in partnership with the community on our crime prevention strategies and it is establishing regional and indigenous crime prevention councils across the Territory. Seven councils have already been established, with more on the way, and they are already proving to be a powerful new force in crime prevention.
This first annual conference brought together representatives from the crime prevention councils in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, the Nhulunbuy region, several of the Warlpiri communities representing the Kurduju Committee and the Yolngu groups in East Arnhem Land. Representatives from local crime prevention groups also attended, including the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, Wagaman Residents Group and the Esplanade Action Group, together with representatives from Palmerston, where we are working to establish another partnership. The conference generated lively discussion and genuine excitement about the valuable crime prevention work being carried out by these groups. A keynote address about making community crime prevention partnerships effective was given by Mr Peter Homel from the Australian Institute of Criminology. Seminar topics covered community partnerships; the work of the Juvenile Diversion Unit and the Itinerants Project; and sessions on night patrols, road safety, alcohol awareness and family recovery and youth issues.
Representatives from the Kurduju Committee told the conference about the Ali Curung Law and Justice Strategy and representatives from Galiwinku and Yirrkala gave a presentation of the Knowledge Centre Project and the Yalu Nurturing Centre. This first conference helped establish strong networks between councils, local groups and government, particularly the Office of Crime Prevention and the NT police. Delegates have increased their knowledge of crime prevention activities occurring in the Northern Territory and have taken away ideas for development of crime prevention strategies in their regions.
I would like to thank Terri Robson from the Office of Crime Prevention and her staff for their hard work in making this conference an outstanding success. This government is committed to working in partnerships and building safer communities through this new community-based representation. That commitment is demonstrated through concrete initiatives, such as this conference, our ongoing financial support of the crime prevention councils and local groups, and through the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme and the availability of expertise and support through the Office of Crime Prevention.
Madam Speaker, I thank all seminar delegates for their commitment to the fight against crime in the Northern Territory, and I seek leave to have a list of delegates incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
- List of delegates, Inaugural Regional Crime Prevention Conference
Name Organisation
Camille Damaso Itinerants Project
Clare Lennon Territory Health Services
Craig Cawood NT Police /Aboriginal Road Safety
Elaine Maypilma Galiwinku Regional Crime Prevention Council
Faith Woodford Department of Justice
Gwen Brown Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Council
Helmy Bakermans Department of Justice
Ivor Phillips Lend Lease
Jackie Dibbs Office of Crime Prevention
Jenny Blokland SM Magistrates’ Court
Joanne Garngulkpuy Gailwinku Regional
Crime Prevention
Council/Yalu Centre
Ross Williams Tennant Creek Regional Crime Prevention Council/Julalikari Association
Joe Gumbala Galiwinku Regional Crime Prevention Council/Knowledge Centre
Karen Walshaw Alice Springs Regional Crime Prevention Council/Congress
Karyn Andersen Katherine Regional Crime Prevention Council/YMCA
Kate Halliday Department of Justice
Kelvin Costello Larrakia Nation/Itinerants Project
Kevin Fletcher Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council
Larissa Ellis Alice Springs Regional Crime Prevention Council
Leon Morris Dept of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs
Marjorie Limbiari Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Council
Moya Little Red Cross
Neil Westbury Department of the Chief Minister
Pam Gray Office of Crime Prevention
Peter Homel Keynote Speaker/AIC
Peter Penley Mission Australia
Peter Ryan Depart of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs
Richard Coates CEO Dept of Justice
Richard Gandhuwuy Galiwinku Regional Crime Prevention Council/Knowledge Centre
Robert Parker Action Darwin City
Rod Strong NT Police
Rolf Gerritsen Department of the Chief Minister
Scott Mitchell NT Police
Sharon Hillen Katherine Regional Crime Prevention Council/Katherine Town Council
Sharon Kinraid Tennant Creek Regional Crime Prevention Council
Stephen Hearne Department of Justice
Stephen Jackson Office of Crime Prevention
Teresa Robson Office of Crime Prevention
Tom Redston Galiwinku Community /Knowledge Centre
Eddie Cubillo Chairperson, Yilli Rregung Council, ATSIC
Stewart Labrooy Senior Policy Advisor, ATSIC
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, we have heard much about the crime prevention strategies. The government has talked ad nauseam about them. Quite frankly, any consultation with the community groups or formation of partnerships does have a place and that interaction is important. People in the Northern Territory, particularly in the northern suburbs, are sick of crime. They are sick of having police tell them that they are short staffed or the offence is not serious enough so they will have to go to the police station to report it. For the minister to say we have had a conference but not articulate any positive, proactive initiatives to deal with crime is a disappointment. This government talked ad nauseam about the grand six-point plan. That has disappeared in the ether. There are no new initiatives here, absolutely nothing! They are weak on crime and the people of the Northern Territory will deal them a significant blow at the next election when they put this lot back into opposition.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we are tired of the rhetoric coming from the other side. You have not had a new slogan in the last two years you have been in opposition. You are still trotting out the ones you were using six years ago. What we have on the record is crime coming down as a result of a combination of targeted police work and the work of these community crime prevention groups. As for us doing nothing, $400 000 has gone out in crime prevention grants, largely through the group that came together for this first Northern Territory Conference on Crime Prevention. We are on the march; we are bringing crime levels down. That is not good news for the CLP. Bad luck; you are going to have to learn to live with it.
Blatherskite Park – Capital Grant
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, Blatherskite Park is a reserve under the Crown Lands Act and is managed by a Board of Trustees appointed by myself as Minister for Local Government under section 79. This essential facility has a value of approximately $11m and is a significant community asset.
The public perception may be that the park is currently used predominantly as an equestrian facility, but there are a number of different users, including junior sports, especially soccer. A range of other users could utilise Blatherskite Park if the facilities were maintained to an appropriate standard and further developments happen.
The park is also the home of the Alice Springs Show, the Alice Springs Camel Cup and the Alice Springs Rodeo. I met with the park trustees in April when parliament sat in Alice Springs, a sittings that government members really enjoyed. The trustees expressed concern that the funding provided by the previous government had been insufficient to maintain facilities to an appropriate standard and attract full utilisation of the facility. The trustees currently raise approximately $100 000 per year through user charges, but the amount raised by the trustees would expand if utilisation of the park itself is expanded. A major issue for the trustees has been the gradual deterioration of facilities and plant that is required to maintain the grounds.
Today, I am pleased to announce another initiative in this government’s continued support for sporting and community facilities for the people of Central Australia. In response to concerns over the greatly deteriorating state of Blatherskite Park, the government has decided to provide an immediate capital grant of $140 000 to the Blatherskite Park Trustees. This funding will bring up to standard facilities such as ablutions and other public facilities, and fund a review of the way in which the facility is managed for the future. Notionally, it is anticipated that $60 000 will be utilised to upgrade existing facilities to meet fire, safety and health regulations, and provide additional ablutions, and approximately $40 000 will be utilised to purchase replacement plant and equipment. The balance of funds will be utilised to prepare a review of the future development and ongoing management of the park and its assets. In this way, strategies will be formulated to ensure the revenue raising capacity of the park trustees is increased, and scope for potential commercial activity can be investigated, along with a broadening of community users.
This is a government for all Territorians. The Martin Labor government is about good government, and working with the community and its representative organisations to achieve sustainable outcomes for community recreational facilities. The people of Alice Springs and Central Australia will continue to benefit from the support of this government to ensure the upgrade and sustainability of community facilities.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the government’s injection of funds to Blatherskite Park. It is a park that is utilised by most of us in Alice Springs. A little distance from the CBD, south of The Gap, it is well used by the BMX Club, junior soccer, the Riding Club, the Rodeo, Kennel Club, Dog Obedience Club, many groups that the minister doesn’t even know about, and obviously for the Alice Springs Show, which is a major event. I hope to see all members of this House in Alice Springs for the show in about two and a half weeks’ time.
The $140 000, while I am not going to be churlish, is a small injection. It will help get things underway. When I was the minister, we provided funding to improve electrical connections in the park. What we need to do in Alice Springs is to continue to put money towards Blatherskite Park to ensure that huge facility is not under-utilised. It is good to see that the minister is coming to Alice Springs in a couple of weeks time to talk to more people - I think that is what you said - and go to Blatherskite Park, talk to all the users, there are a lot more users of the park than the ones you mentioned. I am sure they will welcome your further contribution over the next couple of years.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note the comments by the Shadow Minister for Central Australia. I thought it would be more appropriate, from the records I have, for the Shadow Minister for Local Government, the member for Macdonnell, Mr Elferink, to respond. Confusion reigns supreme over that side of the parliament.
When I met with the trustees, they did not speak highly of the former CLP government and they spoke about the lack of support. When it was brought to my attention that the show, rodeo and Camel Cup were jeopardised, I started to do something about it. They did not speak highly of the member for Greatorex, who is a former minister. I am very happy to be helping out, because Central Australians really enjoy their show, rodeos, sport, and these things should not be neglected.
Australian Tourism Exchange
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to report to the House on my attendance at Australian Tourism Exchange, or ATE as it is called, currently being held in Melbourne. ATE is the most significant trade show on the tourism industry’s calendar, and has attracted over 700 buyers from 50 countries around the world, and over 40 international travel journalists. Forty Territory operators had booths at ATE, as well as national operators with an interest in the Territory, such as AAT KINGS, APT and a number of hotel chains. It was a great pleasure for me to meet national and Territory operators whilst I was there.
As Tourism Minister, I feel it was very important for me to attend ATE. I was pleased to be able to attend the first two days but, of course, had to come back for the sittings. However, I was able to have a range of meetings with important industry figures and other Tourism Ministers from around the country. A key theme of my meetings with people like the Managing Director of the Australian Tourist Commission, Mr Ken Boundy, and the CEO of the Tourism Task Force, Mr Chris Brown, as well as the Victorian Minister for Tourism, John Pandazopoulos, was the federal government’s recently released green paper titled ‘A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism’.
The Victorian minister and I had some discussion over whether it should be renamed the grey paper or even the green blancmange because it does not really contain a lot of substance for tourism in Australia. Whilst I was at the ATE, a number of people expressed significant concerns about the way in which the Commonwealth has dropped the ball on the most important issue facing the tourism industry both Australia-wide and in the Territory; which is aviation policy. It seems that Joe Hockey had some quite good ideas. There was no one who was less than complimentary about Joe. He is seen as quite a good fellow, but he was rolled in federal Cabinet. All the aviation and transport aspects just dropped out of the paper, as well as any significant new funding within the green paper. In fact, there is none, although there has been a belated announcement of some new funding from the federal government which, of course, is welcome.
As a government, as this place is well aware, we have put significant extra funding into tourism and marketing, an extra $1m into domestic marketing and, going into the future, an extra $1m into international marketing. The Commonwealth might flag $10m, but this government has put up $2m. Given the fact that they had a $2bn surplus, they should have been digging their hands into their pockets a bit deeper for tourism. That was the feeling amongst the industry figures to whom I spoke.
The member for Araluen is probably going to repeat a lot of the things that she said yesterday. Despite that, many Northern Territory and national operators at ATE were very positive and upbeat about the future, acknowledging that the tourism business is doing it tough, but also acknowledging that there are solid bookings and a positive outlook, particularly with increased airline capacity into the Territory. I was very reassured by that.
I also had discussions with wholesalers from Asia, including Malaysia, Japan, and Hong Kong, who are clearly feeling the effects of SARS, but are nonetheless optimistic about the future. I met with the manager of Kintetsu, which is the Japanese wholesaling group bringing the three charters from Japan into Alice Springs in August. It was great to meet them; they are showing a lot of confidence in those charters and are looking at the possibility of continuing them subject to the August success. We are working with that company and Qantas to ensure that they are a success. I hope the member for Araluen will join with me in working positively towards that.
Similarly, from the CEO of Great Southern Rail, Mr Stephen Bradford, was another positive story. He is estimating somewhere between 50 000 and 60 000 people a year using the Alice Springs to Darwin route. That is positive. Certainly, people in Katherine were very positive about that.
In summary, ATE flagged to me the competition we face. I am aware of the difficulties that we face, but I have confidence in our operators and our product, and I am looking forward to a positive, upbeat year next year in tourism.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to respond to the Minister for Tourism because his comments are invariably wrong and extraordinary.
According to this minister, tourism in the Territory is just fine and dandy - confidence is up all over Australia. Well, it is not, and those people in the industry - and, indeed, anyone with half a brain cell, unlike the minister - would realise that things in tourism are very crook indeed.
I might say in relation to his attendance at ATE, I am thrilled that the minister attended because, to use the oft used expression by the member for Arnhem, he may have learnt something from some of his colleagues down south. He may have gathered an appreciation of where the Northern Territory sits in terms of the other states and territories in Australia. He may have appreciated that the Northern Territory is not doing well; that in a small jurisdiction like this it is absolutely vital that we have a government, any government, that will support the industry instead of being in absolute denial about how rosy things are. I wonder whether the minister had the guts to hold his head high when he went to ATE because presumably some people there asked how his budget was. They probably asked: ‘What did you do in your budget to assist the ailing tourism industry in the face of this crisis?’ And if the minister said: ‘I did something’, that is absolutely astonishing because he has done nothing.
I note with a great deal of interest his comments about the green paper. Unlike the minister, I have read the green paper. I will be interested to check the Hansard because I think I will probably send his comments to the people he named - Chris Brown and others - because industry has welcomed the green paper. There is universal welcome endorsement of the green paper and those comments are on the public record, so the minister is wrong again.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): I will keep it very short, Madam Speaker. I do recognise the difficulties facing the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. I am not blind; I am very sensitive to those difficulties. I am working hard, along with this government, to turn things around and it does not help that the member for Araluen is continually talking things down.
For instance, I received a call from the Katherine Times, asking what this government has done for tourism in Katherine. I said: ‘Try $1m for a railway station’. You are not listening, you are not focussed. To say that the green paper was universally applauded by the tourism industry nationally and locally is wrong, wrong, wrong, member for Araluen, but I am not going to waste any more time responding to your diatribes.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 164)
(Serial 164)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to remove the current provisions preventing employees from being permanently employed in the Northern Territory public sector beyond their 65th birthday.
The amendment removes an anachronistic provision from the Public Sector Employment and Management Act that resulted in employees of the public sector who, for no other reason than their age, were forced to retire from permanent employment. When considered from many perspectives, compulsory age retirement is clearly an unacceptable practice that has the effect of ceasing the employment of otherwise valued and productive employees of the public sector who have built up an invaluable mix of skills and experience. This bill consigns the practice to the past, where it belongs.
The amendment will provide several benefits to the Northern Territory public sector and to our older employees. First, for the public sector, there are the benefits of retaining highly experienced and skilled employees, which assists in maintaining the excellent standard of service that the public sector provides to the community. These are personal qualities, which are in constant demand, and we cannot afford to dispense with them simply on the basis of age.
Second, the population is ageing. New entries to the labour market are set to decline rapidly over the next 10 to 20 years. It therefore makes sense as an employer that we do not discourage older members of the community from remaining in the workforce.
Third, it puts the Northern Territory public sector in step with all other public sector jurisdictions across Australia. Put simply, the Territory has lagged behind in this area, and I am pleased the government has taken the initiative to correct the situation.
Finally, age discrimination is no more acceptable than any other form of discrimination. Legislation that disadvantages people on the basis of generalisations and stereotypes is bad legislation, and governments have an obligation to ensure it does not remain on the statue books.
The amendment benefits employees by permitting them to remain in the workforce longer. Many people gain great satisfaction and achievement from their work, and find the adjustment to full-time retirement difficult. Our population is healthier and living longer than ever, and as a result, people have potentially many years of productive work life beyond the age of 65. People are also delaying having families until later in life, and it can no longer be assumed that everyone will be in a financial position to retire from the workforce at age 65. The amendment permits the individual to leave employment at the time of his or her choosing, not according to some arbitrary legislative provision.
The bill repeals section 36 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act in its entirety. References to both minimum and maximum retirement ages are removed, as well as the arrangements that permitted employees aged 65 and over to be employed on a temporary basis. The bill also converts employees on transitional arrangements back to permanent employment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND CONTRACTORS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 162)
(Serial 162)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the Council of Australian Governments meeting of April 1995, heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP Agreements.
Under the NCP Agreements, all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with a timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricted competition.
The Electrical Workers and Contractors Act was identified as requiring NCP review. The act was reviewed in accordance with National Competition Policy in October 2000. The NCP review identified that a general review of the Electrical Workers and Contractors Act was also required.
The recommendations of the NCP review were to be implemented following the general review to accommodate the amendments of both the National Competition Policy review and the general review in a single bill. However, the general review encountered numerous delays, and it was decided to implement the recommendations of the National Competition Policy review separately in order to comply with the requirements of National Competition Policy. The general review will follow at a later date in conjunction with a review of the Building Act.
The National Competition Policy review recommends that licensing should be retained, but should be flexible enough to accommodate alternative means of signalling a person’s competence to perform set tasks. Further, the NCP review recommends that the objectives of the requirement for ‘additional experience’ for contractors should be clearly articulated if it is to be retained. The NCP review also recommends that the fit and proper person test should be amended to overcome its arbitrariness and clarify the criteria against which fit and proper status will be assessed.
The final NCP review recommendation is that the exemption from licensing afforded to the Power and Water Corporation should be removed. However, approved competency based assessment should be recognised as a substitute for licensing in certain situations.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 18 of the Electrical Workers and Contractors Act to establish nationally agreed uniform trade classifications and gradings to form the framework within which the NCP review recommendations are accommodated.
New sections 19, 20 and 21 will provide applicants with flexibility in signalling competence, and the board with flexibility and scope in determining the appropriate license that applies for certain tasks against which competencies can be demonstrated.
New sections 33 and 34 will remove the nebulous nature of the additional experience to be gained as a prerequisite for a contractor’s licence by establishing criteria against which competence can be demonstrated exclusive of any time restrictions.
Further, sections 33 and 34 also contain elements that address the arbitrariness of the fit and proper person test by establishing criteria against which a potential licence applicant’s suitability will be assessed.
The bill amends section 53 to support the flexibility provided by new sections 19, 20 and 21 by providing recognition of competency based assessments as a substitute for licensing in certain trades or callings. The bill also repeals section 42 of the Electrical Workers and Contractors Act to remove the exemption from licensing status afforded to the Power and Water Corporation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the bill makes other minor consequential amendments to give meaning and fluency to the aforementioned amendments. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 157)
(Serial 157)
Continued from 28 May 2003.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, after having considered having the bill, I can indicate that the opposition will not be supporting it.
I suspect the bill’s current proponent, that is the Martin Labor government, not only does not understand the legislation, but they are not really interested in the merits or otherwise of the legislation and its practical effect. Therefore, the legislation to which this obviously relates - it is an amendment to the substantive act - is probably the ultimate political football. However, credit where credit is due. With a great deal of political skill, the Labor Party, my friends opposite, have certainly manipulated the debate very well. They have offloaded between free and open access to all information whilst in opposition to the restrictive model which falls now to be considered by parliament.
I remind honourable members what the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, said on 22 April 1999 during an FOI debate. The Leader of the Opposition’s response was, and I quote from page 3185 of Hansard:
- Let’s have freedom of information legislation. Let’s knock out every single exemption and show Australia
what the Territory can do. What a challenge! Let’s show Australia. If the Chief Minister’s objection to my
freedom of information bill – Labor’s freedom of information bill - is that it has too many exemptions, and
would not allow, if we brought it in, the community a decent access to what the government is doing, then
let’s knock them all out. And we will have an awesome piece of freedom of information legislation.
She encourages Denis Burke by saying you should get rid of all the exemptions, and: ‘Wow, look at that Denis Burke, what a Chief Minister!’, so offering support if he introduced legislation without any exemptions. She might have been hot under the collar, but that does not seem to be the case because a bit later on, the then Leader of the Opposition reinforced that position:
- We look forward to the next session of parliament when I will reintroduce the piece of legislation
without any exemptions and then we’ll be able to join together and support the legislation.
We are still waiting for that legislation because what has fallen to be considered by this parliament is not something the then Leader of the Opposition foreshadowed. It is not something which is free of any exemption, and they are her words. It is not something contained in the amendments we are considering today.
The amendment before us is a couple of pages long, and the minister, in his second-reading speech, said some of the amendments are a necessary correction to some oversights, which the government says have been brought to their attention by the commissioner, among other people, the working party, and no doubt people who are dealing every day with the mechanics of the legislation. In the second-reading speech, the Attorney-General said how the TIO falls into an unusual category and, for various reasons, requires a specific amendment to be made to the legislation to ensure that it is an organisation that will be subject to FOI in a limited sense; that is for personal information only.
The proposed amendment goes to the very exemptions the Chief Minister said she would never have whilst she was Leader of the Opposition. It goes further than that. It says at the proposed section 4A:
- A public sector organisation may be declared by the Regulations to be a public sector organisation
for personal information only.
So not only does the government hold fast to the exemptions they said they would never have, they have gone further and broadened them to include a mechanism for regulations to exclude a public sector organisation, without legislation coming before this parliament or the usual safeguards that apply when legislation is debated and brought to the attention of interested parties in the industry and the Northern Territory public, who we represent.
There has been an enormous backflip by the Labor government. It makes the Australian diving team look fairly average when you consider the scope and magnitude of the backflip. If the government were serious about clarifying the anomaly the TIO creates, they could easily have introduced a short amendment specifically referring to the TIO and putting it into the category of exemption, which would require them to produce personal information only. They have not chosen to do that; they have left the door open. We do not know what is next. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Ultimately, there has been a complete betrayal of the trust people placed in this Labor government, relying upon the words that they uttered whilst in opposition, the words the then Leader of the Opposition used in her undertakings that in the next session of parliament she was going to introduce legislation without any exemptions. There has been an abuse of the trust people placed in the Labor government. For those reasons the opposition will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, as a supporter of the democratic process that controls human relations in Australia, I found it appalling that the Territory was the only Australian jurisdiction not to have FOI.
I touch on the member for Goyder’s point about not being able to understand the legislation. I briefly point out the fact that there was only one group of people in the Northern Territory that did not understand FOI legislation and that, obviously, was the previous CLP government. In this context of being the only jurisdiction not to have FOI, we were denying our citizens the right to review government processes, and that is very important. I have said in previous debates on FOI that the members for Goyder, Araluen, and I understand now the members for Macdonnell, Port Darwin and Blain, will now be questioning why freedom of information was not introduced in the past. They should continue to ask.
I will quote from an article in Choice magazine, which sums up, for the lay person, what freedom of information is about:
- Under freedom of information (FOI) laws, you have the right to request information and challenge a
bureaucratic ‘no’. You can use FOI, for example, to find out about a planning decision or check and
correct your health records.
Some information isn’t publicly available for justifiable security reasons. But information’s also withheld
for less admirable reasons: political mismanagement or dishonesty. Or maybe the government agency
feels it ‘owns’ the information and has no reason to hand it over.
FOI covers Commonwealth and state government agencies, …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that the member - and I do not do this for any other reason than I would like to read it myself, and I cannot hear him properly - to table the document he is reading from.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you happy to table that document?
Mr BONSON: Yes. May I read from it first, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you want to have a copy now?
Mr BURKE: He is quoting on the importance of FOI. It is instructive for this debate that I understand what the quote is. I cannot hear him properly so I ask him to table it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Are you happy to do that?
Mr BONSON: Yes. I will just finish the quote and then hand it to the Attendant.
- FOI covers Commonwealth and state government agencies, as well as those in the ACT. But you don’t
have access to information held by NT bodies, as there is no FOI act for the NT.
This was January-February 2001 issue of Choice magazine.
Let us put this in context. What countries around the world have FOI, information and privacy access? Belgium, France, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States and United Kingdom, to name a few. In Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, the Commonwealth of course, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. FOI legislation was introduced by the Commonwealth in 1982, 21 years ago, closely followed by Victoria and then other states, including the ACT, followed in the 1980s and early 1990s with Queensland passing its law in 1992.
One of the things that I campaigned heavily on was the fact that for the last 10 years, we have been the only jurisdiction without FOI. People sat back and they thought: ‘Gee, what does that mean to me? Is this important?’ I would explain the importance of FOI. People were interested in finding out. It begged the question: did the CLP have something to hide? It perpetuated the myth. It was something that they were denying citizens of the Territory.
I would like to just read – again, I will have to get a copy for the Opposition Leader - from the NT News dated 1 March 2001:
- The Law Society had called for the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation in the Territory.
President Jon Tippett has said the Territory was Australia’s only jurisdiction not to have FOI.
A government spokesman said Chief Minister Denis Burke did commit to FOI legislation early last year.
He said consultants had been commissioned to report to government and that proposal is still on the
government’s agenda.
He said: ‘Hopefully this is not part of the Law Society doing the Labor Party’s bidding’.
Madam Speaker, I will provide a copy to the Opposition Leader, of this letter to the editor of the NT News dated 2 September 2001:
- Now that Clare Martin is Chief Minister and her government has had a chance to do the job, could I,
on behalf of all citizens, request that Freedom of Information reform be placed on the table
immediately.
We demand transparent, open and accountable government, that’s why Burke and his have been
dispatched to the dust bins of history with the un-Australian dictator attitude.
Furthermore, may we view all monies granted by the federal government to the NT, a full audit whether
those grants were allocated to specific areas intended and if not, why not?
If ministers or the CLP were involved in grossly incompetent decisions regarding [inaudible] they should
be held accountable.
Now is the time to act on behalf of health and education for future generations.
Dave Hodder
Nightcliff
I suppose he is expressing the view that a fundamental principle of democracy in year 2003, right across the world in all jurisdictions, is access to information about themselves, and matters on which their elected members, governments and departments are making decisions. This is very important. We have briefly covered the history. We were denied FOI legislation for 10 years longer than necessary compared with Queensland and 20 years compared with the Commonwealth.
How does the layman access information? It is important to put this on record. The Information Act implementation team has been responsible for helping agencies prepare for the commencement of the Information Act. The Information Commissioner is responsible for promoting FOI and privacy within the community. He has prepared a brochure, has a stand for the show circuit, is developing his own web site, guidelines to understand the act and strategies to promote the act.
Requirements for making an application are set out in section 18 of the act. The team has designed an application form, which is available on the team’s web site and any agency may use this form. Most agencies are making some changes to this form to suit their own needs, and I think all agencies are adding their own logo. Applications do not have to be on an application form, but the act requires that they be in writing. I believe that all agencies are encouraging applicants to complete an application form because it ensures that all the necessary information is included.
Applications must be in writing, specifically the name of the applicant, and include sufficient details to identify the information sought and specify the address to which correspondence can be sent. There are notes on the application forms to assist applicants. Agencies are providing details of a contact person who will be available to assist applicants.
The act requires that agencies must be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant. This means that in most cases, an applicant should supply a photocopy of a form of identification that includes a photograph. If that is not available, the applicant may ask certain people to make a declaration stating that they know the applicant.
The act will also require that an application be accompanied by an application fee, if applicable. Agencies may charge $30 for an application for non-personal information, but nil for an application for personal information. Agencies may charge $30 if the information is a combination of personal and non-personal. Applicants can pay the money at any RTM and then include the receipt with the application form. Applicants may also send the fee to the agency holding the information sought. Applicants may seek a waiver or reduction of the fee. It is anticipated that most applicants will be applying for personal information, and there will therefore be no fee.
Each agency is deciding how it is going to handle applications, as there are many variations between agencies. Most agencies are encouraging applicants to post the application forms to a central point. All agencies are required to publish details about how an applicant may apply for information. Most agencies are doing this on their web sites, and some are producing information brochures. All agencies have agreed that they will assist people to complete application forms. This will be important in remote communities. Agencies will assist applicants to complete the forms, verify the identification of applicants, take the applicant’s fee if they are an RTM and send the forms to the agency holding the information sought.
It is a matter for each agency to decide where applicants should lodge applications. In the Department of Justice, applicants will be encouraged to post applications to the central office in Darwin. Prisoners have a special system for lodgement of applications. People may lodge applications in person at any magistrates court in the Northern Territory.
The minister has taken steps to ensure that the application process is clear, that each department has taken steps to make it widely accessible to all residents of the Northern Territory, has ensured that it is cost effective, has ensured that, within reason, people will receive all relevant information pertaining to decisions made by departments relating to them personally.
This legislation and subsequent amendments are long overdue. I was disappointed with the contribution from the member for Goyder because, as a solicitor in a previous life, he understands that the right to access information pertaining to decisions affecting an individual is very important to prosecuting or defending a case or argument that one may have against a department, the Northern Territory government, the Commonwealth, or another individual. I looked for support from the member for Goyder, but he has obviously flagged that the opposition are not supporting this amendment, and that is disappointing.
Madam Speaker, as a true democrat and a believer in our democratic process, freedom of information has been accepted as an important cog in the wheel of accountability and transparency in government processes. As a member of this parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pursue the introduction of freedom of information legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, before you begin, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Jacqueline Mooney and Rachael Krose. If members are wondering what they are doing up there, they are testing the induction loop that assists people with hearing aids.
A member: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you should go up and try them, minister. We will appreciate feedback from our guests. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the Shadow Attorney-General indicated, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment to FOI legislation. I will explain my reasons. It was instructive to listen to the member for Millner because if one cuts through the normal diatribe of complaint about the CLP and gets down to what we should be debating in this House, he appears to be a person who genuinely believes in FOI and that the legislation will achieve the objectives that he firmly believes it sets out to achieve.
