2002-08-14
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is my pleasure to advise you of the presence in the gallery of students from Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Katherine regions, accompanied by their teacher Mr Greg O’Hara. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Property Crime Statistics
Property Crime Statistics
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, over the last 12 months, this government has worked unstintingly to implement the election commitments contained in our six-point plan to tackle property crime. When we achieved government last year, one of our first acts was to introduce the legislation to repeal mandatory sentencing for property offenders. It was clear to us then, and it has been reinforced by statistics released in the Australian Bureau of Statistics this year, that the mandatory sentencing regime simply did not work.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics crime figures for 2001 showed nearly a 20% rise in property break-ins during the CLP’s last year in office. I will table a graph that shows, without doubt, that that rise occurred. We know mandatory sentencing had no impact at all on property crime rates. It was a failure, as any simplistic single ‘shot in the locker’ approach to crime will be.
The legislation this government introduced to replace mandatory sentencing - a new sentencing regime for aggravated property offenders - is tough and is targetted at the perpetrators of serious crime. Serious property offences covered under this legislation include robbery, assault with intent, unlawful entry with intent, being armed with intent, unlawful use of motor vehicles, and serious property damage, and of the new offence of home and business invasion.
The new sentencing regime demonstrates this government’s commitment to be tough on crime. The amendments specifically state that their purpose is to ensure that the community disapproval of persons committing aggravated offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons. In one of the earliest cases of an offender being dealt with on an aggravated property offence, R v Lalara, Justice Bailey reflected this stating:
Sections 78A and B of the Sentencing Act expressly requires the court to ensure that community
disapproval of persons committing aggravated property offences, such as those in counts one and
two, is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons. In the absence of exceptional
circumstances, the court is required to impose a sentence of imprisonment or a community work order.
The legislation does not attempt to define exceptional circumstances. This decision is left where it should be: at the discretion of judicial officers based on their experience and the knowledge of the law, and on the circumstances on each case. Two examples will demonstrate the type of circumstances which the courts consider to be exceptional. In one case, an offender had trashed her own house when she found out her partner had started another relationship. Property damage amounted to $6000. However, as the offender had repaired the damage she had done and had no criminal record and the motivation for the offence indicated she was unlikely to reoffend, the court imposed a three month suspended sentence. But it was a mistake to think that the offender got off scot-free. If a suspended sentence is breached an arrest warrant can be issued and the offender brought back before the court.
In another case, the offender was one of a group who stole a car from Katherine. However, he was very drunk at the time of the incident and clearly this had affected his judgment. By the time the case came to court he had stopped drinking and was involved in programs to encourage youth to avoid alcohol; he has also never appeared in court before. In recognition of these factors, he was given a six month bond to be of good behaviour. Like the suspended sentences, if those conditions are breached, a warrant can be issued and the offender can be brought back before the court.
My department is monitoring the application of exceptional circumstances by the court and will continue to do so. What emerges, when you look closely at these cases, is the recognition by the court of the circumstances of the offence and the imposition of appropriate penalties.
The new sentencing regime has now been operating for nine months and I would like to report on some early outcomes. During the period 22 October 2001 to 21 July 2002, 241 individuals were found guilty of an aggravated property offence: 83% were found guilty of unlawful entry with intent; 8% for unlawful use of a motor vehicle; 4% for property damage; 4% for robbery; and 1% for assault with intent. As a result of these findings of guilt, 74% received a sentence of imprisonment with 18.9 of those sentences suspended for reasons found by the court; 15% were given community work orders; 11% were given orders for restitution, fines or bonds. I think the members can see that, in 89% of cases, the intent of the legislation has been honoured by the court. Trends in the application of exceptional …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the repeal of mandatory sentencing is part of the mandate which the Labor Party took to the election and though we opposed it, that was a decision entirely for them. The real test, of course, is the effectiveness of the new drug laws, the new six-point plan and the new regime.
We have already heard the comments from the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and there has been lengthy debate in this parliament about the fact that it is legislation for legislation’s sake. The clumsy use of statistics by the Attorney-General does him a disservice; it does not advance the debate. The references to new laws covering unlawful entry and assaults and the like - multiple members will remember that all that conduct has already been covered and will continue to be covered under the Criminal Code.
In fact, there is one particular circumstance where the maximum penalty had, in fact, been reduced. The real test for this government will be in 12 months time when all the statistics are before this House and we can say with some certainty whether or not this legislation has had the effect - the 50% reduction - that the Labor government had led the people of the Northern Territory to expect.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Well, isn’t it wonderful? They continue to peddle all this sloganese. We’ll see. We are perfectly happy to see the results of our public policies. Unlike the CLP, we will put out statistics to the general public. Our policies be judged against the facts. I point out that in 27 years they were in government, not one set of believable statistics was ever released by the CLP government. If they want to get up here and say that we are to be judged on their terms, they can forget it. We will be judged on the facts; we will be judged by the Territory’s people; and they can stand on their appalling record on crime prevention.
National Alcohol Education and
Rehabilitation Foundation Partnership
Rehabilitation Foundation Partnership
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that this government has successfully negotiated a policy partnership with the National Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. This partnership, the first of its kind in Australia, will see a significant investment of new funds into Alice Springs to address alcohol-related problems with NT-led solutions.
On 8 August, the Minister for Central Australia, Hon Dr Peter Toyne and I announced the commitment of additional monies in excess of $2.1m over the next three years, a commitment of around $1m from the Northern Territory government and $1.1m from the Alcohol Foundation. The Chair of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, Professor Ian Webster, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation, Mr Daryl Smeaton, also attended this important event. Thank you also, Madam Speaker, for being in attendance at this occasion, which I know you thought was very important for Alice Springs.
We are building on the current 12-month alcohol trial that began in Alice Springs on 1 April this year. Having already provided more that $180 000 in the first half of 2002 to support a number of measures to complement restrictions introduced by the Licensing Commission, we are now strengthening activities to further reduce alcohol-related harm in Central Australia. At least 90% of the new funds will go directly to non-government agencies. Over $1.5m will go to Tangentyere Council to operate a community Day Patrol and employ referral officers to improve the case management of problem drinkers. These officers are a major innovation and will be critical in trying to break the heavy drinking cycle that people get into.
Nearly $190 000 will go to the Drug and Alcohol Services Association to allow the Alice Springs sobering-up shelter to open on Mondays - this extends the service to six days a week. $210 000 will support a dedicated project officer to help evaluate and further develop strategies associated with the current liquor trial in Alice Springs, and to support other local initiatives dealing with substance use in Central Australia. A one-off grant of $73 000 will be given to the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress as the auspicing body for the development of a youth drop-in centre. These funds will top up nearly $190 000 contributed to by a number of other agencies. The centre will provide support, information and counselling services for young people in the areas of crisis accommodation and transport, recreation, social and sports programs, crisis counselling and suicide prevention, and substance misuse.
Other agencies that are involved in developing this initiative include Tangentyere Council, Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Gap Youth Centre, Reconnect Youth Service, Alice Springs Youth Supported Accommodation and Support Service, Alice Springs Youth Centre, Alice Springs Town Council, the Alice in 10 Quality of Life Committee, the police and my department. One-off funding of $27 420 is being provided to extend training in the responsible service of alcohol to all servers in the Alice Springs area, and to develop and deliver training to police so they have more options for managing situations involving alcohol.
This partnership agreement with the foundation is the first of its kind in the country. The foundation has been consulting with all states and territories since its establishment earlier this year, but we are the first to successfully negotiate a partnership and put it into practice. In his address, Professor Webster described the Northern Territory submission as outstanding and noted that it would be adopted as the national model for developing other partnerships. The foundation was particularly impressed by the collaborative approach demonstrated by this government, local government agencies and the Alice Springs community; the commitment made to sustaining effort over time so there would be lasting results; and the value placed on monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the funds would produce the best outcomes possible. They noted that this government is prepared to move beyond platitudes into action, and they hope to lever other jurisdictions to follow the Territory’s lead. I would like to thank all those who contributed to developing the proposals presented to the foundation, and preparing a submission of such notable quality. That effort has certainly been rewarded with the new resources now available.
Now the difficult job of implementation must occur. We do not underestimate the challenge involved, but with the grit and determination shown thus far by the people of Alice Springs, we are well placed to make a significant difference. I would like to thank the foundation for its support for the partnership and the measures being pursued. Along with this continued effort and dedication from many agencies, and the ongoing support of the community, this new funding arrangement with the Alcohol Education and Research Foundation is another major step this government has made towards addressing the unacceptable levels of alcohol-related harm and disruption that are all too common in the Territory.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, now we are getting to the real drugs issues. We have the Attorney-General standing up saying that he is going to fix drugs by chasing Mr Big who is selling heroin around Darwin. The big drug issue in this town, in Katherine, Tennant, and Alice is grog. The big issue is grog.
Ms Martin: And what did you do about it? Nothing! What did you do after 27 years?
Mr DUNHAM: That is the big drug issue. The Chief Minister said: ‘What did you do about it?’ I am really surprised to hear that because she would be well aware that this jurisdiction led the world with its initiative - not Australia, the world. Our taxation policies on heavy beer are demonstrable. They have been independently surveyed and tested and we can demonstrate that the good work done by Chief Minister Marshall Perron when he initiated the Living With Alcohol program had results - they bore results. Some of those results are being inherited by those opposite.
The thing about this ministerial statement is that some things have change and some things have not. We have been funding Tangentyere through the Triple A Program for years and years. We have been talking to some of the stakeholders in Alice Springs for years and years. We have had a youth drop-in centre at Aranda House for years and years. It was running very well until ATSIC withdrew the money, I might add.
What we have here are platitudes, and the only change that has occurred is we now have the minister for Centralian affairs saying the Alice Springs Hospital is like a war zone. That never happened in our day. I cannot recall the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs saying that the hospital was like a war zone. That is what has changed. Things have got worse - very, very much worse. We have nurses ready to go out in industrial action. It is not just because of paediatric respiratory illness; it is because of the trauma that is walking through the front door of the Alice Springs Hospital. This trauma must be addressed. It is a change for the worst So, do not tell us what we have not done; we are happy to rely on our history, and we are proud of our history.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I must say it is very, very sad that the opposition spokesperson on health has not even come into this House and been willing to say that we have bipartisan support for such an exciting proposal. This is something very important for the people of Alice Springs. Madam Speaker, you were actually present at the function in Alice Springs and it was received extraordinarily well.
The member for Drysdale makes claims that the Living With Alcohol Program was excellent. It was an excellent program. He failed to comment that $1m in funding was removed from this program and hence, there are significant alcohol-related problems throughout the Northern Territory. This is one of a number of things which we are doing in the Northern Territory to look at alcohol and its very significant impact on the Northern Territory.
Darwin Harbour Plan of Management
Advisory Board
Advisory Board
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide a further report on the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management.
Members will recall that, during the last session of parliament, I announced the formation of an advisory group made up of community members who would write the plan of management for government. They will be joined by an interdepartmental group made up of the primary departments that impact on the harbour – obviously groups such as the Darwin Port Corporation, PowerWater Corporation, Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development, and my own department. My own department officer will head up the public sector group. That officer will be Mr Mike Burgess, an extremely capable and well respected officer.
I am proud to announce today the members of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Board. The new Chair of the board is John Bailey. And before the opposition cry out about that, let me tell you about John Bailey’s background. John represents a cross-section of many of the interests represented on the Darwin Harbour Advisory Group. He has been in Darwin for 25 years. He has a degree with a major in biology. He has been a founding member of a number of environmental groups in the Northern Territory. He is an alderman on the major city council near the harbour. He has good contacts with the Darwin business community and, during his time as a member of this House, he had extensive experience as shadow minister for this portfolio area, involvement in the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and the Public Accounts Committee. He has the task of drawing the many interests in the Darwin Harbour together.
Other members have been nominated by their respective organisations. They are: Brendan Dowd from LGANT; John Harrison from the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory; Kirsten Blair from the Environment Centre; Cecil Lewis from Larrakia Nation; Kevin Peters from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Professor Greg Hill from NTU; Alastair Black, Darwin Port Corporation; Patrick O’Leary, Northern Land Council; Anthony Elliss, Tourist Commission; Chris Young, Perkins Shipping; Frank Tirendi, Australian Institute of Marine Science; Kirsti Sampson, the Marine and Coastal Network; Neville Walker, Dover Investments; Richard Sellers from DBIRD; and Rod Applegate from my department.
The task that these people now have is to bring together a plan of management that balances the development of two major cities and the Litchfield Shire, alongside the protection of the environmental, cultural and recreational values of our harbour. It is not going to be easy. The government has laid down some guidelines: no dams or weirs; mangrove protection; the boundary of the harbour to extend from Charles Point to Gunn Point; and the entire catchment area has to be included in considerations. However, I am confident we have some fine minds on the job here, and I am looking forward to seeing their report in 12 months or so.
What will come out of this is a plan which will provide a measurable outcomes report annually to the parliament and the people. It will be a good indicator of the health of this important asset.
Before completing this report, I am keen to place on the record the government’s continuing commitment to meeting public concerns about the proposed LNG development at Wickham Point. I, and my office, have now been to numerous such meetings. I believe that the answer we are providing has certainly calmed down some concerns about this project. There are some people, of course, who will never be convinced.
I would, however, like a clear statement from the CLP on Wickham Point. The Opposition Leader should know that the CLP’s John Lopez was very outspoken at the Sanderson public meeting. He clearly put under question the CLP’s commitment to this project. He basically accused the project of promoting acid rain – something that all people who have read the environmental assessment report know is rubbish. The CLP does appear to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth at public meetings. Well, you cannot have it both ways. It is about time you put on the record your position on Wickham Point.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am happy to reply to this, particularly since I have had a briefing. Thank you, minister, and I will get to that in a minute. But can I say congratulations to John Bailey - he has finally got a job! I know for a fact he used to come to see the former Chief Minister and say: ‘Chief Minister, have you got any work for me?’, and this mob have finally given him some. So congratulations, John Bailey, and I am sure he will do a reasonable job on that thing.
Mr Stirling: Tell us about Wickham Point.
Mr BALDWIN: I will get to Wickham Point. Can I put on the record that things of this significance that are dealt in this way with these mini-reports by ministers, is absolutely disgraceful. Here we are talking about a major strategic plan for the Darwin Harbour, which is a continuation of the Beneficial Uses Strategic Plan that was started when we were in government and run by Colin Wagner as the consultants. It is a continuation of that process - and you will not deny that - and they bring it on in a three minute report; and ‘I do not have enough time to respond to the Wickham Point’.
Can I tell you about Wickham Point?
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: If you want to give me an extension of time I am happy to do it.
I went to a briefing where one ministerial officer who works for the minister made a comment – and he is known on the street as ‘Minister Alf. I am not going to have enough time, but very quickly, he said: ‘There will be no more downstream gas development on Wickham Point’. I said: ‘Well that is funny, because your Chief Minister said two days before that she would not rule that out’. He said: ‘No, she was wrongly briefed’. She was wrongly briefed! He rang me three hours later and said: ‘About what I said in the briefing; I was reading off the wrong briefing papers’ - didn’t have a paper in front of him. He said: ‘I was wrong, the Chief Minister is right’. Then, a couple of days later, this minister said there would be nothing. What are they doing about Wickham Point? Come in, spinner …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! It is the minister’s response, thank you. Government members, I will warn you that you are interjecting so much to interrupt someone’s reply - that is disorderly. Order, thank you!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed by what has been said today. This has just started to sound like an AFANT meeting for a moment, which is not conducive to a good sound debate over what is a very important issue for Darwin people. This statement should have been made as a proper statement where we all could have had adequate time to debate. I have some concerns about the chairman, not because I have anything against him personally, but I believe that whoever is going to run this management group should have been someone who had a track record on Darwin Harbour.
I have been involved in Darwin Harbour for a long time and I have not heard about John Bailey. We do not have an environmental standing committee. Perhaps there should have been some politicians on it as well, because we do not have any other forum where we can have a direct say. There should have been more community people. There are not many community people on this; there are a lot of vested interests. There is one environmental group – or there are two environmental groups - but even though you might not agree with people involved in the Save Darwin Harbour campaign, a group like that should have been represented on this committee. But I think it is very difficult - this is the first I have heard of a number of people on it - to discuss it in such a short time. I really think this should have come for full debate to the House to give us a better chance to look at it.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Nelson. It is a very important issue and we have progressed very quickly. On the other hand, I find it very hypocritical for the opposition to criticise that I appointed John Bailey. Do I have to remind you of Fred Finch? What job did he get? How long did he last? Are you going to accuse us for employing Barry Coulter? I am prepared to give a job to any of you when you retire if you can actually come to us with qualification.
As for Wickham Point, I did not hear any commitment. Do you support it? Yes or no?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Publicly, we said we support it. Myself and my colleague, Minister Paul Henderson, have been out there and we said: ‘No further petrochemical industry; no further gas industry’. The member for Nelson was at the CLP - sorry, the AFANT meeting; he can confirm what I said. We have said - we have stated time and time again - no further industry …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is inferring that the AFANT meeting was a CLP meeting. I think he should withdraw that. That is a reflection on all of those fisherman out there.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Good try.
Mr VATSKALIS: I repeat the statement that was made in the editorial of the NT News recently. I did not say it. But, once again, during the whole speech, we did not hear one word about ‘Yes, we support Wickham Point’. Do you support LNG at Wickham Point? Yes or no? Simple as that.
Mr Baldwin: Bring Minister Alf into the debate.
Mr VATSKALIS: I still have not heard yes or no. Yes or no? Do you support it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! Come to order, member for Daly!
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 84)
(Serial 84)
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 this bill is to amend the Education Act to alter the provisions of the act in relation to the Northern Territory Board of Studies to change the functions, size and the composition of the board. It is intended that the bill will also alter the provisions of the act in relation to the Education Advisory Council to include an immunity clause for council members, and to reinstate the Australian Education Union’s membership of the Education Advisory Council.
The changes to the act seek to redefine the Northern Territory Board of Studies’ functions and composition to reflect the restructuring of the department’s curriculum functions, assessment and certification practices by: focussing on a deliberative and consultative role of the board; guaranteeing the independence of the chair; requiring the board to report jointly to the minister and Chief Executive Officer to enhance the openness of the board’s operations; ensuring expert and independent advice as provided to the minister and is representative of the board’s views rather those of the department; and decreasing the number of representatives on the board from the current 21 to 16.
Prior to the then Department of Education’s 1999 review of the curriculum assessment and certification operations, the board’s responsibilities ranged from developing and implementing policy relating to curriculum and assessment, to the issuing of certificates at the end of senior secondary schooling. Subsequent to the review, the board’s primary responsibility is now the provision of strategic advice on curriculum policy to government, underpinned by advice from a broad range of stakeholders. The revised structure balances the need for a more workable overall size with that of ensuring quality expert and stakeholder input.
The intention is that advice put to the minister and the chief executive on curriculum and certification issues will reflect the concerns and capabilities of the key stakeholders in education, particularly indigenous and non-indigenous parents and industry and employer bodies. The independence of the chair will ensure that advice delivered to both the chief executive and the minister is fearless and truly representative.
The proposed changes to the act in regard to the Education Advisory Council are less wide-ranging than those affecting the Board of Studies. These will include the representation of the Australian Education Union to fulfil the government’s commitment, under the 2001 enterprise bargaining agreement, to have the union reinstated as a member of the council. The proposed changes to correct obsolete or defunct organisations or Commonwealth department’s names is simply a matter of housekeeping.
By including an immunity clause in the act, members of these statutory bodies will be protected from being held personally liable in respect of bona fide actions as members of these bodies. It is a routine inclusion that appears in other acts of parliament.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Information Bill 2002 (Serial 85); Health and Community Services Complaints Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 86); and Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 87) being:
(a) presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together;
and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, picking up quickly on the motion by the minister, I would like some assurances from the minister on this occasion that we do not get a repeat of having cognate bills coming before this House which should be debated separately, and that the minister can advise the honourable members in this House that it is actually appropriate on this occasion to hear these bills cognate.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, to clarify for the member for Macdonnell, the latter two of the three bills are simply consequential flow-on amendments to the Health and Community Services Complaints Act and to the Ombudsman Act, so they are of no great substance. You will have the chance to take each of them separately in committee anyway, as you choose. In this case, we felt it was more efficient to do one second reading speech.
Motion agreed to.
INFORMATION BILL
(Serial 85)
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 86)
OMBUDSMAN (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 87)
(Serial 85)
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 86)
OMBUDSMAN (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 87)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The government is pleased to put in place another pillar of our good government strategy: the Information Bill. Good government requires openness and accountability. It requires that democratic institutions are protected and not undermined. It requires that the public has continuing confidence in the operation of government; confidence which is supported by the ability to scrutinise and participate in decision-making. This Information Bill, although a vital component, is just one part of a broader strategy that will ensure accurate accounting and financial management standards, reasoned decision-making and access to justice and information. Collectively, these reforms will make our public institutions work more effectively.
The purpose of the Information Bill is to provide the public with a right of access to information held by the public sector, and for the correction of personal information. It will protect the privacy of personal information held by the public sector by providing for the responsible collection and handling of that information. It will promote appropriate record keeping and record management in the public sector, including the management of the Territory archives.
A key component of the Information Bill, and the one that has attracted most public attention, is the access or freedom of information (FOI) regime. Although people generally think of FOI in terms of the federal and state legislation that enacts these schemes, the idea that the public should have access to government information has legal precedent earlier than the enactment of various freedom of information acts. Under certain circumstances, the law of equity has made government information public for a number of decades. The courts have recognised:
- … that governments act, or at all events are required to act, in the public interest. Information is held,
received and imparted by governments, their departments and agencies, to further public interest.
This passage recognises the way a representative democracy works. An open government represents the people and is accountable to them. An open attitude and processes maintain this accountability. However, court processes to enforce access and pursue accountability are lengthy, expensive and frustrating. FOI legislation was developed to provide the public with meaningful access rights. Our new statutory scheme will finally allow Territorians the same, or even better, access rights as the rest of the country.
Freedom of information legislation was introduced to the Australian people in 1982, when the Commonwealth passed the first Freedom of Information Act. The states soon followed. It has, however, taken a long time for freedom of information to reach the Northern Territory. Some 20 years after that first freedom of information legislation in Australia, I am happy to play this part in bringing the Northern Territory in line with all other jurisdictions in this regard.
The draft Information Bill was tabled in the Legislative Assembly for public comment on 23 October 2001. The process of consultation has taken into account the concerns of all stakeholders, with both the public and private sectors making valuable contributions to the final form of this act. Interest in this reform has come from all over Australia. Fifty-four formal submissions were received during the extended consultation period. Many of the submissions received were very detailed. A program of public consultation provided an opportunity to inform both the public sector and the general public as to the details of the legislation, and hear first-hand their views of the first draft bill.
I extend my thanks to the people and organisations that took the time to make a contribution and have helped shape the final detail of this legislation. I would particularly like to acknowledge the contribution of the public debate made locally by the Friends of Freedom of Information Group. This community group raised funds to hold a public seminar and, with the contribution of Mr Rick Snell, Editor of the Freedom of Information Review, have made valuable suggestions. I might say that Mr Rick Snell’s first reaction to the final form of the bill has been very positive and very encouraging to this government.
Most people agree that freedom of information is a good idea. Beyond that, people quickly realise that the ‘devil is in the detail’ when it comes to implementing a reform such as this. It is for this reason that we decided to put before the public a draft bill, rather than a series of broad policy statements. This enabled the community to consider the detail and make constructive comments. I would have to say that this approach has been a huge success. It is not common that the community is given the opportunity to consider the detail of how an act will impact on them, suggest modifications, and correct technical errors. The degree of interest in this reform has been staggering. The comment most frequently heard was that the reform was long overdue. The introduction of the freedom of information legislation was a core promise of the new government, and one that today we a honoring. The members on the government benches are pleased to be delivering on this important issue.
I turn now to the detail of the Information Bill itself. The bill provides for FOI; that is, it creates a legal right of access to government information and personal information held by government. A feature of that right is the ability to request correction of personal information where a member of the public believes that the information regarding them is incorrect, inaccurate or out of date. Any legal right is, of course, seldom absolute because it must be balanced against the rights and interests of other people. The right of access is no different. The Information Bill is intended to strike a balance between the competing interests by giving members of the Territory community a right of access to information held by the government. The right will be limited only by the circumstances where the disclosure of particular information would be contrary to the public interest because it would have a prejudicial effect on essential public interests, or on the private or business interests of other persons.
The bill will apply to government information that was created up to 10 years before commencement, and to personal information created at any time. This is an increase in application from the draft bill and is made in response to submissions. In setting these parameters we have aimed to balance access against recognition that it may be difficult administratively for public sector organisations to locate and provide older information. However, to provide even greater access within these constraints, after two years of operation, it will be possible for information created or received more than 10 years previously to be accessed, provided that the Information Commissioner has determined that it belongs to a class of information in which a public interest in access might reside.
Public sector organisations are encouraged, under the terms of the bill, to provide as much information to the public as they can. Much information is already made publicly available through numerous government publications and web sites; FOI will not replace these ready sources of information. Public sector organisations will be required to deal with access applications as promptly and as efficiently, and as fairly and openly, as reasonably possible. Strict time limitations are imposed for dealing with access applications. The decisions that may be taken in respect of an application are clearly spelled out. These include providing access in whole or in part, and providing edited copies of information.
Applications may only be refused where the information falls under one of the public interest exemptions identified under Part 4 of the bill, or where providing access would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the organisation. The latter provision is aimed particularly to address concerns that applications for extensive documentation may cause disruption to the effective operation of an agency. However, the bill encourages dialogue between the agency and an applicant. A decision to refuse access on this basis cannot be taken unless the parties are unable to agree on an effective variation of the request.
The exemptions to the right of access provided in the bill are all public interest exemptions. These provisions balance the right of access with the need to protect particular public and private interests; for example, ensuring that access to information does not unreasonably interfere with another person’s privacy. The exemptions are not broadly based as was suggested in some submissions, there being very few ‘class exemptions’ within the legislation; that is, an exemption for information based on the class of information to which it belongs.
Only two class exemptions exist in the act. The first is for Cabinet and Executive Council information. This class exemption is based on the need to preserve collective ministerial responsibility. It is an exception that exists in all Australian jurisdictions and is a class exemption that has been accepted by the Australian Law Reform Commission as justifiable.
In addition, the ‘secrecy provision’ exemption is a class exemption. That is, where the release of information is prohibited by another act, it is automatically exempt from disclosure without any further identification of harm that flows from the case at hand. The legislative provision of the other act that prohibits disclosure is effectively taken to have already identified harm that might result from that disclosure. However, in order to reduce the limitation provided by such provisions on access to information, this clause contains a sunset provision. In the draft bill this was five years. However, in line with public submissions that this was too lengthy a time to review and consider the provisions that justify restriction on disclosure, the sunset period has been reduced to three years. This will allow a period of review to consider what prohibitions provided by other acts may continue to be justified as requiring exemption from the Information Bill access provisions.
All other exemptions specify ‘harm’ tests of disclosure, including the other absolute exemptions of Part 4, Division 2. These have been placed within a category of absolute exemption because of the identifiable and clear harms that would arise from disclosure. They are not therefore ‘class’ exemptions because they must meet unidentified harm tests.
These two further categories of absolute exemptions are security and law enforcement, and the preservation of the system of justice. For example, information that would constitute a contempt of court or parliament, or a breach of legal professional privilege, or that would prejudice the right of a person to a fair trial are all categories in the absolutely exempt information. Information that would endanger the life and safety of a person is automatically exempt.
In order to meet this absolute exemption, the information must be identified as having the ‘harm’ effect identified. But in these cases there is no need to apply, individually, an additional public interest test to determine whether disclosure would not be in the public interest, because the harms that arise from such disclosure are such that disclosure is conclusively not in the public interest. How could it be in the public interest to endanger a person’s life or commit a contempt of court?
The harm test of disclosure is significant and applied to all exemptions in Part 4, Division 3 - the particular case exemptions - as well as the to the absolute exemptions that I have mentioned. The effect of these harm tests is that makes it more difficult for a matter to be considered to be prima facie in the category of an exempt information. There are various harm tests in the bill. For example, if disclosure would prejudice specified interests such as police investigations, the right of a person to a fair trial or intergovernmental relations. In other cases, information only falls within the exemption provisions if its disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on other specified interests such as management of a public sector organisation or the financial or property interests of the Territory.
Prima facie exemption is identified where some interests might be endangered. For example, a person’s life or safety, as I have mentioned. A commercial undertaking is protected where it might be exposed unreasonably to disadvantage. These provisions ensure that the decision-maker’s mind is properly focussed on the effect of disclosure rather than on the class of information at hand. Consequently, whilst the casual reader may consider that there are extensive provisions dealing with exemptions, the reality is that the detail of these provisions is necessary and directed at ensuring that exemptions are focussed on an application consistent only with the potential harm identified from disclosure.
In addition, some harms are identified as not providing sufficient reason for exemption. For example, though matters that would prejudice a police investigation are exempt, the exemption does not apply where the information would disclose that the investigation itself was unlawful. The public interest test applied to a particular case of exemptions in Part 4, Division 3 prevents any exemption in that division from being treated as a class exemption.
The majority of exemptions are contained within Division 3 where the decision-maker is required to consider, in each individual case, whether it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. This is a more liberal application of the public interest test than in some jurisdictions which require a showing that disclosure is in the public interest. Under the Information Bill, this information will only be exempt if it can be shown in a particular case that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information.
Our application of the public interest test is consistent with the idea that government should be open and accountable, not one where an applicant must satisfy the need for the information to be released. Some submissions received requested that the public interest test be defined. However, the absence of a definition is by design and not by neglect. Public interest tests are a feature of a number of areas of law - for example defamation law, competition policy and industrial relations law. Contempt law is a good example of a public interest defence. For example, in Hinch and Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Limited v The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, a case involving well known broadcaster Derryn Hinch, it was necessary for the High Court to balance the public interest in the discussion of public affairs with the public interest in ensuring that a person received a fair trial. The courts and legislatures have been careful not to enter into attempts to define what is meant by ‘the public interest’ because the concept, by necessity, will be different in particular contexts and at particular times.
The High Court in Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a defamation case, observed that:
- The privilege … is intended to strike the appropriate balance between protection of private reputation
on the one hand and public utility or public welfare on the other. The key concept in the striking of this
balance is ‘subject of public interest’. To ensure that the balance is rightly struck in the unlimited variety
of cases that may arise, the key concept must be broad and flexible. Thereby the judge is enable to evaluate,
in the light of contemporary conditions, a plea that a defamatory matter has been published in the discharge
of some legal, social or moral duty.
The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its report, Open Government: A Review of the Federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, commented that the public interest was an amorphous concept which is not defined in the federal FOI act or any other statute, and which depends on the application of subjective rather than ascertainable criterion. What is clear from the judicial decisions, both in Australia and elsewhere, is that it is not something that is merely an individual interest or that the public may be interested in; but that it is something that is of serious concern or benefit to the public or in the interest of the public. By necessity then, application of a public interest test will require consideration of factors that are relevant to the specific case.
The bill however, does provide some indications as to the public interest where possible. Some factors are identified as not being relevant factors to determining the public interest, such as embarrassment to the government or the fact that information might be misunderstood.. The deliberative process exemption has been altered from the provision that was contained in the draft Information Bill, to identify factors that are well established in administrative law and may be taken into account in determining the public interest in such documents. The addition of these factors will assist both the public and the public sector to determine the application of this provision.