From his contribution, I think he understands and believes in the concept of FOI. He certainly reckons that the CLP were awful because they never introduced FOI, but where I believe he is wrong, and has not even looked at the legislation properly or at all is that he assumes this legislation will do all sorts of things for Territorians that it does not do. That is the unfortunate part of this legislation, and the part that this government needs to explain to Territorians for the very simple reason that they led Territorians to believe that they would introduce legislation that was at the forefront in Australia. Without dwelling on the stupid comments of the Chief Minister, Opposition Leader at the time, ‘let us exempt everything’, any rational person knows that there needs to be some reasonable exemptions in any FOI legislation, and the opposition supports that tack.
However, an example of the ignorance that the member for Millner displays, and that is why I asked for him to table the document, was the fact that, in reading a document that purports to support Northern Territory legislation, he picks a couple of paragraphs to suit what he wants to say. The context of the article he quoted from Choice magazine is about the undue restrictions on FOI legislation all around Australia, and that is why it is not working properly. This is the article that the member for Millner used as his reference, and if I can quote the ‘In Brief’ part of it:
- FOI is generally working well for people seeking information about themselves. But it is another
story for journalists and other organisations looking for politically sensitive information. For example,
in NSW the Ombudsman’s 1998–99 annual report said: ‘Agencies rarely disclose sensitive, contentious
or political information’. It also noted claims of political interference and complained that agencies are
regularly failing to submit FOI reports as required by the legislation.
In that context, let us not forget the urgings of the Ombudsman through this whole debate. In the Ombudsman’s reports to this House, he went as far as to say that he does not believe commercially sensitive information should be exempt. He believes the Ombudsman should have his own reference to go into Cabinet documentation that currently excludes commercial information under the guise of: ‘It is commercial-in-confidence, therefore it is not available’. There is a person in the Northern Territory reinforcing the fact that, when it comes to FOI legislation, there are serious deficiencies in how the legislation works in Australia. That is the major criticism of this Northern Territory Labor government.
You gave the impression to Territorians that you would introduce legislation that was excellent. You introduced legislation that would give Territorians what they want. The member for Millner quoted from a letter to the editor of the NT News. That letter is from a person who believes the Labor government was going to introduce legislation that meets this purpose:
- Furthermore, may we view all monies granted by the federal government to the NT, a full audit whether
those grants were allocated to specific areas intended and if not, why not?
This is a man talking about how he can get information on federal money granted to the Northern Territory. The Labor government needs to be honest with that individual and many other Territorians and say: ‘Not only are you not getting information on that, my son, you are not getting information on your own money because any government business division which is supported by taxpayers’ money in the Northern Territory - anything that they do, any of their commercial transactions - are exempt’ under your own legislation. That individual will be sadly disappointed by the legislation that your government has introduced.
Furthermore, this Choice magazine article goes on to say this - the stuff to which the member for Millner holds fast:
- But information’s also withheld for less admirable reasons: political mismanagement or dishonesty.
Or maybe the government agency feels it ‘owns’ the information and has no reason to hand it over.
If the agency does not want to play ball you’ll face a fight. You can have its decision reviewed, but this
can be a long - and costly - process.
Wide-ranging exceptions can be exploited by government agencies.
It goes on to say, and this is important too:
- As governments contract out more services to private companies, the ocean of information held by
government agencies and, therefore accessible under the legislation, is rapidly shrinking.
The best FOI law in the world won’t work if it’s implemented by recalcitrant agencies. According to the
Australian Law Reform Commission’s 1995 review of FOI: ‘More must be done to dismantle the culture
of secrecy that still pervades some aspects of Australian public-sector administration’.
That is where you stand indicted. It is one thing to say: ‘You CLP had years to bring in this and you did not’. The reason the CLP did not introduce FOI was that we held to the fact that, at the end of the day, when you looked at what the average person can access in going through this whole costly process with the imposts on public service agencies, and costs involved to the individual, considering the facts that we are such a small jurisdiction, the public service is generally very close to the community, that it is very hard to keep a secret in the Northern Territory because it is a fairly small population in the larger scheme of things, that we already have Ombudsman’s and Auditor-General’s reports and a Public Accounts Committee that has wide-ranging powers of inquiry, and the fact that MLAs should be in touch and responsive to the needs of their individual electors and can chase up issues for them through the normal parliamentary process, when you came to introduce FOI, you would not be able to give them any more than they get at the moment.
When it comes to personal information, I would like the government to give me one example, and you may be able to, of where personal information has been sought by an individual - other than sensitive health documentation, which rightly belongs to the doctors, and discussions between doctors and specialists - not being able to access adequate, personal information on themselves …
Mr Kiely: I will give you one.
Mr BURKE: Good. Fine.
Mr Kiely: I will give you a couple.
Mr BURKE: Adequate personal information on themselves. Now …
Mr Kiely: I know a beauty.
Mr BURKE: Oh, good. He knows a beauty!
Mr Kiely: You wanted it. I am prepared to give it to you.
Mr BURKE: The member for Sanderson knows a beauty. You’ve been two years in government claiming your first priority is to introduce FOI. It has been enormously costly in terms of the consultants that have been involved; the best part, I reckon, on consultants alone of $1m and maybe more, I am not sure. Very wide ranging discussions in the wider community have been necessary, and I accept that. Continual training as to how the whole of the culture of the public service needs to change in order to facilitate FOI, and after all that process, the member for Sanderson says: ‘I can give you one example where there might have been personal information that could not be accessed’. Well, whoopee! That is not the context of what we are talking about here.
We are asking why has this Labor government, which said it would champion open, honest and accountable government and introduce transparent FOI that would somehow do away with the terrible practices of the CLP, now come in at the end of the day and produce not only poor legislation by their own standards, but now seek to change that legislation by stealth? That is the context of why we will not support this legislation.
The legislation is poor in terms of its provision of information to the general community for this reason: essentially, you cannot get out of any government business division or agency that might have a business division attached to it, any information that is not personal. That is how it currently stands. Under the FOI provisions, if you go through all of the process, at the end of the day, that large area of Territorians’ money and effort that is being spent on information that cannot be accessed. So, Territorians, forget it; you are out of the game.
On top of that, we have an Information Commissioner who has extensive powers, according to the act in terms of his ability to inquire, but there is an ultimate veto on anything he does. The ultimate veto is that the Chief Minister can decide, without any explanation to anyone, anywhere, any time, that information will not be accessed. So, not only do Territorians have the situation where a large tranche of information is excluded from them about the workings of their own money, but also there is an ultimate veto on the work of the Commissioner.
Now we are led to believe that, because of some misunderstanding with the original drafting of the bill, and let’s just consider that for a moment - this has been a two year process. This has been a process sold to Territorians on the basis that they would have FOI, which would give them all of these great insights and access to government processes and government procedures. At the end of the day, the legislation will be disheartening and disappointing once Territorians know what they can actually access.
The Law Society itself has reported in that regard, and in due course, as Territorians get to understand the fact that, apart from this concept of FOI, they have no access to anything that they did not have in the past, the message will gradually sink in. As the member for Goyder said, the government has sold the concept. The member for Millner seems to have bought it; I do not believe he is capable of subterfuge in this House. He seems to be blindly following the scripts that are given to him to read.
That is the reason the opposition has concerns about this little amendment. We have a bill that has been passed. We raised our concerns because of the inadequacies of the bill when it came before us for debate. It starts operation on 1 July this year, and now we find that, by a whim of the minister, any part of that bill can be changed. Let us look at the changes that are seemingly innocuous. First, the Commissioner cannot be looked at or reviewed in any way. He is out of the game.
The second reading speech says, and this is an indictment in itself:
- In addition, the act currently applies to the Information Commissioner. This results in certain anomalies
including the fact that the Information Commissioner is responsible for reviewing his own decisions.
Queensland and Western Australia also have Information Commissioners, and in those states the
Information Commissioner is expressly excluded from their FOI legislation. This bill excludes the
Information Commissioner from the operations of the act.
Why? We already know that Queensland and Western Australia have had criticisms about deficiencies in their acts. You included the Information Commissioner in the scope of review in your original legislation. Now you have decided that because Queensland and Western Australia do not have him subject to review under FOI procedures, he is out. I am sure the Attorney-General will come up with some explanation as to why it is not appropriate, but the whole logic of introducing this legislation was to be open and accessible for Territorians.
Surely, rather than dwelling on the sorts of information that the Commissioner should rightly not disclose, you have to answer the principal question: why would you exempt him unilaterally? I can imagine any number of ways that an individual, group or organisation might call into question the Commissioner’s handling of an issue.. There may be instances where the Commissioner himself quite inadvertently has compromised the privacy of an individual in his own actions, and that might emerge at a later point.
The Information Commissioner himself needs to have the same rigour applied to his office, in a general sense, as other agencies. Is he or is he not a public service agency? Is he or is he not accountable to the public? Is he or is he not paid for by the tax payer? Answer the principal question: why is he excluded? It is in that context that your act, like it is only a slippery slide, is falling into the same pool of legislation that is being criticised in Choice magazine and all around Australia. Governments fall into a situation where we cannot let them see that, we can not let them see this because it is commercially sensitive or whatever. More and more organisations are finding their way into the exemption category.
The other part of this amendment is the bland statement: ‘when we introduced this legislation, we said that organisations such as TIO would only be required to be interrogated under FOI for personal information only, and because the act in its current status is not clear, we are making it clear now, and that is that TIO can only be looked at by a Territorian in terms of access to personal information’.
Think about the fact that, first, TIO is a Territory taxpayer-owned organisation; think about TIO as having to act, not only commercially, but equitably on behalf of Territorians in its decisions. Most MLAs - I am one; I bet there is not much disagreement – receive representations that are the result of decisions made by TIO, decisions we all know are difficult to review. You can get some sort of mediation through the Work Health Authority. If you have a bit of money, you can try and take TIO on in court, but like any insurance company, you have a long wait and it is going to cost you a lot of money. The question is: why do you put TIO in some special category for these so-called commercially sensitive reasons? Everything they do can be classified as commercially sensitive. I cited a case in this Assembly during adjournment about one individual being refused worker’s compensation. He had an accident in Western Australia, was insured by his own firm under worker’s compensation in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory, but because he lived in the Northern Territory, had the accident in Western Australia and the firm was seen as a Western Australian firm, he was ineligible for worker’s compensation …
Mr Stirling: South Australia.
Mr BURKE: … under TIO’s provisions – you can correct me if I am wrong. Under the South Australian provisions, because he was not a resident of South Australia, but the firm was a South Australian firm and the accident was in South Australia, he did not meet the parameters there either.
If you start to delve into that one, you begin to understand that these are deals that are being done between insurance companies in different states as to who picks up responsibility. I hope the Treasurer pursues it because he is an honest, decent Territorian and he deserves to be looked after. I cited that example to illustrate that it is not good enough for an organisation like TIO to be exempt from FOI, particularly when you have the opportunity to introduce legislation in the Northern Territory that should meet the benchmarks you have set yourselves.
As I said, it is one thing to say blindly that the CLP government did not introduce FOI, Territorians want FOI, aren’t we a great Labor government, we brought in FOI. Fine, run that line; it is politically good, it will be seductive to people who do not have to one day use FOI for a serious reason that concerns themselves, because the day they do that is the day they are going to say: ‘I have been stymied. All this government has done is introduce the same legislation that is seen right around Australia as being inadequate for anything other than access to personal information’.
It is a waste of time and effort because access to personal information in the Northern Territory is one thing that I believe has rarely, if ever, in my experience, been denied. Information in other areas will be denied to people for the very reasons these exemptions are in the legislation, except that you have gone further, by stealth, and you will continue to go further.
I hope you are not in government in two years’ time, but the longer you are in government, particularly over the next two years, we will see more of this. We will see the government say: ‘Oh, we have another problem here. We have just thought of another reason why someone could get access to information, we have been approached by the agency, this is a sensitive area, let us close it down’. That is why FOI is not working. It is not working for Australians. This legislation has not even begun to work for Territorians, and where you have really disappointed Territorians is that you have introduced an inadequate act, and now an amendment, which excludes the very organisations that Territorians own – out! - excludes them completely. It is an indictment that in the current act, you have excluded government business divisions. Under your standards, benchmarks, your open, honest and accountable government, why should NT Fleet be exempt for anything other than personal information? Why should the Port Authority, or the Wildlife Park be exempt for anything other than personal information?
That is not what Territorians are seeking from this legislation. They are seeking information that, in many respects, they will be told they cannot access. What you have to do now is explain adequately why you have included so many exemptions. At the end of the day, I believe you have excluded totally the one organisation Territorians have most dealings with, are most concerned with in its decision-making process, an organisation through its own culture and agreements with other insurance organisations around Australia, is almost a closed shop in terms of scrutiny. That is where you have let Territorians down, and that is why the opposition will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my belief is that the reason we introduced information legislation is exactly that: freedom of information. I have always believed we should work on the premise that all information should be available to the public unless there is a very good reason for not being so.
I remember the Mayor of North Sydney, Ted Mack, who was also an Independent member of the House of Representatives, believed very much in that premise in all things he did in public life. I believe North Sydney Council allowed pretty close to 100% of all its documents to be available for the public. I might have some doubt about the wisdom of that, especially when it comes perhaps to staff matters - whether someone is ill or personal matters of that nature - but he believed that was the way we should go. I also believe that we should really work on the premise of not keeping things secret. Is it such a big problem to know whether, in my office, I spent $300 on biros because I keep losing them? So what? People will know that I am a person who is a bit like my desk - a little jumbled at times, so I tend to lose things. Why are we concerned about information being available to the public? That is one of my concerns with this legislation. I must admit, before I get into that, this section is fairly difficult to read in the first place because it refers to a public sector organisation under …
A member: Confusing.
Mr WOOD: Confusing. It says under section 5(1) that subject to this section, a public sector organisation is any of the following: an agency, then a government business division and a government owned corporation etcetera. Then (2) says an agency does not include an agency that is a government business division.
I had to scratch my head, because that sounded like it contradicted itself in the first clause. Be that as it may, that is not an easy piece of writing to understand for the average person, let alone me.
However, looking at the amendments the government has proposed, I also query what happens if you cannot question the commissioner. Is there another process, or is the commissioner exempt from any due process in looking at what he or she has done? Is the Ombudsman allowed to look at the decision-making process of the commissioner? If the commissioner is now exempt, how do we scrutinise? I am interested to hear what the government has to say, because the Leader of the Opposition raised some valid points. If the commissioner has done something that perhaps is outside the act, who is going to make that judgment?
The issue of TIO being able only to give personal information is interesting. I would be concerned if you could only get personal information. The Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of a person injured in an accident in South Australia but lives in the rural area. I have also been asked to look at that issue. This person has not received any payment, even though this accident, I think, occurred …
Mr Stirling: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: Well, let us say he is still waiting on a resolution. I will put it that way but …
Mr Burke: He got his first six weeks, Syd. That is all.
Mr Stirling: It is not true to say he did not get any payment.
Mr WOOD: I accept what the minister said. I meant in the context that his full claim has not been accepted and it has been going on for a very long time. It would be interesting to know why something cannot be sorted out. However, I can perhaps give a more local example. I have recently been asked by a snake handler why he cannot get insurance. He is actually …
Mr Dunham: I can think of one good reason: it is to do with King Brown’s, mate.
Mr WOOD: One reason I heard is that he occasionally goes bare footed, but that is a minor problem. To put it in context, he is contracted by the government to collect snakes. A similar person in Alice Springs and I think Wildcare are allowed insurance and they do the same sort of job …
Dr Toyne: Yes, but the Darwin guy is subcontracting, Gerry. That is why he is having trouble.
Mr WOOD: Well, he might be now. But the point was he could not get information. Later on he did, but initially, he was just told no. If I were to try to access that information under this act, would I be allowed to get that information to help him?
Dr Toyne: Yes, I would imagine so, for the sort of information we are talking about.
Mr WOOD: But it is not my personal information I am seeking. It would be up to him to apply for that. Whether I would have the right to apply to find out why he was knocked back, I am not so sure. I would be interested in what the minister has to say on that.
The main thing that concerns me is the clause that proposes to change section 4 where a government-owned corporation is only a public sector organisation with respect to personal information and changing it to a public sector organisation may be declared by the regulations to be a public sector organisation for personal information only.
If we really want to keep with the basis of freedom of information, we should be keeping things well and truly open. By putting it in a regulation, it is open, if you read the document, to the regulations being changed, but it does not come back to parliament. The public, unless they find this bit of paper with the change in regulation, will not know it happened. That is an important change and goes against the whole reason we have freedom of information, so we do know what is going on easily; we do not have to chase it up in some obscure document. I am concerned about that.
We are looking at a land development corporation. Could the Land Development Corporation be declared by regulation so that I can seek personal information only? I have grave concerns about the land corporation for many reasons. I am not saying the concept is not good, but one of the issues I will be raising is how much the public will know about what is going on with Crown land and its sale, lease, use, and its development. It is important, especially when we are talking about major industrial areas. If, by regulation, that land corporation was declared to be a public sector organisation for personal information only, would I be restricted on the type of information I could seek?
I have some concerns. The government would be better to err on the side of freedom, not the side of this-could-be-a-problem. It is a bit like saying we will not do something because there is a risk. If we were to do things on the premise that there is possibly a problem here, a lot of times we will not move forward at all. The government does believe in freedom of information, but I think it is falling into the trap of: ‘Oh maybe not there, no that might be a bit difficult’. If they really believe that that is the main premise, they should just drop these changes all together. Let us live with what we have at the moment and see how we go.
I would have preferred a lot more freedom of information. I said that when we discussed the act. The slippery slope is starting to occur, and we really need to say enough is enough. Let us live with what we have and we will see how we go from there.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I shall be brief. My comments go to the capacity to trust the government with this legislation. The government came, with great fanfare, about the capacity to interrogate its financial records through the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. We know that for at least one instrumentality, the Power and Water Authority, it went backwards. We were prohibited from looking. Under the CLP, this instrumentality was able to be interrogated to a great extent by the whole parliament. We now find that next week, for the first time since Labor assumed government, we will be able to look at this instrumentality - the first time in two years. That has gone backward. No matter what they might say about their act, the Power and Water Authority is a government-owned corporation, the only one of its kind.
People are interested in other than personal information. For instance, if the power goes off for seven hours in Tennant Creek, and people ask the minister why might that have happened, and it takes several weeks to get the answer that a bird hit some important piece of instrument in the generation facility, that is not good enough. There is a little heads-up for next week. We will be asking how come the power went off for seven hours in Tennant Creek because of a bird.
When you have a monopoly provider of an essential service, there are many things that people are going to want to know about because they want continuity of that energy supply for their business. Their business may depend on it, they may have contracts, they may have a number of issues related to their business and they may want to ask questions. It is very easy to hide behind commercial-in-confidence when you are a government-owned corporation, but these are issues that go to the very core of doing business in the NT.
Let us look at one that is not a monopoly provider: the Territory Wildlife Park. I know people out there who operate other wildlife parks, Crocodylus, for instance, is in head to head competition with a government subsidised facility. That facility existed in our time, too, so there is no great differentiation of policy. There is an icon facility out there for the tourist product. It is called the Territory Wildlife Park. It does not make money, therefore it is subsidised by government. However, is it properly subsidised? Is it an unfair competition? Should some of these products be ring-fenced so that they operate commercially? Are the commercial premises within it - for instance, the kiosk - cross-subsidising other operations or do they stand alone?
In a competitive environment, even though it is commercial-in-confidence for his competitor, there is good reason to query government policy that underpins it. That policy is: ‘we are in business against this businessman, but we are not going to tell you how we go about it.’ I do not think that is fair. There are lots of these government business divisions. Some deal with millions and millions, hundreds of millions in the case of the Power and Water Corporation. For that to be barleys – sorry; not going to look there - is unfair. If the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is what it said it should be, things should be better in terms of interrogation.
If the Freedom of Information legislation is correcting the deficiencies of the past, things should be better. They are patently not. They are patently worse. Therefore this government should have another look at this. I note by the silence on the other side that the penny is dropping with some people who believed the rhetoric that this was to make things better; it is to create greater exemption, to take many more hundreds of millions out of public purview and that is something that in their heart of hearts, those opposite would realise they have been betrayed on. They have been betrayed by a minister who has come to the party room and given them a rationale for this. I note that he has included in his collusion the fact that the Information Commissioner has signed off. I would be interested to know if that is the case. I would be very surprised if an Information Commissioner would be signing off on more and more exemptions. I would have thought that by disposition, they would go the other way and look for more and more access.
I know Auditors-General around Australia think like that, and I know that Information Commissioners are also that way inclined. I am interested that the minister has told us that he has, as a colleague, in this amendment, the new Information Commissioner, and I would like the capacity to interview this person myself, and I shall do so because they are an independent officer in the public service and I will be verifying whether, in fact, he is as fulsome in his support as the minister would have us believe.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for what has been largely a constructive debate. The issues raised by all speakers deserve answers. It has not been a purely political debate.
The first point I make in response to some of the issues raised is that, indeed, it was the working party and the Information Commissioner that requested the changes that are before the House today. These were not generated by government. They were brought to us as issues that have arisen out of the very detailed and complex process that our agencies and the Information Commissioner are going through to prepare the government’s system for the operation of this act on 1 July. I can confirm we are on track for that starting date. The changes in this bill are helping to settle areas that were considered by the working party and the Information Commissioner to be problematic in one way or another to the implementation of the act.
I will deal first with general comments about what people continue to call the FOI Act but, in fact, is the Information Act, because it contains not only the FOI provisions, but also the privacy and record-keeping provisions. You may see that as a trivial point, but it is not at all trivial because they are what made our act such ground-breaking and unique legislation. For the first time in Australia, and it is one of the very rare occasions around the world, we have brought together privacy and FOI principles with provisions around the operation of those principles through the legislation for proper record-keeping in the government system to sustain the areas of access that are being offered to the general public.
The information legislation is, by its nature, a series of balances. You have to balance privacy against FOI, for example, because information accessed under FOI could well damage the rights of privacy of people mentioned in documentation that is requested. There will always be an inherent balance between the privacy principles, the federal principles that were imported into our act and are well known around the country, and the FOI principles, which were modelled on Western Australian arrangements.
What do you do when you have to strike balances between the need to protect core decision making processes of government from undue fear of revelation of areas of the decision-making, such as Cabinet and Executive Government decision-making, which is universally accepted as being something that should be excluded from disclosure? There are security issues, police investigative issues, those areas we do not need to go over again because they were exhaustively debated when the principal act was introduced. The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged the fact that you need exemptions. There are areas that are universally recognised as needing to be exempted from the general provisions of disclosure.
How did we arrive at the content of the principal act? We issued a discussion draft of the legislation for public consultation for a protracted period. I circulated in this Chamber a complete list of respondents following the public consultation, and I think members would agree that there was a very wide response to the draft legislation and, equally, that it resulted in quite significant changes within the bill that was finally presented to parliament.
In fact, I pulled out an interview conducted by Julie Christensen with Rick Snell, who is the Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Tasmania, and an acknowledged expert on FOI and information legislation around the country. I quote Professor Snell in response to the broad outlines that we issued at that time that the final bill was presented:
- What I have heard so far has pleased me immensely. I think the government, and especially
the Attorney-General …
I am very pleased to hear that:
- … should be commended for coming the distance they have from their original draft proposal to the key
points that have been highlighted by the Attorney-General, both in his talk and his press release. The fact
that they are using Western Australia as one of their key sources of inspiration, and also the New Zealand
public interest criteria will, I think, go a long way to address most of the concerns that are expressed
about the original draft proposal.
To be characterising this legislation the way that the opposition has sought to today as being the end of the world as we know it and a sell out of the rights of Territorians is a little out of sync with what the experts in this area of legislative development are saying.
Ultimately, this act will commence on 1 July. We, like any government, will be judged to the degree that we have delivered on our promises to the electorate. I have great faith in the Northern Territory electorate to deliver an honest opinion about the outcomes from this legislation and its operation. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Northern Territory people who choose to use the Information Act on its commencement will get a reasonable result out of the process that we have set up. If we did not believe that, and if we are mistaken in that belief, then let us see what happens to us in the next election. That is what all governments face up to.
Beyond taking on board the opinions of the opposition expressed today, I can assure you that the government is absolutely committed to the commencement of this act on 1 July. We are looking forward to seeing the new benefits to Territorians who have dealings with government.
What I can also confirm is that the agency members, our information officers in each of the agencies, are not only cooperating with the process of setting up for the operation of this act, but they are showing a lot of enthusiasm for it. It has been a real wake-up call for a lot of our agencies as to the state of their records and their ability to retrieve the type of information likely to be requested. That is very good for the efficiency of government agencies. They are now having to really sort their record keeping arrangements out and to establish a process that is going to be able to operate to the timeframes that have been set down by the Information Act.
The government has provided substantial new money through DCIS to help achieve a much stronger archives retrieval and records system. That is a much needed reform within the government system; it should have been done years ago. The inception of the Information Act has propelled us into carrying out those reforms within the operational arrangements of our agencies.
I will deal with the two main issues highlighted in the debate. The first is the ability to regulate to exclude TIO from having to disclose its commercial-in-confidence information, while opening it up to applications based on personal information. We play a lot of lawyer games in here and it is a very easy ploy to pick up legislation, read out a paragraph and say: ‘This is what I am going to literally say this means’. Legislation is not like that; legislation has a framework to it and the individual words, phrases, provisions within a bill or an act are bound by the intent of the legislation as a whole.
In the case of the phrase in question, that this bill sets up the mechanism by which an organisation can be declared a public organisation purely for the purposes of release of personal information, we have to go back to the principal act and its intent. I will quote from the Objects clause of the Information Act:
- (i) making available to the public information about the operations of public sector organisations
and, in particular, ensuring that the rules and practices affecting members of the public in their
dealings with public sector organisations are readily available to persons affected by those rules
and practices; and
- (ii) creating a general right of access to information held by public sector organisations limited only
in those circumstances where the disclosure of particular information would be contrary to the public
interest because its disclosure would have a prejudicial effect on the essential public interests or on
the private and business interests of persons in respect of whom information is held by public
sector organisations.
That is the intent of this legislation, spelt out in black and white right at the front of the act. When you go back to section 159 in the principal act, dealing with regulations:
- The Administrator may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, prescribing matters that are:-
The key phrase there is that ‘regulations can be made not inconsistent with this act’. In other words, not inconsistent with the objects of the act as spelt out in the Objects clause. The intent of the section of the bill that has been called into question is very clearly spelled out both in the second reading speech, which was delivered in the last sittings, and in the explanatory memorandum that applies to this bill. I will quote for members the sections that very clearly state the intent of government about these new provisions. This is in the second reading speech:
- The regulations will be amended before 1 July 2003 to provide that the TIO is declared to be a
public sector organisation for personal information only.
It makes clear the ability to make regulations in this bill regarding the situation of TIO, not simply regarding any public organisation that you may want to regulate. Again, in the explanatory memorandum which has the force of law:
- The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Territory Insurance Office is only a public sector
organisation with respect to personal information.
In another section, which I will quote now because it relates to the next thing I will deal with:
- … exclude the Information Commissioner from the operations of the act.
There is no doubt to anyone with access to Hansard, the second reading speech, the explanatory memorandum, which accompanies this bill, to the intent spelt out in the principal act, to the constraint put on the making of regulations in section 159 of the principal act, that this bill will only create, as a practical outcome of this new legislation, the declaration of TIO as a public sector organisation with respect to personal information. The process of declaration is generic. It could be applied in the future if there was an organisation in a similar situation to the one TIO is in at the moment. But again, any regulation made declaring any other organisation would have to be consistent with the intent of the principal act, which creates a right of access to information on the part of the Territory public.
It is simply a matter of taking the intent of the act, as spelt out in the documents that apply to the act, to work out what the government is intending to do with that clause, not trying to play games of saying we could apply this to any organisation on earth and gosh, we are going to put exemptions over the whole of the government system. That is ludicrous. It would never stand up to any challenge if we were inserting a provision inconsistent with the principal act.
Looking at the question of the Information Commissioner and his, in this case, exemption. The difficulty in having the Information Commissioner subject to the Information Act itself is that you can get into a double dipping situation where an applicant could make a request under FOI and have that application refused on some basis, and subsequently go into the complaint process that is built into the provisions of the act. At the same time, if the Information Commissioner was subject to the act, there could be a separate application made directly to the Information Commissioner in addition to the application that had been made through one or another of the government agencies. Those two things then become incompatible because the direct application to the Information Commissioner is time limited. The Information Commissioner has to respond to that application at the same time as the Information Commissioner is overseeing a more protracted complaint process under the original application.
So we would be reaching the stage where, if someone has lodged a complaint, they could, on a regular basis, lodge subsequent applications to the Information Commissioner, so you would have a whole bank up of double dipping applications for the same information but to two different points in the system, leaving the Information Commissioner virtually in paralysis because of the simultaneous processes that apply to the same requests for information. That is the difficulty with it as identified by our Information Commissioner who has had seven years experience with these affairs as the Assistant Information Commissioner in Queensland. We will take it on his advice that this is problematic and that we need to take him out of the situation of being accessible under the provisions, hence that section of the bill today.