In addition, it will be a primary role of the Information Commissioner to develop and issue guidelines to public sector organisations about freedom of information, correction of personal information and protection of privacy. These guidelines will, obviously, include assistance on how to apply the public interest test.
One of the contentious issues that emerged from the submissions was the provision in the draft Information Bill for exemption certificates. In the draft bill, exemption certificates were able to be issued for Cabinet and Executive Council information, security and law enforcement information, privacy and cultural information, and for deliberative process information. Certificates for the first three categories were to be issued by the CEO of the Department of the Chief Minister, while those for deliberative process information were to be issued by the relevant minister with a power of delegation to the CEOs of the agency in question.
Exemption certificates exist in all FOI statutes. They are to be used sparingly for sensitive information that may occasionally warrant removal from the ordinary appeal processes of the legislation. An exemption certificate acts as conclusive evidence that the information is exempt information. It must, however, meet the tests for that exemption; that is, not a power to remove information that does not otherwise meet the exemption requirements of the bill. It is a power to declare that the information meets these requirements and that, in the case at hand, the sensitive nature of the information warrants what ought to be regarded as an unusual step of removing it from the ordinary review and appeal processes.
A number of submissions were concerned that the deliberative process exemption certificate power was one that could provide potential for abuse. This was not only because of the presence of the power itself, but also because it could be delegated to individual CEOs to determine the status of information within their own agency. The power to issue an exemption certificate for deliberative process information has been removed from the Information Bill. An exemption certificate can now be issued only for Cabinet and Executive Council information, security and law enforcement information, and privacy and cultural information. The Chief Minister will be the only person with power to issue an exemption certificate. An exemption certificate may only be issued for two years, though there is power to renew that certificate. This limitation on the span of operation reflects that public interest may have altered over a time period, and that the original justification for issue of the certificate may no longer exist.
In addition to the alteration to the exemption certificate provisions, it may be noted that the bill provides that the Information Commissioner will, in his or her annual report that is laid before the Legislative Assembly, specify the number of exemption certificates that have been issued in the previous year. Parliamentary scrutiny can therefore be applied to the exercise of this power.
These changes that reflect public comment on the draft bill, should raise confidence that the government has been prepared to listen to opinion and dispel, any notion that we have intended to create a black hole for information to disappear into. The Information Bill furthers the right to access information by enacting review processes for decisions made under the bill. Where a person is not satisfied with the decision of a public sector organisation - either regarding access to information or the request to correct their personal information - an internal review of the decision can be requested. Strict guidelines apply to the internal review.
I have already mentioned the Information Commissioner. This office is a significant aspect of the bill. The bill provides for the creation of an independent statutory officer of the Information Commissioner. The commissioner will have the role of both actively promoting the principles of FOI and privacy, and with dealing with appeals from decisions of public sector organisations over FOI requests, and complaints of interference with privacy. This statutory appointment has been designed to put decisions on access to the information, and complaints as to privacy interference, at arms length from government. We do not want an information regime that is political, biased, and expensive. This model addresses all of these concerns.
The commissioner will have the power to accept complaints arising from the access applications, and allegations of interference with privacy. This includes appeals by third parties whose information may be released to another as part of an access application - a provision that is usually referred to as ‘reverse FOI’. The commissioner will be able to investigate complaints, attempt mediation of complaints, and where that fails, conduct a hearing into complaints. The Information Commissioner model has been recognised as a superior model to that of judicial review by tribunal or court, offering a more accessible, informal, less technical and expeditious form of review.
Mediation is made a prerequisite to any hearing under the bill, as part of this government’s commitment to pursue forms of alternative dispute resolution that will produce positive outcomes for all parties. An appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Information Commissioner will lie only on a question of law.
The Health and Community Services Complaint Amendment Bill 2002, and the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2002 are amendments to be made consequential to the Information Bill, to allow for the referral of complaints between the Ombudsman, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, to ensure that a complaint is dealt with by the most appropriate office relevant to the complaint.
So far, I have focussed only on the freedom of information aspects of the Information Bill. Certainly, that was the major focus also of the submissions that were received from the public consultation phase. The bill is, though, more comprehensive in its regulation of government information and personal information held by government. The bill will also enact provisions for the protection of privacy, and will establish records and archives management regime within government. The bill is unique in Australia in its combination of all three aspects of information regulation, overcoming the inconsistencies and conflicts that arise when these matters are dealt with through separate pieces of legislation.
The interrelationship and links between freedom of information and privacy are significant. The clearest of these is that disclosure of an individual’s personal information to another person has the potential to invade that person’s privacy. Consequently, the Information Bill includes as an exemption to the right of access, the disclosure of information that would be unreasonable interference with a person’s privacy. A unique aspect of this bill is that it recognises that there are instances of communal privacy that arise with respect with cultural information. Although privacy is normally thought to be something related to the individual, this bill recognises that Aboriginal citizens may collectively have a privacy interest in sacred sites or traditions. This interest is given the same protection as personal privacy.
Unlike some overseas jurisdictions, Australia provides no constitutional guarantees for the privacy interests of individuals. In 1988, with increasing concerns as to privacy issues, the Commonwealth government enacted the Privacy Act 1988, which lays down strict privacy safeguards which Commonwealth and ACT government agencies must observe when collecting, storing, using and disclosing personal information. In December 2001, the Privacy Act was extended and now gives new rights in relation to how personal information is handled by many private sector organisations. The new federal privacy rights come in the form of the 10 National Privacy Principles, the NPPs. These set the standards organisations are required to observe in collecting, storing, using, disclosing, protecting and transferring personal information.
The Northern Territory Information Bill will complement the federal privacy legislation. This is done by requiring that public sector organisations must comply with the Information Privacy Principles, the IPPs, in collecting and handling personal information. The IPPs are scheduled to the Information Bill and are drawn from the National Privacy Principles of the federal legislation. The IPPs cover the following matters:
IPP1 is a collection principle. It describes what an organisation should do when collecting
personal information.
IPP2 outlines how organisations can use and disclose personal information.
IPP3, data quality, and IPP4, data security, set the standards that organisations must meet for the
accuracy, currency, completeness and security of personal information.
IPP5 requires organisations to be open about how they handle personal information.
IPP6 provides for access and correction rights, giving a general right of access to personal information
and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date. This
principle corresponds to the access provisions in the FOI component of the Information Bill.
IPP7 identifiers says that general government identifiers can only be used for the purposes for which
they were issued.
IPP8 provides that, where possible, organisations must provide the opportunity for a person to conduct
a transaction without identifying themselves.
IPP9, transborder data flows - this principle outlines privacy protections that apply to the transfer of
personal information outside the Territory.
IPP10 deals with sensitive information. Generally, consent is required from an individual when an
organisation collects sensitive information such as health information, information about racial or
ethnic origins, political opinions, religious beliefs or criminal record. Sensitive information is a
subset of personal information, and special protection applies to this information.
In order to ensure both flexibility and the need, in some cases, for more specific application of these principles, public sector organisations may apply to have a code of practice approved that specifies the manner of application and compliance with the IPPs. Limited modification of the IPPs will be allowed in a code, but only where an organisation is not otherwise capable of compliance. Codes must be scrutinised and recommended by the Information Committee, and may then be approved by the Administrator on submission by the relevant minister.
The Information Commissioner also has the power to authorise a departure from the IPPs which relate to the collection, use and disclosure, and sensitive information where the commissioner is satisfied that the public interest in collection, use or disclosure outweighs, to a substantial degree, an interference with a person’s privacy, and that the benefits to be gained also outweighs that interference.
The Information Commissioner will also have a regulatory role to play in privacy protection, having the power to audit records of public sector organisations to determine the extent to which these organisations are complying with the privacy provisions of the act. The IPPs may be enforced by a compliance notice issued by the Information Commissioner in specific circumstances where it appears to the commissioner that an organisation is failing to comply with the IPPs.
The Information Commissioner also acts as the investigation and complaints body for persons who have complaints that there has been an interference with their privacy. Similar processes to those already mentioned, with respect to the FOI, apply to privacy complaints although, on the conclusion of a hearing, the commissioner has the additional power to award damages not exceeding $60 000 where actual loss or damage has been suffered by a complainant as a result of a privacy interference.
Last, but certainly not the least, significant of the matters to be enacted by the Information Bill is the records and archives component of the bill contained in Part 9. A ‘record’ is defined in the Information Bill to mean recorded information in any form, including data in the computer system, required to be kept by a public sector organisation as evidence of the activities or operation of the organisation. While not all documents in the possession of an agency are records in this technical sense, most of the documents sought under FOI provisions will be. Consequently, good record keeping and records management are of crucial importance to the success of the access provisions. Without sound and solid record keeping systems, the right of access provided will be unenforceable in practice. This is one of the problems that needed to be faced in determining the degree of retrospectivity of the legislation.
Whilst unlimited retrospectivity may have been philosophically desirable, the reality is that record keeping practices have not always been such that records can be reliably identified and located. There will be, no doubt, cases where agencies will be unable to locate records efficiently, if at all, and records that ought to have been retained may have been destroyed. Part 9 of this bill will turn this situation around so that we can be confident in the future of sound record keeping practices and that will give full effect to the other provisions of the legislation.
Statutory regulation of record keeping is also vital to successful protection of privacy, because ineffective records management and storage may result in inadvertent and improper disclosure of personal information. Statutory regulation will be introduced by the Information Bill by providing for the obligations of public sector organisations to protect and manage their records. An offence of mishandling records is created. The CEO of each organisation will have the duty to ensure that their organisation is complying with Part 9.
Regulation is to be achieved through the preparation and approval of standards by the archives service. Standards are able to address, amongst others, such matters as creation, maintenance and security of records, the appraisal of records to determine their ongoing value, and the disposal of records with no archival value. Consultation with public sector organisations will occur as part of the standard setting exercise. Standards will be reviewed every three years to ensure that they are current and relevant to the activities of an organisation.
The Information Bill also provides for management of archives including the determination of the open access period for archives, which will ordinarily be 30 years unless public interest dictates it should remain closed.
As with other provisions, the bill addresses the link between record and archives management and privacy. Records must comply with information privacy principles. However, archives are our source of historical record of government, and there is a strong public interest in maintaining those records and providing the public with an unfettered right of access to them.
Generally, archives are made available to the public 30 years after their creation. Archive records will obviously sometimes include personal information. If archives were to be subject to rigorous application of the privacy principles, any sense of public access to them would be defeated. In this case, the bill recognises that the public interest in access to historical records outweighs privacy interests that might arise. This is both because of the time that has elapsed between the creation and release and the essential public interest in historical records of both government and society.
The costs of access to information was raised as a matter of concern in a number of public submissions. The thrust of these submissions was that in some jurisdictions, costs of access were perceived as a de facto means of limiting people’s ability to access information. I wish to make clear that there is no intention of imposing costs that will be prohibitive of access. However, the reality is that these schemes can be costly both for public sector time and its resources, and it is not unreasonable to impose some cost recovery. Costs and charges will be made by regulation and these will be prepared prior to the passage of the bill so they can be considered in debate. I point out that the bill is quite specific with regard to costs. Clause 157 provides that fees are to be reasonable and that no fee is to be charged for time spent in locating information that has been misplaced.
The bill also provides for a waiver of fees where the circumstances of the applicant, including their lack of personal financial resources and their indigence make waiver or reduction of the fee appropriate. A complaint may be made about the fee to the Information Commissioner who, likewise, has the power to waive or reduce a fee.
It is necessary for this legislation to be phased in. As we provided in the draft Information Bill, review of decisions and complaints to the Information Commissioner will not be allowed for the first 12 months of operation of the legislation. This will allow for a period where the public sector can become fully conversant with the regime and allow the Information Commissioner to fulfill the task of providing advice and training to public sector organisations on freedom of information and privacy components of this bill. This orderly phase in of the legislation will, in the long term, be beneficial to all concerned.
While this government’s strongest desire is for the bill to commence on 1 January 2003, the bill has been structured to allow for the final commencement date to be fixed by the Administrator. This allows the commencement date to be determined on the advice of the person appointed as Information Commissioner. In any event, the bill is to commence no later than 1 July 2003.
To quote from one of the submissions on the draft information bill from a senior expert in the field of freedom of information, Mr Rick Snell: ‘In every jurisdiction it is the commitment, professionalism and support for the legislation by FOI officers which seems to be the critical ingredient’. I am confident that with the guidance of the Information Commissioner and the opportunity for a staged introduction, our own public sector employees will be able to provide this critical ingredient for the success of the legislation which breaks new ground in the public sector for the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 77)
(Serial 77)
Continued from 20 June 2002.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset, my appreciation extends to the minister for the excellent briefing which does equip the opposition’s position in being able to support this motion, notwithstanding the comments that are required to be made to fulfill our parliamentary duty of making sure that the complete argument is run, and that we do understand exactly what we are considering here in this Chamber.
Our intention is, of course, to support this motion. Without resorting to what I find quite unpleasant debates over who’s brand is on the cow, it is a matter of history to understand that this piece of legislation does have its origins at a former time. That, of course, gives us the imperative that we are standing in a position to support this amendment to this bill. The idea that generated this bill was one at a time when those in industry, those who have responsibility for workers - those who are employers - were finding the increasing weight of the cost of workers compensation. Of course, our community has an obligation to ensure that there is safety of the highest standards that is afforded towards our workers and employees.
It came at a time when there was significant change in the insurance industry which resulted in a reduction of competition which, sadly, was passed on to those who are in the business of employing, bearing in mind that we are talking about the very people who we consider important in this debate; and that is small business which, in fact, employs 90% of the work force. Each of these small operators were required to carry the increasing load of the cost of insurance. The employer has an absolute responsibility to care for and provide a safe workplace for their employees. In doing that, the cost of the insurance had increased to a magnitude that was making it very difficult to employ. The cheaper option, perhaps, would be to shed workers.
Therefore, the government at the time made the decision that this whole area needed a significant review. That review of a very complex area was undertaken. For anyone who walks into this area and claims some kind of understanding of the complexities of the Work Health Act would agree with me. Although I am sure I would expect, sadly, comments drawing attention to the length of time that it has taken - really as a way of constructive comment. It belies a lack of understanding of the complexity of the Work Health Act. If you are proposing amendments, we are talking about an environment that is immensely complex, and any adjustments that need to be made have flow-on ramifications to many levels that need to be carefully considered before they are implemented. Government is really in the business of ensuring that the decisions we make are ones that we can afford to live with as a community, both now and into the future. So, I do not have any concerns with the length of time that this has taken because there was, from my understanding, a significant amount of work going on behind the scenes to ensure that what we will be deciding upon in the Chamber will ultimately be one that will be of benefit.
It is my understanding that the working party that conducted that review came up with 35 recommendations; that was a complete package of recommendations. I must say that from my understanding - I am reading history - that round of consultation and that working party’s response to the consultation which resulted in the 35 recommendations, can be thought easy in this Chamber, but it required an inordinate amount of work in a very complex environment. It must be noted that one critical group in all of this, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I believe had the understanding that it was a complete package; that the 35 recommendations were to be considered as a whole because there had to be the give and the take. It is the whole equation that operates within this sphere.
The needs of employers - if we did not have employers, there would be no employees – was considered, and so there was required in these total suite of recommendations a balance - a give and a take. I must agree with the chamber that, in this bill that we are considering at the moment, 26 of the recommendations are being implemented, which leaves nine of those recommendations that are not to be implemented. Bearing in mind the process that was undertaken to arrive at the suite of 35 recommendations, the nine that have not been enacted in this bill are of concern, primarily to the employer who feels that there has been more take than give in this implementation of those recommendations.
The comment has been made in a number of quarters that the easier parts of the recommendations - the more palatable to the core interest groups of the Labor Party - have been given the emphasis and those which would be, perhaps, of core interest to the employer have been shied away from. That really is a concern, because it indicates a lack of understanding of how the whole thing is constructed. You cannot really have an environment for a worker if you have a heavier weight placed upon an employer. That makes it difficult for them to consider whether they should take on the extra burden.
Anyway, that is a comment that has to be articulated. I would not be doing my job if I passed that by. I really am quite convinced that the whole suite has to be taken as a complete whole because the whole thing then has a balance and meaning, and it is able to then address the core business. The core business being: what is the purpose of a Work Health Act? It is important to bear this in mind because if we enter into the Work Health Act we would only go a little way before we are confused. As local members, we are often meeting people who have been through the process. It is usually a worker who has had some kind of injury and has gone through this incredible trail of trying to determine that the injury is understood to their judgment; and then you have the insurer who has their view on the case because they are at a loss if the other side feels that their claims are not quite substantiated; then you have the employer sitting behind the scenes actually paying for this whole operation. You have the mediation and the legal aspects that can be enacted, and you have then another layer of complication. This whole system is paid for by an insurance premium which, as we know, is what gave rise to these recommendations.
It becomes an incredibly expensive exercise. It has to be streamlined, and I am pleased that we are getting to this stage. But we do need people who have been through the system and they are absolute experts on it. You have employers who are experts on it because they feel they have been victims of the system, and you have employees who feel they are complete experts too because they have been through the system as well. Yet, they are a rather small group because that leaves the rest of us - perhaps brave enough to have comment and an opinion in this area – but there are not a lot of people who actually understand the complexity of this.
My purpose in approaching this was simply to understand what the whole thing was about. The aim, as I understand it, is to be put in place to protect an injured worker’s economic interests, and then to help that worker to return to work. Simple. In assessing that aim, there are two aspects to that: it is the protection of the injured worker and their economic interests and enabling them to get back to work. That is the complete balance and harmony in the whole thing.
I believe that, in not implementing the complete suite of recommendations, the simple aim there is slightly out of balance. Do not make the silly mistake of presuming that this side does not care; we do care. We could end up in a situation where we care more for the injured worker, and by doing that, and financing the system, or imposing a regime upon the employer that would deliver that extra care to a worker, we may end up with them unemployed because they will not be able to employ them. That is why there has to be the other side of the equation, so there is that weight in returning them to work as quickly as possible.
I understand that the intent of the recommendations was to provide a realignment of benefit designed to strengthen those with a reasonable capacity to return to work; and it is to propel them to return to work with a reasonable capacity and to return to work early. I say once again: that is the balance and the harmony of the thing, that we do have the machinery geared correctly in full balance so that the whole economic interests are being served adequately in this so that the worker is returned to work as quickly as possible. That does not occur. We understand what happens is that the system starts to kick in to the degree that it becomes increasingly expensive to sustain and maintain that system. It becomes out of balance.
That is why, once again, I emphasise the concern about the unimplemented recommendations, because I do believe they are harder. I understand the core sentiment of those who would sit opposite me; I am not ignorant of it. But I have to say that the full balance of it would be properly addressed, and more maturely addressed, if we were able to go the full hog.
I also understand in this boarder context also - and I am talking in broader bush terms - that this is the beginning of a journey, and it is a journey that is going to take a fair amount of time. I commit myself to stay, as long as I am shadow spokesman in this area, to make sure that I take my part of the responsibility to understand each stage of this, so that I can fairly comment on the progress of the implementation of these recommendations, and how the mechanisms that are put in place through this bill actually do work. It needs to be monitored; it needs to be watched; it needs to be assessed because we have to go back and always remind ourselves what this is actually about: it is that context, to impose mechanical alterations to the operation of the act, to reduce the cost of it so that the machinery runs more smoothly and is far more efficient. The object of the exercise - and we need to always bear it in mind - is to decrease the weight, to lift the weight on the employer so that they are at greater liberty to employ.
This is just the beginning of this journey. It also needs to be commented that it is the easiest part of this journey, because we now have these improvements which have bipartisan support - notwithstanding the comments that have been made about the unimplemented recommendations.
The next stage is one of challenge, which involves the Lord report. This, then, begins the next layer where we are looking at the role that the medical profession play in dealing with this issue. Out of this round of consultations will come the next stage which addresses the rehabilitation and work health aspects. To that end, though this is not the topic of this aspect of it, it is important to understand that this is a complete package and we are talking about a part of the package. To that end, the challenge lies here. This report here is of significant weight, and those who understand the role that we play would have some sympathy if they were required to read that, as well as the other matters we have to consider in this Chamber - matters of great importance. We have to not only read it, but to jolly well understand it, and come up with a meaningful response within the context of all the demands that we have within our community.
I do not know how we are going to bring the balance of all this back in; that is with regards to the requirements that the employer feels have been neglected in the implementation. Once again, it is coming back to that balance. I am pleased to see the mechanics are there to ensure that an employer provides a safe workplace and does exercise genuine care for the worker. But there is also that other emphasis to this - the balancing emphasis - and that being that the employees must take responsibility for their own health and for their own decision-making; so that, effectively, if they are injured, their aim is to be in a position where they can return to work as early as possible.
Of course, the role of the medical profession needs to be addressed in all of this. I guess I am foreshadowing the next thrust of this. That is that they are not dealing with patients as much as they are dealing with a worker who has an injury who needs to be rehabilitated and returned to work. It sounds easy, but that is actually a significant difference. The whole exercise, very involved in modern politics, is to put information and to discuss these issues in a sensible way so that the community starts to talk about these things properly and have proper debate, otherwise everything closes in on itself. Everything makes sense within its own discrete circle, and we may win the argument within each circle, but the whole show has to work; the whole thing has to hang together. That is where I come back to the central concern being the balance of the recommendations that have not been implemented.
With those comments, I need to finish with the same thrust that I started with, in that this journey began because of the increase in costs of workers compensation. I understand there has been a scheme monitoring committee. We want to know whether these recommendations, when they are implemented through passage of this bill, will actually make a difference to the cost of the insurance premiums that are being carried by employers. To that end, I would like to know whether this committee has met recently; whether they are actually monitoring the cost of it. I would like to get a sense of whether - and I have requested this from the minister - there is a report from this scheme monitoring committee. I would be very much appreciative of receiving a precis of how the scheme is actually going. We are looking at the cogs in the wheel that are going to effect a change and we need that sense of knowing that it is actually working. So, we do need to know how the scheme is going in the report from the Territory government actuaries - how it is travelling. If we do not have that, it becomes a meaningless debate, where we are just talking about words. As I said, we all make sense within the realms of our own arguments, but unless we have an ability to measure progress and it is being transparent, then we do not know whether we are making any progress.
There are peaks, troughs, and plateaux. Anecdotally, I get a sense from talking to those employers that things have plateaued. That is the role that government needs to play: to let us know if that is the case, because we do have people who are experts in these matters and can tell us whether that is the case and how trend lines are going. It would be very interesting to see, once these recommendations have been implemented - once again bearing in mind there are concerns about the balance of this - that the trend lines go down, I hope. We are certainly wanting to see the weight lightened on the shoulders of industry and employers.
With those comments, I simply say that you do have our support. We have a joint interest in ensuring that the whole engine that drives this show - being small business and medium and larger sized business - are unencumbered.
I need to also tag on at the end, that the complete sweep of recommendations, I understand, came to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry with a sense that also in the broader context, the HIH levy is the double whammy in this. I need to put that into the equation because that, on one hand, just with the missing implemented recommendations - those nine that have not been implemented, which are the ones that the employers are particularly interested in have not been addressed. That, balanced alongside the HIH levy, which was then passed on to the employer, is where our primary concern comes from.
Notwithstanding that, at this point our support is for the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Work Health Amendment Bill (No 2) 2002. The amendment bill, as you have heard previously, is indeed stage one of a whole range of reforms that will be coming in to deal with the whole situation regarding workers compensation, rehabilitation, and finally, occupational health and safety reforms - long overdue and needed in the workplace.
This bill includes an aim to increase capacity - to reduce costs to the long-term scheme, coming in after 104 weeks of incapacity of a worker. It provides incentives to long-term injured workers with little to no real ability to return to work, to finally exit the scheme, thus reducing costs incurred by the scheme. Such incentives include an increase to the maximum commutation payments available to workers. This, in combination with being able to deem an earning capacity after 104 weeks of being out of work as an injured worker, is a positive move.
The bill takes a no-nonsense, sensible approach to introducing 15 recommendations that include: an improvement to benefits payable to junior workers; improved rehabilitation and return to work procedures; improved dispute resolution procedures; changes to compensation payable to claimants who are imprisoned, such that claimants who are imprisoned outside the Northern Territory are not eligible to receive weekly compensation benefits, as is the case for those already in prison inside the Territory; and changes to compensation payable to claimants who move overseas, in that those claimants will not be eligible for weekly benefit payments unless the rehabilitation process is complete.
People in the Territory - workers, employers and insurers - have known for a long time the need to overhaul the Workers Compensation Scheme, and this bill is a crucial plank in that overhaul. The next stage, the Lord report, will deal with rehabilitation needs and medical aspects; also tackling the necessary mediation and litigation needs through consultation and partnerships with employers, workers and service providers. Beyond that, the occupational health and safety provisions will need to be addressed in stage three.
It is a relief to see reforms flow through to parliament today; to know that workers, employers and practitioners in this field are seeing the implementation of a long-running review. This government is about action; taking the necessary steps to build an environment that is good for business, improving the job market, and providing injured workers with essential safeguards and payouts.
I again congratulate the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Syd Stirling, for bringing these reforms to parliament. Our gratitude and thanks also go to the staff, both ministerial department and the many people who worked tirelessly on the review which has led to these 15 recommendations being brought before parliament today in the form of the bill. I commend the Work Health Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I take the opportunity to commend the minister for the introduction of this bill. As my colleague who has shadow carriage of this has stated already, this is most welcomed. Obviously, as has been outlined by the minister in his second reading speech, it is the first stage of a three-phase set of actions that will occur, that come out of the working committee’s recommendations and all of the work that has gone on since that point. I put on the record my thanks to all of those people involved in that working committee who spent many a long hour, with the assistance of departmental staff, in getting their heads around this issue. Because it is a very complex area; one that I certainly will not own up to fully understanding all the intricacies of, and I am sure the minister would do the same - unless he wants to own up to that and I will test him on the Lord report or something. However, it is very complex and there are a lot of things that impact on our Workers Compensation Scheme here in the Northern Territory, as with every other one of them.
My colleague, the member for Blain, articulated it very correctly, I believe, in where all this started. That was that in the days of rising premiums a few years ago, a number of rises were incurred by business in terms of their premium costs. The business community came to me and said: ‘We need to look at this’. When I first had a look at what was going on, it was evident, of course, that the premiums that had been set virtually right around Australia - but particularly in the Northern Territory - as a percentage of wages was really quite low. It was at a point, at that time, that did not allow for cost recovery. They did that because of competition among other things but, also I guess as a lost leader to gaining other insurances from businesses. So they kept their workers compensation premiums down as much as possible in a competitive market, at that time, and that enabled them to pick up the whole package and suite of insurances that most businesses – well, all businesses, hopefully – would have. There was certainly a trend for that percentage of wages for the premiums, that it was low, and there was going to be a catch-up. There was not anything particularly that any government could do about that, and a lot of jurisdictions had the same problem.
In further discussions with the business community, I said that what we needed to ensure, through all of this, was that our own work health scheme did not have anything inherent within it that was causing rises. It was time to look at that and so we proceeded down the path of the working committee which then explored all of the parts of the scheme and, as we know, made considerable recommendations on how they felt things could be improved.
The efficiency of the scheme - keeping in mind as my colleague has said, the balance that is required in this discussion about the difference between injured worker protection and cost to employers - was always very important. I commend the members of that committee because I think they understand all the elements of it. From the Trades and Labor Council on one side, to the employer representational groups on the other, they understood that there would need to be a give and take by all sides to create some better efficiency into the scheme. They certainly applauded the scheme right at the beginning, and said that we should maintain the core focus and the philosophy of the scheme; that it be privately run and unregulated and all those sorts of things. But there was some room for movement in determining new efficiencies into the scheme, and those recommendations were reflective of that, even though there was some dissent by some of those on the committee. That was fair enough; their job is to protect worker conditions. There was dissent in regard to some of those recommendations which do go to further worker benefits.
I am sure, if you ask the members of that team from all sides, they will definitely say - as we move through this process now of the reform that is taking place - that there will need to be some hard discussions about some give and take to the recommendations. I would like to see the full suite of recommendations implemented over time, including the really hard crunchy ones. They are to do with worker benefits at the end of the day. But there may be room for adjustment. I am not saying you have to do it exactly how the committee has articulated it in terms of weeks and that sort of detail, but they really need to be discussed with all the stakeholders involved to drive some more efficiency.
It really does not matter, regardless of what the trends on premium costs are doing. Obviously, what we are trying to achieve is a reduction - not just a stabilisation, but hopefully a reduction - to employers, and that has to be the target at the end of the day. Can we do some things while giving good protection - the balance I talked about - to injured workers? Can we achieve some cost reductions? That is the point that my colleague made about the latest actuarial advice, and that would be handy as we travel through this updated advice. I am sure the minister is happy to provide that - we really need a precis to come with it because it is sometimes pretty hard to understand. We should go through this phase and it is good to see it happening, onto the second stage which includes tackling those outstanding recommendations.
This bill, as we know, picks up 15 of the recommendations. The government has signed off on 26, I think, of the total of the 35 recommendations. It is those outstanding nine recommendations that I hope, and I know the employers hope, are not put to one side and left for another day; that we do go right to the end. I notice in the second reading speech the minister has said that the second stage, which is going to take into account the Lord report, is also subject to a consultation process. The minister said:
- Legislation in relation to these issues and the outstanding matters from the working group
recommendations are envisaged by the end of the year.
I am sure we can come up with a scheme that has already been hailed as a very good scheme around Australia; but a scheme that would be refreshed and have all of the various bugs in there sorted in terms of that balance I referred to before.
That is the background as we know it. There have been a lot of accusations about sitting on reports. I am happy to take that, because I know the work that has gone into this - and very few on the other side, apart from some departmental officers would know the work, and …
Mr Kiely: You remember.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, and you can make any remark you like. Because of the complex nature of this, I went and talked to a lot of medical practitioners, and I learnt after quite some time that the one thing that is missing in all of those recommendations is the very reason why we then went out and looked for somebody who could provide that medical intervention advice. It is great to see the culmination of that work which is sitting on my colleague’s desk. It is the report about that thick. I have pulled out the recommendations; I have had a quick glance through the rest of it - and I say ‘quick’ because I went flick like that. There is a lot of stuff in there. I am sure doctors and a few particular professions would enjoy reading it, but it is very heavy going. However, he has done an excellent job addressing the terms of reference and the key principles that were agreed to from those terms of reference, and come up with a whole raft of recommendations of his own.
I thank Dr Lord for all of his work. If there are comments to be made about taking too long and all the rest of it, one could make the suggestion that it took a long time for the Lord report to be publicly available. It was only publicly available within the last few weeks, albeit that it went to the minister at least by December. I know it was due to be finished at the end of August, but I would say, by looking at it, that he needed more time. The front page does say ‘December to the minister’, so there are seven months that we have not seen it in the public domain. I am not worried about that; we have the report, there is some fantastic stuff in it. Some of his recommendations, from my first reading of it, I would say have to be implemented - without doubt have to be implemented - and he has done a very thorough job.
That is coming to the next stage; it is out there now for public comment. I will be looking forward to the next stage coming on which includes, as the minister said in his second reading speech, the outstanding matters from the committee’s report of those other nine recommendations. I look forward to having further debate on those areas - and they will be controversial areas, no doubt about it. However, I think, in a rational sense, because of all the work that has been done, we can get through looking at those. The government, at the end of the day, will make the decision, I believe - as do those on the working party, or the majority of those on the working party - that the suite of recommendations needs to be addressed in total, and that would drive those efficiencies back into the scheme.