People are going to be convinced or unconvinced, but they are the reasons we have proposed these changes. We are not in any way trying to broaden the category of exemptions beyond what we have stated as the target of the change, which is the TIO. We have accepted the arguments that the TIO cannot have all of its internal information and workings exposed to FOI because it is a commercial organisation operating in the open market, and that would be quite unfair to it as a commercial entity to have the internal details of its business operations open to FOI of which, presumably, its competitors would be very quick to take advantage.
For completeness, I take it from the lack of comment in the debate that the other provisions of the bill are not contentious. They are spelt out in the second reading speech. I do not see any reason to repeat the explanation of them. Madam Speaker, with that, we will move along.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note paper – Yugul Mangi Community Government Council – Report of Dismissal
Note paper – Yugul Mangi Community Government Council – Report of Dismissal
Continued from 28 May 2003.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on the report that the minister made on the dismissal of the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council …
Ms Scrymgour: A new shadow spokesperson.
Dr LIM: I pick up on the interjection and advise the member that I have corporate memory of this matter, being the former Minister for Local Government. I thought it would be good that I contribute to debate on this report.
The minister was correct to dismiss the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council. A little history might be useful. I thought the minister, in his previous life, was very much against the establishment of that community government council in the first place. It seems that history has come a full circle under this minister.
The minister tabled a report with quite a detailed list of reasons why, in the fist instance, he appointed Mr Roger Teague to review the council’s activities. He also listed Commissioner Teague’s findings that the council had several shortcomings. In fact, in his report, he listed quite a few failures to fulfil obligations under local government accounting regulations. He listed quite a few of them, and I have not gone through the Local Government accounting regulations myself. For instance, under regulation 3, accounting system to be used by council, there was a clause that described how the council should keep its books on income and expenditure, etcetera - and the list goes on. No 4 was about accounting procedures and policy manuals.
If many of our community councils were assessed by a commissioner on such a basis, I wonder how many councils would fail and be found wanting with their adherence to the accounting regulations that are in the Local Government Act.
When the minister tables a report such as this and adds in a paragraph:
- Due to legal advice and a desire to take no steps which would prejudice these ongoing investigations
or any further action which may result, I have decided to not publish details of those actions.
It is not transparent, minister, when you do that. We do not know what the real reasons are; the rationale that you have is too generic. For that, I believe it would be worthwhile if the minister could offer the opposition a confidential briefing as to the reasons behind Commissioner Teague’s findings. That would at least satisfy the opposition that the minister has done the correct thing. In his tabling statement, the minister said that the commissioner also suggested there were other matters that require further investigation by other agencies. That raises the question of what matters and which agencies were involved. We do not know any of those things, so a confidential briefing to the opposition would help allay a lot of our concerns.
Our local government community councils have a lot of capacity building to do. They have not had many years of experience in local governance and the more capacity building we can have for those community councils, obviously the better it would be and they will understand the responsibilities, the processes that they need to satisfy so that they could come under the wider framework of the Westminster model. When we get the briefing, I would be interested in the steps proposed to address the issues, whether there are going to be, for instance, charges laid. I do not want to know the specifics right now, I do not think it is an appropriate time, but at a confidential briefing we should be told what the issues are, which personalities are going to be pursued, if any, and if there are any further investigations, what line of investigations will be undertaken by whoever is going to be provided with the authority to investigate this matter.
Any local government community council that does not perform within its authority has to be brought to account. There are some 63 community councils around the Territory, and some perform very well under the expert guidance of their town clerks. There are other community government councils that have performed badly in the past, quite often because they are poorly led by their town clerks. Some clerks have higher a level of ethics than others, and when someone does not perform according to their employment charter, things can go wrong. I will not go any further than this, Madam Speaker. There are obviously issues that we do not know about. While the report was tabled by the minister at an appropriate time following his decision to dismiss the community government council, the report is not detailed enough to satisfy members of the opposition. I formally ask the minister to agree to a confidential briefing of opposition members to ensure that we are fully across matters in relation to the activities of Yugul Mangi Community Government Council, and then we can pursue from there.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the member for Greatorex would jump into the member for Macdonnell’s grave as quickly as he seems to have jumped into his portfolio just now. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? I mean, they all lined up there in the parapets, the big attack on the leadership.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr TOYNE: Terry Mills turns around and he says: ‘Right troops, we are ready! Now let’s get high on the parapet’ ‘Don’t worry, Terry,’ they were saying there, the member for Greatorex ‘Don’t worry Terry’ …
Dr LIM: I think the minister is digressing from the topic. What has the leadership to do with the topic at hand? This debate is about the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council and its dismissal. Here, the minister slags me about a leadership challenge. What is the point?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Dr TOYNE: Then, as they went over the parapets, where the member for Macdonnell is following loyally behind the challenger, looks around, and where are they? They have not appeared over the top. The moment the member for Macdonnell quite rightly reacts, feeling pretty peeved about what has happened, and says: ‘Right, I’m giving up on this portfolio’, who jumps in to his shoes? The Member for Corporate Memory.
I raise this point, Madam Speaker, because it is interesting that he is calling for a briefing. We do not even know who the shadow minister is! I mean, if we wanted to brief someone, we would prefer to brief someone who is carrying those responsibilities for the opposition, but if all 10 of you want to come over, I suppose we can find a big room up on the 5th floor and we will brief the lot of you.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: These are serious matters, despite the mumblings from across there.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Community government councils carry an enormous amount of the interests of communities. When a council becomes dysfunctional and falls under the influence of malpractice by its staff or the members of the council itself, it is a very serious matter for a community. It translates into basic services not being delivered to the community which, in simple terms, means garbage is not picked up off the streets, roads not being repaired, mail services failing, and so on. The whole foundation of a remote community was at stake and has been dealt with by the minister’s actions. The situation at Yugul Mangi was very serious indeed by the time the minister intervened.
To recap the history of the matter, in September 2001, just after this government came to power, the minister asked inspectors of local government to commence an investigation into the council after possible irregularities were identified by the Ombudsman during a visit to Ngukurr in May of the same year. In August 2002, my colleague the Minister for Local Government, acting on advice received from the inspectors following their investigations, recommended to the Administrator that the members of the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council be suspended and a manager be appointed; and a commissioner to inquire into the affairs of the council and serious matters which were brought to light, which were specifically: the failure of the council to ensure the separation of the affairs of the council from the affairs of Yugul Mangi Clan Development Pty Ltd; expenditure by the council of amounts for a purpose not authorised by or under the act or another act; expenditure by the council of amounts not allocated in the council’s adopted estimates; failure of the council to comply with directions issued by inspectors within the time specified in the directions; failure of the council to provide reasonable assistance to inspectors; failure of members of the council to declare under section 20 of the act an interest in Yugul Mangi Clan Development Pty Ltd; and finally, failure of the council to fulfil its obligations under the Local Government Accounting Regulations.
The commissioner’s subsequent inquiry into these matters and his findings supported the actions taken by my colleague in recommending the suspension of the council and, later, dismissing those members of the council. These were very serious matters and I commend the minister for taking that action.
A plan of action for moving forward has been developed. Under that plan, a constitutional review and implementation group of agreed people from within the community, ATSIC and the Northern Land Council has been established to look at the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council scheme. Specifically, they are reviewing representation and council boundaries and are developing a plan for capacity building. That plan will include community education on the role and function of the community government council, and financial management training for councillors. Once this work is complete, elections will be held at the earliest possible opportunity.
The action that the minister has taken on this serious matter and the report that he has brought to this House demonstrates our good government on these very important matters for remote communities. I commend the minister for his actions and the report he has tabled in this House.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see Terry McCarthy in the gallery because, if you looked at the Certificate of Incorporation of the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council, you would probably find it was signed by Local Government Minister McCarthy. You would probably also find, if you go back in history, that there are some names that intertwine. I will take a little excursion into history later.
In the first place, let me state quite strongly on the record that it is imperative that local government inspectors carry out their task with absolute diligence. There has been a sad history of rip-offs on community government councils over many years. In fact, many of them are not community government councils, and do not have the rigour of accounting standards that come under the Local Government Act. They are merely incorporated associations, some under the Commonwealth statutes that require very little scrutiny by the relevant registrars, and there is ample scope for people to exercise all sorts of nefarious activities including pinching money. It is often difficult to track these people down because the books are obfuscated to the extent that it is an intentional smoke screen; the books are very difficult to follow.
From the outset, let me say that many of us know Inspector Teague, we believe that he has done a good, competent and honourable job. We believe that the Office of Local Government has to exercise more and more this inspectorial obligation to ensure that monies received for the benefit of Aboriginal people actually get there and are not subverted into the private pockets of a few. That is on the record.
The minister should have declared his interest in this matter, given that he fought strongly against the incorporation of the Yugul Mangi Council. I lived in Katherine and had, in my sphere of influence, the community of Ngukurr for a few years. It is unfortunate to say that it had a bad boy image at that time in terms of a community that had difficulties with managing its elections, its budgets, whatever. It was therefore very pleasing to me when there was a concept called the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council which not only embraced the community of Ngukurr, but several others in a very radical proposal at that time, which was a non-contiguous boundary that embraced communities of interest, albeit some of them small excisions on pastoral leases, into a body corporate called the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council.
This was strenuously fought against by the Northern Land Council and particularly some of its apparatchiks at that time, a Mr Gallacher, a Mr Dalrymple come to mind, and certainly Mr Ah Kit and Roseanne Bonson also come to mind. They strenuously fought against this - strenuously. In fact, I have correspondence in which John Ah Kit, the then Director of the NLC, wrote to Senator Margaret Reynolds asking for a moratorium on any new community government councils. We had a situation where tens of field officers chased the ones and twos of field officers of Local Government around south east Arnhem Land, going to meetings, creating divisive messages, telling them that it was not in their best interests to incorporate as a community government council.
We had the spectacle of a former Labor premier, Mr Don Dunstan, coming to the Northern Territory to look on behalf of the South Australian government, by whom he was appointed as a consultant, at the models that were available in the Northern Territory that might be applicable in the remoter, unincorporated areas of South Australia. Mr Dunstan had his permit revoked. In other words, you had a Labor luminary going to have a look at a model, which could have been applicable to the benefit of Aboriginal people in South Australia, and there were people sabotaging his visits. It was a dastardly era when we had a complicit Commonwealth Labor government, there were many, many people attempting to make sure that all power stayed within the Northern Land Council and woebetide anybody who looked at this thing called self-management or self-determination.
So the neo-colonialism that has affected Aboriginal people for so long was alive and well and sitting well and truly in the Northern Land Council. They believed they should be the sole spokesman for Aboriginal people and, in fact, a major protagonist organisation against the government of the day. I can recall John Ah Kit giving evidence to a Commonwealth parliamentary committee, which was chaired by Warren Snowdon – gee, isn’t it amazing how these names keep coming up? – and he said in his evidence, and I shall not quote him verbatim, but this is transcript evidence available through a Hansard search, that they did not really trust that Labor mob because they were pretty useless and therefore the NLC saw itself as the opposition to the government.
So when people start finger pointing about the difficulties that the previous government had and how it ran various campaigns that some would call racist, you have to remember that there was an entrenched corporate attitude within the NLC that was against local government, against community development, against self-determination and self-management. It is interesting that the champions of those things was the CLP government here in the Territory. The champions of local self-management was the CLP government.
I am pleased to have worked not only in the Office of Local Government, but for the Minister for Local Government, Terry McCarthy, during this era. It was an era when we faced a terrible battle and there were many casualties along the way, the Aboriginal Cultural Foundation being one of them, which was valiantly trying to look at those matters, not land, but Aboriginal culture. They were doing a good job with very little money. The NLC was awash with money. It was disappearing down the tube. In fact, during the era of Director Ah Kit, there were substantial lay-offs because of mismanagement of funds to an enormous degree.
It is ironic. Here we are now and he is bleating about adhering to the Local Government Act when we know that was not the case in the past. He is very honourable about the fact that some money might have gone missing, and he is a champion of self-determination and self-government. We think that is a bit hollow. It is not only hollow; we know that he is not a latter day convert to Aboriginal self-management in any way because as late as 15 May this year, the minister’s picture was in the Northern Territory News and he has come up with an unemployment plan, which is a bit of a tragic statement in any event, let’s face it. We know, for instance, that unemployment is at 7.3%, the worst of any jurisdiction other than Tasmania, which ironically is coming down as ours goes up. We know that unemployment here is going up for the 10th consecutive month, and here is Mr Ah Kit announcing his unemployment plan. It is working. There are more unemployed than ever before. But this is a quote:
- Community Development Minister John Ah Kit described Aboriginal self-management and self-determination
as ‘a joke’.
We know that is his form. This is Mr Paternalism personified. This is the bloke who, at the NLC, ran the case that nobody can do anything unless it is within the province of the NLC. How dare you be self-determining? How dare Ngukurr go out there and pretend they can run as a community? You have to come under my umbrella because I am the big protecting godfather. We are talking 1988 here. In that era, we would never have conceived in our wildest dreams that this person would be the local government minister. Here he is, the local government minister.
Not only did he have his fingers all over thwarting the ambitions, the local determination and self management ambitions of the people at Ngukurr in a former life; not only is he against the very concept of them having a local government instrumentality; not only is he against self-management and self-determination, which he describes as ‘a joke’, but we have a minister who is proudly carrying out this fiscal responsibility thing, when we know that his own stewardship of the NLC left the its books in tatters. We also know that if he wants to use Yulgul Mangi as the benchmark, and the Attorney-General says the offences were ‘… very serious’ - and maybe they are - my question is: how many others have the same template?
If you look at this accounting template that has these various breaches of the Local Government Act, let’s have a look at other communities. Let’s do a total audit. Let’s have a check sheet across every other community. Let’s see if their returns are in on time. Let’s see if these various regulations that have been offended to the extent that this organisation has had to be sacked come up to speed in every other community. I can tell you Yugul Mangi had money in the bank. They have a couple of swimming pools; they have run training seminars for other communities about how to run things. Okay, there might have been some problems there, but I do not think if you looked at the Northern Territory context, you would find the Yugul Mangi Council as the pits.
So if there is a spectrum of financial accountability, and the argument from the minister is down one end, down the nether end is Yugul Mangi, and the rest of them are doing okay to very well, I dispute that theory. I think you would find Yugul Mangi in the middle, towards the top of the pack. Therefore, it is incumbent on this minister to go and look at others that might be in more parlous circumstances than we found Yugul Mangi.
Sacking a tier of government. Now, the Labor Party have this great entrenched history and notion about the sacking of one prime minister called Mr Whitlam. If you look at the offence and the umbrage it has taken where you had a Vice Regal say that this government should not be allowed to govern any longer and the absolute outrage that it caused, you have to look at the fact that this minister went to the Vice Regal, the Administrator, who acted on his advice and sacked the council.
The first thing he should do is put back into place some form of governance. It is no good to sack them and say these people did the wrong thing, and we are going to train people and change the constitution, have another go at it, and one day, when you mob are organised, when we can really trust you, when you are grown up big boys, we might let you have an election. That is rubbish. The people who live in that catchment deserve the same level of democracy as I have sitting out in Leanyer, and that is, if there are issues of local circumstance, they should be able to deploy the local money that comes to them, taxation money that comes to them as right, for their best benefit. Now, this minister cannot describe it as terrible, there are investigations on foot, and one day they are going to have an election and use that as some sort of sop to the parliament.
We are elected on the basis that we represent people democratically, and I suggest that people living on the banks of the Roper River have the same right. I suggest that this minister - and do not forget it is in his electorate - has to describe to those people how they can achieve what we call democracy, what we call self-government, so they can get back to a situation where they are in a position where they can truly participate in the wider Australian democratic context. That is called an election, with local candidates, local members and people who truly represent their interests. The minister is being very quiet in describing the next step, which is elections and getting back to government.
I heard some of the words of the Attorney-General about who should be speaking in this debate and, quite honestly, I found them offensive. I have an interest in the people of Ngukurr and the Yugul Mangi Council. I am interested, for instance, that they sought a self-governing breakaway land council from the Northern Land Council and, in fact, the Commonwealth Local Government minister of the day suggested that this group, that had described itself as a community of interest, and that was the people of Groote Eylandt and people of south-east Arnhem, said: ‘No, I am going to fragment it. I am going to put a line here and have two plebiscites, one for the islands and one for the mainland’. The plebiscite was held, and this was at the minister’s discretion, don’t forget, and the people on the mainland voted for a breakaway land council at a higher rate than did the people who now have the Anindilyakwa Land Council.
When you talk about self-determination, when you talk about plebiscites, when you talk about voting, when you talk about Aboriginal people making their own way in the place, this paternalism that is disguised over here by somebody who claims: ‘I am an Aboriginal person therefore I know what they want’, no, you do not. You are as paternalistic as any of the station owners in the past, any of those people who paraded themselves as being all knowing and all knowledgable about matters in Aboriginal affairs. You have attempted to thwart their attempt for local government. Thankfully, you were unsuccessful then, however you are successful now. You thwarted their attempt to have control over their own land, and gave their cousins, the Anindilyakwa, land when these people had arguably a greater claim to it, and they had a greater return in the plebiscite.
So, minister, as a local member, you are an abysmal failure. As a minister, you are an abysmal failure. As a paternalistic neo-colonialist of old, dare I say, you are an outstanding success.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, what a horrible, terrible performance from the former minister.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I can answer the allegations as much as I wish, and we can go for a little trip down memory lane. I do not mind that. We are dealing with something sensitive. I have responsibilities under the Local Government Act that the former minister should be aware of. As the minister responsible, I am not going to ignore Commissioner Teague’s report, nor will I ignore my local government inspectors and the work that they have had to do …
Mr Dunham: Not asking you to. I am asking you to give them back a council, have an election.
Mr AH KIT: Just wait and listen! You had your go and I had to put up with the diatribe that came from you. Most of it was incorrect. We will get to that point shortly.
However, without having to go through all those reasons - because I went through that earlier in the tabling speech, and the member for Stuart, the Attorney-General, touched on it. I know the sensitivities with the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council that I initially suspended and then dismissed. They do not like this sort of stuff running in the media or being discussed in parliament, and they certainly do not like the way it was discussed by the member for Drysdale because they are a very proud community.
Yes, the member for Drysdale is correct, it is in my electorate, which is one of the major reasons that I had to ensure, as the minister, not the local member, I made some hard decisions. I will not walk away from those hard decisions. It will flag to other unscrupulous operators out on Aboriginal communities, especially in the community government councils, and I am not saying there are many out there, but there are some, that if you want to fiddle the books or con councils, then I and my department will go you and do what we have to do to ensure that there is very little, if none, of taxpayers’ money being misappropriated.
I will touch on some of the points raised by, first, the member for Greatorex who is a former minister. He waffled. It is not quite clear whether he is now the shadow minister for local government …
Mr Dunham: No, stick to the subject. Stay on the subject.
Mr AH KIT: I am talking to the subject. This is a local government matter. We had the resignation, yesterday I believe, of the member for Macdonnell. He no longer wishes to have any shadow portfolio responsibilities. I want to know who I am going to brief and who is putting their hand up for a briefing because nobody has knocked on my door yet; nobody has phoned my office yet. I will consider a briefing. I am yet to be advised whether it would be wise. I am not trying to hold anything back, other than sensitivities in this situation such as the Air Ngukurr business that continues to operate, plus some legal matters that may possibly have to go before the courts in respect of charges or otherwise being laid, and that has not happened at this stage. However, we do have the full report there from Commissioner Teague.
With regard to the shadow minister, each member of government and members of the opposition can contact my office if they want a briefing. It is not for me to continue to offer that, especially to members on the other side of the Chamber. I feel it is their job to seek briefings. However, it is very important to know who the shadow spokesperson is. As I picked up this morning, I had a response to my Ministerial Report from the Shadow Minister for Central Australia. I know he has an interest. The member for Macdonnell, as of yesterday, I understand - and he is mentioned in this article, where it says he was the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Local Government. You need to get together …
Mr Dunham: Read the one next to Lim, what does it say? Centralian Affairs. Oh, blow me down …
Mr AH KIT: This is Ngukurr, you idiot! Do you know where Ngukurr is?
Mr Dunham: Where is Blatherskite? You were talking about it this morning.
Mr AH KIT: Have you been to Ngukurr? It is in Central Australia? No!
Mr Dunham: I have been to Ngukurr. You been Blatherskite? You been Blatherskite, Alice Springs?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order! The minister has the floor.
Mr Baldwin: It is Ngukurr.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: What did you say? Sorry, member for Drysdale, you said something about ‘look next door’.
Mr Dunham: He is inviting an interjection, Madam Speaker. Should I take it up or not?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, continue your summing up. Do not listen to them.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, please let me know who the shadow minister …
Mr Dunham: For Centralian Affairs.
Mr AH KIT: If he is minister for Central Australia, how that is associated with Ngukurr, I do not know.
Madam Speaker, I will take advice on whether a confidential briefing can be offered as the member for Greatorex requested. I will get back and advise if that is possible, taking into account the sensitivities in terms of charges being laid and cases maybe having to go before the court. Also, the Air Ngukurr airline operations is functioning, and we certainly in this situation, do not want that to fall over because of what I had to do in terms of the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the council.
The member for Greatorex also touched on capacity building. That is what Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures is about. I am disappointed that the member for Drysdale did not understand what I was saying in March last year in this parliament about dysfunctional communities, and that we had to start turning that situation around. The way we are going to do that is through Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures being an inclusive government, capacity building and start to work in partnerships with organisations such as the land councils, ATSIC, etcetera. The more partnerships, we believe, that we can develop in remote parts of the Territory with business and industry, organisations, etcetera, the better we are going to be because we all, obviously, agree that we need to advance the economic development of the Northern Territory.
In regard to some of the remarks made by the member for Drysdale, he said: ‘Let’s see, let’s see, let’s see.’ All of this stuff for 26 years was done under their government, nothing really happened and it went backwards. We picked up a lot of headaches that you people did not do anything about, but that is not a problem; that is a challenge. In fact, that is a challenge to us. We see that as a challenge. We will bite the bullet, we will be inclusive, and we will move forward.
When he talks about having some correspondence about me in my capacity as the Director of the Northern Land Council, I had 12 glorious years with the Northern Land Council! I am not ashamed of that and I never will be. What I did in my paid position as the Director, and you should go back six years ago when we had this blue before, as a professional administrator, I did my job well. I did it really well! I am quite often told that I was one of the best directors, if not the best ever that they have had. That is what I am told.
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: And I bought you a beer.
Madam Speaker, in regards to the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council, the Northern Land Council’s opposition to that at the time was not necessarily about the structure of the organisation because it was bringing the clans together. That is what Yugul Mangi stands for. The argument was more about the Country Liberal Party government and the way they wanted to extend the boundaries of the community government council, which would take in, in some cases, outstations 60 km away, and that is where the Northern Land Council, taking advice from traditional owners of country stood up and said: ‘We do not have a problem with a community government councils scheme that is 5km or 10km around the community that can allow for future planning and development’. But, when it starts to implement a scheme that is going to be seen by traditional owners out in the bush to erode the responsibilities that traditional owners have under the Land Rights Act, that is when they decided to oppose it.
I know that the member for Drysdale has been out to Ngukurr. I do not know whether the former minister, the member for Greatorex, has, but I sometimes wonder whether the member for Drysdale knows that Ngukurr is not in Central Australia. I quite often visit there, and as I said in my tabling statement, I went down to talk to them. Some of the members were disappointed because they thought I was there to lift the suspension when in fact I was there, in person, to dismiss them: ‘This was serious enough to dismiss you’.
Since then, we have been working hard. We proposed a Constitutional Implementation Review Group that they would nominate: elders, young people, ladies. They would nominate members from the clan groups to sit on this group, which has to go through the recommendations. That is their task: to look at the constitution and see how it can be tightened from the one the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council had, identify the deficiencies in terms of not falling into problem areas and not knowing enough about economic enterprises standing alone, separate from the Community Government Council, how they should have gone about that in hindsight, and establishing it in a proper way. The job is also to address all those issues that were raised by the Commissioner.
I am informed that post- the meeting some months ago, the Constitutional Review and Implementation Group has changed its name. It is now Seven Tribes Review Of New Governance. That was an initiative taken by the community and its leaders. The acronym is STRONG. It is obvious that they have accepted what has happened. They have also accepted that in the past, community division between the two major factions, whether they are Yugul Mangi Community Government Council and a particular executive, has led to situations where they may or may not have had their interests properly represented.
Now they have this group called Seven Tribes Review Of New Governance. It is their own initiative and has placed a great deal of importance on how they wish to tackle the problems they have been confronted with and how they will work through those recommendations to get themselves back on track.
There will be three stages to getting back on track through STRONG. Before I go through those stages, I will read out some of the names. It might interest members opposite: Aaron Joshua, who works in Council administration; Phillip Bush, Environmental Health; Robin Rogers, teacher; Anne Marie Rogers, teacher; Daphne Daniels, journalist; Anita Thompson, bookkeeper; Kevin Rogers, NLC Executive; Walter Rogers, ATSIC Councillor; David Daniels, Outstation Manager; Maryanne Roberts, aged care; Jacob Lanson, Sport and Recreation; Gwen Rami, Parks and Gardens; Michael Wurramara, Church minister; Velma Rogers, shop; Gordon Nawundulpi, former Council President; Nipper Wilfred, BRACS worker; Bobby Nunggumajbarr, NLC Field Officer. There is also a position available for an ATSIC representative, and there are four representatives to be nominated from Minyerri, from the Hodgson Downs community, who will sit on this STRONG committee.
There is dialogue with Jilkminggan, a community thinking seriously about whether it is an option to becoming involved with the Ngukurr-Minyerri people, or whether they choose to join Mataranka. That is their choice, and I have had no influence over them about it. Obviously, to the north of Jilkminggan you have Nyirranggulung, Katherine East, who would no doubt welcome Jilkminggan with open arms if they decided that was the way forward for their community. One of my officers will be on this committee, along with Stephen Moore, the CEO from Yugul Mangi Community Government Council. There will also be a Northern Land Council representative.
The three stages include:
Stage one, a review of existing constitution and local government boundary. It appears likely that adjacent Aboriginal land trusts may be considered for inclusion into the scheme;
Stage two will be the capacity building phase and will include assessment of capacity development needs, activities may target community education and the role and function of the community government council, and financial management training for councillors. That is most important. We believe that all councillors should be making themselves available for this, and I have signed off on two lots of $200 000 to LGANT to administer elected member training throughout the organisation, so we can ensure that council members understand resolutions in regards to their financial situation. My understanding is that people in the bush are starting to understand The Money Story a lot better by the company concerned being able to come out, working with LGANT, to explain the financial situations in a way our people in the bush, with a limited education, can understand and learn a lot more about;
Madam Speaker, in winding up, I would like to say …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I do not want to take notice of any interjections from the pompous windbag opposite, the member for Drysdale. There is no other way to describe him.
I thank members for their contributions, those who knew what they were contributing. I still would like to be informed by the Leader of the Opposition who is going to be the shadow because they do not understand where they are at over there. We know that they have leadership problems, that there is a bit of a factional fight going on, and we know that they will have to share out the portfolios that used to be the responsibility of the member for Macdonnell. I certainly hope he is okay, because I enjoyed the discussions we used to have about his responsibilities and how he tackled me in debates on those.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
(Serial 155)
TRADE DEVELOPMENT ZONE ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 156)
(Serial 155)
TRADE DEVELOPMENT ZONE ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 156)
Continued from 28 May 2003.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank the minister for his invitation for a briefing, of which I took advantage. Officers from his department - or various departments, I am not sure whether they are from yours - gave a full and thorough briefing along with an officer from his office, which has been advantageous in respect of these bills.
We know this is on urgency, because it has not had the time period before the House required under standing orders. However, it has to come into effect on 1 July given that, along with the cognate bill, the Trade Development Zone Act Repeal Bill, this Land Development Corporation Bill will subsume the line budget and the assets of the Trade Development Zone, so it is understandable that it needs to be passed now so that it is up and running by 1 July. This side of the House has no problem with that. In fact, we do not have a philosophical problem with land development corporations at all. We will not be opposing the bills. However, there is a schedule of amendments that I have proposed, and I will get to those later.
In the framing of this, as I said, we do not have a problem with a land development corporation-type structure, although this one does present a few issues, namely that this is a sole corporation, which vests its power to deal in its assets and operations in one person predominantly, a person appointed by the minister who has all sorts of discretions as outlined in the bill. If you are having a corporation, why not go for the option of a fully constituted board rather than an advisory board only? It seems to me that an advisory board is there for good reason in that it will advise the chief executive officer, in this case, in whom all power is vested. That does not mean that the chief executive officer has to take that advice. The charter of the corporation is to act in a commercial manner. One would suppose that the chief executive officer will take advice from that advisory board but, at the end of the day, does not have to do anything that it advises.