I commend the minister on bringing this forward today. As my colleague said, we fully support the bill and look forward to the next couple of stages of this reform process.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of amendments to the Work Health Act. Our Labor government is committed to employment growth, and we are also wholly committed to the protection of workers injured in the course of their work.
We value workers and their families and, in contrast to members opposite, most of us have tangible evidence of this commitment through strong and enduring links with the Labor and union movements. Our commitment is evidenced by the expeditious way in which these amendments have now come before the Assembly. Whilst the previous government commissioned a review into the Workers Compensation Scheme in September 1999, it sat on the results for over 12 months. I believe that this is a sure sign of their lack of commitment to workers. Could their inaction have been because many of the recommendations from the review were beneficial to workers? I wonder.
By contrast, this government has expeditiously approved 26 of the 35 recommendations of the review working group and, as I will outline later in my speech, we have also set forth a time line for completion of improving occupational health and safety and workers compensation in the Territory.
Before passing on to the detail of the amendments, I would like to explore the theme of employment and employment growth. This is because employment growth is relevant to the need to provide adequate and appropriate work health protection for our growing work force, and to give insurers and employers certainty in a time of work force expansion and greater exposure to risk and litigation.
Recently, employment agency Drake suggested that an extra 3500 jobs would be created in the Territory between July 2002 and September 2002. I will reiterate that because I found that absolutely astounding that between July 2002 and September 2002, their prediction is for an extra 3500 jobs. I went back, because I thought there may have been an error there, and I got the Drake release and their detail on this; and that is what they are saying. Drake also states that this prediction is by far the strongest result in Australia. Whilst this is a very positive prediction, the actual record of employment growth under this government is also impressive.
According to July 2002 ABS Labour Force Data, there was a total of 100 800 workers in the Northern Territory, of which 74 500 were full-time and 26 300 were part-time. Since coming to government in August 2001, a total of 4000 jobs have been created, or about 100 jobs per week. By comparison, over the 30 months that the former Chief Minister was in power, only 24 jobs per week were created - so there has been a fourfold increase.
Furthermore, there have been other positive employment outcomes since Labor came to power, and members will recall that job growth and security was a major part of our election platform. NT unemployment rate fell from 7.6% when Labor won office in August 2001, to just 4.8% in June 2002. This represents a 30% reduction in unemployment, and now we have the second lowest unemployment rate in Australia. In fact, while full-time employment has increased under Labor, it actually declined under the former Chief Minister’s reign. I know members opposite here often say: ‘Well, it has all come from the railway’, but they might be interested in this particular statistic: whilst the railway has provided a great boost to employment - and credit must go to the former government for auspicing this project, with strong, unwavering bipartisan support from the then opposition - approximately 30% of job growth since this government has come to power is in sectors other than the railway. I will say it again: 30% has been in sectors other than the railway. So, take that figure on board.
Mr Dunham: Jamie Gallacher write this for you?
Dr BURNS: I write my own speeches and I research them. I do have a background as a researcher and I am perfectly capable, as the library will tell you, of getting the material out of the library and writing my own speeches - not what I hear used to happen under the previous regime.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am a hard worker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: Returning specifically to workers compensation, according to the Commonwealth National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) report entitled ‘Compendium of Workers Compensation Statistics in Australia 1999-2000’ - which is the most recent report that I could locate with assistance from the library - the Territory has consistently had amongst the highest rate of compensated fatalities in Australia during the period 1994-95 to 1999-2000. It is also of concern that the rate has been increasing over this time frame. In the 1999 NOHSC report entitled ‘Work-Related Traumatic Fatalities in the Northern Territory 1989 to 1992’, it was established that approximately 24% of NT work-related fatalities were in transport and storage sector, 15% in mining, 13% in construction, and 13% in public administration and Defence industries. In summary, while these worker fatality statistics reflect the dangerous nature of some employment sectors of the Territory, they are unfortunate and deserve further attention.
There is better news when we turn to the incidence of new workers compensation cases in the Territory. According to the report I mentioned before, the Northern Territory had the lowest incidence of new workers compensation cases of any state or territory jurisdiction. Turning to more localised statistics, according to the Lord report presented to the minister in 2001, the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme has around 3500 claims arising per year, with payments in 2001 totalling $45m.
The modern view is that the terms workers compensation is outdated. These days, the main aim of such schemes is to support the return to work of injured workers - that is to productive employment - and, according to the Lord report, the Northern Territory is above average on a national basis for its return to work rates.
Dr Lord states …
Mr Dunham: Yes, you guys fought against that in 1990.
Dr BURNS: Well, I am giving an even-handed review of what is there. I have done my homework. I have not tried to hide anything; I have approached this in a very even-handed way. It is a pity that some members opposite, who mumble through some of their speeches, do not do a bit more homework themselves.
Dr Lord states the national medical services group of the heads of workers compensation authorities in their publication, ‘National Return to Work Monitor 1999-2000 Report’, that the Territory return to work rate is 88% compared with the national average figure of 86%; the durable return to work rate is 79% compared with the national average figure of 77%. Furthermore, Dr Lord asserts that more than 75% of injured workers in the Northern Territory are currently well managed in an efficient system, and return rapidly to their full capacity with no or minimal loss of time from work.
The challenge, however, according to Dr Lord, is to ensure that the benefit of change to the system is not outweighed by additional cost, nor interfere with the efficient management of these large majority of cases. This is important: Dr Lord suggests that change needs to be carefully targetted to that 20% of difficult cases that take up an inordinate amount of resources and provide poor outcomes for both the injured workers, the employer and the community.
Dr Lord’s report focussed mainly on suggesting further measures to improve medical outcomes and processes, and it is in a public consultation phase. However, his overall message of safeguarding benefits of the worker’s compensation scheme whilst maintaining efficiency and economic viability is an important one, and I am glad to hear that members on both sides support this balance; it is a very important balance.
I believe this important philosophy has been incorporated into the government’s overall strategic program of reform in this area. As the minister outlined in his second reading speech, the current amendments to the Work Health Act represent the first stage of reform to alleviate some of the problems experienced by workers, employers and insurers over a number of years.
The second stage is also currently under way following release of the Lord report, as foreshadowed by the minister during his statement in May 2002. This second stage involved public consultation on the recommendations of the report and, although public comment was set to close at the end of this month, it is likely that the period will be extended because of the size of the report, and to ensure that all interested parties have input. As the minister foreshadowed, the second stage also involves discussion of the mediation system and litigation related to work health claims. It is anticipated that following this process, legislation to address these matters and outstanding recommendations from the working group will be introduced in late 2002 or early 2003.
The third stage, as foreshadowed by the minister, will seek appropriate amendments to the occupational health and safety provisions of the Work Health Act. As stated previously, according to the Lord report, the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme has about 3500 claims arising per year, with payments totalling $45m in 2001.
It is significant that the review committee found that the insured sector of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme had sustained an estimated loss of $46m over six years. These losses led to substantial premium increases. Clearly, such losses and premium increases are unsustainable, and this government has introduced the proposed amendments in tandem with the strategies outlined previously to safeguard the viability of the scheme. For, without a viable Workers Compensation Scheme in the Northern Territory, everybody is a loser.
I am sure if this bill was under the control of the likes of the ideologues - the industrial relations ideologues like Mr Tony Abbott - workers and their families would be the ones to suffer. Indeed, some have observed that Mr Abbott tends to act more like Mike Tyson when it comes to resolving industrial relations issues. By contrast, this government has been fair to all parties to get a positive result for everybody: employees, employers and insurers.
Workers who have suffered a work-related injury often suffer extreme mental stress which, itself, can have profound social and health affects. Clause 4 of the amendments now offers a definition of mental stress to assist medical practitioners in their assessment of injured workers. In the tragic instance of a worker losing their life in a work accident, clause 5 allows for an increase in the benefit. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, this will mean an increase from $127 545 to $212 576 on today’s figures - a 66% increase. Under clause 7(a), the bill strengthens the ability to deem some long-term incapacitated workers to have an earning capacity after a number of years. It does so by also recognising the value of someone returning to employment. This is an important component in psychological and physical recovery.
Picking up on what the member for Blain said in his speech, that everything was weighted towards the employee, this provision really sets about trying to straighten the record. In any system, you will have malingerers, unfortunately, and this deeming provision actually goes to address some of those issues.
Under clauses 7(b) and 7(d), payments to a junior worker with a work-related injury can progress, with time, to an adult wage bracket. The existing restriction on the maximum commutation payout available to an injured worker means that there is a lack of incentive to those who were relatively highly paid before their injury to seek commutation, and many remained on long-term payment. Clause 14 now provides that the maximum commutation will be linked to workers’ normal weekly earnings.
Changes to clause 15 also offer great benefits to workers through codifying the obligation of an employer who is unable to provide suitable employment. This codification or obligation is as follows:
- Where an employer liable under this Part to compensate an injured worker is unable to provide the
worker with suitable employment in accordance with section 1(a), the employer must refer the worker
to an alternative employer incentive scheme developed by the Authority.
In essence, this amendment gives greater opportunities for suitable employment of injured workers if their previous employer is unable to do so.
Other amendments, clauses 16(a) to (e), improve access to rehabilitation, particularly for stress-related claims. Under amendments to clauses 17 to 19, dispute resolution procedures and mediation procedures are vastly improved and are made more equitable.
In summary, these amendments to the Work Health Act will benefit workers and their families, employers and insurers. They represent the first stage in this government’s commitment to remedy shortcomings in the Workers Compensation Scheme and the Occupational Health and Safety Scheme. We are committed to the effective, equitable and efficient operation of these schemes. We recognise their importance to Northern Territory workers and their families, our employers and insurers.
In conclusion, this suite of amendments provides significant benefits to workers and industry, and I commend them to honourable members.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to debate, particularly as they were supportive and positive comments. Just a few comments that did come out of the debate itself.
The member for Blain was making the point that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry saw the reform package as a complete package and not to be broken down into component parts for acceptance but, rather, that the whole should be accepted. We had a couple of meetings with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the way through this process, and that was not put to me by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry directly; that they saw it as a complete package. However, I can say that they were happy with the final meeting we had with the outcomes and the recommendations that we were putting forward.
The member for Blain also made a statement that we had readily picked up those recommendations that were of core interest to employees’ rights, but shied away from those that may have been of core interest to employers - as opposed to employees. I can use two examples to show that this is not true in its entirety simply because we accepted the recommendation that benefits for long-term injured workers, after 104 weeks, may be reduced regardless of the state of the labour market where that particular individual is living. That really is going to the core of benefits for employees. On the other hand, to show the even-handed balance here, the recommendation that employers pick up the first five days of a worker’s injury is, very clearly, one of those recommendations. We did not accept it; it would have been an impost on employers. We made the decision not to implement it out of balance, and keeping the balance right in the whole scheme.
One we did not implement was for another step down for employees at eight weeks. Okay, that was of benefit to injured workers, but we balanced that decision not to implement that along with the others on the basis of even-handedness and objectivity. Also on the basis that employees had given up all rights to sue under common law on 1 January 1987 when this legislation and this Workers Compensation Scheme came into effect. When then right to sue disappeared under common law in 1987, the rationale behind the construction of this whole Workers Compensation Scheme was that the scheme would have to be very fair to injured workers to offset the loss of rights to sue under common law. Any comparison of benefits under this act with other jurisdictions has to bear that in mind, always; that that loss of common law rights – which still exist in parts in acts in other jurisdictions - simply does not apply here. That has to be taken and recognised from the outset. No one wants to go back to common law rights. I am sure a lot of employees would, but it is really the case that we do not have common law there. If we are not going to go back to it, it is important always to bear in mind the origins of this particular scheme and the loss of common law rights that it brought about.
The scheme monitoring committee is scheduled to report annually to myself, and I will be asking the department to look at the practicality of a broader release of the information contained therein. Standing here, I am not aware of reasons why it should not be broadcast and more transparent; but I will certainly be checking with the agency before making a commitment here. We would be looking at: what does it involve; how can we make it more transparent; what would the process be of releasing that to a broader audience?
The member for Daly was working through these issues well before we came to government; he has a pretty thorough working knowledge. I was pleased to note his recognition of the need for give and take, and the question of balance. I think balance was mentioned by most speakers in the debate. It is tricky, but, on balance, we have the balance pretty right.
There is - and I make it clear to the member for Daly - no intention at this stage to implement the nine outstanding recommendations, because we took those that we did, and those that we left out, with balance clearly in mind. We will move on with the Lord report, now out for public discussion and comment by 30 August, and consultation will continue. On that point, there is no doubt - the member for Daly was talking about complexity – that, when you read under ‘Medical Certificates’ in the Lord report, where he talks about the medical certificates:
- … designed to meet the needs of all parties. They are the proverbial camel designed by a committee.
In the Northern Territory the First Certificate is A3 in size and said to be too large. In Western Australia
where it is A4 the complaint is that it is too small! There is no perfect certificate. It is the manner in which
they are used that is more important.
When you get down to the level of the size of the paper on which the medical certificate ought to be processed through, I wonder if we have not gone completely over the top in terms of complicating the whole procedure. There are far greater concerns, still, in the whole scheme than the size of the medical certificate itself.
I pick up the last paragraph of a letter from the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 1 August, from Carole Frost to myself. In the last two paragraphs she says:
- Until a system is developed that ensures employees and employers own joint responsibility for both
prevention and rehabilitation, we will continue to see the Work Health Scheme as an insurance issue
and one of costs only. We therefore request that you continue to review the system and drive real
change to develop this ownership through the proposed stage three, as announced by yourself …
Myself:
- … in June 2002.
I cannot agree more wholeheartedly with Carole Frost, the Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Until we get joint ownership of getting the injured worker through the whole process and either back to work or - if they are not going to get back to work, it is worked out where they are going to be - we will have these long-term ongoing cases. We have to be able attach responsibility, and Carole rightly points out that it has to be a joint responsibility and ownership of the problem between both the employer and the employee.
The tricky question in legislative terms, and in terms of the scheme itself, is how you attach that responsibility: either by incentive and disincentive or a combination of both? It is something that will be exercised in the policy minds of those in Work Health between now and when we come to parliament with further reform. I agree totally with that. It is very much an outstanding issue, and it goes to the other long-term outstanding issue. That relates to the whole cost because, if you can attach responsibility, if you can get the injured worker moved through the system as quickly and efficiently as possible, you do restrain the costs - they are very much related. I do not pretend it is easy. If there were an easy fix to this in terms of attaching responsibility, I am sure it would have been done a long time ago.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr Peter Snape. Peter Snape was a member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom for 27 years. He held the constituency of West Bromwich until he retired at the last election. This is Peter’s fourth visit to Darwin, and on behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
AUCTIONEERS ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 65)
AUCTIONEERS ACT REPEAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 66)
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 67)
HOTEL-KEEPERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 68)
PRICES REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 69)
(Serial 65)
AUCTIONEERS ACT REPEAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 66)
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 67)
HOTEL-KEEPERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 68)
PRICES REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 69)
Continued from 19 June 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I could not quite hear what the Clerk said. I assume this is the Auctioneers Act Repeal Bill, the Auctioneers Repeal (Consequential Amendments) Bill, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill, the Hotel-keepers Amendment Bill and the Prices Regulation Amendment Bill. Is that correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Dr Toyne: That is correct, they are cognate, so the four are together and you can talk about all four.
Mr MALEY: Yes, I could not hear, I did not want to make a mistake.
Madam Speaker, I can indicate the opposition, having considered these bills, does support them. The bills implement reforms identified as a consequence of the various National Competition policies which have come to bear. There are four acts currently subject to the review and within the scope of these amendments; that is the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, the Prices Regulation Act, the Hotel-Keepers Act, as well as the Auctioneers Act.
The review process commenced many years ago - I understand back in 1995 - and one of the national policy agreements was the competition principal agreement which required the Northern Territory to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive.