It is a little different in structure from a normal corporation and a fully constituted board. The reasoning behind that, I am told, is because there is a conflict in corporate governance issues with having a fully constituted board. That has to be corrected pursuant to the Financial Management Act and the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and so forth, to get around those issues. They are issues that came up in the first tranche of the Power and Water Corporation when it was being corporatised. That is well and good, and I can accept that. The only comment I have is: if it were the case that those acts need to be changed, the announcement for this was made in November 2001 and we are now in June 2003, those acts should have been changed by now to get around that issue. You would not then have to go to a sole corporate structure; rather, you could have gone to a full corporation structure. Be that as it may, that is the decision you have made. It has been said that this is predominantly a land development corporation to hold and deal in industrial land predominantly, except that it can obviously hold all sorts of land: commercial, residential. The minister is shaking his head and says that is not right, but when you read the charter, there is no limitation on the type of land it can hold. I note that in the minister’s second reading speech, he talked about it being based on industrial land, but under the powers of the corporation, there is really no limitation on the type of land except that it is the conduct of industry on the land and that sort of thing, and use by industrial business and so forth.
It could end up going to commercial-type land as well. I was informed of that in the briefing as well, that it has not been limited to any one category, in this case industrial land. That is an issue in that it can operate right throughout the Territory, it can hold whatever type of land. I note, on that issue, that the Minister for Lands, I think, in the previous budget talked about this land development corporation. You reminded us that we may remember an announcement by the Chief Minister on 13 November 2001 of the government’s intention to establish an industrial land corporation with responsibility to develop and manage the East Arm development area including the Trade Development Zone and proposed industrial estates on Middle Arm Peninsula and at Glyde Point.
You went on to say:
- The government’s commitment to establish an industrial land corporation has been extended and the
corporation will also cover commercial and residential development. The land development corporation’s
activities are Territory-wide and its main aim is to develop and manage industrial, commercial and
residential plant.
They are your words, minister. When you look at the powers and functions within the act, there is nothing limiting this to industrial land only. At one stage, you talked about this - in fact it was in the speech I have just quoted - and when the announcement made, it was always called the industrial land corporation; it is now called the land development corporation. I suspect that it is quite right that it is not limited to just industrial land and can in fact take on any land. That is a concern. The structure is a concern, and these are options for you to consider, obviously. As I say we are not going to oppose this bill, but I am pointing out some anomalies.
The powers of the corporation are listed in the bill, a whole range of powers from (a) through to the (n). In particular, they can negotiate and enter into contracts, agreements, schemes and arrangements, purchase, lease and otherwise acquire and hold real or personal property, sell, grant leases of or otherwise dispose of real personal property, acquire, hold and dispose of rights, privileges, permits, licences, etcetera. It goes on and on.
I noticed that in your second reading speech on this bill, you said:
- It is important to understand that the industrial land asset is viewed as critical to the future of areas such
as the wharf and rail internodal transport system. We have protected the land asset by only leasing areas
for appropriate lengths of time.
It may be that you fully intend only to lease land for industrial, commercial or residential purposes, or whatever it is that this bill empowers the corporation to do, but the fact is that they can acquire, in their own right, real property; they can dispose of real property by lease or sale and so forth. This corporation has an enormous amount of power to trade in land in any way it sees fit. You also said in your second reading speech:
- In addition, a freehold arrangement will not be entered into without compelling reasons and specific
approvals.
I can understand that, but coming back to the detail of the bill, they can do all of those things with the power vested in the corporate sole.
I note that if the minister gives directions, there are provisions and requirements for action to be taken, such as with the Planning Act that you, minister, must lay before the Legislative Assembly a copy of those directions within six sitting days - a number you probably should keep in your head, given the last debacle with the Direction you issued in respect of the Planning Act – and that is a good thing. There is a requirement for gazettal of any Crown land vested in the corporation. That is a good thing, too, because that is public property that will be vested in this corporation.
The act obliges the corporation to take a commercial approach, which is good. That is really why this corporation is being established: you, the government, have decided that certain Crown land administered by the department needs to be vested in an entity with a more commercial focus. This corporation provides the vehicle for that commercial focus. That is the government’s choice, I assume, from many options you may have considered. You could have developed a unit within the department that has a commercial approach. You could have used the NT Land Corporation or the Conservation Land Corporation that already exist, albeit that those corporations have diverse property in their portfolios. Their land is particularly tied up in native title and land right type issues, whereas you are proposing that only land free from those encumbrances be vested, which is the only thing you can vest in Crown land; you trigger the native title component if you change the owner. It is a matter of philosophy as to what action you take. You have chosen the corporation route, and that is fine.
The advisory board, as I mentioned, is just that: it is comprised of five members, three from private enterprise. They have the role of advising only the corporate sole. I understand that sometime in the future, this may move to a fully constituted corporation with a full board but, as I said, there is no reason, except for the so-called conflict of governance, why this could not have been set up like that in the first place, as have others in the past. Or, in fact, if changes to those acts are required, as I said, they could have been done since the announcement to establish this corporation on 13 November 2001, 18 months ago or so.
The termination and appointment of members is pretty straight forward, except there is a new section where people automatically - and there is no choice by the minister of those members - disqualify themselves if they behave improperly. That is all set out, and that is fine. We do not have an issue with that.
The main issue I have, of course, is reflected in my schedule of amendments, and that is the matter of reporting. There are a number of sections in the bill dealing with requirements for reporting. I noted that the minister, in his second reading speech, said:
- To some, the reporting requirements might seem onerous, however, we are only dealing with a finite and
valuable estate on behalf of all Territorians, and the government intends to ensure it is made best use of
now and into the future.
I commend those comments. However, I do not agree that the reporting is onerous. From a point of view of bureaucratic reporting in here, it could be considered by some, particularly anyone administering this act, that it is a little bit onerous because Treasury has jumped in there, that is the main thing. The Treasury has jumped in there and said we want a clause that asks for provision of information to the Treasurer, which is good, it is a good little check on financial information, and with information that the Treasurer considers will enable him or her to accurately assess the financial affairs of the corporation. That is good, and that has come from Treasury, I assume, and they want to be able to keep an eye on this corporation from a financial point of view. That is not a problem. That is one set of reporting to the Treasurer.
Another part dealing with reporting is that the corporation must, in writing, report to the minister in respect of each financial year or other reporting period determined by the minister about its financial performance during that period, and its expected financial performance during the next two reporting periods. Then it lists what those reports have to address. That is okay. This is where the minister gets to keep an eye on his corporation, or a corporation that comes under his portfolio area. He will receive those reports as set out in the bill. Otherwise, of course, they will be in breach of the act.
The corporation must also report to the minister regarding the financial position of the corporation if the corporation sees that it is getting into some difficulties, or there are some actions taken that affect, in some significant degree, its performance or financial position. So a flag has got to go up. That is really what that is all about; if they are getting into some difficulty, there is a requirement in the bill that they must report to the minister. This is at any time, of course.
They are very good reporting mechanisms to the responsible ministers. The whole point about those reports is that they are not available either to the House or through the House to the general public. They are to the various ministers who want to keep an eye on this corporation and be provided with timely information as to how it is going and so forth. For that reason, they are good. However, there is only one report in this that makes it to the public eye, and that is, of course, the annual report.
Under the bill, the annual report must be provided at the end of each financial year, as you would expect, within a certain time frame, which you would expect, and the report has to include a number of things. It has to report on any directions and reasons for those directions that the minister may have made, even though they have been placed in this House; any objections to the directions made to the corporation; and it must report on the operations of the corporation throughout the financial year. That, of course, has to be tabled in the House within six sitting days of the Legislative Assembly once the minister has received it. Under the terms of the bill, it does not specifically say that the annual report should provide details of all of its asset dealings or transactions, call it what you will. This is a corporation that has been set up as the commercial land bank of public Territory land, and you are not necessarily going to see much detail in the annual report. Certainly, the public will not be able to, without further inquiry, see any details of transactions once they have occurred.
I am not suggesting that, at any time a transaction is pending, because of commercial-in-confidence and all the rest of it, that they need to report on those. They could have an area to say that there are three or four transactions pending at the time of the report; the outcomes of which will be reported in the next report. It is incumbent on the corporation, given the way that it is structured with all the power in the hands of one person, that it reports on the transactions that it has dealt with, transactions of public land and assets. Obviously, the annual report will report on all sorts of things. This corporation can have by-laws and do all sorts of things, and it will report on all of that, I am sure. However, the critical part is that the power is vested in one person in this case. It should be incumbent on the corporation to report regularly and in detail on its asset transactions, whether it has leased, sold, bought, acquired or had them vested. It does not really matter. The corporation’s dealings should, we believe, be open and transparent, as long as they are not commercial-in-confidence. As I said, that commercial-in-confidence can be dealt with.
I understand perfectly that, within this bill, the corporation has to deal in land at valuations set by the Australian Valuation Office, and all of the rest of it. That is not a problem; and not really the issue. The issue here is who, on behalf of the Northern Territory public, has this corporation transacted assets to or from on our behalf? That is really the issue. What I am suggesting - and it is before you there - is quite a simple amendment. It goes to clause 32 under Part 4 of this bill, the requirement for that corporation to produce two reports, one at the end of the financial year, and one mid-year like the Treasurer does under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. He is required to let the public know how we are going, mid-term in the financial year, in terms of the financial position of the Northern Territory government and its assets.
I am asking likewise of this corporation which, as I said, will be the most significant commercial land bank in the Northern Territory operated wholly by one person. So, two reports. I am also asking that in those reports, they are obliged under the act to provide full details of all real property acquired or disposed of by the corporation, including the type of transaction and financial details involved in the acquisition or disposal. That is to let us know what they have done on our behalf with transactions of assets.
I note in the bill that requires that the corporation forwards a copy of the report to the minister by 30 November of each year. I know that the Auditor-General has reported that 30 November is a little bit late these days for an annual report to be published or tabled, and I am suggesting that we bring it back to 30 September, three months after the end of the financial year. Likewise with the mid-term report. That goes to the flagging, as I have done, informally, formally and now here on my feet, of the amendments, simple amendments, inviting defeat of clause 32 and introducing that new schedule to take care of that.
Madam Speaker, as I said, we on this side are certainly not opposed to a corporation. It is incumbent, at the end of the day, when setting up a structure such as this, that in terms of the ethos that the Labor government is proposing with transparency and so forth that it would be very becoming of them to ensure that there is regular reporting of transactions of this corporation. I certainly hope that they take on board my schedule of amendments. It will not fetter the corporation in any way, and it will certainly keep everyone apprised of what is going on. At the end of day, there is no other way that we will know, unless the minister decides to lay the detail on the Table in his own right at some point in time, because he is not obliged to under the bill, for any dealings other than public land that is vested across, and that is by way of gazettal or by a direction.
The corporation can trade and do any sort of transactions they like. There is no requirement under this act for it to be by public process at all. Let’s say you later include commercial or residential land - let’s say you include the wharf precinct into this corporation - there is no requirement under this bill that they have to release that land through any public process whatsoever. I understand from the briefing that they will be - I do not know whether they will be asked or obliged - following the principles of direct sales of land that are currently the policy of, I believe, your government and our government, but they do not have to adhere to it according to this bill, if I am reading it properly. You might like to correct me there. Let us hope they do some of this by public process, but there is no requirement for that, and you could certainly have land sales or purchases transacted with no record of it happening anywhere in the public realm, except by reading an annual report that really does not have to provide that detail under the terms and conditions of this bill or its own charter.
That is my contribution to this debate. I have no issue with the bill passing. I point out those anomalies for the sake of putting them on the record. I will wait with interest to see whether the minister takes on board the schedule of amendments that I have proposed in light of fairness and transparency, and certainly in the name of fiscal integrity.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, in recent weeks, the government has taken three major policy decisions, which will have a long-term impact on development in the Northern Territory. The government has announced that it will abolish the Trade Development Zone; establish a Land Development Corporation; and, importantly, it will set in place a Trade Support Scheme. By taking these steps, this government has taken the Territory one step further into a brighter, more trade focussed future.
The Trade Development Zone has been an emasculated body for some time now. The introduction of major world trade changes under the new World Trade Organisation put a stop to much of its ability to act as a TDZ. The TDZ also lost its focus. I will take a little trip down memory lane for members of this House in relation to the Trade Development Zone. I have done some research on media interest in the TDZ. I will seek leave to table these news clippings when I have gone through them.
On 11 August 1987, the then Minister for Industries and Development, Mr Marshall Perron, made an announcement that:
- Substantial export contracts could follow an initial Malaysian order of 10 ice-making machines from
Hungerford Refrigeration.
The company, which recently established in the Trade Development Zone, won the order through the
Malbex ‘87 trade Expo in Kuala Lumpur.
I will quote the then minister:
- The product has been extremely well received at trade fairs in South East Asia, and it appears that this
initial will be just the tip of the iceberg.
Subsequent orders will be exported in knock-down form for assembly in Malaysia, earning valuable
foreign currency for Australia while creating jobs for Territorians in the Trade Development Zone.
Unfortunately, less than a year later, in fact closer to six months, on 18 May 1988, there was another media release from the then Minister for Industries and Development, Mr Marshall Perron:
- Hungerford Refrigeration’s receivership will have no effect on the future of the Trade Development Zone.
In a short period of time, the glowing announcement from the then minister to a receivership some six months later. That was referred to by many Territorians as the ‘Hungerford scandal’.
The next saga - there are quite a few sagas in the old TDZ, this wonderful vision of the CLP - was commonly known as Hengyang. Hengyang is known to many Territorians as a scandal of international proportions. The first news clipping I have from a southern newspaper, The Advertiser, 12 February 1990. Headline:
- Federal probe into NT duty- free zone.
DARWIN: The flight of a Chinese textile worker from Darwin’s Trade Development Zone (TDZ) has
led to allegations from other workers about poor wages and conditions provided by some companies
operating in the zone.
The $30 million TDZ, established by the NT government in 1987 as a duty-free base for local and
overseas companies, is one of only two developments of its kind in Australia …
It goes on to reveal how federal authorities were called on to investigate what appeared to be a bit of a guest worker immigration racket where and refers to the Sunday Territorian, which said it :
- …obtained a copy of a Hengyang worker’s contract, which stated guest workers were paid US$120-a-month
‘pocket money’ rather than wages. A further US$30 was sent to China.
That was February of 1990. An article in August of 1990, headed: ‘Hengyang to get receiver’. Northern Territory News of 1 August 1990, front page story:
- Westpac Bank will appoint a receiver to the Trade Development Zone textile company, Hengyang, later
today or tomorrow.
The shock development comes after months of speculation about the company’s future.
This followed revelations in February that it had breached the Australian award for its Chinese guest
workers and denied them basic civil liberties.
I quote the then responsible minister, Mr Barry Coulter:
- All other factory plans are on track, and not one intending participating country has withdrawn as result
of the sorry Hengyang saga.
History will show that did not end up being the case.
I have quite a bulky range of news clippings here on the sorry saga, in the words of Mr Coulter, on Hengyang. I will refer to a few relevant clippings. A headline here in the NT News of 4 August 1990: ‘Cash cold comfort to jobless Chinese’. I will read the first couple of paragraphs:
- An NT government decision …
that is, a CLP government decision:
- … to pay the 235 Hengyang workers a week’s wages will be of little comfort to most of the Chinese
women guest workers who have lost their jobs.
The money, to be billed against Hengyang and believed to total between $40 000 and $50 000,
was distributed yesterday afternoon at the instigation of Industries Minister Barry Coulter.
It will no doubt provide temporary solace.
Further news clippings of the period show that, indeed, the company went into bankruptcy and the liquidator was only able to pay 46.5 cents in the dollar to major creditors. So I suppose the bail-out of unsatisfactory wages cost the Territory government half of that amount.
There was a further report in May 1991. Reading the various ministers responsible through the history of the TDZ is a who’s who of CLP leadership through the 26 years of CLP incompetence. We have former Chief Minister Hatton as the relevant minister in 1991. The Northern Territory News article of 14 May 1991 is headed: ‘Critical Report on TDZ’.
- An Immigration Bureau report into the Trade Development Zone is highly critical of government preparation
for the zone.
It recommends examination of labour importation procedures before another such venture is established
anywhere in Australia.
We have Dr John Taylor, a Senior Research Fellow at ANU, saying the failure to define the zone’s role clearly had compounded the operation.
- The report concluded that the TDZ had reached the stage of diminishing returns to public investment.
This was May 1991. Unfortunately, the response to that was for the then Industries Minister Steve Hatton to slam the report. The ‘Row on TDZ report’, headlined on 19 May 1991, says:
- Industries Minister Steve Hatton had either not read a report dealing with the Trade Development
Zone, or misunderstood it, Australian National University Research Fellow, Dr John Taylor said
yesterday.
‘The Territory government had spent $62m in the zone to produce just 60 jobs …
$62m in the zone to produce just 60 jobs!
- … with only 60% of the 25 000m2 of factory space filled.
- Mr Hatton, who returned to Darwin from Jakarta last week, where he was attending talks on
opportunities for venture capital, has challenged Dr Taylor’s findings.
So he was off on a junket to Jakarta, came back and said: ‘No, no. It is bad news, so I do not believe you’. That was in 1991.
Mr Henderson: No wonder we have such a big debt.
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly, no wonder we have such a big debt.
In 1993, things were so bad that the Public Accounts Committee, by this stage, could not continue to ignore the sorry state. I have some information from March 1993. There is a media release from the former member for Millner, Mr Ken Parish, who was the shadow spokesperson for industries, talking about the PAC findings that showed that the CLP had lost the plot. Well, we certainly know that.
- Shadow minister for Industries and Development, Ken Parish, said today that the Dalway disaster has
shown the CLP government has no coherent industry assistance policy:
- ‘The PAC report on Dalway shows that the selective assistance given to favoured businesses by the
CLP does nothing to assist business.
‘In fact, it does the reverse. It damages business.
‘The CLP’s litany of failure and damage to unsubsidised business continues to grow.
‘The taxpayers of the Northern Territory have lost millions of dollars in the CLP’s discredited policy
of “picking winners”.
‘The Sheratons, Yulara, Modular Medical Products, Hengyang, Hungerfords, Emertung, GWR Contracting,
and Dalway - the list goes on - have all cost Territory taxpayers and businesses dearly.
‘Ordinary Territory businesses in Winnellie Road do not get $7m government handouts’.
I go to a media release from Syd Stirling of 3 April 1993 in relation to the TDZ. He was the shadow spokesperson for public employment then, and he asked the relevant question:
- Where are the 1500 TDZ jobs?
because certainly we heard from an expert that there are only 60 jobs identified.
- …Syd Stirling, said today that the CLP should explain why they have so spectacularly failed to
produce the 1500 Trade Development Zone jobs that the CLP promised by 1993.
‘In the last Territory election, the CLP promised 1500 jobs in the Trade Development Zone by 1993.
‘The big bang CLP theories of job creation in the Northern Territory have failed yet again’.
October 1993, and we have …
Mr Kiely: How much of this have you got?
Ms LAWRIE: I will try to be brief, but there is a lot of history here. There is a lot of history to this TDZ and it is worth remembering the failures of the past sometimes, because we do not ever want to see them repeated.
The relevant industries minister this time is one Mr Shane Stone. Established in 1990 as a joint venture in the Trade Development Zone was a company called Emertung Coatings. Emertung Coatings was described as ‘a waterproof protective coatings manufacturer’. The NT News describes them as a ‘paint firm’.
In an article dated the 20 October 1993 regarding this paint firm, the then Industries and Development Minister, Shane Stone, denied that the company had received large subsidies from the government, saying:
- …that in total, Emertung had received $100 000 for the refurbishment of the TDZ factory,
$50 000 partial reimbursement to move from Sydney, and $70 000 foregone rental at the TDZ.
Here we are! We have a textile firm this time. Again …
Ms Scrymgour: How much more? You are still going!
Ms LAWRIE: I have only selected bits of it. I assure you there is a lot more. I am only glancing over some of the litany of disasters.
Yes, 3 September 1994 we have the then industries minister, Shane Stone, confirming that a textile company called Darwin International Textile would fold. The article says:
- More than 40 workers would lose their jobs following the failure of the TDZ company Darwin
International Textile.
Mr Stone said the closure of DIT would have minimal impact on the TDZ.
More denial.
- …he said the government was concerned for the future of the employees who would lose their jobs.
He admitted there had been ‘special difficulties’ about the immigration status of workers. Why didn’t they learn from Hengyang? It had only been a few years earlier. Why hadn’t they learnt the lesson of Hengyang? Why did they continually repeat it and waste taxpayer dollars in outrageous subsidies to these companies that would set up for a couple of years and disappear, with our money gone?
Here we go. ‘Another TDZ business set to close’. This time we are in April 1997.
Another business is set to close its doors at Darwin’s trouble Trade Development Zone (TDZ).
Now the media referring to it as ‘troubled’. It took them seven years to catch on, with major disasters, that it was troubled.
- The $5m Visy Board cardboard box plant will close its manufacturing section in June.
- Fifteen full-time and casual workers are expected to lose their jobs or face relocation to a
South Australian plant.
And last, but by no means least, in 1996, we have a brewery:
- …the $490 000 grant to Goldchill would help the NT’s push into Asia.
$490 000!
- The Goldchill operation was established in the TDZ in 1994 with the aim of servicing a potential
beer export market to Indonesia and South East Asian countries.
The company, which was constantly dogged by takeover rumours, received $490 000 NT government
grant to have equipment transferred from southern Queensland to the TDZ factory.
Well, by 1996, they had folded. Gone!
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to tender, for Parliamentary Record purposes, these clippings that provide a bit of a historical record of the disaster and failure of the TDZ.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: It is worth reading, members, every bit of it. I thank the Parliamentary Library Service for its fantastic assistance in that research. Marilyn Hawthorne is a wonderful asset to members.
The Martin Labor government stands out in stark contrast to that litany of disasters. We are making a very considered, careful and mature change. We have determined that the way forward is to separate the trade issues from the issue of land development, and to develop on site a Darwin business park, closely associated with the billion dollar investment in railway and port.
In fact, the government has already committed $9m to the development of the Darwin Business Park site. With head works and land, preparations and negotiations are underway with freight forwarding companies for development of the land - $9m as opposed to $60m.
By creating a corporation which focusses solely on the issue of commercial dealings and the development of industrial land, the government provides a sensible platform for the timely provision of industrial land in the Territory. I am picking up here on a point that the shadow spokesperson, the member for Daly, was making. Where we are headed is that strategic land anywhere in the Territory can be assigned to it and the government has expressed a view, for example, that land at Glyde Point would be transferred over time.
The government has introduced a trade support scheme, which will provide support for exporters regardless of where they exist in the Territory. That is, we are going to provide, for the first time, a level playing field for exporters. It won’t just be a special little mates deal down in a special little area called the TDZ. One of the major issues of inequity about the TDZ is that it required a company to exist within a geographical boundary to attract the subsidies and assistance available. While it was possible for a TDZ to be declared over any part of the Territory, it was used only once and then it didn’t proceed.
The assistance program initiated by the Martin Labor government will start with a $300 000 provision, and will build up over time to $500 000. This is a major initiative to assist export businesses, no matter where they are. So people involved in the camel trade in Central Australia, trepang on the coast and mangoes in the tropical north can all seek this trade assistance. It will be very focussed and accommodate three different levels of grants. The paper work associated with the new grants will be minimised. That is, we are not going to tie companies up in red tape. It will not require companies to provide what could be commercial-in-confidence information. This is a far better way of supporting our trade effort than that which went before. It is strongly indicative of the government’s commitment to growing the economy in new ways.
I turn to reporting mechanisms for the corporation. The corporation is subject to Freedom of Information; the government has not exempted it under the act. Naturally, commercial-in-confidence material has its own protection under the bill. The corporation is in an evolutionary phase. While at this stage, the Chief Executive of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning will be the corporate sole, he is subject to the Financial Management Act, the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and ministerial direction. He is also required to report annually on his actions. He is subject to the scrutiny of the board. At this stage, the board is only advisory, but it would have a great deal to say if it felt that the Chief Executive was dealing in land in a way that was inappropriate for the future of the Territory.
This corporation is far more transparent than its predecessor, the Trade Development Zone, and light years ahead of the land corporation. Let’s not go there; I don’t have the time. In future, when the appropriate governance issues have been resolved, the board will evolve into a government owned corporation with full GOC powers and requirements. By establishing the Darwin Business Park, a concept which is now much more understood in Asia than a TDZ, and by bringing to a conclusion the sorry saga of the TDZ and replacing with a body that deals in industrial land, and by separating the trade support into the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development, this government has taken substantial and convincing steps to moving forward and to building the Territory’s industrial future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I shall wipe my tears of emotion. I didn’t realise we were talking about such an emotional subject, the Land Development Corporation, but so be it.
I am not going to speak too specifically about the issues raised. I will speak more from a philosophical point of view. I am disappointed that this bill will have passage on urgency. As the member for Daly said, the Chief Minister announced the formation of this land corporation in November 2001. I would have thought that was enough time to prepare a bill under normal circumstances, but be that as it may, it is before us today.
I don’t have a problem with the TDZ disappearing. I agree with what the member for Karama said; I probably would have said it in fewer words, but it certainly seemed to chew up a lot of money, and I never agreed that it should be exempt from considerations such as the Planning Act and, I gather, health legislation. The minister received a letter from me not so long ago about complaints that businesses had, and they could not resolve them under regular health legislation, which does demonstrate that the TDZ had power that other areas did not.
It probably should have been called the Industrial Land Development Corporation Bill to clarify that it is only about industrial land. I think a name change could have better enforced its reasons for existing. It does say, at the beginning, the bill is for an act to establish a statutory corporation to develop and manage land for use by new and existing industries in the Territory and associated activities and for related services. I suppose when you write it that way, ‘existing industries’ could have much broader scope than just industrial. I think it needs to be clarified a little better if that was the intent.
Madam Speaker, I also thank the minister for the briefing. It was very informative. I realise that I might be behind the times, but once you develop a land corporation, you develop another bureaucracy. I wonder why we couldn’t use our land sales department - maybe with some people employed in that land sales department, with the skills that we are, I presume, going to employ the chief executive officer, or the corporation, as it is called in this case, why that couldn’t be incorporated into a government department. Land sales have existed for a long time, whether residential or industrial. I wonder about the wisdom of always doing something because someone else has done it that way. But there are wiser heads, I presume, that say this a more competent way to develop land. The area we are talking about is an area that needs people with the knowledge and background in developing land for such an important area as East Arm.
The other issue the member for Daly raised was the issue of why do we have a corporation if we only have one person. It does not have a board. I know the member for Daly said there were various technical reasons for why that couldn’t happen, and again, I would ask, if that were the case and this new land corporation was announced in November 2001, why those technical issues weren’t sorted out beforehand. I was having a look at the Land Management Corporation in South Australia. It deals with similar things as our Land Development Corporation will deal with. One of its functions is to acquire, hold, manage, lease and dispose of surplus and other land, improvements and property controlled by the corporation with a view to the release of large areas of undeveloped or underdeveloped land to make land and property available for commercial, industrial or residential or other purposes and to ensure the orderly development of land. The minister may say they are not going to develop residential land, but it has a similar brief.
The difference with the Land Management Corporation in South Australia is that it has a board comprising six members who are appointed by the minister and subject to his direction. The CEO manages that board and runs the organisation. I felt that would have made our corporation more open, and would make the decision-making from a broader range of views than just one person.
I am concerned that you have an advisory body, which is not a board, of course, but there is no real requirement about whether the corporation needs to deal with that advisory board. It can and it may not. If you read the clause in the bill, it says in clause 14:
(1) The function of the board is to advise the corporation on its activities and the manner in which
it carries out those activities
advise the corporation on the matter.
(2) The minister may, in writing, direct the board to meet.
In theory, the board may never meet and may never give advice. Perhaps the advisory board needs to have more teeth so that it is required to do things and the corporation is required to meet at certain times to discuss certain issues.
It seems to me that, in the end, when you look through this corporation bill, the power is all in the corporation, which is bestowed on one person. I find that a little disturbing. I am not saying there is anything untoward, but one of the problems I have with this corporation, and I relate here to East Arm because this is the land that will be subject to the new corporation initially, is the public still does not have adequate knowledge of and say in what goes on in that area. East Arm Port is not in any municipality. We have a Development Consent Authority with the minister as head. The DCA does not have public meetings to discuss matters of rezoning or development; it certainly advertises any matters that occur in that area, but it does not operate the same way as it would in Darwin, Palmerston or Litchfield.
I know that TOPROC, which is the regional group of councils in the Darwin area, put a proposal to the previous government that Darwin City Council takes over that area as part of its municipality. That was defeated on the grounds that it is such an important area that, basically, we do not want local government getting in the road of development there …
Mr Henderson: You don’t want Peter Adamson in charge of it.
Mr WOOD: Well, it was not Peter Adamson at the time, and the issue was why it shouldn’t be in local government. The answer came back: ‘Well, local government is not competent enough to handle those issues’. Local government would not necessarily be involved directly in those issues, except for normal things like rating and patching up the roads and those types of issues. I gather Palmerston Town Council has also put a proposal in to the government to take over East Arm Port. I do not know how the government feels about that, but I believe that this is such an important area that instead of enclosing it in the least open version of our Development Consent Authority - that is, where the minister only has the power – and by leaving it out of local government control, because the Development Consent Authority has no public meetings, you cannot go to a meeting and discuss the future of East Arm Port, does not work in the best interest of the community as a whole.
We are also dealing with a body now, Land Management Corporation, which will be making decisions about our land. The government’s land is our land; it is community land. I am all in favour of the development of East Arm, but that development should not blanket over all other matters that we need to look at as a government. We need to be transparent in the development of East Arm Port. It is not the ‘holy of holies, the public shall not look at this. This shall not be looked at by the member for Nelson; just stay out of there. We had enough trouble with you at Middle Arm; we do not want you in East Arm’.
The decisions that the government makes about our land need to be out there and public. You might say: ‘We have a process of reporting’. The member for Daly made it fairly clear that there are some matters, in the reporting mechanisms of this bill, that do not guarantee that the public will know what is going on. That reporting is important. I support the member for Daly’s amendments because they are good amendments; there is nothing mischievous in them. They ask for two reports a year, and for those reports to be given to the minister and reported back to the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days. They provide for a little more reporting, but what should be in those reports is not clear in this bill.
My concerns are that when you have a Land Development Corporation whose reporting mechanisms are a little bit suspect, you have no Development Consent Authority as you would in a municipality, my overall impression of development at East Arm Port is that the public is on the outer, whereas I believe that the public should be on the inner. I will give you an example of something that concerns me. The minister stated in his second reading speech that the new corporation may undertake marine associated activities at East Arm or Glyde Point in the future, such as developing marinas, mooring for cruise yachts, jetties, flotation basins and developing water for industrial land. The minister might say that their job is not to develop residential land. If one was to develop a marina, one would normally develop residential land, as you can see at Cullen Bay and Bayview Haven.
My understanding is that within this East Arm area, there is a proposal to build another marina, and that is at the tip of Hudson Creek. The only way I could determine that was through the Amateur Fishing Association who were able to get a copy of what mangroves were to be destroyed - not retained; destroyed. They asked why the mangroves at the top end of Hudson Creek were going to be destroyed, and they were told there was a proposed marina. Now, my understanding of this area of East Arm Port is that it is supposed to be industrial. Yet here we have some land, which I think would be of concern to many people, that could be developed under the Development Consent Authority system for East Arm, not really subject to full public scrutiny, and no one would be any the wiser. There are other issues that concern me in this East Arm area, particularly about how the public is going to find out what is going on.
In general, I support the development of East Arm. We could have set up a corporation that was a bit more open to public scrutiny, that is, by having a board. I do hope that the minister will consider the possibilities of having a Development Consent Authority similar to municipalities - even if they do not agree with it being in a municipality, I wonder whether he has the power to allow a Development Consent Authority to exist. I think he does; I think he can make one at his own discretion. That would enable people to look at what is going on in that area.
There are a couple of smaller questions there, minister. Even though I had a briefing, I have one question: is there provision in the bill requiring the corporation to hand over any money it receives for rent or lease or sales to the Territory, and, if not, why not? Basically, the question is: what happens to money collected by the corporation and what are the rules for the use of that money?
One other little thing relates to interpretation at clause 3. The definition of ‘land’ is a classic. I wonder whether the government should look at uniformity in the definition of land. There is no definition under the Land Titles Act. Under the Land Acquisition Act, ‘land’ means ‘land including the sea bed within the limits of the Territory and includes an interest in the land’. Land is not defined by the Lands and Mining Tribunal. Land in the Planning Act includes ‘land covered by water and buildings constructed on land’. There is a definition of land in the Native Title Act and I think that includes the air space over or subsoil under the land, but does not include the waters. When you come to the definition in the Land Corporation Bill, there is this beautiful definition:
‘land’ includes –
(a) rivers, creeks, streams, watercourses, channels, lakes and lagoons on land; and
In fact, land includes everything that is wet, which, if you are at East Arm Port, that is what you would expect. It may be worth trying to have a uniform definition of land in all legislation because it seems to be one of those areas for which each act has its own definition.
The only other issue I would like to raise is one you yourself raised: that the corporation will be subject to Freedom of Information. I do not have any problem with that. As I said when the Information Act was being amended, once that section in the act says that you can basically call one of these bodies a corporation by regulation, we can have changes such that those corporations can be exempt by regulation, and not by coming back to parliament. As much as it may be okay at present, and I accept that, I am concerned that it could happen because part of what I am saying about land development in the East Arm area is, once again, public scrutiny of what is going on. If there were a chance that this corporation by regulation could become exempt from FOI, except for personal matters, once again, you are not allowing public scrutiny. This government has always declared that it believes in open and transparent government.
I say again that I am not opposed to the development of East Arm Port. It is important. I know members of the government have their gas and jobs stickers there. I support gas and jobs, and I should say now that it is great news that we have the signing of the Wickham Point LNG plant. I went to the ConocoPhillips dinner the other night at the Holiday Inn, hosted by the Minerals Council. It was important to see the amount of work that has already gone into getting gas onshore, especially when you see the huge oil rigs that are being loaded onto ships at the moment, and the ones that are at sea. It is an exciting time, and the creation of jobs is good.
What the long term benefits to the Territory will be financially, or whether we will get more gas onshore, has yet to be seen, but it is an exciting time. Hopefully, some of this development will spin off into East Arm. The minister probably groans and moans every time I mention Middle Arm, but I hope that the government is not too closed to the option that there are other places to develop that this Land Corporation could look at besides Middle Arm. It could do exactly the same job as you want from Middle Arm. That is, it could be a part of your transport hub; it could be part of the development of East Arm; and it could be closer than Middle Arm.
This land corporation is an important step. I will not shed any tears for the TDZ. I remember an example of the TDZ being deliberately used to avoid planning scrutiny. There was a British company sited on Tivendale Road, and its main job was to deal with waste material from which it extracted minerals. That industry, instead of having the scrutiny of planning, even though it was only the minister’s Development Consent Authority, was declared either part of the TDZ or under the TDZ rules by the minister. I do not know whether that company still exists, but that demonstrated that the TDZ could be used for industries that really should have attracted public scrutiny.
As you said in your speech, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the amount of money that went down the drain at the TDZ was astronomical. I do not think anyone would say that it was not a good idea at the time; it is always easy to look in hindsight and say what a disaster. Governments at that time were looking at ways of making money and TDZs were the ‘in thing’ at the time. So as much as I might not shed a tear, I do not think that you can be totally critical of what the previous government did because its initial intention may have been good, but the way it ran it in later years was pretty disastrous.
Finally, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for the briefing from his department. I encourage the minister to allow a more open and public orientated Development Consent Authority system for the East Arm area.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions and constructive comments. I take note of their comments. I would like to explain some issues, to make it clear, about the Land Development Corporation Bill.
First, we have said all along that this government will foster the economic development of the Northern Territory. We will assist, in any way we can, the development of gas and oil industries, the railway, freight forwarding, and export and import industries. The Land Development Corporation is one of the tools that we will use to foster development of the Territory.
The Land Development Corporation will first own land in East Arm, and later will expand to Glyde Point and other areas in the Territory to develop industrial land. I make that clear: industrial land. The bill specifically says in its title:
…to establish a statutory corporation to develop and manage land for use by new and existing
industry in the Territory…
It does not say anything about commercial or residential land. It clearly states ‘for use by new and existing industries the Territory’. Also, section 6 clearly specifies the functions of the corporation, which are:
(a) to develop the land of the corporation for use by industrial businesses;
Subsection (b) once again says ‘industrial businesses’. The same applies to (c) and (d). I know before we said that we were talking about industrial, commercial and residential. It was one of the options we explored. We are aware of the South Australia Land Corporation and the Western Australia Land Corporation, which have the ability to develop both industrial and residential land. The Western Australia Land Corporation has done that very successfully. However, our bill specifically says ‘development of industrial land’. It is very, very clear.
One of the other issues raised by members was why it is a sole corporation. The Land Corporation is a new entity, it is evolving, and we decided to appoint a CEO, the kind of CEO that was the CEO of TDZ, to be the corporate sole of the new Land Development Corporation. We have some governance problems, as the member for Daly stated before, and that was brought to our attention by the Treasury, that the CEO would, if directed by the board and by the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, we would have a conflict of interest. However, the CEO is not going to be unaccountable because he is going to be controlled by a number of acts: the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the Financial Management Act. He will be subject to the scrutiny of the Treasurer at any time, and certainly will be subject to the scrutiny of the minister at any time.
In addition to that, reporting mechanisms were brought to our attention, and the member for Daly has proposed some amendments, but we have put in place reporting mechanisms that we believe are adequate and, at the same time, will not restrict the operation of the corporation. The last thing we want is for the corporation to spend more time reporting its activities to the government than actively being out there developing industrial land, leasing it and doing deals with the companies. The reporting mechanisms, once again, will be under the current legislation, instead of in the Financial Management Act. Clauses 10 and 11 state clearly how this reporting will happen, and what the reports will contain. If you have a look at clauses 30 to 32, they deal with reporting. At clause 32, the Annual Report of the Corporation states:
(1) At the end of each financial year the corporation must prepare a report on the administration
of this act and the operations of the corporation during the financial year.
There is transparency. There is clarity, and the corporation is obliged, by law, by several acts in particular, to state clearly what it has done, the changes that took place, if they earned money or if they did not. In addition to that, the corporation will be subject to freedom of information legislation. It is a government agency and will be subject to freedom of information legislation. We have in place a mechanism to scrutinise the corporation through reporting to the government and to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer has the ability to ask for a report from the corporation at any time, and through the powers of the minister. The minister has the power to direct the corporation and to seek reports from the corporation. Therefore, the reporting mechanisms in place are adequate to provide a clear picture of the operation of the corporation. That is significant. I agree with the member for Daly; if we vest too much power in one person, how are we going to make sure that this person does not ‘stuff up’, that we do not see another TDZ? We have put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the person is controlled by a number of acts of parliament - a number of control mechanisms - so that we make sure that neither the CEO nor the corporation will stuff up.
With regards to the CEO and the board, the board, at this stage, is an advisory board. I say ‘at this stage’ because we have accepted in government that the corporation is an evolving corporation and entity, and there will be a time when the corporation will transform from a corporate sole corporation to a government owned corporation. I do not have to remind members that the previous government did exactly the same with the Power and Water Authority. The Power and Water Authority was an advisory board, a corporate sole with one CEO, that evolved eventually into a government owned corporation. That is very important.
The member for Daly asked why we did not use other mechanisms to develop the new Land Development Corporation such as the Northern Territory Land Corporation. The simple reason is that the Northern Territory Land Corporation is an independent body. We cannot control it. It does not have to report to government in the way that this corporation will. We want this corporation to be under the direction of the government because it is fundamental for us to make sure that the development of the Territory takes place in an orderly manner and the way we want it.
Other issues that were brought to our attention - and some of them are very valid points, and I am apologetic because they were not properly clarified during the briefing. With regard to the dealings of the land corporation, a question asked by the member for Daly, the corporation is a government agency and is bound by government policies with regard to the sale of land. We have stated repeatedly that the sale of land in the Northern Territory under the Martin Labor government will be open and transparent. Land to be sold will be advertised, and the only reason that somebody would be preferred would be is if they have a parcel of land next to the one he or she wants to acquire, or it is for strategic development. That is the only way. Any other land at a land sale will be open and transparent, in the open field, and everybody will have the right to bid for that piece of land. The Land Development Corporation will be bound by this policy.
Yes, it will be subject to freedom of information legislation. With regard to the question from the member for Nelson, this definition of land includes rivers, creeks, streams, water courses, inland and coastal waters, channels and lagoons for the simple reason that by developing the Glyde Point area, there might be a demand for us to reclaim coastal areas, to construct port facilities, or use irrigation channels or water courses for cooling purposes. We had to incorporate these areas into the definition of ‘land’ so we do not face any problems in the future.
We have this bill as a matter of urgency for the simple reason that in the last few days we have had three big announcements. The first one was the announcement from Alcan and Woodside; the second, an even bigger one, was Wickham Point; and the third one yesterday, was that the railway will arrive in the Territory on 17 January. We have to move quickly to establish the Darwin Business Park, to have the land corporation there to start dealing with these companies, which want to position themselves to get the first bite of the cherry so that they will have an unfair advantage over everybody else. As for the land corporation, it will sell or lease land. Strategic land will be leased; we are not going to give it away. We are not going to repeat the mistake of previous governments of giving land away. That land was ‘land banked’ and people made a killing after a few years. We want the land to be used constructively; to be utilised by companies that are going to produce wealth for the Territory, for themselves and create jobs.
As for what is going to happen with East Arm – is there going to be a marina? No. East Arm has been rezoned as development and residential development is not permitted. As for the openness and public scrutiny, I wish to advise the House that I propose to have the East Arm master plan out for public comment in September-October 2003, so there will be public scrutiny. On the other hand is why the government keeps their hands on East Arm and Middle Point. It is for the simple reason because Middle Arm and East Point are fundamental for the industrial growth of the Territory, are very strategic pieces of land that we want to control. Who do we give them to? Litchfield Shire Council, Palmerston City Council or Darwin City Council? The government applies exactly the same things like local government. We put a rate on these pieces of land; we will rate them and we provide the same services.
However, we want to maintain direct control because they are too important for the Territory and the development of the Territory and, to be frank, since I am the minister who copped a lot of flack for signing off the Wickham Point LNG plant, one of things of which I am very proud is that I did not jeopardise the future of the Territory and future jobs for Territorians. Councils, unfortunately, can be subject to a lot of lobbying pressure and can actually stop development through their representatives in the DCA. At this stage, the government will have direct control of this land. In the future, the government may decide to put this land under the control of local authority, whichever it may be. But let us not forget that under the new planning scheme arrangements, local government will have a larger input to planning, plus this government is prepared to consult with the public and is not afraid to hear the public. Sometimes government has to make tough decisions, and some of the decisions we made were tough. At the same time, we decided that if are going to have development in that area, we make sure that the development is sustainable, is not going to have a negative impact on the harbour, and for that reason, we have provided increased funding for the Office of the Environment to ensure that the monitoring of the harbour will be increased, and we will not rely on the company’s results to find out what has happening in our harbour.
The TDZ was a fantastic idea in 1980s, however, I find $62m for just 60 jobs extravagant. At the same time, there was a big failure by the CLP government to persuade the federal government to provide tax breaks and tax brackets for the TDZ to work. There were TDZs in Fiji, China, Taiwan and Singapore, but they have the financial backing of there own state governments, which provided tax breaks and incentives so that they could attract investment. The ability of the Territory government to provide tax breaks and investment was very limited and unless the federal government had come on board, the TDZ was certain to fail, as happened. I agree with you that the TDZ had the ability not to comply with planning requirements, however, for your information, I insisted that the brewery complied with all health requirements and when they brought to my attention that they didn’t have to comply, I brought to their attention the inconsistency between the health act, which did not provide any exclusion, and it was binding on the Crown and the TDZ. The brewery was instructed to comply with all health requirements and with the Public Health Act.
The TDZ is anti-competitive. In today’s international economic climate, it can be perceived as an unfair advantage that some companies are given tax breaks and incentives to be able to produce in Australia and export to other countries of the world. Before we find ourselves in an international forum accused of providing unfair incentives to our companies, it was wise to close the TDZ and, to round it out, pass all the liabilities and assets to the land corporation. As we have only a few companies, we can deal with them directly to find out how to wind up all the benefits.
For the information of members, we invited everyone with an interest in the TDZ to a meeting. We advised them that we were going to wind up the TDZ. There was not a big reaction; some of those who had long-term leases told us that they understand why we are doing it and that they were prepared to sit down with us and to work through the details. That was great. As I said before, the Land Development Corporation Bill is significant legislation because it will contribute to the economic growth of the Territory. The amendment proposed by the member for Daly will not be accepted by government because it will create another level of bureaucracy, continued reporting, which means that the corporation would report more and would not do any proper work.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In Committee:
Land Development Corporation Bill (Serial 155)
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Land Development Corporation Bill (Serial 155) together with schedule of amendments No 47 circulated by the member for Daly, and the Trade Development Zone Act Repeal Bill (Serial 156).
Clauses 1 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 32:
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I move that the amendment circulated in my name, schedule 47, be accepted.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 32 stand as printed.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I will defer to your experience here, but if we were to move straight to Clause 32 and invite defeat rather than take the whole schedule, then I would not have an opportunity – well, it would be pointless putting my position on this. If you like, I am on my feet now.
Mr CHAIRMAN: All right. Would you like to speak to your new clause?
Mr BALDWIN: To my new schedule and the clause, and then you can handle it how you wish.
Minister, I heard what you said in your closing remarks on the second reading speech, and the reason you gave a couple of minutes ago on why you would not accept these amendments is that it creates another level of bureaucracy and it would tie up this corporation and they would never get any work done. I find that remarkable in terms of what you expect this corporation to handle. It is going to be a pretty sophisticated operation to deal with the type and amount of land and assets that you are going to vest in it and give it the power to then administer, as well as the other powers for it to operate.
That is an inane and weak excuse for not accepting a clause that only seeks one more report; one more report to the public, not to you, minister, although it will come through you to this House in the same way as the annual report. Any organisation these days, particularly public sector organisations, will have at its finger tips all of the information required day to day, let alone month to month – financial, transactions, from its database, from its chart of accounts, it will be able to extract this information in a very short period. If they cannot do that, then obviously they are in some trouble in the operation of their own entity, and they probably should not be operating. Under the other part of the act, they would have to flag that to you.
The excuse that you have given is – well, there is no other word for it - pitiful. It is absolutely pitiful. The workload created for an organisation to produce one more report mid-term is not onerous. Perhaps some of the other bits of the reporting in there, to the Treasurer, you might think are onerous, but to do a mid-year report certainly would not be. It would give a chance to Territorians, to the public, to all of us concerned, to keep track of what this sole corporation is doing in our name, in the public’s name, for Territorians, in terms of its assets, the land bank they hold – commercial, industrial, residential – whatever it might be, and that we can see, in six monthly intervals, a report on what its transactions have been.
If you do not like the fact that it is going to be too much trouble for them, and that it creates another layer of bureaucracy, as you put it, to produce one extra report mid-term, why not have them report, as I have in clause 32(2)(b):
- full details of all real property acquired or disposed of by the corporation including the type of
transaction and financial details involved in the acquisition or disposal.
Now, is that too onerous? You are nodding your head and saying yes, that is too onerous.
Mr Vatskalis: No, it is not. It is already there.
Mr BALDWIN: No, it is not there.
Mr Vatskalis: Yes, it is. 32(1) Operations of the corporation. It might not be spelled out in so many words, but it is already there.
Mr BALDWIN: It is not there, minister. There is no requirement for it to produce to the public all of the transactions, the type of transactions and financial and other details of those land acquisitions or disposals. There is no requirement.
Mr Vatskalis: It is already there and will be tabled in parliament.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, well I am glad you have put that on record because the test will be its first annual report, and if it is not there, what are you going to do, minister? That is what I want to know.
Mr Vatskalis: I will make sure it is there.
Mr BALDWIN: That is the crux of this matter. The detail that is provided in a report, and its timely reporting, that is, like the Treasurer provides a mid-year report, we have not only an end of financial year report, but also a six-monthly report mid-term through the financial year. That is what this is. It is not onerous at all; it does not add another layer of bureaucracy. It will not tie them up so they cannot do any more work, as you suggest. It would be a fairly simple thing to do. In the interests of your Labor government’s proposed new light of your fiscal integrity and transparency, why would you knock this back? It is simple. All it is saying is let us provide the transparency, not just talk the talk; let us walk the walk. Show us how you can do it. Here is your big chance.
You are setting up a sole corporate corporation with huge amounts of power vested in one person. All we are asking you to do is to make that person make the corporation’s transactions and operations, totally, in detail, transparent to the public in a timely manner, once every six months. Not onerous. Not at all. If it is onerous, well the Treasurer might have to kick in a bit more money, but you will not find it onerous. You will not find it onerous at all, particularly if it is leasing and trading land. It is going to be providing some of its own revenue. In fact, one would hope, because it has a commercial focus, and that is the reason for having this corporation in the first place, that you might one day take it off line in the budget. Maybe. Let us hope, like NT Fleet, it might make enough revenue, as a corporation with a financial focus, to manage the assets on behalf of Territorians with as little need for budget input from the coffers as possible. If that is the case, it could pay for itself to do this reporting.
I find that, with the reasons you give, you had better start thinking of some better ones because that was pretty feeble. This is not calling for anything untoward; or for anything over and above what you espouse is necessary for open and accountable government. It is calling for exactly what you espouse, exactly what the Treasurer does in his mid-term reporting, and I am sure it calls for something that the Auditor-General would be very supportive of in the setting up of a new corporation with this charter and these powers vested the way it has in this structure. I am sure he will be interested in the timely reporting of detailed information about its asset transactions on behalf of the public.
Minister, I am asking you to reconsider and support my amendment schedule with a new clause 32, once defeat of the old clause 32 has been considered. I look forward to your comments now, and perhaps better angles of arguments rather than creating a new level of bureaucracy and tying this corporation up so they cannot do any more work by producing one more report.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Chairman, the reality of what the member for Daly is asking, is for a mid-year report for the first six months of the financial year. First, the land corporation will be established on 1 July, and the first six months will be a preparation period for them to start operating. I cannot see the value of a mid-year report for the first six months of the financial year.
Second, he says: ‘We want all the details’. If the member for Daly looks at clause 32(1), he will discover that at the end of each financial year, the corporation must prepare a report on the administration of this act, and the operation of the corporation. The operation of the corporation is to buy, sell, lease, or acquire property. That has to be reported, and that report will be tabled in parliament within six sitting days. The public will know exactly what is happening with the corporation because it will be a public document. I acknowledge his worries about it being a corporation. This person, about whom he is worried might run the corporation into trouble, is subject to a lot of control mechanisms. One of those is the Financial Management Act. Under section 10(1), a financial statement shall be prepared in such form as the Treasurer directs. So the Treasurer can actually direct the corporate sole to provide the financial report. Not only that, under section 3, the CEO of the corporation must provide a financial statement to the Auditor-General and then the minister shall table the financial statement and the report of the Auditor-General within six sitting days of the Assembly. Therefore, the Treasurer’s report, the Auditor-General’s report and the minister’s report have to be tabled in the Assembly.
What you are really asking to do is exactly the same thing with a few more words. You have this idea of conspiracies, that we are trying to hide something, and we do not want you to know what is happening. That is far from the truth. The reality is that clause 32 already covers your amendments, apart from the fact that it requires a mid-year report for the first six months of the financial year. It is not a very important issue for the simple reason that the first six months of the operation of the corporation, it would not be truly representative of the activities of the corporation. Everything else you described here is already in clause 32(1), probably in fewer words, I admit. However, from my understanding - and I believe any other person’s understanding - the operation of the corporation is exactly what you specify in your amendment: details of what properties are acquired or disposed of by the corporation, the type of transactions, financial details.
The operations of the corporation have to be reported to the minister, to the Auditor-General, and detailed to parliament. Personally, I can’t see any reason why your amendments are better than what is already in place and, for this reason, I reject it.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I listened to that response. What the minister is saying is that we do not need a six-monthly report because in the first six months of setting up this corporation it will not have anything to do except to set up, so there is nothing to report on. I can accept that.
Mr Vatskalis: It is not truly representative is what I said. I did not say that. Don’t misquote me.
Mr BALDWIN: What about the following years, when we have this thing operating and it is transacting and doing a lot of business, then should we have six-monthly reporting? Yes, I believe we should. Then the minister went on to say that there’s enough in this bill already and he confirms to me, Mr Chairman, that under the present clause …
Mr Vatskalis: How many reports did Power and Water give under your government?
Mr BALDWIN: … under the present clause - this is your government. Under the present clause 32(1) ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, we can stay here all night, I am happy. Clause 32(1), the minister confirms to me that everything I am asking for in my proposed clause 32(2)(b) is covered by old clause 32(1). So, let’s read it. This is the current clause:
- At the end of each financial year the corporation must prepare and report on the administration of this
act and the operations of the corporation during the financial year.
The operations. What I am asking for, in my clause, is that the corporation, in reporting on the administration and operations, so the administration of this act and the operation of the corporation, it must provide ‘(b) full details of all real property acquired …’, and so forth. You can read it there for yourself.
So, minister, if you say it is covered already in clause 32(1), you would have no problem including this to make sure they have to provide these details, would you? Simple. Include that.
Mr Vatskalis: I assure you …
Mr BALDWIN: Put 32(2)(b) in as an additional clause on the current clause 32, and then you and I agree. You would not have a problem because your argument is that it is already covered. Okay. If it is already covered, let’s put the detail in there. Let’s just write the detail into the bill because you say they are the same.
I am saying if you put that in there, we will both reach the same conclusion. We will agree that they then have to provide – you are saying: ‘Trust me, they will provide it’. I am saying: ‘Put it in and they have to provide it’. So you have no problem with putting that clause in. I would like to see you move that that clause be included in the bill so that those details we are looking for, the details the public is going to want to know about, are definitely in the annual report of the corporation.
Obviously, you do not want the mid-year report. I still say that is a function that should be provided in this bill, but if you cannot live with the six-month report, let’s have a pact. Let’s not do the six-monthly report, but let’s ask for those details, and that is the only additional clause I have put in there. The only other change is when you get the report. So let’s include that. Let’s, you and I, amend this bill and include 32 – instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, somewhere in there we put another number, and that includes full details of all real property acquired or disposed of by the corporation including the type of transaction and financial details involved in the acquisition or disposal. Then we have both reached the same conclusion, and we can move on.
Now, if you will not do that, obviously there is a reason. It is not that it is already covered, because if it is already covered, you would not mind that going in there. All it is doing is confirming it. It is not a ‘trust me fellows’; it is actually in there, and we can live with it.
Mr Vatskalis: It’s not ‘trust me fellows’. You have the reporting …
Mr BALDWIN: That is what you are saying. You are saying: ‘Territorians, trust me, trust me. That information will be in the annual report’. I am saying: ‘Okay, if you want me to trust you, put it in black and white’.
Mr Vatskalis: It is in black and white. Read it!
Mr BALDWIN: That is what I am saying to the minister, then I will trust him. If you can’t do that, why should we trust you? The evidence will be what is in the annual report. If it isn’t there, then what is he going to say? He can get around it very easily, Mr Chairman, by including that one clause. Obviously, he is going to dig in and he won’t accept it, but that is his problem, not mine.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that the proposed new clause 32 be inserted in the bill.
Motion negatived.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Trade Development Zone Act Repeal Bill (Serial 156)
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Procurement Reform
Procurement Reform
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today to provide the Assembly with a statement on the significant procurement reforms that have recently been implemented by this government, the most comprehensive and significant undertaken in the past 10 years.
It gives me great pleasure to set out the details of our strategies designed to improve government procurement, which has generated more complaints from the business community than anything I have encountered since becoming Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. As the Chief Minister well knows, it is a hot topic at almost every Business Round Table.
I note that the previous government had at least one attempt to fix the problem, and in 1998 appointed a private sector committee, led by respected Darwin businessman, Bob Truman, to review procurement and recommend changes to government. That committee made no less than 41 key recommendations, 37 of which were supported by Cabinet, but all of which came to nothing because none were appropriately funded or resourced, nor was there the necessary cultural change.
I note that for reasons of their own – that is, the previous government - this review was never tabled, so I take this opportunity to table this government’s own Risk Management Services review of procurement policy and process, which was completed last year. I note that the four recommendations rejected by the previous government related to:
the calling of public tenders for the provision of government office space;
that funds were, in fact, available for a project prior to calling tenders;
programs; and
of contract price.
It may surprise members to learn that the Territory government injects more than $750m each year into the economy by way of procurement of goods and services. Even more surprising is that more than 80% of all government purchases are for items valued at less than $3000. Overall, this represents more than $300m of expenditure each year. So, clearly, the Territory government has significant influence on economic activity, particularly during the lean times we have been experiencing over the past few years, and particularly in the small business sector.
Government procurement must be about jobs for Territorians, and this government is prepared to deliver on that. In our last two budgets, we have delivered the two largest capital works and asset maintenance appropriations ever seen in the Territory. However, funding capital works and maintenance programs, and spending money on government supplies, will not deliver jobs for Territorians unless we get the procurement principles and process right.
At the very heart of our reform strategy is our genuine commitment to the following principles:
1. open and effective competition;
2. value for money;
3. enhancing the capabilities of Territory business and industry;
4. environmental protection; and
5. ethical behaviour and fair dealing.
Having set out the principles we plan to achieve in our procurement process, let me now move on to explain how we will achieve our aims. I will start with our approach to creating strong procurement frameworks.
The Territory government is about to commit, along with all other jurisdictions, to a five year extension of the Australia New Zealand Government Procurement Agreement. In doing so, we are acknowledging a commitment to open and fair competition for government work throughout those jurisdictions.
The Martin government has established a Government Procurement Council, which will report directly to me as minister on government procurement policies and strategies, the effectiveness of those procurement policies and strategies, and will recommend improvements. The previous government did nothing to provide business with an ongoing voice in relation to government procurement.
The composition of that group will be six people from the private sector, along with the Under Treasurer and the Chief Executive of DCIS. The Chair will be elected from the private sector members. Private sector nominations closed last Friday, 13 June 2003 – I hope that is not an auspicious date - and I expect to be in a position to announce the private sector membership of the GPC shortly. Government wants the people on this group to be helping to improve procurement in the Northern Territory, not just someone representing the particular vested interests of a company or industry association, but a proactive group to advise on how we can improve procurement in the Northern Territory.
We have decided that procurement policy development would be centralised across government and, consequently, the Procurement Reference Group has been established within Northern Territory Treasury. This, too, is a Martin government initiative to fix the problem of procurement management being fragmented across agencies. The PRG is the first point of reference for industry representation and complaints, and the PRG provides professional support to the Procurement Review Board.