The guiding principle of this legislative review is that the legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the cost of the restrictions, and that the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
We support the changes. We are mindful of the effect that it will have on certain industry groups. In particular, I have spoken to industry representatives from the auctioneers - not industry, but certainly a group of people who regularly conduct auctions and function as auctioneers in Darwin and the rural area. One auctioneer I spoke to who had been here for 30 years was of the view that, in his industry, a lot of the practices which exist interstate have not permeated the Northern Territory as yet. He said that as far as he could recall in his 30 years, there had not been any real difficulty with the current regime in terms of licensing. He said that a concern which the industry has is of the ability of that new regime when it comes into force. He has asked the opposition to maintain a careful and watchful eye on the legislation and the effect it has on the industry. He will be reporting back any concerns that he has.
I am not going to labour the point and take you through what really is a rehash of the second reading speech. As I said, the review process was commenced in 1995. It really gained momentum over the last three years, two years of which, of course, the previous government had a great deal of input into the process. This is just bringing some Northern Territory legislation into line with the southern equivalents. So far all those reasons, but keeping in mind some concerns that I articulated about the Auctioneers Act, the opposition supports the legislation.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hotel-keepers Amendment Bill 2002. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General clearly outlined to this Assembly that the main purpose of this bill was to implement reforms identified as a consequence of various National Competition Policy reviews of acts, now administered by the Department of Justice.
As the member for Goyder rightly pointed out, the National Competition Policy came into effect in 1995 when all Australian governments signed three intergovernmental agreements which together form the National Competition Policy. As he stated, it is designed to make Australia’s economic performance more efficient and should reduce the hidden costs of government monopolies. But the NCP also contains a number of reforms to enable and encourage competition. These are the extension of trade practice laws prohibiting anti-competitive behaviour; the introduction of competitive neutrality so the private sector can compete with the public sector on an equal footing; the review and reform of law that restricts competition; the development of a national access regime to allow competing businesses to use national infrastructure; and specific regulatory reform to the gas, water, electricity and road transport industries. The benefits of the NCP is to promote competition where it will deliver net public benefits. Long-term benefits and effective competition include lower prices, increase choice for consumers, higher economic employment growth and improved living standards.
It is within the framework of review and reform of all laws that restrict competition that the focus was placed on the Hotel-keepers Act. I am pleased to say that a review of the Hotel-keepers Act was conducted under National Competition Policy guidelines. The review team took into consideration stakeholder interests and rigorously tested the existing act against the following objective: to limit the harshness of the common law which imposed unlimited strict liability on innkeepers and hotel keepers for the loss or damage to a guest’s property; to make certain the hotel keeper’s liability in clear terms so that it is readily understandable to those it most concerns.
I would like to restate the review team’s findings that the current act met the overall objective and. further, it found that the act does not contain anti-competitive provisions that cannot be justified in the public good. This is, indeed, heartening finding. It is a good thing for us in the Territory to be able to say to our visitors that should they suffer the misfortune of loss or damage to their property while staying in one of our many fine hotels, claims for liability can be resolved in an orderly manner.
The amendments to this act will also allow for the Northern Territory to take into account any of the recommendations which may flow from the Australian Standing Committee on Tourism, which is looking at standardising legislation in regard to a range of modes of vacation and short-stay accommodation around our countryside. The Northern Territory government is participating in this forum and there is a suggestion that other forms of accommodation not currently covered under our act will be subject to the same provisions as those pertaining to innkeepers and hotel keepers.
Let me say right up-front: the Martin government is not about introducing any changes to legislation without full consultation with the relevant stakeholders. This is an important local issue for me as two of Darwin’s most popular and friendly caravan parks are in my electorate. The owners, management and maintenance teams of these caravan parks - the KOA and the Malak Caravan Park - have every right to be proud of the work that they put in to make these amenities such a high standard that tourists continually return to them and, by word of mouth, their reputation of being fine establishments has been passed on to other visitors.
This is the type of tourist facility that gives the industry a good name and one we are justly proud of. I, and I am sure, many caravan park owners and anyone else who is in the marketplace supplying accommodation for our growing successful tourist market, are also pleased to hear the Minister for Justice state that his department will consult closely with the industry and peak industry bodies before undertaking any action to implement any future proposals.
Since 1995, the Territory has made substantial progress in implementing international competition policy. Over the last 12 months, I believe not one sittings has gone by where we have not addressed legislative change brought on by the NCP. This government is working hard to meet its obligations under the intergovernmental agreement and I am sure that we are on track to fulfilling our commitments.
I commend the bills to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, first of all I thank the opposition for the support they have expressed for these bills and the member for Sanderson for his contribution to the debate. These are very important; not only that we get anti-competitive elements out of our legislation, but also because, within our relationship with the Commonwealth government, quite a significant amount of Territory funding depends on our compliance with anti-competitive measures. These bills are delivering from our government on our obligations to the federal government under the National Competition Policy arrangements.
To take the member for Goyder’s concern about the means of regulating or controlling the action of auctioneers under the new mandated code of practice arrangements. First of all, the code of practice will be settled in consultation with auctioneers so that it will not be a unilateral process in settling that code. That code, under provisions within our Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, can be then enforced by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. He has quite clear powers to investigate practices within selected auctions, and to take action against an auctioneer or auction firm contravening the code of practice once it is established. We are certainly not going to a ‘do as you like’ situation. We are simply applying a different form of control and regulation over the activities in that part of the industry. I hope that would satisfy the member for Goyder; that there will be ongoing scrutiny of practices in that fairly important area for our own consumers here in the Northern Territory.
With those few comments, I again welcome the support.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In Committee:
Auctioneers Act Repeal Bill (Serial 65):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Auctioneers Act Repeal (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 66):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill (Serial 67):
Clauses 1 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 21.1. This amendment is a minor correction of a drafting error - the incorrect placement of the word ‘if’ within the draft.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 21.2. This amendment is a drafting amendment consequential to amendment 21.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 21.3. Clause 29 provides for a new section 124(1). This section sets out a procedure for declaring certain trading schemes to be prohibited. As presently drafted, there is some doubt as to whether such a declaration can be made in respect of schemes in operation prior to the commencement of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill 2002. This amendment removes this doubt by providing that section 124 applies to all trading schemes regardless of the time when the came into existence.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 21.4. The bill currently provides that regulations can be made which impose conditions on persons who provide third party schemes. Amendment 21.4 amends section 124A so that the breach of the conditions set out in the regulations makes the offender liable to a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units or $55 000 or two years imprisonment if the offender is a natural person; or to 2500 penalty units or $275 000 if the offender is a body corporate. It should be noted that these are maximum penalties that would only be imposed in the worse case. The penalties for breach of penalties is linked to the penalties for carrying on a prohibited third party trading scheme. I apologise for the construction of that last sentence.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 21.5. The new section 124B provides that regulations may be made specifying conditions that apply to persons who provide third party schemes. Amendment 21.5 amends the new section 124B so that it is clear that the conditions may vary, depending on the various kinds of third party schemes that may exist. Amendment 21.5 also makes it clear that the conditions contained in regulations will not apply to current third party schemes. Such schemes will not be further regulated unless they come within the ambit of a prohibition imposed under section 124.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
Hotel-keepers Amendment Bill (Serial 68):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Prices Regulation Amendment Bill (Serial 69):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement - Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Note Statement - Economic Development
Strategy: Building a Better Territory
Continued from 13 August 2002.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this government is committed to securing a stronger economic future for the Territory and for Territorians. In November last year, the Economic Development Summit began the government’s process of holding open discussion with business, industry and community representatives. As members would be aware, in June this year, the Chief Minister launched the Northern Territory government’s economic development strategy, called Building a Better Territory.
The strategy addresses all the key areas necessary for sustained development. It also recognises the value of economic diversity from emerging industries, one of which is the information and communications technology sector. The Northern Territory’s vision is to create an innovative and expanded ICT industry which meets the needs of Territorians and exports its skills and expertise. Because of our geography, the Territory has a huge demand for reliable, effective and affordable telecommunications. The development of effective and affordable ICT infrastructure and services, and a strong innovative ICT sector, underpins many elements of the economic development strategy, and is critical for the effective social and economic development of the Northern Territory.
Enhanced ICT services will enable the delivery of more effective government and business services, and will have a particular impact in remote areas. Enhanced ICT services will also provide Territorians with access to the global knowledge base available by Internet; enable positive interaction with communities of interest; and reduce the feelings of isolation that comes from lack of information and personal contact.
Dealing now with our intention to extend broadband telecommunications and infrastructure to remote communities: one of the key elements of the government’s strategy is to ensure broadband telecommunications is extended to all Territorians on an equitable basis. Until recently, most residents living in remote areas only had access to basic telephone services, and that is still the reality for many. A large proportion of the NT community, particularly indigenous and remote residents, have been unable to access the Internet and other new data communication services due to either the cost, difficulties of installation, remoteness or inaccessible terrain, and the high cost of maintenance. Ironically, the sectors of the NT population with the most to gain from the new online services have been effectively denied access because of these difficulties.
The government’s vision is for high capacity telecommunications services used to deliver new health, education and business services to remote communities and to residents, and increasing access to services and information that is currently available only in the urban centres. These services will support and develop commercial opportunities for remote areas like the collation and management of cultural knowledge, sales of indigenous art, tourism, industries that require electronic data bases, and record keeping and financial transactions. Improvements in infrastructure will mean improvements in the opportunities for the development and employment in these communities.
The NT government will continue to use its own resources and to lobby the federal government to ensure that the NT does not get left behind in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure. The government has been working closely with local organisations and carriers to ensure that the NT receives its fair share of federal funding allocated to improve telecommunications services in these areas. Recent announcements have resulted in an additional $24m being allocated to improve telecommunications infrastructure and services in the Northern Territory remote areas. The major initiatives being advanced with this funding are: $10.3m allocated to the outback digital network through Networking the Nation, to install high capacity radio digital services into 14 remote NT communities, and includes $1m allocated to provide video conference equipment for 23 Northern Territory communities; a total of almost $6m committed by the federal government and the Northern Territory government to implement interactive distance learning services in 150 remote schools and homesteads; a total of approximately $7.5m allocated to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) to implement a series of initiatives including new corporate business systems in community councils; and $1m to install 10 new mobile phone towers in Northern Territory communities.
A remote telecommunications planning framework has been developed which is being used to coordinate these and other telecommunications initiatives in the Northern Territory. A forum with representation from all stakeholders who use remote telecommunication services has been established, and meets quarterly to guide the development and implementation of the strategy. DCIS has appointed Les Hodgson to the new position of Executive Director ICT to lead the government’s remote telecommunications agenda.
Another key element of the ICT strategy is to remote innovative and new technology to address the tyranny of distance. The most significant outcomes for remote communities will be realised by using the enhanced communication capacity I have just outlined, to deliver services in a different mode. For example, video conferencing allows for contact to be made quickly; can reduce the costs of delivering and accessing services; and can reduce the need for time consuming travel to and from communities by community staff who are already strapped for time with their other duties.
The NT government intends to harness video conferencing and data transmission capabilities of the new telecommunications infrastructure to extend its health, education and justice services further into remote communities. For example, a coordinated care system being introduced for remote health services will provide a greater continuity of care for indigenous residents moving between communities. The Health Connect initiative will allow medical records such as patient histories, hospital summaries and pathology results to be transferred electronically to clinics in remote areas. The Education LATIS network has connected all major schools to central curriculum resources and the Internet. The interactive distance learning initiative will build on this, bringing the classroom into the remote schools and homesteads.
The Department of Justice is already using video conferencing units to allow participants to attend court remotely and to allow contacts with family members who are prisoners. The next phase would be to introduce video conferencing as a routine way of extending judicial services into remote communities.
The funding I have already mentioned, which is going to LGANT, will allow community councils to be linked via hub sites to modern payroll, finance and asset management systems to allow them to allocate and manage their resources more efficiently. Through its community development and education services, the government is introducing the development of skills and knowledge the communities and residents will need to harness the new technologies.
Under the economic development strategy, we have also committed to establish state-of-the-art online government services. The NT government recognises the opportunities the Internet provides to enhance and extend the delivery of government information and services. Improved telecommunications means that residents can now receive a proportion of the services from the NT government anytime anywhere. High volume transactions such as recruitment and tendering are available online presently, and the ability to pay government accounts will be implemented in the next quarter. The move to more NT government online services makes it easier and cheaper for local companies to do business with the government, and it acts as an incentive for them to refine their e-business capabilities.
There are around 40 000 visits to the NT government home page each month, which shows the growing role that the Internet plays in government service delivery. The NT government home page is being redeveloped, and more effective navigation and search functions should be available within six to eight weeks. While we have a reasonable online presence, it is fair to say that the NT has lagged behind other states and we have some catching up to do. We have committed to developing a strategic plan to progressively increase the range of services available online to address this situation. This plan will establish the priorities for action and will identify the legal, technical and financial conditions required for each service area.
The government continues to work with a number of agencies across the three tiers of government to ensure economically disadvantaged residents have access to the new technologies and services. Public access facilities with Internet and video conferencing services are already provided in many communities under a number of programs. We will be seeking to build on this experience to develop a more consistent and sustainable model for facilities in all communities, as part of the telecommunications strategic plan. Legal, security and policy frameworks have been implemented to support new online services, and these will be refined in conjunction with the development of new services.
Turning now to the development of the ICT industry beyond its current form. The government has set out its vision for an innovative and expanding ICT industry which meets the needs of Territorians and exports its skills and expertise. A critical element in achieving the government’s vision for ICT is a strong and vibrant ICT sector that is able to provide the skills and services to meet the needs of government, business and community sectors in the Northern Territory. The ICT sector is one of the emerging knowledge industries that continues to grow in importance as a generator of skills and economic growth. The challenge for the sector is to ensure that it has the resources and capabilities to deliver cost effective services to local clients, and to meet the needs of the niche markets.
Government does have a major role to play in the development of local industry through its policy settings, and as a major purchaser of these services in the NT. We have undertaken a review of the current ICT procurement and contract arrangements and consulted widely with local industry to identify issues and opportunities for growth.
A giant industry and government ICT forum will be held in September that will examine the current environment and issues facing industry and government, and business, industry and government initiatives. The forum will create a framework for partnerships between business and government, to develop sustainable strategies and projects through which to grow the Northern Territory’s ICT industry. The government will also continue to support industry development and research through the ICT outsourcing contracts, where all companies have undertaken to provide a range of industry training research and development initiatives. Examples of these are the graduate recruitment programs and the establishment of a chair of e-business to be situated at the NTU.
Other government initiatives will also assist the local ICT industry. A review is being undertaken of the procurement and local content policies to ensure that they maximise the opportunities for local business. A new policy framework is also being developed to facilitate the development and commercialisation of the intellectual property developed in the course of government contracts. Through education and training programs and the business and community awareness initiatives, the government will continue to develop and maintain ICT education and skills development programs to ensure the necessary skills and expertise are available in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, the Northern Territory government is committed to the development of ICT programs and projects within the Territory through a framework established by economic development strategy. The Department of Corporate and Information Services is working strategically with other agencies to progress policies and frameworks that are creating an environment for ICT industry to develop, and for Territorians to benefit from equitable access to telecommunication.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Martin government’s plan for building a better Territory by employing the framework outlined in our government’s economic development strategy for the Northern Territory, Building a Better Territory.
After the people of the Northern Territory voted for sound economic management, social equity and environmental responsibility in August last year, there was an understanding within our government that we would have to do more than issue glossy publications stating a false and rosy picture of the true state of our Territory. We went to the election with a plan for building a better Territory. We worked hard and passionately in opposition, consulting with stakeholders and the broader community to develop policies that address community aspirations. We presented ourselves to the community as a viable government. We had, in the member for Fannie Bay, a leader who could articulate community views and, what is more, she had a team who could translate those views into actions. Such is the strength and depth of expertise of our team that even the horrors of 11 September and the severe blow to our tourist and freight industry brought about by the collapse of Ansett, only served to ensure we worked even harder in government than we had in opposition.
I bring these things to the attention of the House because I remember when I came to this place a year ago, the opposition members across the way were quick to offer their advice on how to be a good government. Well, let me tell them now that they should heed the advice of this government on how to be a good opposition. You have learned nothing over there; nothing on how to be good economic managers, and how to productively serve the community. You still insist on projecting false, fluffy, fictional pictures of how you want people to believe you are, rather than doing the hard and right thing and looking at how you really are and addressing those all too apparent deficiencies.
If you think I cannot substantiate these comments, you are very wrong. This latest ‘Trust me, I am CLP’ campaign of yours smacks of the same pulp fiction to be found in the CLP’s so-called blueprint for leading the Territory into the future. Let me visit the suite of seven glossy booklets, if for no other reason than they cost the Territory taxpayer about $500 000. Taxpayers should know how they were short-changed under the CLP.
The great Foundations for Our Future - which sounds more like some cheap American science fiction novel - did not contain a debt reduction strategy; treats indigenous people as if there was nothing seriously wrong within their communities; is retrospective and self-congratulatory. You can scour the booklets from cover to cover and you will be lucky to detect an implementation plan. There does not appear to be any intent or attempt to conduct an audit of the strategies - and I use that term loosely - to review their effectiveness. The data used in the booklets appears to be distorted and unsourced. What is most astounding is that this strategy that the Opposition Leader goes on, oh, so longingly and loudly about, does not contain a reference to education and learning - nothing about skills development for the workplace.
At the front of Foundations there is a reference to a strategy for education and training which was scheduled to be raised in early 2000. Let me tell you that this strategy document was never released. What an indictment on the previous government, to try to sell to the community a strategy for our future which says nothing about education and training.
I trust that the shadow for Education, the member for Blain who has spoken so eloquently and sincerely on his desire to improve educational outcomes for Territorians, takes this into account and gets better support for his segment of the community from within his own party, than has been the historical case. At this time, the CLP has very little credibility, apart from that they are in opposition, to make comment on this government’s education policies.
The economic development strategy recognises that we need to improve our economic position, unlike the old CLP strategy which painted a very rosy, misleading and ultimately false picture. Building a Better Territory addresses debt reduction, fiscal integrity and other economic strategies; Foundations for Our Future did not.
Over the six volumes - six, mind you - the CLP listed quite a number of strategies. But, do you know how many of these strategies had completion dates? Two. Have a look at volume 2, page 4 and page 18.
Mr Baldwin: You’ve read it.
Mr KIELY: Cherish these completion dates, because you will not see any others. Building a Better Territory has had so many completion dates that when the member for Daly was giving his reply to this debate, he could not finish his critique, even when given extra time.
Mr Baldwin: I was only going through the ones that have not been completed.
Mr KIELY: You could not finish it; you were rattling them off. There is more in there. You are hopeless. Foundations for Our Future, 180 pages of dentists’ waiting room material - the only place where this strategy is ever likely again to see the light of day. Your plan for the future.
As the Chief Minister has said, Building a Better Territory outlines our community’s vision and provides a practical blueprint to turn the vision into reality. It is a plan to transform the Territory economy, building on successful core businesses while encouraging emerging industries and positioning ourselves to take advantage of the new economy job opportunities of the future.
As a case in point, I draw the Assembly’s attention to our vision for business environment and growth. Our strategy envisages a Territory business environment which encourages sustainable economic growth and development. We have already started moving on some of the priority actions that we believe will achieve our shared vision. By the way, I say ‘we’ because of the intensive and inclusive manner in which this strategy was developed. This strategy is very much a community developed and driven entity, and I am proud to have been part of that process.
We are currently addressing the provision of an effective and responsive interface between business and government. Progress is under way on making payroll tax more equitable and less onerous on employers in regard to compliance; indeed, this will happen very shortly.
Another exciting development is the introduction of business case managers. Emerging businesses have historically received a good level of support from the Territory Business Centres, and I commend the previous government for this initiative. However, it became clear at the Economic Development Summit that the process had to be enhanced. We listened, we consulted, we researched, and we will soon be delivering a level of service to emerging business that has not been seen before in the Territory. Now new business can work with a case manager who will assist and support them through their regulatory framework which, at times, can be so daunting or confusing in its bureaucratic, but nevertheless necessary, structure.
While we are talking about support for industry and commerce, what about the round table initiative? I have had the pleasure of chairing a round table gathering with the Chief Minister at Palmerston earlier this year. The establishment of the business round table follows the Chief Minister’s commitment to all Territory businesses that were functioning in September 2001, to continue to work with business in a ‘can do’ way. It symbolises a partnership approach to business development in the Territory. The opportunity now exists for representatives of the business community to sit at the table with government and constructively discuss business development issues.
Around 15 members of the local business community attended this meeting in Palmerston, including local people such as Mr Michael Denigan, proprietor of Micks Whips; Mr Arthur Hamilton, manager, Shorelands Pty Ltd; Mr Robert McLeod, manager of Rooney Shipping; Mr John Robertson, manager of Palms Village Resort; Mr Rob Wilson, manager of McDonalds, Palmerston; Mr Wayne Zerbe, owner, Wayne Zerbe Publications and Promotions; and Mr Ray Walton, proprietor of Caravan Country. At this meeting, the Chief Minister was able to hear the issues that these people have to deal with right at the coalface - issues such as tourism, insurance issues, statehood, traffic light and road access, investment and training.
I heard the member for Blain criticise our strategies as one full of rhetoric. Well, that meeting and others should dispel his concerns. I can also advise that, as a result of that particular meeting, outcomes addressing some of the specific issues raised at the round table have been addressed. That is action, not rhetoric.
I made a pledge when I entered this Assembly to strive to the best of my ability to ensure that any decisions that I partake in will be financially secure, address in a responsible manner environmental issues with the view to minimising negative environmental impacts, and the decisions I make must act in conformity with societal expectations. I honestly believe this strategy meets the benchmark I require to fulsomely support this approach to building a better Territory.
There are many, many things I can say in quite a positive light about our strategy to build a better Territory but I can leave the last word to NT News reporters Camden Smith and John Loizou who, on 9 August 2002 reported: ‘Local business says good times are back’.
Madam Speaker, I commend the strategy to honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I was not going to tie up the Chamber’s time commenting on many of the things that have already been pointed out in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement. However, listening to the member for Sanderson, I think that we have to revisit history a little and talk about the woeful record of the CLP that he has outlined.
When my father emigrated to Australia, he arrived in Darwin in 1969. Darwin at that time was slightly smaller - if memory serves me correctly - than Alice Springs is today. We were a backwater in this country of ours. We were treated as a backwater and we were an extension of a government department, essentially, managed by Canberra. That situation had been railed against at that time by members of the Labor Party, as well as the members of the Country Party and the Liberal Party before there was a CLP. The whole backwater attitude of Darwin - this addendum to the rest of Australia - was what the CLP government had inherited after we gained self-government in 1978. In the intervening years between 1969 and 1978 - that is a nine year period - we had a Legislative Council in which the then newly-formed CLP controlled 17 of the 19 seats. The other two were held by Independents. That was a reflection, of course, of more of the Labor Party’s abilities and its talents at a federal level when the 1974 election was held. In fact, the 1975 election demonstrated what the whole population of Australia thought of the then sacked Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.
In that intervening time between 1978 and up until last year’s election, let us look at how dreadful and woeful the history of the CLP is. In that time, we saw the population of the Northern Territory more than double and the Territory cease being a backwater and become one of the most dynamic economies in the country - the Labor Party have inherited that. During that time the gas which the Labor Party is so passionately fighting for at this point, was negotiated out and we started seeing the promises of that gas coming onshore. The railway, which was the holy grail of the CLP, was finally achieved during that period of time. There were any number of other projects - hundreds of them - that operated and where products of a CLP government, and yes …
Mr Kiely: It was Canberra money that you lot appropriated. Let us not rewrite history too much, John.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is that when we gained self-government the Commonwealth grants review process did favour the Northern Territory. However, what they forget, or what is conveniently forgotten during that period, is that we also inherited a bill for all or most of the infrastructure that exists in the Northern Territory; so we started out with a debt. After 1988, the Commonwealth Grants Review Committee dealt with us in the same way they dealt with every other state. We worked under the same set of rules as every other state - New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. We were faced with exactly the same set of rules without, I might add, the same legislative ability nor with the same constitutional protection as those states. Yet, in spite of that, the CLP was able to achieve great things for the Northern Territory - great things.
I remember Darwin back in 1969. I remember sitting on the corner of the back balcony of our house on the corner of Styles Street and Trower Road - which was basically two freshly laid bits of tar - and watching kangaroos hop around in the area which is now the Casuarina High School, because every thing beyond that was bush. I find it more than a little bit cute that the member for Sanderson comes into this Chamber and tries to say that the CLP achieved nothing during that period.
The fact of the matter is it achieved many, many good things and continued to achieve good things. Even when there were economically difficult times because of things like the ‘recession we had to have’, the CLP was able to protect many of the businesses and industries that worked in the Northern Territory by engaging in large local projects, such as the one we are standing in right now, to rescue those businesses. People forget that; it is so easy to forget those changes. Part of the reason it is so easy to forget those changes is because the Territory’s population in that time turned over - several times over, I would imagine. The fact is that, for a long-term resident like myself and many other people in this Chamber on both sides of the House, I have seen what the CLP achieved, and often flying in the face of criticism from the Labor Party which was then in office. The university is something that was condemned by the Labor Party and was railed against, yet the university is one of the things that the Labor Party is rightfully proud of as one of the things that they have some administrative control over. I hope that they continue funding and supporting the Northern Territory University despite that they are currently having to cut courses and things like that. That is the reality of current administrative processes.
I remember when the duck pond down here was built to support a prawn trawling fishing fleet, and at that time the hue and cry from the Labor Party saying: ‘There is no way that is going to be viable’. It was a joke, it was just never going to support anything. The funny thing is, rarely do I go past the duck pond nowadays without seeing any number of vessels, and the majority of those berths being tied up. That is also something that the ALP has inherited. We have heard about the Cullen Bay project. I remember the screams from the then member for Wanguri, John Bailey, who launched a tirade about the sandbar off Cullen Bay was going to be utterly destroyed by the CLP and its rampant advance towards the development of this little bay attached to Darwin. I wonder what has happened to that sandbar? Well, actually I know what has happened to that sandbar; it is still there and some of the finest residential development in the Northern Territory is in Cullen Bay. That was something that was resisted by the members opposite. Okay, politics of the day is something that you accept - but then, to come into this Chamber and suggest we did nothing.
I heard a member interject before about the Sheraton. Okay, the Sheratons were built, but the truth is that once you have built the infrastructure, the building, it has been occupied ever since by one hotel chain or another, and that has provided jobs to Territorians. Yulara is another classic example where the Territory government had the courage of the time to build a piece of infrastructure which ultimately was sold off and, to this day, continues to employ over 1000 Territorians.
Governments do have to build things occasionally that do not make money for them. Schools and roads are an example. That is why governments get money given to them through an appropriation process or even - perish the thought - incur debt for the purposes of building things like schools, hospitals and roads; because as a community grows you can then predict the ability to offset that debt accordingly. What that means, basically, is that as the population grows, you know what the population is going to be in a certain amount of time and it is much better to have an amount of debt preparing for a much larger population which will have a much greater ability to pay off that debt, rather than just simply saying: ‘No, we cannot build it, it is all to expensive. No, we cannot do this; it is all too expensive’.
The fact of the matter is that, when the Territory government was first created, it had a large debt to start off with and then had to continue borrowings to not only deal with that debt, but also to pay for infrastructure and planning for growth. The Foundations for our Future document, as I understand it, was put together by one of Australia’s leading planners in these sorts of areas. It was an attempt – and a very good attempt, in my opinion - to lay down a series of foundations which would take us into the future. What the Chief Minister is doing here is a variation on the same theme.
The member for Sanderson was quite critical of the member for Daly, saying” ‘He we ran out of time talking about all of the strategies that the Chief Minister had outlined in her document’. What the member for Daly was actually saying was that the time lines that the Chief Minister has placed in this document already have reached, in certain instances, expiry dates. Those expiry dates have come and gone and the strategies have not been implemented.
What the member for Daly was saying is that the Chief Minister is already starting to struggle with the time lines that have been put in place. Some of this may be the Chief Minister’s fault; some may rest with the fault of the departments or the government itself; and some may simply be unavoidable. However, the fact of the matter is that these time lines that the Chief Minister has outlined are not being achieved.
The Northern Territory has grown since 1969 up until last year when we lost government. We lost government for any number of reasons which we have acknowledged. The Northern Territory population has placed the Labor Party in government. I do not resent that; I accept the decision and the will of the people. However, there should at least be an acknowledgement by members such as the member for Sanderson, saying: ‘We accept that we have inherited what is not essentially a bad bit of infrastructure; a vastly enhanced population compared to the population that was around in 1978 during the period of self-government; a vastly increased ability for the existing government to continue that work’. I hope they do continue that work because I would like to see more jobs.
Resting quickly on the matter of indigenous development, there is, unfortunately, an environment in which the structure of the legislative framework over indigenous lands here in the Northern Territory is something that the CLP could not do anything about. The truth of the matter is that it is something that the government cannot do anything about because those legislative structures are still vested in Canberra, which means it is a federal act which deals with the development of Aboriginal lands here in the Northern Territory, and the land councils themselves are a statutory authority which carry responsibility for the development of those lands. Some land councils achieve it. In fact, all land councils have achieved some development.
I am immensely impressed with what has happened on the Tiwi Islands and I get a sense of real control when I talk to people from the Tiwi Islands; of people who know what is going on and of a little economic acumen coming out of that particular area. A classical example is the police station. When they wanted to build a new police station, the Tiwi Land Council said: ‘We will build it for you and then we will lease it back to you for a period of 20 years’. It is an excellent little project because it is going to make an income for the people who own the land. Good for them.
However, the truth of the matter is that, under the current structures of the Land Rights Act, you have to bear in mind that we have half of the Northern Territory which is administered by a piece of legislation that does not rest with the administrative control of the Northern Territory. That is why this government is going to struggle in the same way that the CLP struggled in terms of developing that land. This is a statement of fact; it is not meant to be a criticism of anybody. But it does concern me - as an aside - that after 26 years, some of the world’s largest land owners are still welfare dependent.
I urge the new government to deal with the land councils, and to try and impress upon those land councils the importance of development for the people who live on those communities inside the land trust environment. The land trust environment has proven to be problematic for development, and for various reasons. Sometimes it is inter-family conflict; sometimes it is the position that the administrative arm of the land councils give when they give advice to the councils themselves; and sometimes it is the simple nature of inalienable title.
One of the major problems with inalienable title is that the Aboriginal people cannot divest themselves of ownership. That is a problem because, if you try to raise capital against your land - which is a common investment tool - the banks are unable to foreclose against inalienable title so they cannot lend money against it. Once again, this is not a criticism of Aboriginal people. It is, however, a criticism of the act, because the very means by which the private sector anywhere else can raise money …
Dr Burns: Malcolm Fraser brought that act in - your mate.
Mr Mills: Don’t worry about that, he is talking about the problem, not who is to blame. Sorry, John.
Mr ELFERINK: The problem is that that land cannot be used as a source of income or as a source of development for the people who own that land. I passionately look forward to the day when Aboriginal lands provide income for Aboriginal people, the way it always did. Even before Europeans arrived on this continent, Aboriginal land was providing income for Aboriginal people. Despite the fact that they have won their land rights back under a western legal structure, it does not do so today. Accuse me of ignorance - okay, I am ignorant - but the reality of this is such that, whatever the situation, no matter what political thing you try to tack onto the side of Aboriginal lands, this is the fact: it does not provide an income for them today. If Aboriginal people want to talk about self-determination, there is no such thing unless you have the starting point of determination itself: economic determination.