The Procurement Review process is another area of significant reform, as PRBs had, under the previous government, only a limited role and little real power in the procurement process. For example, all five PRBs acted independently of each other, their terms of reference were not clear and focussed, and their ability to query business papers was limited. Moreover, PRBs were not able to audit contracts after their award to satisfy themselves that the intended outcomes were actually being achieved. For these reasons, it has been virtually impossible for the PRB to take the lead in procurement. We are reforming the structure and role of the PRBs to allow them to do just that.
Members may be surprised to learn that last year, only 0.2% of procurement business papers were processed through the Tennant Creek PRB, with a value upper limit for evaluation by this board of $250 000; 0.4% of all papers were processed through Nhulunbuy, with a limit of $250 00; and 2.4% of all business papers passed through the Katherine PRB, which has a limit of $500 000. This means that less than 5% of papers requiring endorsement by a Procurement Review Board went through those regional boards. In highlighting the inefficiency of the current structures, I emphasise that the reforms are no reflection on the capacity of current board members themselves, and I take this opportunity to thank all those who have given so generously of their time and experience as board members to date. It is much appreciated.
To address this structural inefficiency, we have rationalised the boards as follows: the board located in Darwin, to be called the Procurement Review Board, is being re-constituted, with three public sector and two private sector members. Importantly, one of the public sector places is reserved for a procurement person from the Katherine-East Arnhem regions. This means the regions will be far better represented in procurement decisions than has previously been the case.
The Procurement Review Board located in Alice Springs, to be called the Centre Region Procurement Review Board, is also to be reconstituted with three public sector and two private sector representatives. The CRPRB will have regional responsibility for both Alice Springs and Tennant Creek regions, up to its authority limit, and will be subordinate to the PRB. Again, one of the public sector places is reserved for a procurement person from Tennant Creek. This means that the Barkly region will be far better represented in procurement decisions than has previously been the case. Having said that, the current boards in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy are to be abolished.
Minimum competency benchmarks will be set for board membership. All member positions will be identified by name, and the four positions other than the chair will be competitively sought. The selection panel for board composition will include the private sector chair of the Government Procurement Council. In recognition of the significant impact involvement in these bodies has on the normal workload of the best people in the private sector, these PRBs and the Government Procurement Council will be remunerated.
To further strengthen the regional focus of our procurement, we will encourage the regional officers of individual agencies and/or agency collectives to form regional agency procurement units and to satisfy the PRB that they have the capacity to manage procurement up to a certain financial limit without reference to the PRB.
One of the shortcomings we have identified is a lack of procurement champions, experienced senior people in agencies who would act as mentors to the procurement management teams. Accordingly, we have appointed a group of champions, one in each agency, who will fulfil this function and provide guidance to the less experienced procurement personnel. Government has also mandated the use by all Northern Territory government agencies of DCIS Contract and Procurement Services for the provision of technical support for tendering processes for all procurement over $10 000. This move will allow for a more consistent approach across government to the preparation of tender documentation and the management of tender processes.
Contractor accreditation is currently being reviewed along similar lines to the proposed home builders licensing legislation and security of payment legislation, and a report will be completed within the month. I also note that DIPE has carriage of the home builders licensing legislation and that the public discussion paper we released in April has resulted in robust input from the building sector. We will certainly be taking those comments on board before making a decision on how that licensing scheme is going to evolve.
Another issue that government is looking at is security of payment legislation. Department of Justice has carriage of this, but I am absolutely committed, on behalf of small business in the Territory, to improve security of payment for subcontractors and suppliers. Prime contractors will be required by law to pay subcontractors and suppliers within 30 days. In saying this, let me touch on an issue of real importance to the private sector: the prompt payment of accounts they present to government. We are going to apply to ourselves the highest standards for timely payments in order to encourage others to achieve those standards. We have done significant analysis of what is currently occurring in payment of government accounts. I can tell members that currently, 80% of all invoices received are certified and paid within 30 days, and 94% of all invoices received are certified and paid within 60 days. I say that this is not good enough, so the commitment that government is making is that by financial year 2004-05, all invoices not subject to dispute or some particular contractual arrangement, will be paid within 30 days of receipt. That is 100% of invoices, or we will pay an interest component on the amount owing back to the company that is suffering late payment.
I acknowledge that there are always going to be a small number of accounts subject to dispute but, for the undisputed accounts - and that is the vast majority of them - we are setting the highest benchmark: payment of all of those accounts within 30 days.
I have given Treasury 12 months to get to the detail of what the 20% gap is and why we are not meeting those payments within the 30-day limit. I see my colleague, the Treasurer, having a smile there. We share the same CEO in the Under Treasurer also being the CEO for procurement. In doing this, we are putting in place a performance measure that is going to mean something to the business community and galvanise the processes within government agencies to ensure that those accounts are paid promptly. I can say that we are the first government in Australia to set this benchmark and to actually make that commitment to pay an interest component after 30 days.
The next issue is upskilling our people. The government has committed $825 000 over the coming three years for procurement training for agency staff involved in this activity. This is something the previous government did not do, but we will go even further. Our aim is that over time, all procurement personnel will achieve workplace competency levels commensurate with their duties and that duty statements for positions which have procurement delegations will prescribe minimum competency standards for applicants wishing to apply. This will demonstrate real progress in procurement management. An accredited training curriculum that is currently being developed by the PRG, to be delivered by DCIS-contracted providers, is aimed at getting us to a point where officers will only have delegations for procurement once they have been accredited. That is where we are heading on competencies and accreditation, and we are applying significant funds, $850 000, towards this training effort.
Let us move to talk about the important issue of procurement planning. The recent audit of procurement policy and practice identified that a lack of procurement planning was a key shortcoming in performance. To redress this, a significant amount of training will be directed to project planning including:
the development of specific procurement plans which, depending on the value of the project,
will be signed off by the procurement champion, the agency chief executive or the PRB.
These plans will be prepared as early as possible each financial year;
the development of counter-cyclical delivery programs to smooth out peaks in construction
activity where possible;
clustering of works to maximise procurement efficiency or, where appropriate, splitting works
to best suit local construction or maintenance resources and capabilities;
consideration of procurement options so that the most appropriate delivery method can be
identified for a particular project;
contingency plans to manage the risk of budget underspend in agencies. If we are going to make
serious commitments about capital works expenditure, it is important that we manage our program
to ensure that money promised is money spent. After all, the benefit is jobs for Territorians.
It is one thing to talk about frameworks, process and training, but no good will come of this unless we can create a positive and supportive culture.
We all know that you cannot expect an organisation to change in terms of its culture and attitudes without full commitment and leadership by management. In this instance, I can assure members that the commitment is there to lead that cultural change both from myself as minister and from agency CEOs. From now on, each minister is going to require their agency to develop procurement management plans for the year so that we can manage the timely release of work. As I mentioned earlier, agencies will be required to do the necessary preparation to ensure the budget allocation is actually expended in that financial year. This government aims for a planned procurement environment, which takes account of market forces, Territory industry capability and capacity and, of course, jobs for Territorians.
A further outcome of the review is that the agency procurement processes are not sufficiently supportive or understanding of Territory business and the general business climate. Our aim is to achieve a relationship of openness, mutual respect and cooperation with our industry partners.
In support of our strongly held procurement principles, we have established a number of protocols to guide agency processes. First, I will deal with the important issue of variations to contracts.
All variations contemplated by departmental procurement managers which cumulatively will result in a contract price being varied by more than 10%, including period contract renewals and extensions, will be referred back to the board for prior approval. This move is an accountability measure, and I will be receiving reports from agencies regarding outcomes against this limit. This is all about planning and making sure that we get the details of the tenders right in the first instance, and it is all about people accepting that, in a two way street, underbidding to obtain work is not automatically going to result in the realistic price for a job being achieved through repeated variations.
Next, I shall touch on the use of Certificates of Exemption. Certificates of Exemption have there place, but all to often in the past, they have been used as a result of poor project planning. There is a culture that has been allowed to develop around this mechanism. This has to change, and I give an assurance to the Assembly that the criteria for approving C of E applications will be rigorously enforced. Having said that, I would like to highlight an area where C of Es are being used to great benefit, and that is the negotiation of contracts for works to be undertaken in indigenous communities with appropriate entities in those communities. This will ensure that our principle of jobs for Territorians includes jobs for Territorians living in those communities.
Now on to an issue that all to often has been ignored by government, but is keenly felt by business, and that is the competitive advantage enjoyed by some firms when they receive in-kind support from government. A number of representations have been made to me by people who believe that some contracts are awarded to companies that are in receipt of in-kind support from government. Whether in-kind support has been provided by way of government subsidising the cost of rental premises or other loans or grants, a company in receipt of such support would clearly have an unfair advantage in tendering for a government contract over companies that do not have access to that same in-kind government support. I want to make it clear that government will continue to provide in-kind support through various government programs on a case by case basis, and on the merits of each case. However, from now on, it is going to be mandatory for tenderers to declare in their tender any form of government assistance received and, depending on the type of assistance identified, competitive neutrality provisions will be applied to the bid. We are going to achieve a level playing field, which is what business expects of us.
In the past, the PRB has been unable to review contracts to see whether the anticipated outcomes of projects are actually realised. This means that it is harder to identify problems and get things better the next time. To address this, boards will have the authority to order independent audits of contracts in their respective regions during the life of the contract or after their completion.
On school-related procurement, government has directed that Department of Employment, Education and Training Capital Works and Repairs and Maintenance, including that currently managed by school councils, be conducted in accordance with procurement policy. Further, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment will project manage all mechanical and electrical maintenance, and all capital and minor new works from 1 July 2003. Members of this Assembly know that the reason parents put their hands up to nominate for school councils is essentially to try and improve educational outcomes for their children and have better facilities for their schools. Most don’t put their hand up to project manage Capital Works Programs. Also, DEET and Treasury are to report to Government within six months on:
how general procurement in schools can be performed more transparently and in accordance
with the procurement policy;
and
including school councils.
We acknowledge that schools have standing arrangements with small operators, tradespeople and suppliers, and that any changes we make will have to take into account these relationships. But, at the end of the day, the principle is that schools are expending public money and we want the schools to adhere to the procurement policies in the same way that government agencies are required to. Procurement is a two-way street. Whilst it is government that is procuring, it is business and industry that is supplying, and we are looking to develop partnerships over the long term that benefit both sectors. We must take steps to assist business to develop and grow, so I will now touch on the issue of industry development.
One of the key issues for small business in the Territory is: ‘Who do I approach? Who are the buyers in any agency?’ I am pleased to announce that the NT PRG web site will include a list of contacts in key areas, and this listing will be expanded over time to itemise procurement, by volume and frequency of procurement, so that the private sector can discern what type of procurement is going to come out of government, and when it is likely to occur, rather than sit passively and wait to see what tenders have appeared in the paper.
Again, it is helping the business community to build those opportunities into their business plan for the year, and also to know who to talk to in government. To help facilitate this, we will be running a series, over the year, of Meet the Buyer seminars. I know that these seminars occurred under the previous government, but they fell away some years ago. A major Meet the Buyers expo is being planned for October Business Month across all major Northern Territory centres, and we will continue to do that on a regular basis across a range of industry sectors. In large part, the impetus for that is going to come from the business sector. Buyers will be representing all Northern Territory government agencies.
In terms of future seminars, we would seek to include buyers from Commonwealth agencies, Defence and the mining and gas industry so that we can have forums where all the people who are making procurement decisions in that industry sector are together in one room, talking about their requirements and actually meeting the people and the businesses who can potentially supply them.
A range, as I said, of Meet the Buyers expos will be arranged throughout the year and, addressing a very hot topic, a Meet the Travel Agent seminar will be conducted over coming weeks, commencing in Darwin on 8 July. Our travel agents are facing tough times as a result of terrorism, the Ansett collapse and SARS, and access to government travel is important for their viability.
To add another dimension to government’s assistance to the private sector, my department also facilitates Marketing Assistance training programs, and How to Tender training courses, the first of which was conducted throughout the Territory in April this year. If we are going to manage changing reform effectively, we must establish rigorous processes for the exchange of information and views. I have already dwelt on the Government Procurement Council as a high level and very important communication channel, but now let me pick up on other communication strategies we are implementing.
In revitalising the PRG web site, we are looking to develop a user-friendly information source on procurement policy, associated strategies and the legal framework, useful guides to business across industry sectors on how to do business with government, and appropriate links to other relevant sites, including DBIRD, Business Advisories and DCIS CAPS Tendering Service. In terms of the transparency of these performance measures, we will be providing quarterly reports to the Government Procurement Council, and uploading quarterly reports on the government procurement web site. We will include a final report in the DCIS Annual Report, so again, a real incentive for CEOs to meet this mark because we will be reporting quarterly.
Finally, let us look at the issue of complaint resolution. Probably one of the greatest challenges in our reform process is the perception business has that making a complaint can have repercussions in regard to how a business is dealt with by the procurement process in the future. We have now provided business with four avenues of registering complaints about agency procurement. Obviously, in the first instance, in terms of building partnerships, I would prefer that business go back to the agency and seek a direct resolution of their matter at agency level. That is the preferred outcome. That shows maturity on all sides, that at an agency level, as well as a business level, we can sort the problem out.
Further, we have established a hot line in the procurement reference group in Treasury, independent of the agencies, where, if a business feels it cannot go to the agency, it can ring the hot line with the complaint and have it dealt with independently of the agency, without risk of retribution or perceived retribution. Trust is going to have to be developed over time, but I give an absolute commitment to open and due process in complaint resolution.
There is also an avenue through the Government Procurement Council to make a complaints and have issues referred to the PRG for action. Remember that the council has six private sector members, headed by a private sector chair. If the person making a complaint wants to seek a process totally independent of government, obviously the Ombudsman is still there. In regard to the Ombudsman, he has welcomed the PRG entry into this arena, and protocols and systems are being put in place to facilitate joint cooperation. What we want out of this is outcomes; we do not want a brush off.
There is an absolute commitment from me, as minister responsible for procurement, that I will not tolerate people being discriminated against, or individual businesses being discriminated against as a result of daring to have the temerity to raise an issue with government. Anyone who has a delegation to spend taxpayers’ money has to understand that some pretty significant decisions at the end of the day affect jobs for Territorians, and those decisions need to be made without fear or favour and in line with our five stated principles. It does not matter if the delegation is for $100, $10 000, $50 000 or $5m. Those decisions directly impact on the private sector and the jobs that are underpinned by the private sector.
I am certain members will agree the reforms in procurement I have outlined today are the most comprehensive and significant in the past 10 years. Through our strategy of reform that better equips the public sector with skills, procedures and delegations relevant to the tasks, while providing for continuous review of the process and outcomes, this government will ensure best value for the Territory’s procurement dollar.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, you would think that this is a new invention. It is interesting, because the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development has tabled an audit, about which he said this is something that will be good for us. And it is. It is good reading. It is dated August 2002, Mr Deputy Speaker, so this audit has been available for a while. It is interesting, therefore, to look at the timeline. The audit actually looks at the new principles of the previous government circa November 1999. So the previous government did a review, it put some principles in place in 1999, it undertook a series of training and competencies of much the same language as you see here. In comes the new government in August, and the minister claims that he has had more complaints in this area than any other area he has worked in. There could be a couple of reasons for that. The first is that it could be that the complaints started when the new government started. That is one thing he should look at.
The second thing is the innards of the system have not radically changed. Some things like training – okay, that has been accelerated, but it certainly was not neglected by the previous government and it was one of those things that was high on the agenda for accountable officers. If you want to look at just how close they are, for instance, you could go to the minister’s comment:
- At the very heart of our reform strategy …
That is the reform strategies that we are seeing today:
… is a genuine commitment to the following principles:
1. open and effective competition.
That is a great principle. In fact, it mirrors exactly that which was issued in June 2002. We have it word for word. The second principle is ‘Value for Money’. In June 2002, it was ‘Value for Money’. Number 3 was ‘Enhancing the capabilities of Territory businesses and industry’. Number 3 now: ‘Enhancing the capabilities of local business and industry’. Okay, there is a change. Number 4: ‘Environmental protection and …’. Number 4 now: ‘Environmental protection and …’. Number 5 was ‘Ethical behaviour and fair dealing’. Now: ‘Ethical behaviour and fair dealing’. Bingo!
What we have here is a direct match, and we do not mind that because we think the 1999 recommendations were fairly robust. In fact, that has been found by the August review that the minister has chosen to table today, in which they had a look at how the system had been going and they found that the system itself was pretty good. If I can recall ...
Mr Kiely: No one else can recall it.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, why don’t we read it? If you cannot recall it – you have had this since August. I have just received it. Okay? A major finding …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: This is on page 3 of the report tabled by the minister, Across Government Review of Procurement, August 2002. It says:
- The major finding is that NT Procurement Policy and Strategies are robust and sound…
A major finding. I do not think the system is that bad. There have been a flood of complaints, and I, too, have heard them. They have generally been things that the minister has touched on: the timeliness of payment; some contractors falling over and taking others out in a domino effect; people running around with order books who do not understand procurement; the necessity for training of those people; the focus on dollar at all cost and not the best value for money, so going for the lowest tenderer. They are in the minister’s statement. In general terms, I welcome the statement, which does reflect some of the concerns that have been coming from business. However, let us not try and pretend that this is some sparkling, twinkling thing that has just been invented.
If you go to the minister’s statement, he said that there had been nothing done and there was not the necessary cultural change. I beg to differ. In fact, the amount of work that was done between November 1999 and the CLP losing the election, was substantial, given the amount of time that this government has spent, since August 2001 to today. If you want to look at how much time is available, the current government has in fact had more time than we had prior to the election. I would suggest that the training and the other initiatives that were under way would have come a lot further had we not had this hiatus with the advent of the election of the new government.
He also said that the review was never tabled by the previous government. Well, it was publicly available. It was publicly available in a number of documents, and I have read from at least one of them, but there were several of them posted on web sites and available throughout the Northern Territory Public Service. They were available to prospective tenderers and contractors. If there is some notion that unless the guidelines and handbooks are tabled in this parliament, they are a secret, that is nonsensical.
The minister then goes to some of the recommendations that were not accepted by the previous government. One is the calling of public tenders for the provision of government office space. Well, this government has done that, and it has been incredibly frustrating, difficult, unaudited and complex task that will finally work its way out. There have been a number of looks at this thing, how the government has done it. It was not new, by the way. I mean, the building that the government keeps crowing about, which is just down here in Mitchell Street, includes a police station, which was tendered to a variety of prospective tenderers, and they were successful and I believe it was an instrumental decision that helped make the thing financially viable. So it has been done before, and it has now been done by the government. We will look at how good they are at doing it because, eventually, the Auditor-General and others are watching this, and there have been a number of concerns from a variety of people about how the government has gone about it.
The minister then goes on to say that procurement must be about jobs for Territorians, and he reinforces that theme a couple of times about jobs for Territorians. I suggest that the government focus strongly on this. Certainly, one of the initiatives we will be debating in this parliament on Friday week will be the government’s new royalties regimes. This minister is also the resources minister, so I hope that by the time we get to that debate, he knows a bit more about it then he did when he addressed this matter at the Minerals Council. I think he found out very quickly there that he was addressing an audience that knew vastly more about this than he did.
Essentially, he has a policy that he is trying to flick past to the Treasurer as a money garnering thing. The Treasurer came on the radio this morning and said how insignificant it was. Whether it is insignificant or not, its focus is to create local purchasing opportunity. Its focus is to create local purchasing opportunity. Now, when you have a strategy to encourage people to buy local and it is endorsed by government, I think you should be very, very careful about getting rid of that strategy. If you are talking procurement, if you are seeking to maximise the potential for locals, if you are talking about their partnership with the government, which is all in here, you should be very wary about passing that bill on Friday week. I think you should get a little bit more knowledge about it than you currently have, possibly not from the Treasury people, possibly from the miners, possibly from the explorers. These are the people who are practitioners, who every day face this stuff. Unless you do it, this is the rhetoric: ‘We will talk to businesses, we take business concerns on, we will try and maximise local Territory jobs, we will try and buy local’.
We have a little model on the Notice Paper right now about mining royalties. If you want us to believe the rhetoric that this bloke has trotted out here today, you would get rid of that bill. If you really want to understand what is in it, talk to people who deal with it. Talk to people who have auditors come in and audit their books to see whether they are purchasing locally, and understand a bit more about whether these certificates that are floating around that seem to have offended you, the $280m worth of certificates that are unused, whether this is in fact a problem for you, whether it is a contingent liability, whether it has been reported to the Auditor-General some years ago and he made some findings on it. Do that bit of homework because your colleague did not.
The minister who presented that statement today did not, and I saw the sorry spectacle of him getting mauled over there at the pub that used to be the Rydges, whatever it is now.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: The what? The pub across the road. The Crowne! He went to lunch at the Crowne and he tried to wing it through something he knew nothing about. But the principles are the same: buy locally, partnership with business …
Mr Stirling: No, explore locally, not buy locally.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, do you know what they are? I suggest you wait for the debate and, prior to the debate, make sure you do not just talk to Treasury. What your colleague did is say: ‘Look, I don’t know much about it but my colleague, the Treasurer, introduced this. He thought it was a good idea. He is not here today. He sends his regards, by the way. I understand there is some angst in the room, but let me assure you we will talk to you’. They were fully aware that the bill was on the table and would be passed within a matter of weeks. Most of that came through as hollow rhetoric. I hope that this is not of the same ilk.
As we go through the statement, we see the government has given further commitment for five years of the Australia New Zealand Government Procurement Agreement. That is probably a good thing, but I do not have a problem with the government being very, very, parochial, very localised, very jingoistic about how it treats its own local providers. So, yes, it is good to be open and fair, but I would like us to be a bit more open and fair with the locals. That is one of the complaints out there. People go to Queensland – and there is a quote sitting in here about going to Queensland and being told to f-off, which has been asterisked out in this publication, but when Queenslanders come up here with the lowest price, we will grab them.
It is good to have these cross-jurisdictional arrangements. Our federation is based on it, and fettering of trade across state boundaries is an offence to our Constitution. It doesn’t matter. The best way you can do it, any way you can do it is to favour locals to buy local. I am a bit concerned that we are launching into this level playing field with the rest of the nation when we are David and they are Goliath. I hope that is foremost in the minister’s mind when he signs up.
The Government Procurement Council is a great idea. The composition of six people from the private sector and the chair coming from among those six is good. You will receive accolades from the business community, and I likewise applaud that government initiative. However, in setting up a centralised board, we are finding what Labor governments do particularly well, and that is to cry ‘Berrimah Line, Berrimah Line, Berrimah Line’ and then centralise things. We find that there is a centralising shift here. It has been hidden by: ‘Don’t worry. There will be a couple of regional people on the board, so Alice will have a Tennant Creek person; Darwin will have a Katherine/East Arnhem person, so you guys will be right’. I would suggest they are pretty parochial, too. The statement says that they will be far better represented than they have been in the past. I quote:
- But having said that, the current boards in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy are to be abolished.
If the government has a problem that the system is not working well in the regions, they should address and fix the systems rather than centralise them. The move to continually centralise things to Darwin is not only reflected in this statement, but many others, is a retrograde step. I am strongly of the belief that our regions are our success stories; that this universe called Darwin is very unthinking about the opportunities, circumstances and exigencies of places outside of Darwin, and we have to ensure we have a local focus.
The Procurement Champions. I tried to bring this to my – is this some grey haired chap wondering the corridors with a gold medal and a big red, white and blue sash saying ‘Best Bull in Show’ or something? It is a quaint name, this Procurement Champion. He has status, not delegated status by the look of it; I don’t know how that will go with the Financial Administration and Audit Act, but it would appear that this person is tagged with this mantle of being a wise and wily old head in matters of procurement.
The minister later said that we need a change of culture because all these people in the public service have been doing it wrongly for years, anyway, so maybe it is not a wise and wily old head you need. Maybe what you need is some of these gung-ho people you are going to train and accredit, and give them the mantle of champion. I would like to see what that is; whether it has a formal delegation under the Accountable Officers delegations.
CAL is mentioned in here, and he said ‘Wait and see; there will be a report coming to this parliament’. We will see what happens. This government is finding it very difficult to deal with matters that are problematic. Basically, if there is anything problematic, they tend to leave it. I suggest they get on with the job because they have gone and twinned it with home builders licensing legislation, and the community wants those two issues resolved.
The prime contractors being required by law to pay sub-contractors and suppliers in 30 days will be an interesting audit experience. I assume what they will do is say: ‘Right. You’re building a school for us. We are going to come and have a look at your books. If you haven’t paid the Ready-Mix Concrete people within 30 days, there is a penalty’. It is a very interventionist notion. It is probably a good idea – I don’t know – but I would be interested to know how contractors feel about this, that someone building a school out at Borroloola has made sure that the bloke who is sending his food and sustenance out from Katherine has his payment in 21 days or 30 days. That is a law. We will see that come in by law, and we will be seeing, I assume, penalties, so that people who are a week late in paying for their tucker while they are out building the school at Borroloola will be penalised, one would expect.
I would like to see detail on that. I think there will be some contractors who will be quite surprised that the government intends to audit their books to ensure that all of these bills are being paid within 30 days. I would say in some industries that that is a bit of a rarity. Probably not a good thing, probably a reflection on the industry, but it is requiring a massive change by law and by government intervention. Prompt payment is a good idea, particularly for government. The government is cashed up. Apart from those few bills in dispute, I think it is a great initiative to compel the government to be paying within 30 days, and I applaud the government for it.
Likewise, the money for training. Under previous regimes, it was a matter for the accountable officer to ensure competence in any area, whether that was formal qualification, experience or whatever, they had to deal with it in the best way they could within the department. I think the cash will help. The industry tells me it is not enough, but I think $825 000 is a fairly significant training program to embark on an exercise of this type, and I applaud that initiative also. By the way, that does not mean that training did not exist and, as I said, there was significant training going on right through the year 2000, not just for people involved in procurement, but also for industry people and others.
This business of splitting works is a very vexed judgement. I have sat on a Tender Board myself in Katherine and Tenant Creek. On one hand, you can aggregate jobs so that a Darwin contractor comes down and provides the competitive tension that is necessary to get a better price. On the other hand, you can fragment it, and lots of local people can pick up lots of little jobs. It is a very, very difficult question. It has to be used judiciously. Obviously, the bigger the contract, the fewer the tenderers, and the more likely that you are going to get a big guy from out of town come and pick the job up. So if you really want to maximise your efficiencies, you could probably put two or three big tenders in the paper every week instead of 20 or 30. I am a 20 or 30 man, I have to tell you. With fragmentation, the big guys can still have a go at it, they can still internally do that aggregation, but it means that there are some little fillets that can be cut off for the smaller contractors. I agree that we have to consider clustering, and I agree we have to consider splitting. All I say is that the government do it judiciously, and when in doubt, fragment the contract, because the worst that can happen is the government is not getting the exact due it could with the efficiencies of scale that you can get out of a big contract, but somebody else is, and that somebody else is the local guy, and he is the guy employing our kids. So, when in doubt, go for something that splashes the money as wide as possible.
He is also going to make serious commitments about capital works expenditure:
- …it is important that we manage our program to ensure that money promised is spent...
I will say three words here: Palmerston High School. To continuously parade pronouncement after pronouncement and stick them in - we could talk about the hospice, if you like, but a lot of capital works have been promised and the cash is not there. We know that some of them are choked up in the system because they were harder to deliver than people thought, but radiation oncology was a big promise, the hospice was a promise, the Palmerston High School was a promise. I hope that the minister comes true on those words because they certainly are words of the future, not words of how the current government does business.
The culture change, okay, that is all good and well. He is going to have these wise old wily champions striding the corridors of the bureaucracy, telling people how to change their culture. Maybe it will work.
The business about variations and extensions to contracts is another area where I get complaints from the industry, where people deliberately under-fund on the basis that the job will grow, and it is a risk they take because it may not happen; the job might actually shrink. We also hear stories about people who go to community X to build two houses and end up building three or four, and that is unfair because once they are on site, obviously they have some economies that are built in. I agree that variations and extensions should be looked at as an area. I do not think the 10% is that clever, by the way, because you have to look on a case by case basis and at the difficulties of the day and why contracts might have blown out.
I was very interested in his description of certificates of exemption. I quote the minister again:
- There is a culture that has been allowed to develop around this mechanism …
He gives an assurance to the Assembly that the criteria for approving a C of E will be rigorously enforced. Well, it used to be when I was a minister, and when my colleague, the member for Daly, was a minister. So this is a phenomena for the new government. I know that when Certificates of Exemption crossed my desk, we would ask - and do not forget in the case of, for instance, the Health Department, there may have been only one supplier to ensure compatibility with existing high-tech gear. Sometimes, there is only one supplier in any event. However, if this culture has been allowed to develop, that is a recent culture. The minister has to jump on that phenomena pretty quick, because I always treated Certificates of Exemption very seriously. I always treated them as running a tight and hard argument as to why they should exist. It was not just that we use machinery type X and we wanted to buy another one of them because if there was someone out there who had it, it was unfair to continually have the same gear if it was not necessary for compatibility, for cannibalising of spare parts or the like.
The minister also talked about Certificates of Exemption being used to great benefit for indigenous communities. I will voice a note of concern here. Indigenous communities are Yuendumu, Maningrida, Umbakumba, and Walungurru; they are not Pine Creek, Timber Creek, or Tennant Creek. I urge the minister to be cautious about the open towns, where there are small contractors and paucity of work, to use a government-funded, often government-provided, Aboriginal organisation to provide services when there is some poor bloke trying to make a buck out of it. I urge him to be cautious about what he calls an indigenous community. I would think they were readily ascertainable by virtue the fact they are on Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
I am glad the minister devoted some time to in-kind support tonight because it has been an issue I have questioned in this parliament, where there are some people getting a quiet leg-up from government. It is not in the form of cash. In this particular case, it is a free telephone. Sometimes it is savvy, knowledge, or being the right bloke in the right place when you know a job is going to come up. This is something that has to be carefully watched by government. You have to be careful at any time providing in-kind support to somebody who is out there competing with other people who do not get it. It is not just a matter of declaring in their tender form that they have in-kind support, but it is possibly a matter of departments having a register. If a government department provides support to a particular contractor, a register is kept of that support because it has a value. In our brand new accrual accounting age, that in-kind support given to a prospective tenderer has a value and should have a book value.
I shall not talk too much on school-related procurement, other to say that this is unilateral and is a ‘one size fits all’ option. The minister himself says that people nominate for school councils to improve educational outcomes for their children and have good facilities at their school. The business of capital works and repairs and maintenance is something that appears on school council agendas. I shall not go any further into that, other than to say my colleague will speak on it. I believe the minister has gone too fast in this area by saying that this is going to be in place in two weeks. I do not think he has had the opportunity to seek the views of the school boards on this matter. He will find that there is great divergence of opinion, but I will leave it to my colleague to talk about that.
Meet the Buyer seminars: in a very gracious admission, the minister said:
- I know these seminars occurred under previous governments.
Yes, they did, and it goes to my theme that this is pretty much an improvement of a good system already in place that was left to languish for two years. It would have been much better had we not had the hiatus occurring about August 2001. They have a web site; that is good. We had a web site; nothing terribly new about this.
Complaint resolution gets to the crux of a lot of it. I have previously spoken in this House about a significant contract, over $1m, where a non-conforming, more expensive, out-of-town contractor won this contract. Now, in complaint resolution, if I was to go to that particular contractor, what he is saying is: ‘We will handle your complaint’. What that means is that we promise we won’t bash you up for your next contract. That is pretty much what he is saying. If you have the temerity to raise an issue, you won’t be discriminated against. That is pretty cold comfort if you have done one $1.6m cold. What they want is a remedy. Apart from ‘Thanks, minister, we’re glad you’re not going to bash us up next time we come to talk to you’, if you complain, you don’t really want someone saying: ‘Tsk, tsk. There, there. It’ll be all right’. That’s not a complaint. The fact that you have received and heard the complaint is nonsensical. People want some remediation. What people want is some compensatory mechanism to say: ‘Okay, we were wrong’.
In this particular case, there is no remedy for it, and the problem you have with this particular company, being innovative technology, they were in a position where their competitor, who was out of town, non-conforming and more expensive, will now get on site savvy and knowledge about a job that will equip them for the next job. So they have entered a door very few have entered. They have been given a leg-up and there is nowhere in this complaint mechanism that will give them any comfort to believe that this is something that can be fixed. It could be registered. You could have a letter of concern, shucks, we were wrong, you can escalate it all the way to the Ombudsman, but you do not have a solution to the problem. Any complaint system that merely deals with the taking a complaint is deficient. There has to be some capacity to address the wrongs, otherwise all you have is the good feeling in your soul that you were discriminated against, you were right, but you still did not get the job.
He finished his statement by saying the reforms are the most comprehensive and significant that have been undertaken in the past 10 years. That is not right, and it has been pointed out by the audit. For instance, on page 7 of the Across Government Review of Procurement:
- Since 1994, a number of reviews have been undertaken of the Government Procurement Policy and Strategies.
and it also found, as you know, that the reviews eventuated with a ‘robust and strong system’.
In essence, I congratulate the government for the board with the six private members on it, including the Chairman. It is good that they train public servants, and I think that the money is going to be helpful in that way. I don’t agree with the fact that they have re-branded this and said that this the greatest thing, hallelujah, thank you, we have an ALP government elected, because really the innards are pretty much the same. It is how you approach it. Some of the complaints and problems the minister has talked about and tried to sheet home to two or three years ago may have had their genesis at about August 2001, and I think he should look to that, particularly matters of Certificates of Exemption and complaints because they could be features of the current government. He might find some of the solutions are looking at some of the problems more closely. I suspect that we are getting another round of rhetoric to a great degree, but I hope that is not the case. We will do a little test; our litmus test will be to see whether the Treasurer has the fortitude to pull the Taxation Bill on Friday week, and we will see whether, in doing that, he believes that some of this stuff is a good idea and …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr Dunham: ... should be implemented or whether it is rhetoric.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the system worked so well up until August 2001 and it was just this minor mishap of the CLP losing the election that the procurement all went bad.
I wasn’t going to deal with the Exploration Exemption Certificate issue tonight, but there is misinformation on the record as a result of the previous speaker and it is important to put on the record exactly how this worked in terms of incentives for explorers.
The situation was this: an explorer came to the Territory and incurred $1m worth of expenditure. They went along to Treasury, duly acquitting and proving that they had incurred the expense. They were issued with what we call the EEC, Exploration Exemption Certificate, to the face value of $1m. The explorer could then go out and sell that in the market place to a mining company that may be interested in purchasing an EEC. The going rate for these certificates has historically been around 10%. The explorer spent $1m and had it verified by Treasury, then walks out the door with the EEC for $1m and is able to sell that in the market place to a mining company for $100 000. The explorer receives $100 000 cash against $1m exploration expenditure. The mining company now has a $1m EEC, a certificate verifying $1m, which they were able to up by 50% and make it $1.5m and lodge that against the royalties, the taxes, due to the Northern Territory government. They have paid out $100 000, and they are able to reduce their taxation up to a maximum of 35% of the taxes due. Who is the winner here?
We were told this was the system that was the big incentive for explorers. The way I see it is the explorer is $900 000 out of pocket because they spent $1m exploring and received $100 000 for it. The mining company, having done nothing but shell out $100 000 is $1.4m in front on their tax bill due to the government. I cannot see that level of expenditure going out there - government has taken a hit to the bottom line of $1.5m, of which $1.4m is in the hands of a mining company that has done nothing for exploration in the Territory, and the explorer, who has done all the work, has $100 000.
This was recognised as far back as 1987 by then Treasurer Coulter who upped the uplift factor. He said: ‘No one is buying these certificates; it is not working as an incentive to exploration as it should be. We’ll up the ante from the 25% upping of the certificate to 50%’. That secured certificates for a few more mining companies because they were then able to up it from buying it for $100 000 and instead of $1m off their tax bill, they could claim $1.5m off their tax bill.
Seventeen years later, in 2002, 140 explorers came through the Territory last year. How many went to Treasury, verified their expenditure and took certificates? I’ll tell you: seven. That is 5%. That is seven out of 140 explorers who bothered to put all their expenditure together, go along to Treasury and say: ‘I want an EEC because I have spent this $1m exploring the Territory’. Now, if this was the system that was providing an incentive to explorers, wouldn’t 140 explorers be fronting up for their EECs, or at least 100, or maybe 50? But seven of 140 explorers working in the Territory bothered to go along to have their EECs verified against their expenditure. He says in here that it had to be a verified expenditure in the Northern Territory. No such thing. The exploration had to take place in the Territory. He is misreading the act.
As I said, it was recognised as far back as 1987 that the premise of the program, which was to promote and provide an incentive for mining exploration in the NT, wasn’t working. Barry Coulter is on the record saying as much. Here we are in 2003, where the picture hasn’t changed at all and, because we want to address it, the member for wherever he is wants to have a blue over it.
There are issues relevant to my roles as Treasurer and Minister for Education that are important to recognise in this statement this evening. From the education viewpoint, the issues have been worked through carefully. Government has recognised the views of industry that procurement by school councils was not as open and transparent as it should be and the reform planned transfers responsibility for capital works in schools to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment immediately, and allows sufficient time for a workable solution on routine repairs and maintenance to be developed.
Schools have arrangements in place that are workable, but they do not necessarily assure government that value for money is being achieved, so under the new arrangements, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment will need to provide the assurance that value for money is being achieved while at the same time, of course, providing schools with the services that they need. In the longer term, the reforms will enable school councils to concentrate and focus much better on educational outcomes in schools, which was the intent of establishing school councils in the first place.
The introduction of competency based training for public sector personnel involved with procurement, and also the plans for recognition of prior learning, is a significant step in the right direction and subjects public servants to the same sort of training as that required in industry. Again, we heard from the member opposite that this was all in place under the CLP. Well, it simply was not. The level of training going in to the officers responsible for procurement simply was not occurring, and you had people with inordinate responsibilities thrust upon them without the capability of measuring up to it. Again, we are led to believe this all happened in August 2001, about the 18th I think, it all started to go bad. The review itself, back in 1999, the member also referred to, like many of the reviews that the CLP had – there was one on secondary, there was certainly one on indigenous education – in those two cases, no recommendations were ever accepted. In this one, of course, there was much left undone.
From a Treasury viewpoint, government procures goods and services at around $750m annually, a significant component of our budget. The emphasis on procurement planning will ensure that government is purchasing on a needs basis, and that the decisions are based on value for money criteria. The planned changes to insurance requirements and government contracts will assist in alleviating frustrations expressed by the industry through tailoring insurance levels to the risk identified on each project.
The procurement reforms will also position the Territory to be able to comply with the majority of the probable demands of states and territories under the potential Australia-USA Free Trade Agreement. The Commonwealth is presently in negotiations to establish the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, and there are indications that Commonwealth funding on future projects could be subject to trade agreement conditions.
The procurement reform package will help position the Territory so that we are not fiscally disadvantaged in the future. I thank the minister for this statement this evening. A great deal of work has gone into listening closely to the complaints and concerns of industry. Again, we were told that all of these complaints from industry started rolling in on 19 August 2001. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know, as a local member, that I made representations on behalf of contractors in my electorate time and time again over procurement to the previous government, so complaints are certainly not new.
I thank the minister for his statement. I welcome the reforms, and I look forward to them being unrolled.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise not so much to add to the words of my colleague with regard to procurement, but specifically to comment on this statement as it affects school communities and school councils in particular by way of addressing the effect of this statement, and the decisions made by this government, on a school council and using that to illustrate what I believe is an inherent fault and illustrates my concern about the focus of this strategy.
I will say at the outset that what we have here is something I am reasonably comfortable with on the surface. I accept the rearrangement of government structures to address procurement issues. I understand the thinking behind the centralised council or board, and I understand the structure that will be set up. No matter what kind of structure we have, its potential to work depends upon how it meets the expectations of people and the needs of the system.
The problem is that it is centralised. We have the opportunity to allow these structures to empower at a lower level. Here, the weight seems to be passed up the line. The power is moving up the line and away from the regions, the coal face, so to speak. It is a philosophical bent of this government for control and for a centralist approach. I will illustrate this by looking at the school communities; we are devolving authority to schools so that schools can manage their own learning environments. There is a certain empowerment, strength and additional value that is added when we can empower local communities to be directly involved.
What we see in this example of schools - and this is by way of illustrating a potential that has been missed in this - is that we have, in effect, in a school context, the power moving away from the school to make decisions which are related indirectly to that school community. They say the school community is solely for educational imperatives. The minister made the statement:
- Members of this Assembly know that the reason parents put their hand up to nominate for the school
councils is essentially to try and improve educational outcomes for their children and have good
facilities for their schools.
Well, yes, principally, but they are connected. For parents to get together and put their hands up to be involved in the decision-making processes of their school, it also involves making the most efficient use of resources afforded to that school. If a capital works project of some kind is going to be conducted within that school environment, the school would be immeasurably enriched and empowered if they have the capacity to respond to that and find a way of getting extra mileage out of that and adding more value to that allocation, which would be of direct benefit to their students. I know a number of schools that have taken decision making into their own hands and added increased value because they are making the decision themselves as to what they need to benefit their own school.
We have illustrated in a range of schools across the Territory the very principle that I am arguing, that if we bring the power back down the line and strengthen the regions, strengthen it at the grass roots level, we end up with greater power and value for money. We end up with an investment in something that is much more than a capital structure, but we have an investment in people because they are directly involved in it. There are many school councils – Darwin High, Humpty Doo, a number of others and a principal one that escape me at the moment - that put their hands up because they want to be involved, to add something more to their school environment.
Here it seems to be argued, quite clearly, that we are going to take that away from the schools and they are going to be relating more to abstract and educational issues. These things are being separated and, in effect, it is devolution in progress. I understand that this government is not that enamoured with empowerment of local school communities, but would rather centralise. This, to me, is clear evidence of that attitude at work. It will be to the detriment of our schools because people do need to be empowered.
Once again, when we look at the economy, we see the need to be empowered. Once again, the regions are having the power withdrawn from them and we are going to see an effect there in the longer term. That is a concern. I have consulted the Council of Government Schools Organisation on this and they are, on first look at this, seriously concerned the rumours have been confirmed by the release of this statement today. Rumours abounded that this was on foot, and I know there are going to be a number of school communities that will be seriously concerned with this statement. I ask the minister to listen to those school communities and respond to them because we have some very proactive school communities that have added significant value through their involvement in procurement, particularly in the management of capital works projects.
Notwithstanding my concerns about where the power is moving – it is moving towards a more centralist agenda – I do support the investment in training. That is a good thing. I also support the move to strengthen the approach with timely payment. This gives certainty to those involved in tendering processes. I am particularly interested to see how this will flow onto subcontractors and the like. My colleague has already addressed that.
Apart from that, I have to say there is a lot of good talk in this and I understand that. You sell your product and, generally, it is not a bad thing but there are some fundamental concerns about the philosophical shift of power. Notwithstanding my comments, the structure itself seems to be adequate to the task. There are some aspects of concern, which my colleague, the member for Drysdale, has pointed out. With those words of concern, particularly regarding school communities, I add my support to the statement.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight it is with sadness that I farewell one of the Department of Health and Community Services’ most valued employees, Dr Dayalan Devanesen, affectionately known to many as Dr Didi. Dr Didi is retiring after almost 30 years of dedicated service to my department and the people of the Northern Territory. He started working in the Alice Springs and Barkly district in 1974, and he was one of the early supporters of the Aboriginal Health Worker program in Central Australia in the 1970s. Since then, he has continued to work tirelessly to improve indigenous health as a doctor and teacher. He is well known and respected for his achievements in integrating western and traditional Aboriginal beliefs and medicine, and for the support and deep respect he provided to many Aboriginal leaders and health workers across the Territory.
Didi has achieved and/or been personally involved in many significant health developments in the Northern Territory. Some of the many highlights of Dr Didi’s distinguished career in the Northern Territory include: he commenced work in the Northern Territory as one of the first group of District Medical Officers within the Northern Territory Medical Service. He developed a rapport and deep respect for traditional healers and then supported the implementation of two-way medicine, where traditional and western health practices were respected and provided in the community as appropriate.
He was instrumental in supporting and developing the first Aboriginal Health Worker program in Central Australia in 1977. He was also instrumental in setting up the first Aboriginal Health Worker training centre and a key player in the development of the basic skills curriculum for Aboriginal Health Workers, a program later transferred to Batchelor College in 1990. He was also a public interest member on the Aboriginal Health Worker Registration Board from 1992, retiring from the Board in 2003.
Dr Didi was a strong advocate for the use of traditional art in health promotion, and closely associated with the movement to recognise the use of Aboriginal plant medicine. He brought together the TB, leprosy and STD programs to form the first Communicable Diseases Centre in the Northern Territory. He was awarded the John Hawkins Scholarship in 1984 to study a Master’s Degree in Health Planning at the University of New South Wales and he worked very closely with the late Professor Fred Hollows as a member of the National Trachoma and Eye Health Program.
He was appointed Director for Aboriginal Health in the Northern Territory in 1985, then promoted to Director for Health Services for the Darwin region in 1987. He was a member of the Board of Governors of the Menzies School of Health Research from 1988. He also established the first Men’s Health Policy Unit in 1997. This was a start of a movement by senior Aboriginal men to improve access to health services by men. He is former Chairman of the Royal Australian College of Medical Administrators, Northern Territory Branch, and he recently held the position of Director of Primary Health and Coordinated Care Branch in my department.
Dr Didi has developed deep friendships and cultural links to many communities and community members throughout the Northern Territory. He has a great understanding and promoted to many that primary health care begins with respect of culture and cultural beliefs.
Dr Didi has retired at the age of 57 to undertake voluntary work in India and Australia. His knowledge, skills and passion are acknowledged and will be greatly missed. We wish Dr Didi health and happiness as he embarks on his new path, and thank him for his friendship and dedication to improving indigenous health. I know all members of this Assembly will join me to wish Dr Didi and his family well for their future, and thank him for his contributions to the people the Northern Territory.
I move on to another topic, the Safety House program. As members may be aware, there were two attacks recently on young girls in the Nightcliff electorate, and this has left the people of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek concerned about the safety of their children. One of the strategies that exist to protect children is the Safety House scheme. The scheme was put in place to provide shelter for children who are frightened or feel unsafe as they move to and from school. I have been actively promoting the program in Nightcliff and encouraging residents to join it to provide more safety houses for our children. One of the difficulties in finding people to participate is the need for someone to be at home during the time children are travelling to and from school. With so many families having both parents working, there is a real shortage of people. However, I encourage people, particularly those with young children who are at home during this time, or perhaps grandparents, to join the scheme. It is one way that we can help to encourage a safe environment for our children.
One other way in which the Safety House program can be expanded is by business coming to the fore. All government members’ electorate offices are either already Safety Houses or are in the process of joining the program. A number of shops in the Nightcliff area are also joining the program. Joining the program is very easy. It costs nothing, and the best thing about it is there are no meetings. Participants do have to have a police suitability check to prevent people with inappropriate police history from joining the program. I urge all people in my electorate to consider joining the program and, if they are interested, to phone the Safety House program in the Top End on 8922 3538.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about someone all of us in this House know and see most days. Owen Samuals, a General Services Assistant with the Department of Chief Minister, proudly displayed to one and all earlier this week a gold medal he won at the 2003 National Championships for Ten Pin Bowlers with a disability, held in Canberra from 7 to 13 June.
Owen, with his partner Sheyne Sanson, tied for the gold medal with the team from Victoria in the Doubles event. All up, 19 members from Darwin and four from Alice Springs travelled to Canberra for the 8th National Championships where they competed against nearly 350 bowlers of all ages from all around Australia.
I congratulate Owen Samuals and Sheyne Sanson for their outstanding effort, and would like to mention team members and officials who represented the Northern Territory. From Darwin the team members were William Joswig, Amanda Mouthaan, Graham Paine, Margaret MacGregor, Stephen Rowe, Christo Karagiorgos, Ivan Jurkijevic, Sheyne Sanson and of course, Owen Samuals himself. From Alice Springs were Stuart Keech, Richard Bowden, Martin Armstead and Christina Sarkanen. Congratulations also to their coach Trevor Ziersch, Total Recreation’s Senior Recreation Officer Paul Vanoosten, volunteer Vicki Langley and support workers Adrienne Willing and Janice Miller.
As I mentioned before, Owen and Sheyne tied for first place in the doubles event, and overall, Territory representatives came second in the teams event, the same placing they achieved last year in Adelaide. Let us hope next year they can go one step further and reach the number one spot when they compete at Mount Gravatt in Queensland.
This year, I was pleased to be able to assist, through the Department of Community Development, Sport and Recreation, and Cultural Affairs, with a $4500 grant through funding for the peak body, the Northern Territory Ten Pin Bowling Association. Other financial support was received from the Department of Health and Community Services, the Lords Taverners and the Disabled Sports Association NT.
I would also like to thank Owen on a professional level. He has worked in his role as General Services Assistant in the Department of the Chief Minister for close to five years, and he is a great character to have around. His eagerness to wash my car, especially after I have made a bush trip, is a great testament to his work ethic. Owen loves the challenge and he always does a great job. His supervisor, Jim Wyatt, tells me, besides his car detailing duties, Owen fulfils a number of tasks, including courier runs to various agencies, ensuring our photocopy paper supplies are always plentiful and other general duties, which he completes in his own colourful and efficient way.
Owen is always great for a story and willing to share his experiences, such as when his family travelled to New Zealand last year, and the sorrow of his old dog passing away, and the happiness he experienced when he got a new puppy. Of course, the AFL is important to Owen, and his beloved West Coast Eagles are flying high this year - not to mention his beloved St Mary’s in the Territory, which he does not need too much prompting to remind us about.
Finally, I congratulate Owen and the rest of the Northern Territory Disabled Ten Pin Bowlers for their success this year. I also thank Total Recreation, a not for profit community organisation that provides opportunities for people, like Owen, with disabilities to participate in an exciting range of sport and recreation activities.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting three of Arnhem Land’s largest communities to look at ways in which each of them are progressing in different ways. At Maningrida, the member for Arafura and I met with staffers from both the Maningrida Council and the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, the latter of which services outstations in the area.
The purpose of the visit was to hand over the keys to six new houses built under the Indigenous Housing Association of the NT program, as well as to look at a further 13 houses under construction through the National Aboriginal Health Strategy or NAHS program. The IHANT houses are of very high quality, and I congratulate project managers, NBC, on their contribution to the projects. Moreover, I congratulate the Maningrida building team that carried out all work other than the block laying. The building team involves up to 15 Aboriginal workers in various areas of construction, including carpentry, plumbing, electrical, core filling, roof truss fabrication and window Crimsafe fabrication. I saw for myself the high quality of the work in these new houses. The team has also contributed to some of the work on the NAHS houses.
The issue of poor housing and employment prospects on our remote communities is an ongoing tragedy. Maningrida itself, even with these new houses coming on line, is still over 200 houses short of the population’s need. Indeed, Maningrida has the highest housing need of any community in the Western Arnhem region. It is for this reason that it is critically important that we shift the Commonwealth’s thinking on housing funding under the Aboriginal Rental Housing Program so that it is based on need rather than a per capita basis. It is worth noting in this context that, while the Northern Territory has 38% of the need, we receive only 21.4% of Aboriginal Remote Housing Program funding, thus missing out on between $15 to $20m a year.
I next visited Galiwinku on Elcho Island, where I had the honour of opening the Galiwinku Indigenous Knowledge Centre. The Knowledge Centre is something that the Yolngu clans of Eastern Arnhem Land have been discussing in one way or other for many years. As Richard Gandhuwuy, one of the centre’s main proponents, told us:
- It is not my idea, but it is on behalf of the old people. We witnessed them, we watched them and we
were hearing them. The Knowledge Centre is something for the future generations.
The centre is a new way of retrieving and storing Yolngu scientific and cultural knowledge, and uses a data base which has been designed to conform to cultural protocols, including the protection of secret, sacred materials. The centre has been funded through two establishment grants through my department, the Northern Territory Library and Information Services, totalling $212 000. It will have the capacity to retrieve the large amount of information that has been deposited in museums and libraries around the world and bring them back to the communities of North-East Arnhem Land, including the broader Marthakal and Miwatj regions. The people of Galiwinku have been enthusiastic supporters of the centre and, from its opening at around lunch time, people were visiting the centre in droves until the doors closed for the day at 6 pm.
While on Galiwinku, I was taken to see the proposed site for the dialysis unit that will be constructed, thanks to the Martin Labor government’s commitment in the 2003-04 budget. It is a beautiful spot behind the clinic overlooking the water, and will certainly be much better for the people of Galiwinku than being exiled in places such as Darwin.
Finally, I was able to visit the Yirrkala Community Education Centre. It was good to meet the Principal, Leon White, and his dedicated staff. It was great to meet with the large number of younger staff members there, at least six of whom will be able to move in to three two-bedroom government employee houses that I was able to hand over whilst there. The highlight of my time at the school was seeing an examination performance by the Yirrkala Community Education Centre Big Band. They were absolutely fantastic. From a three-piece brass section to keyboards, guitars, percussion, base and didgeridoo, these kids studying senior secondary school music pumped out a wide range of music with great skill and enthusiasm. The performance I witnessed was being held as a part of their set assessment for exam purposes.
I noted that the Yirrkala Big Band is being sponsored by the member for Nhulunbuy, among other people and organisations. They will be coming to Darwin from 6 July onwards to perform at a National Music Teachers Conference, including a show with other indigenous bands on 7 July. I thoroughly recommend as many people as possible attend. Later in July, the Big Band will be travelling to Victoria to perform at the 150th anniversary of the University of Melbourne.
My warmest congratulations to Shenay, Melanie, Rokula, Binmila, Guypuypa, Burrkitj, Marranthindi, Garritjpi, Mirrwun, Walalu, Patrick, Marco, Ngalkanbuy, Lisa, Djay’miny and Wulunggurtji of the Yirrkala Big Band. I hope they have a great trip to Melbourne.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I speak with great delight on the outstanding success of constituents of mine in the recent Eisteddfod. I congratulate, with great gusto, the Karama School Choir, which, after a tremendous performance, took out the Milliken Trophy and the Trans-Global Perpetual Trophy. They swept the Eisteddfod clean with their win and it has brought a great deal of pride to the Karama Primary School.
Holy Family School participants acquitted themselves admirably. Paul Bandarian won First Prize in the pianoforte solo, 11 years and under and was Highly Commended for pianoforte solo contemporary, 14 years and under. Lea Santos was Highly Commended in both the pianoforte solo, contemporary 14 years and under and was Highly Commended in the pianoforte solo Australian Composer 12 years and under. Peter Bandarian, Frederick Santos and Clare Santos were all Highly Commended for piano solo 11 years and under. My congratulations go to those Holy Family school students.
Malak Primary School student Kasi Chong achieved a High Distinction for her group dancing in the jazz ballet section and the trio won first prize. Congratulations.
O’Loughlin College gained nine first places and eight high commendations in all, and a special mention goes from the school community to the following students: Paola Ciarla; Erin Gleeson, Serina Annis-Brown and Ashley Buba.
On behalf of the people of the community of Karama and Malak, I congratulate our young, talented constituents and wish them all the very best for their scholastic studies throughout the year. I look forward to reporting their achievements in the Eisteddfod next year.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in the last two days I listened carefully to a number of questions directed to the Minister for Tourism relating to his conduct surrounding a police investigation relating to his son.
I want to put on the record before I go on that nothing that I am going to say has anything to do with this man’s son. This is a completely separate issue. I am not going to touch upon that, but what I am concerned about is that there have been references on both sides of the House to phrases like ‘perverting the course of justice’. Section 109 of the Criminal Code makes it clear that:
- Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined by this Code, to obstruct, prevent, pervert or
defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
It is a …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the standing order cited by the Speaker during Question Time today. The member is going into an area of gross disorder.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice.
Mr MALEY: I have not said anything yet. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, may I speak to the point of order? I have not actually made any suggestion or imputation yet. I am merely setting out some facts.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, the member is quoting the Criminal Code in reference to the actions or otherwise of the member for Johnston. He clearly is drawing an imputation there - clearly.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are making an inference about a member who is not in the Chamber at the moment, and there was a ruling on this issue during Question Time from Madam Speaker.
Mr MALEY: I am not implying he has done anything; I am just saying people have used these terms loosely.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: By directly quoting, and you are directly quoting …
Mr Maley: He is back in the Chamber.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: … the Criminal Code with inference that something is …
Mr MALEY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, with respect, I do not think that inference is reasonably drawn. It may be anticipating debate, but I can assure you I am not accusing or suggesting that any offence has been committed. I am saying there is an easy – I am going to say there is a way to remedy this, but I do not want to go into the speech.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I urge the member Goyder to seek advice from Madam Speaker about the comments that he wishes to make so that he protects himself from the serious charge of gross disorder. If he is, indeed, interested in clearing the air, rather than making disorderly inferences about another member, I would strongly recommend that the member has the opportunity to speak to Madam Speaker and seek advice.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I strongly advise that you do not pursue this because you are inferring certain allegations against a member.
Mr REED: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, if you or other members of the House are drawing certain inferences, then that is your interpretation of the contribution being made by the member. To suggest that a member of this parliament cannot quote from an act of this parliament is, with respect, extraordinary in the extreme. In terms of the particular matter to which the honourable member referred, it has been a matter of discussion in the media, it is a matter of police investigation, it is a matter, therefore, of relevance to both this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. With respect, the honourable member has not accused the member in question of anything, but has pointed to the fact that if the member of anyone else in the Territory acted in a certain way, then they may be up against a certain law.
If we cannot talk about these and like issues in this parliament, the very reason for the existence of this parliament is drawn into question. Therefore, I suggest that the honourable member does have a right and, indeed, an obligation to explore the issues that he is exploring.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what the member for Katherine said was fairly accurate, however, in the case before us, the member for Goyder provided a warning. He stated that he was providing a warning. Therefore, there is inference.
Mr Maley: Providing a what?
Mr KIELY: Providing a warning. So you were inferring. Yes, I believe the member for Katherine is correct in the way he phrased his comments, however, preceding all of this, the member for Goyder couched his words and stated clearly, as Hansard will show, that he was providing a warning. Therefore, there was inference.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw any inference and the word ‘warning’, and I retract any imputation that I may have inadvertently inferred or offence that I may have directed to the Minister for Tourism.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder. Proceed.
Mr MALEY: There is a simple and straightforward way to resolve this question and, in fairness to any member of this parliament, it is incumbent upon me to place some facts before this House with a view to resolving this issue. If there is any suggestion of a conversation between a member of the public and a police officer, and the contents of that conversation are in dispute, then it is a matter of practice that the police would record these phone calls. They keep them for a period of time, but more importantly, the police, in any matter, and I assume this matter is not out of the ordinary, would have a running sheet, and on that running sheet would be a summary of what was said. It is similar to an investigation diary or a running journal, and it would simply be a matter of obtaining those documents and the truth would be there.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The comment just made by the member for Goyder that the truth would be there I believe is an offensive reference to the member’s private affairs, and personally reflects on the member, and that they should be deemed disorderly. I am referring to Standing Order 62.
Mr REED: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the reverse also applies, and the honourable member did clearly indicate that if a such a record were there, then there is the ability to verify this matter one way or the other. So it would similarly be seen as a positive, rather than, as the honourable member has chosen to see it, as a negative, and from that point of view, can I add that the Adjournment debate is the parallel, if you like, of the grievance debate in the federal parliament. If members of this House are going to get so sensitive about issues of this kind being debated because they happen to perceive that they could be negative against one of their members, perhaps they should look for another profession. Matters of this kind have been discussed in this House before at extensive length, and members have an entitlement, and once the honourable member for Karama has been here a bit longer, she might come to realise that members have an entitlement, indeed, a responsibility to air issues, particularly in this case, as the matter is being investigated by police. The honourable member is simply trying to express a view and to pursue the matter. If some of these issues had been answered in Question Time today, it would not be necessary for him to do so, but I believe he has a right to pursue the matter.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking further to that point of order, the view that the member for Goyder is simply trying to express, as the member for Katherine said, is a view that has offensive references to a member’s private affairs and is against the standing orders. Matters of this nature are usually debated with suspension of standing orders, not the manner by which the member for Goyder is trying to introduce them now.
Mr Maley: I am not censuring him.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take on board your comments, member for Katherine. I would like to reiterate, member for Goyder, Standing Order 62, and that you take notice of that.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw any inference that may offend Standing Order 62.
There is an accurate record which would verify the matter. There would not be any ambiguity, and perhaps that is a matter for the DPP or the Ombudsman to investigate, and that would resolve the matter.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think that it is worth even commenting on what the member for Goyder was up to there. He had an opportunity, as my college, the member for Karama, so ably pointed out, to seek leave to suspend standing orders and pursue his allegations through a censure of a minister or more ministers. He chose to squib that this morning and yesterday when he had an opportunity to do so. I digress.
This evening, I take the opportunity to record some recent events and achievements of the Wanguri electorate. First, Centenary Medallists. I had the opportunity as a sitting MLA in March 2001 to nominate four members from the Wanguri and Leanyer community for Centenary Medals. I was pleased to recently see that all four nominations were accepted and they are worthy medallists.
First of all, the Leanyer Primary School Principal - someone who would be known to every member of this House - Henry Gray. His citation was for many years service to education in the Northern Territory. Henry Gray has been a pillar of the education community for many years. He has worked as a teacher and principal in both the bush and urban schools in the Territory since 1975. He is past President of the Northern Territory Principals Association.
His current role as the Principal of Leanyer Primary School has seen Henry contribute above and beyond the duty of principal. His efforts have contributed strongly to the sense of community and identity that exists in Leanyer, and he is highly regarded amongst his professional peers as well as students, teachers, and parents past and present. I can certainly say, as the local member and someone who has known Mr Gray for a number of years now, I only ever hear of the highest accolades regarding his professional running of Leanyer school and the great outcomes that the students achieve at that school.
Tonight, I would like to talk about Alderman Robyne Burridge. The citation for Robyne was for many years service to the disabled community in the Northern Territory. Robyne has been working with people with disabilities in the community for over 35 years. Starting with the Crippled Children Society, Robyne is now with IDA, and she has worked tirelessly to promote the cause and to support people with disabilities. Robyne’s motivation as a Darwin City Council alderman has been to give back to the community. At the end of her current term, she will have been an alderman for 20 years. Robyne is a true community volunteer. Whilst her roots may be for people with a disability, she has worked hard on behalf of all Territorians. Again, I suppose I came to know Robyne very well, as opposed to just a passing acquaintance, as Shadow Minister for Health when I decided that the issue facing the disabled community in the Northern Territory was such that I would really focus my attention and efforts to try and improve services and facilities for the disabled in the Territory. I came to know Robyne very well over that time, and was enormously impressed by her commitment to the cause, her capacity to work with the community and improve services and facilities for people with disabilities, and also her great policy capacity. I believe that is a very well deserved recognition.
Frangoula Koulakis’ citation was for many years service to the Greek community in Darwin. Frangoula is a long-time Territorian who arrived in Darwin in 1964, and has volunteered for many years in the Greek community in Darwin. She has contributed many hours of her time to Greek radio for over 14 years. Over the past 10 years, Frangoula has been the driving force behind hosting weekly lunches for senior Greek Territorians Frangoula is a tireless volunteer in Darwin’s Greek community and is held in high regard. Again, I only came to know Frangoula as a candidate and then as the local member for Wanguri. I am enormously impressed by the commitment that she has to the Greek senior community. She really is held in very high esteem. She is always there to put her hand up to assist the Greek community and people who are doing it tough in that community, and she is very well loved. It is great to see her being recognised with this Centenary Medal.
John Lay’s citation was for many years of services to the Hakka community in Darwin. John Lay has been, for many years, a dependable member and volunteer of Darwin’s Hakka Association. He is the quintessential behind-the-scenes volunteer who has never sought recognition for his efforts, but is always there when needed, never complaining and always willing to put his shoulder to the wheel and to do the hard volunteer work on behalf of the Hakka community. I came to know John Lay as a candidate and then member of Wanguri. At the time, John was President of the Hakka Association - and I am very proud to be the patron of the Hakka Association now - and he has done a fantastic job, doing all the hard work that volunteers do in terms of community functions as well the organisational side, the hard yards in terms of the physical work. Again, good to see this recognition.
Another three people who received awards in my electorate were Michael Athanasiou for service to the community through leadership, sport and community service. This was a very well deserved award. Michael, through his NTFL exploits, is a magnificent player, a magnificent coach and a fellow I really think deserves this award for his service to sport and the community. He is very highly regarded in the community. Congratulations.
John Kandiah for services to the Centenary Federation Celebrations and Peter Dunham, also for his service to the Centenary of Federation Celebrations and historical project. Congratulations to all of those people.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a time of year most schools are conducting their annual sports days and the Dry Season is perfect for Darwin to host Territory and national junior sporting events. I congratulate all of the students who participated in their school sports day, and extend my thanks to the many teachers and parents who helped their individual schools and making sports day happen. Congratulations also to the many students who have competed in other sporting events.
As you would be aware, the Eisteddfod was held recently, another event showcasing the talents of many students. In particular, in my electorate of Wanguri, I take the opportunity to commend Leanyer Primary School. Leanyer Primary always has a good showing at Eisteddfod, and this year was no exception. Some highlights include Mrs Smith’s class winning their section with the action poem Camping. For folk dancing, Leanyer groups won Highly Commended recognition for 12 years and under, won the Margaret Walker Award for the 10 years and under and won the 8 years and under. For Australian folk dancing, Leanyer groups won the 12 years and under, 10 years and under and a highly commended recognition for the 8 years and under.
Leanyer also reaped the rewards of a very solid guitar program at the school, with 14 students picking up awards in the guitar area of the Eisteddfod. Congratulations to Tim Varlon, Edward Wilson, Sonia Vaikyl, Daniel Blacklock, Nicole Langham, Sam Hood, Shannon McDonald, Matthew Perry, Andrea Ho, Bradley Meiklejohn, Anthony Grey, Justin McGrath, Jaymon Brenton and Rhiannon Oakhill. A special mention must go to Rhiannon Oakhill who won the Bill Grouse Award for the best solo guitarist 14 years and under - not a bad effort, considering Rhiannon is only 10 years of age.
Congratulations to all students who participated in the Eisteddfod, and well done to Leanyer school for nurturing such a successful music program.
Recently I attended school assemblies of the Leanyer and Wanguri primary schools, where I presented awards to all students who were elected to the Student Representative Council. Since becoming involved with the schools as local member, I have noticed the SRC become more and more involved with the running of events at the schools, so much so that both the Leanyer and Wanguri school assemblies are entirely run by their respective SRCs. It is great to see the students given a chance at this responsibility and to be involved in important school events. Because of this, I wanted to recognise the work of the SRCs in both schools and present them with a token of appreciation of their work. In today’s school environment, being an SRC is no easy task and hopefully this experience might spurn one of these children to one day take the step into the world of politics.
From Leanyer school my congratulations go out to Amy Hughes, Hannah Phelps, Rochelle Chin, Olivia McClelland, Sean Kennedy – there is also one of those who work upstairs - Elly Hibberd, Eilish Moloney, Rhiannon Oakhill, Sophie Dodd and Meg Turnbull. From Wanguri, my congratulations go to Sarah Chau and Jack Hose, Patrick Chau, Francesca MacLean, Tori Lockley, Dale Martin, Monica Mu, Kimiora Kahu-Leedie, Timika Kahu-Leedie, LatichaCasmiro, Lewis Male, Keira Radovic, Illias Hourdas, Lydia O’Grady, Nikki Coggins and Eugene Duffy. Well done, everybody.
On Saturday, 7 June, I attended the St Andrew Lutheran Primary School’s 20th Anniversary Ball. It was a marvellous affair that capped off over a week of celebrations. St Andrew Lutheran Primary School opened in 1983 at the old Carpentaria College in Nightcliff. They soon grew too big for that, and in 1985 were allocated land in Leanyer to build Stage I of the school. The school was designed to be in sync with Darwin’s tropical weather, with well designed air flow and was designed by Troppo Architects.
St Andrew’s was initially created for the growing Lutheran congregation in Darwin, but is available to all children and parents in the Darwin area that are looking for more personalised, qualitative teaching. Stage I of the school catered for 100 students with the final plan being to support 200 students. In 1995, Stage II was achieved, with a new administration and class room block, and Stage III was completed in 2000 to increase capacity to 150. Stage IV was completed last year, adding another class room block.
St Andrew’s held a great variety of events for students, staff, parents and anyone previously involved with the school. On Friday 30 May, St Andrew’s held a reunion barbecue, followed on Saturday 31 May with a kids carnival. A church service on 1 June centred predominantly on the school’s success, and it all concluded with the formal dinner and ball on 7 June. They also held an auction, at which I successfully bid for a great piece of artwork from the Transition class that proudly hangs on my electorate office wall.
My congratulations to St Andrew’s on reaching its 20th birthday. I look forward to a continuing relationship with this great school for many years to come.
Last month, along with the Chief Minister and member for Casuarina, I held a very successful morning tea to help raise money for the Cancer Council. We invited all members from the Seniors Villages in our electorates. The event was held at Parliament House to combine not only a morning tea, but for those interested, a tour of Parliament House. Almost 100 people turned up, and a great time was had by all. Over $200 was raised for the Cancer Council.
I would like to recognise this evening a long serving member of my department, Dr Howard Dengate. Dr Dengate left the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development on 5 June after 14 years with the Territory government. Howard is not intending to leave Darwin at present. Instead, he will pursue private business interests, including a position as Non-Executive Director of the Venture Capital Australia AgriBusiness fund, and personal interests in consumer advocacy concerning food safety and in conservation, including work with the Bush Heritage Trust.
The main achievements from his 14 years, which he says was achieved by a team effort from a range of committed people, are recognising the potential of horticulture and assigning enough staff and resources to allow the industry to expand dramatically, and ensuring funding and political support for control of weeds all over the Territory, including the eradication of Mimosa pigra from 8000 hectares at Oenpelli; establishing strong links with Indonesia in particular, and turning the perspective outward to Asian markets for goods and services. This paid off in particular in overcoming quota and regulatory issues that at one time threatened the live cattle industry and so allowed its rapid expansion.
He also assisted in developing the first whole-of-government and industry policy for future development of the agriculture and fisheries industries of the Northern Territory, the Future Directions document, and eight years of work taking Ord Stage II from a moribund concept to a feasible, costed commercial project, working closely with multiple agencies in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The $600m project now awaits Western Australian resolution of long-standing native title issues.
Dr Dengate was also instrumental in planning for sustainable development in the Katherine-Daly Basin, including achievement of the first subdivision since the Agricultural Development and Marketing Authority days following negotiation of the historic agreement with the Wagaman people. The 30 000 hectares are already being developed, with conservation areas identified and the best clearing legislation in Australia. Dr Dengate also was involved in the preparation of the Territory’s first Asian Engagement Plan, which confirms policies and directions for the whole of government.
I was very pleased to attend Dr Dengate’s farewell at the DBIRD offices about a week ago. He is very well respected and highly regarded, not only within the public service, but also within the broader business community, particularly in the horticulture and trade areas. Dr Dengate will be a great loss to policy capacity within government, but it is magnificent that he will remain in Darwin to contribute to economic growth of the Northern Territory. To Dr Dengate, thanks for your 14 years of service, and good luck for the future.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to comment tonight on the report that the Minister for Central Australia gave today on the alcohol restrictions and what is happening in Alice Springs. I am really concerned by some of the comments the minister made because he seems to be judging the effects of alcohol restrictions on the statistics alone and, to be quite honest, you cannot judge what is happening just on statistics; you have to look at the big picture.
Although there have been some decreases in assaults and hospital related treatments, as he said, that does not mean to say that things are getting any better because the assaults that are occurring are, in fact, more violent; they are causing such bad injuries and are far greater than we expected. What is happening is that the injuries they are having to treat at the hospital are really bad, and alcohol is having this long-term effect. So to say that it is working because we have got fewer assaults and treatments at the hospital, to me, is fairly short-sighted. For instance, in his statement this morning, he said: ‘…alcohol-related assaults, a 13% decrease. The decrease is largely connected to the delayed opening of takeaway outlets in town’.
I am not sure how he concludes that the decrease is related to the delayed opening of takeaway outlets in town because, to be honest, the takeaway outlets are still open. All that is occurring is that the drinking is going on later in the day. The assaults are happening later at night, and are very difficult for police to attend. I receive a lot of reports from people concerned by the number of outbursts in suburbs, through alcohol related incidents, so it is not that they are decreasing, it is perhaps because they are becoming more hidden.
I am very concerned that the minister seems to be making these judgements on the so-called success of the restrictions based on statistics. He is a little ill-informed if he thinks that is all we should be looking at. I mean, give the police credit. They have done a great job in Alice Springs in being alert and called out whenever necessary, but the reality is the shift in drinking patterns, the shift in alcohol preference from wine to port, has had disastrous results. It is as simple as that. I am not sure what the Liquor Commission is going to do now, whether they are going to turn around and say: ‘Okay, we have banned four litre wine casks. We are now going to ban port’. What happens then? Are the people then going to start to drink rum or scotch, or mixed drinks? Where does it end?
I noticed the minister said in his statement that there will be no major shift in the structure of the restrictions in respect of takeaway opening hours. So he has obviously already made up his mind that the takeaway hours are not going to be reviewed. If I had my way, we would go back to what Darwin has, what was there previously, because I do not believe that making it later before you can go and buy your grog has made you less of a drinker, or has had any effect on your drinking habits. All it has meant is that you start drinking later in the day. I am a bit surprised that he has made that statement and that decision. I thought that was something that the Liquor Commission would be deciding upon.
He does say, as to product restrictions, the Liquor Commission members needs to work out what they are going to do about the pattern that has occurred, so he is leaving that to them to decide. Are they going to ban port now? Are they going to re-introduce the four-litre cask of wine? What exactly are they going to do? What needs to occur is people stand back and think for a moment: what do we really want to do? What are the aims of these restrictions? What is the purpose of having them? What results do we actually want from these restrictions? Certainly, later opening hours only means incidences of drinking occurring later in the day. It has not helped the problem.
As an aside, there are a lot of people who do not have drinking problems but like to have a drink who have been affected by this. I have a lot of senior citizens in my electorate who enjoy a glass of wine before tea. They have had to change from their four-litre cask of wine to a two-litre cask, so it is costing them twice as much, and these are people on pensions. They are not causing the problems. Others have found that they cannot buy casks of port in their takeaway store, so they have to buy the bottled ports which are twice as dear. It is affecting a certain number of people, and not just tourists, although it is affecting them as well; we have heard many stories of tourists not being able to get alcohol on the day they want to leave. However, I am talking about the effect on residents. It is the residents of the town who are suffering also from these restrictions, along with the pensioners. Pensioners usually go out in the morning; do their shopping and then go home in the afternoon and have a little nap. If they want to buy any alcohol now, they have to make a special trip in the afternoon, and they are not very happy about that.
We need to start talking about what we want to achieve. I believe that, when we gave Aboriginal people the right to drink, we have also given them the right to drive, the right to do jury service, the right to pay taxes, the right to be treated as every other individual. However, what we have taken away from them is the right to drink in their own home. We have taken away from them the right to drink in their own backyard in a social manner. We have put so many dry communities in the Centre of Australia that, if you are an Aboriginal person who might like to drink, you have to go to a creek or a river bed or someone else’s place in town. That, to me, is socially unacceptable to Aboriginal people. That is why you have this breakdown of families, why you have so much drinking in town, and towns having restrictions, and why you find at the gate of a community a pile of drinking cans where they have drunk all the things they want before they go into the community. You also have grog runners. Ask the police how many vehicles they have seized, how much wine or alcohol they have taken from the grog runners. It is still happening in an illegal way.
I have often said that when I went to Garden Point, I was really impressed with Cyril Rioli and the way he ran the social club and controlled everything, and the benefits that community enjoyed. I know there are communities that have social clubs that get themselves into trouble, but you should not condemn all social clubs on that basis, because we have hotels in Alice Springs that the Liquor Commission finds have done the wrong thing. They have penalties imposed on them. So, do not judge all Aboriginal communities by one or two incidents because the same thing occurs in town.
What we need to do is to set up some trial social clubs in Aboriginal communities in Central Australia. I would suggest places like Ntaria, Ltyentye Apurte, and Papunya from where a lot of drinkers come to town. You would always need a police presence on any community where you have a social club. There is no point in having a social club if there is no back-up of police presence. Therefore, I believe we should provide that. We should assist them to set up an environment just like the clubs in town where you can go and watch the telly, have a meal, play pool, play darts - whatever you want to do - but also have a few drinks. I believe we need to have strong leadership in communities to do this. It would certainly take a community approach where they would all need to say: ‘Yes, we will give this a go’.
Then again, we would need to make sure that the government puts in the resources to assist that community. For instance, we would need to provide services to that community to make sure that there are people who would counsel families if it looked as though someone was drinking far too much. We would need to have education programs to say: ‘Okay, we have a four-can limit each day, but that does not mean to say that you must drink four cans every day. One can is fine. You do not have to drink your limit; you can have one or two’. However, you need to educate the families to say on pay day: ‘This money should be put aside for your food, this money should be aside for your travel, for your children, and this is your play money’ so you do not have people who are bad money managers. It is as simple as that. They have never been taught or educated how to manage their money.
You have to allow Aboriginal people to take control. Most of all, they have to learn to drink with dignity. I like to have a glass of wine, but I do not have to go and sit on the river bed to have it. I can have it in my backyard, my home or I can go down to a pub to have it. There are Aboriginal people who are denied that. We have given them the right to drink, but not in their own backyard. That is where we are failing. That is why this problem is shifting into towns: it is in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, you name it. The complaints are everywhere.
Why don’t we start being a bit proactive? Why do we think restrictions are going to cure the problem, when we know that they won’t? All they do is change drinking patterns. It is as simple as that. The grog does not go away. We should be proactive and set up some trial models, and provide support where it is needed, making sure it is set up in a proper way, having the back-up of good educators, counsellors, health services, police staff, managers in the club, and let’s try it that way instead of always trying to make Aboriginal people look like second-class citizens because they have to go somewhere else to have a drink and they have to be away from their family. Make it a total program for the whole community. Address the problem; stop using all these band-aid approaches of saying: ‘You can’t buy your grog until later in the day’ or ‘You can’t drink this type of grog’ or ‘You can’t do that’. We all know that is not working. We have to be realistic about this. It is not working.
We have to alter behaviour and the only way you can do that is by good education and giving people opportunities. At the moment, there are no opportunities for Aboriginal people to stand tall and say: ‘We can live with alcohol’.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to talk about some events that have been occurring in and around my electorate, or with people who are part of my electorate and also people who are part of the greater Darwin area. Unlike some of my colleagues in the CLP, I am not so parochial as to think that my boundaries end at Lee Point Road, Vanderlin Drive and McMillans Road and into Marrara. That is not what I am about, nor my colleagues here on the Labor benches. We are about governing for the whole of the Territory and helping all Territorians, no matter whether they live in our electorate or another. It really makes little difference to us because we are all Territorians and we are about assisting all Territorians.
On 14 June I attended the 105th Philippine Independence Day celebrations. The Filipino Community Council of the Northern Territory Incorporated, FILCCONT, celebrated the 105th Philippine Independence Day at the MGM Grand Ballroom. The celebration was jointly organised by the Filipiniana Senior Citizens Organisation, the Filipino Club Darwin Incorporated, the Filipino Maharlika Association of Palmerston Incorporated, the Northern Territory Filipino-Australian Sports Club Incorporated and the Pinoy Aussie Society Incorporated. I was thrilled to attend the celebrations and represent my good friend and colleague Minister Henderson, who was unable to attend due to another commitment.
The Filipino Community Council of the Northern Territory Incorporated put on some very special entertainment from local and internationally acclaimed dance performers. I always love attending functions organised by the Filipino community. I tell you what: when I did catch up with the minister, I told him about the night and he was jealous because I went and he didn’t! He was really saddened that he missed it, but I am pretty sure that he will be at the next one after the wrap I gave it.
The community really knows how to enjoy themselves and entertain their guests. I received a very warm welcome and my attempts at speaking Tagalog, the national language of the Philippines, was cause for much laughter, especially from Judith Ventic.
FILCCONT President Elena Ralph - with whom I sat during the night and had some really good discussions, and who told me a few stories, especially about a certain person who forgot my name, and I am sure that Elena Ralph knows the story pretty well - and the executive committee should be congratulated for a fantastic night in providing the audience with such excellent entertainment. The audience was delighted with performances from the De Guzman group who danced Tinikling, the Bamboo dance.
Mr Henderson: Yes, watch your ankles.
Mr KIELY: Yes, they were tremendous. Some of them have only been learning for about four weeks. There was Nikki Maxwell, a singer and Fele Mann’s grand daughter. Fele is another great matriarch of the Filipino community. The De Guzman Girls performed Jenny from the Block, a modern dance. Alan Beazley is a beautiful singer and guitarist, very mellow songs. He tells me that he had something like three wives there on the night. He had a lot more. They were called Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. It was marvellous. Patricia Galang sang The Stars Without a Shine. Patricia is Laila Galang’s sister. Laila did an excellent job as Master of Ceremonies but, sadly, is leaving Darwin to pursue her career in Canberra. I wish her all the best. She was the MC at last year’s Independence Day celebrations. She is a wonderful person. She was secretary of FILCCONT and has been a very valued member of the team. Elena was full of high praise for Laila who will be sorely missed. I hope she returns after successful completion of her studies. She will be an asset to her community and to the Territory.
The Filipiniana Senior Citizens Association did the Chicken Dance. Words fail me. There followed some dances which were a blend of traditional dances and avant-garde music performed by some talented local artists. There was Ifugao, the Hilarious Dance, by Vilma Stinton and Edgar Negosa. You must appreciate what Edgar was doing. Unfortunately, I cannot sing, but all these dances started with a bit of traditional music and then moved into modern popular songs and Edgar was dressed traditionally: the clothes around his girth were similar to that of a sumo wrestler, but when he jumped up and down and turned around, it was quite an entertaining sight.
Ati-Atihan, a dance with people dressed up and carrying spears and shields, featuring Zeny Ballesteros, Evelyn Browning, Angie Caple, Ana Lofthouse and Malou Tabora. They were marvellous, and spectacular. The Pandanggo SA Ilaw is the candle dance and was performed Beline and Tanita Thiel, the daughters of Nanette Thiel, the Treasurer of FILCCONT and President of the Maharlika Association of Palmerston. These young ladies are a credit to their mother. Their poise was splendid to watch. The Carinosa was performed by Susana Dizon and Edgar Negosa – marvellous!
It was a great night. FILCCONT made awards for outstanding contributions by different members of the community. The closing address was made by Fele Mann. She is an eloquent lady, a great speaker for the community. I listened to her every word. Then there was a final performance by the FILCCONT Executive Committee members and friends, and this was led by Zaldi, an internationally acclaimed dancer. I saw Judith moving, and let me say that my good friend the member for Johnston carries on about the lady from Sydney, Lillian De Los Reyes, who entertains, but I think she might have to watch out; I don’t think we have to look to Sydney for entertainment.
I say this to the Filipino community, and I challenge the member for Johnston: I will match Judith Ventic and her lithe and snake-like movements, the grace of a gazelle, I will match those against Lillian De Los Reyes any day of the week, and I say to the Filipino community, don’t look to Sydney, look in your own backyard, because you have so much talent it is unbelievable.
On Sunday, 15 June 2003, I attended the Northern Territory Calisthenics Association’s Farewell Revue Concert at Dripstone High School gymnasium. The team presented the audience with a showcase of their routines prior to departing for the Australian Calisthenics Federation National Championships this July in Perth. The items presented were the product of many long months of choreography, training, sewing and required the dedication of everyone involved in a truly unique sport.
The parents of the kids who participate in calisthenics come over to my office every Saturday afternoon, and they have been sewing sequins and getting these costumes together for months now. I think that is a real show of their commitment to their kids, to do it for them. Most of them have a pretty good time in the community room, and they are welcome any time they like to come in and use that room, any time at all. I would be happy to support them in any way I possibly can.
The presentation was delightful to watch and credit should go to the NTCA management team, led by Pam Eadie, President of the association. The team managers are Gill Paynter – Treasurer, Sue Gardiner and a number of other people. The chaperones are Tracey Campbell, Andrea Imboden, Denise Ryan and Karen Mellor.
The extraordinary opportunity to represent the Territory at the National Championships would not be possible without supportive parents. They played a major role by encouraging their daughters to participate at the highest level possible and to challenge themselves into reaching elevated standards. I would also like to commend this hard working group of parents who conducted a series of fundraisings to assist in paying for the cost of the trip. They are: Andrea Imboden, Denise Ryan, Gill Paynter, Pam Eadie, Sue Gardiner, Leanne Ladlow, and Andrea Finck. You see these names, these people also go for other positions, but first and foremost, their parents, parents of hard working kids who are dedicated and a credit to the community. Costuming for the teams are Barbara Williams, Win Coyer and Linda McKenna.
I wish the team all the best at the competition and am delighted to acknowledge each member of the participating team in each section at the ACF National Championship – Junior Section, Friday, July 4 2003. The Coach is Kaye Baldock; Assistant Coach, Jess Bartsch. Wardrobe Manager, Pam Eadie. The Junior Team consists of Imogen Campbell, Nicole Gardiner, Katie Lindsay, Brienna Logie, Jessica Mellor, Stacie Reissis, Tara Anne Savo, Christine Shantharam, Vidhyashini Vinu, Haylee Weatherall, Nicole Eadie, Jade Guest, Tori Lockley, Paige Matthees, Caitlin Paynter and Katie Ryan.
The ACF National Championship – Intermediate Section, Saturday, 5 July 2003. The Coach is Karyn Ford; Assistant Coach, Sally Bailey. Wardrobe Manager, Kathy Ozolin. The Intermediate team consists of: Alise Baldock, Emma Finck, Erin Gordge, Cara Ladlow, Amanda Miller, Lisa Eadie, Leah Gardiner, Hannah Gordge, Jessica McKenna and Lucia Reilly. The NT Graceful Girl Entrants are: Juniors: Nicole Eadie and Briena Logie; Intermediates: Lucia Reilly and Elise Baldock; Seniors: Jess Bartsch.
I was there for the first half, unfortunately I had to head off to another engagement over at the Orchid show. I saw a number of the acts, and they were simply superb. What really caught my eye was when a group of little tackers came out, they had maracas, they performed a great little number. But you could see, this group might have been about three years old. One boy, wouldn’t you know it, it was the boy who got the wanders up. Someone was in the wings doing the actions, and the kids were following with their little maracas. I could not see the person doing the choreography in the wings, but I am pretty sure you could see when they started to wiggle their hips, because all the little kids’ hips started to go this way and that way. The kids were having a ball, the parents were having a ball, we all cracked up.
I believe that if the parents and the association are prepared to put that much work into those little three year olds, you can see why they are so good with the intermediates and seniors, and you can see why the level of expertise displayed on the day is so good, and why I believe they will do well in the nationals. Whether they come home with a great title or not, I think that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these kids have put in for a long time, they are going off to the nationals, they have put in the hard yards. We are proud of them, their parents are proud of them. I think they are just champions, one and all, the whole lot of them, and I wish them all the best of luck, and I look forward to hearing how they went when they return.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016