I can make many of the decisions that affect my land and my property - small as it is - based on the fact that I provide my own income. I look forward to the day when Aboriginal people have that much power at their fingertips that they do not need to even look at Canberra or the Northern Territory government for any form of assistance because they can provide it all themselves, like any other land owner.
If that means that I am ignorant, then so be it. The truth of the matter is that I believe in self-determination for all people - every person who lives in our community should have self-determination. I am unconvinced that that is the case for many of the traditional people in the Northern Territory. Until such time as that self-determination is economic, then I am afraid that the rest of it is going to be qualified.
The current Northern Territory government inherited the product of 26 years of work. I believe that if New South Wales had enjoyed the same growth over the last 20 years, its population would be double what it is today. In terms of how we compare with other states and other jurisdictions, the Northern Territory was on a very good footing when the current government took over. It is cute in the extreme that members opposite try to come into this place and rewrite history simply to suit their own political ends.
I accept that they are the government; I wish them all the best in developing the Northern Territory, and I hope that they continue taking up the job that the CLP did so long and so hard over so many years. However, to walk in here and be critical of ideas like Foundations for the Future and of the everything the CLP has achieved over those years, in my opinion is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of where the Territory has come from. Those of us who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. Those who forget what has been achieved in terms of the past, and only dwell in the political situations of the now, will find themselves accused of the same arrogance that the CLP was ultimately accused of.
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I listen to the member opposite chortle at that, but it was those laughs I used to remember use to come from the government benches in the past. Those little chortles and laughs ultimately started becoming a loud echo which was heard in the northern suburbs and throughout the rest of the Northern Territory. We paid the price for that, and I would hope that the members opposite have learned some of the lessons that we have learned since that time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the document is called the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory, but its heading is called Building a Better Future. That implies we did not always get it right in the past. It also implies we are going to do it better.
The strategy is, as the Chief Minister says in the foreword, a plan that recognises that we live in a community, not just an economy. But a community and an economy cannot coexist unless they are sustainable; that is what sustainable development is all about. That is what we should mean when we say building a better future.
So what should we be looking for in this document? For me, one way to test it is to see how it treats three areas that are important to the community: the environment, heritage and people. Let us have a look at them. I have gone through the document and selected various headings in relation to the environment, heritage and people and commented on them. Other speakers have spoken about other issues which I would have liked to have commented on, but I decided to focus on this area only.
Under the heading ‘Mining’ it states that we should maintain adequate road network to facilitate mining services supply. Local government in the Territory receives nothing from mining companies - especially extractive mining companies - which use local roads. The cost is borne by the local council or the people. If it is a sustainable industry, then the price of materials mined should reflect a contribution to maintain or construct roads. Again, under ‘Mining’ it says we should maintain best practice environmental management of mines such that the Territory’s natural resources are managed for the benefit of future generations. Why do we duplicate environmental services by having an environmental section in mining and an environmental section in Industries, Planning and Development? Is that sustainable?
Again, under the heading ‘Primary Industry and Fisheries’, we find some interesting reading. It says that we should base all development on social, economic and environmental sustainability in pastoral, agricultural, fisheries, aquacultural and horticultural production. Although land clearing is mentioned in the document later, a land clearing strategy is not mentioned in this section. A land clearing policy should be law and should already be in place for freehold land; and yet it is not. Reasonable controls over the continual clearing of land is essential for sustainable development in both the horticultural and agricultural industries. Before land is cleared, is there to be a check to see if the use of that land for a particular agricultural or horticultural purpose is commercially viable? For instance, if there was no market for the mangoes because of an over-supply caused by an excessive planting of trees, should land be cleared for more of the same?
The concept of fish propagation areas should be investigated, for instance, as a way of maintaining numbers of wild fish stock to make sure there was enough fish for both the recreational and commercial users. Aquaculture should aim at having nil or minimum discharge into natural water systems.
The introduction of GM crops requires strategies and thorough testing to safeguard against potential effects on other crops or the natural environment. I remind members that tonight, unfortunately, there is a meeting in Katherine to discuss the issue of the introduction of genetically modified cotton into the Douglas/Daly area. The possible introduction of this large scale cotton production near the Daly River needs careful assessment of water usage, so that adequate flows in the natural systems continue and we do not turn our rivers into the Darling. Am I allowed to use the word ‘darling’ there, Madam Speaker? Livestock production requires stocking rates to allow for good and bad seasons so that pastures are protected from overgrazing so as to reduce erosion as seen on the light soils in the Victoria River region.
Under ‘Tourism’. Tourism’s greatest asset in the Territory is the environment and heritage, yet it does not get much of a mention in this section. The Darwin Harbour should be retained as an area of natural beauty and biodiversity. It is an important part of our capital city. It plays a central role for traditional owners, the local population and visitors, the tourists who come to see its beauty. Moves to put a container city in the middle of the harbour shows little respect for the values of our harbour as it relates to building a better future. It shows little thought to building a better future.
The government proudly supports our World War II heritage, as seen by its support for the Bombing of Darwin commemoration ceremonies, but still wants to put a road right through the middle of Strauss airstrip, a World War II airstrip. Also, the new rail has taken out some of the old North Australian Railway heritage at Adelaide River, and the government seems to show little concern. Heritage creates jobs through tourism, but have we really mentioned this in the strategy? It is hard to see it in the document and in action. Heritage is important for our social development; it is part of building a better future.
‘Transport’. The railway, I believe, is certainly part of building a better future, but in its construction it too has had its problems. The Gouldian finch and the Ferguson River episode highlight the fact that, although we marvel at the great benefits the rail will bring, those important matters which reflect whether we support sustainable development are sometimes forgotten. The fact that the government has now announced that an Environmental Officer will work on the railway begs the question if we are learning by our mistakes: why, for instance, wasn’t there a permanent government officer working on one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken in Australia, since day one?
The government has undertaken to improve public bus services in the greater Darwin region by January 2003. This is great, but if this is not planned in consultation with the community, promoted as an alternative means of transportation, or adequately resourced or funded, then it will not have a chance of working.
Under the heading ‘Land Use’: land use is probably the one area that you would hope for changes to the way we have done things in the past. As I said before, development must be sustainable. For example, to open up 700 blocks of land in the Finniss River without any land clearing controls, planning controls as found in the Litchfield Shire, maintenance and provision of essential services through some form of local government assisted by a rating policy, then you wonder whether we are learning anything. It is funny when you see the problems associated with past poor planning decisions that the Litchfield Shire has had to inherit and is still trying to fix - to see after many warnings those same mistakes made and, even worse, in the Dundee area - that all for the sake of economic development, this government now, in Building on a Better Future, appears to be repeating the same mistakes.
Look at what land was allowed to be subdivided by the previous government at Leaning Tree near the Marrakai. Drainage lines were approved for subdivision - no thought for the environment, no thought for the purchase of the land; development at all costs with little thought given to the future. Even the beautiful escarpment one passes along the way to the Daly River, on the Dorat Road, has been allowed to be subdivided. It should never have been permitted to have been subdivided in the first place, and certainly, as an important and outstanding geographical feature, should never have been able to be built on. If the government wants to build a better future, then it should look at acquiring that land and either making it part of the Litchfield National Park, or the proposed Warrai Dam catchment.
If there is one area you would hope to show that this government is not a replica of the previous government, then it should be clearly highlighted in how it handles land use issues in the Territory. I am not saying it will, but I am highlighting the fact that certain things were done and I hope the new government will not repeat them. Would it have allowed the rainforest at Dundee Beach to have been subdivided? The mangrove inlet in the same area to be dammed? No provision for rubbish, schools, community areas, or proper setbacks from the foreshore of housing estates for both environmental and public reasons.
Will the government allow the continual subdivision of land in these areas without asking: ‘Who pays?’? If this is about building better futures, then some leadership must be shown in these areas, otherwise this book will be regarded as a glossy collection of statements.
Will this government look at better planning of our suburbs? The change from public development of land to private development seems to have brought with it narrow roads, small house blocks, high energy designed houses, southern designs and little care for the environment. As I said recently, we are now down to blocks of 300 m in Palmerston. That is 15 m x 20 m. I believe that design work is inappropriate for the Northern Territory, especially the Top End. As I said jokingly to people, these houses are basically getting so small now that you will have to buy velcro pyjamas and sleep standing up because I do not believe that …
Ms Martin: Interesting thought, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much. I am thinking of marketing the product, Chief Minister …
Ms Martin: Not terribly romantic, though.
Mr WOOD: That is okay; you will be able to get double pyjamas.
Remember the escarpment at Palmerston? It had the opportunity to be one of the great features of Palmerston. And what do we have? We have this half an escarpment with houses now built at the top, which are likely to be a fire hazard because the fires go uphill with a south-easterly wind behind them. All because of not enough thought and poor planning. Of course, the problem with the escarpment is, when you are talking about sustainable development, people will probably start to complain about the snakes and the fires and eventually the escarpment will suffer.
Who, for instance, approved the large drain that flows from Fairway Waters straight into the mangroves? What processes were put in place to filter out the high nutrient discharge from the artificial lakes, the lawns and the golf courses? I do not believe anything was done. In fact, if you go and have a look at that drain now, it has quite a build up of algae in it, and that is exactly what you will get from drains that are fed directly out of areas where fertilisers are used continually. Are we building a better future or repeating the same?
A comment on indigenous development: I am not getting into the area that the member for Macdonnell was talking about because I think that needs far more debate. But there are a number of good stories when it comes to indigenous development and I have seen those good stories, having worked at Bathurst Island. However, we cannot get away from the fact that there are still nearly 8000 people on CDEP, and that shows there is a long way to go.
As I mentioned yesterday, a review of the manner in which CDEP is working is urgently required. My belief, from my own experience, is that with adequate resourcing there is plenty of work available on communities. If there is enough funding for everyone who wants to work, then the Commonwealth should fund those jobs - either full-time or part-time to allow for flexibility - and include enough funding for the work to happen with also a strict audit that people are working. I do not know whether I said last night that I worked on Bathurst Island as the Works Supervisor before unemployment benefits were made available. We had 79 positions and we were able to employ approximately 109 people. That was by making the hours flexible, working out roughly the average time were sick or absent; and we were able to employ people. A couple of years later – about 1979-80 - the Commonwealth government set up a demountable in the main street which was purely there to provide unemployment benefits. All of a sudden, you had people who got the sack or could not work and were provided with unemployment benefits. That was a bad move by the Commonwealth and, to some extent, we are now suffering the effects of that.
If people are used to being part of the work force, then as more economic development occurs - and I think that the member for Barkly has mentioned that employment will occur in these areas. In the meantime, we are waiting for these opportunities to occur, and people should be used to working and training at the same time. That is what we should be aiming at the present time; achieving what is achievable and not looking too far into the future for what may not happen for quite a while. The issue we were talking about last night is training should come with the work. There is lots of work on these communities, and it just requires proper funding.
Finally, I believe that the document is a very important document. It has many noble statements, but noble statements are no more than that. In the end, the proof will be in the pudding. As the Chief Minister is in the House at the moment, I might end up with her statement from the foreword, which I have had to read a number of times to try to understand. We cannot complete what we cannot …
Ms Martin: You wanted it by T S Eliot, did you?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am just wondering if the Chief Minister actually wrote this:
- As T S Eliot wrote: ‘Between the idea and the reality; Between the motion and the act; Falls the shadow’.
Building a Better Territory illuminates the shadow between where we are as a Territory and where we want
to be.
A fine statement; let us hope we can do it.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I rise to make some general observations in relation to that part of the document that affects some of my shadow portfolios. I will start with the comments made by the Minister for Justice in another capacity in relation to communications. We have talked in this place once before, at least in the life of his new parliament, about the important role of communications and various technologies to assist with communications around the Territory. I was very interested in what the minister had to say, and I very sincerely wish him and his government the very best because, if all of us can make a significant contribution to improving communications for all Territorians, then that is not only a noble and worthy objective but, in some areas, a pressing and necessary one. So I wish the government well in that regard.
I have some general observations to make in the area of tourism. A good one I noticed was the commitment by August 2002 to build the business case for the federal government to adopt policy positions which lift cabotage. I have not seen, and I am certainly not aware of, any announcement the government has made in that regard. Again, I wish the government well in that regard and extend to them, in a spirit of bipartisanship, any assistance that they may require from our federal members. The Senator and member for Solomon are also working on this issue. I have spoken to them at length and we all know what the issues are. Previous CLP governments had done what they could to encourage various federal governments to lift cabotage. Perhaps in the present climate, with the difficulties with airlines and various other aviation issues, it may well be an opportunity for a federal government to change its mind. I am very pleased to see that statement in this document and, as I have said, I wish the government well.
There are a couple of other matters. Again, I am happy to see the development of a strategic tourism plan. As the minister said earlier this week, the federal government has released a document and requested a number of tourism operators to comment. That is a strategic plan over a 10-year period. For my own part, I facilitated a submission. I worked with a number of tourism operators and a submission was sent to the federal government. I understand that a copy of that was also provided to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. I would like to think that, again, in a spirit of bipartisanship, both the minister and I have contributions to make in that regard because, at the end of the day, we are simply responding to the needs and advice that those in the industry give us.
I was pleased with what the minister had to say yesterday in his response to the statement, that he is working well with the federal Tourism Minister. I have also met with the federal minister. He is similarly committed to a bipartisan approach in the area of tourism. It arises from something which we all know, and that is that tourism is a growth industry not only for the Northern Territory but for Australia. It is imperative that people’s egos and political agendas be put very sensibly to one side so that we can all work towards some common and desirable outcomes. I wish the minister well with the strategic plan and would offer my thanks to those in the Tourist Commission who have undoubtedly spent much time – and probably will spend even more time - preparing that plan for conclusion. I look forward to its release in October.
The other parts of this document that relate to tourism appear to me to be, generally, a mixed bag. I have started with two things that I think are very good and I am very pleased to see. I have made it clear that matters should be progressed in a bipartisan way. However, on the other hand, there are some matters that seem to me to – perhaps on one analysis - lack intellectual rigour, and might be little statements and platitudes. As the member for Nelson said earlier, noble statements in some respects, but the proof will be in the pudding.
I notice, for instance, that the second priority action in the document is: ‘develop whole-of-government plans to enhance the attractiveness of Darwin and Alice Springs for tourists by December 2002’. This is a fascinating statement because, as the member for Araluen from Alice Springs, I can say that tourism operators tell me that things have never been worse in Alice Springs - in particular in the central business district, and more particularly, in Todd Mall. The amount of antisocial behaviour that occurs in the mall is, I am told by the various tourism operators, having a direct effect on the number of tourists in the mall. Tourists are no longer walking down the Todd Mall with the regularity that they used to they say, because of the antisocial behaviour.
This government, for reasons that escape me - and I made comments at the time – elected to get rid of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act without replacing it with anything. There is nothing on the table; no positive announcements other than the Minister for Central Australia chatting away and saying to people, yes, he will get to it eventually. I will not dwell too much on the political element of this debate, but it is abundantly clear to anyone, I suggest, that this part of the tourism strategy must be taken seriously by government and in particular, the minister. Tourists will not come to Alice Springs if they fear for their safety walking down places like Todd Mall in Alice Springs in the middle of the day – or night for that matter.
I note in the statement there is a reference to a whole-of-government plan. Well, a whole-of-government does, obviously, mean and include justice issues and law and order issues. This government made a number of big promise and calls to Territorians in August last year; and that was that they would make the world a better place and they would reduce antisocial behaviour. Yet, nothing in fact has occurred. So, it is the case that government must take this part of its document seriously, and I look forward to further announcements, quite frankly, that may be made in the future in that regard. As yet, the scorecard for this part of the document is zero out of 10.
A good part of the document is the third item there as a priority action: ‘increase marketing emphasis of indigenous tourism product starting in December 2002’. Anyone who has anything to do with the tourism industry would acknowledge that this is a growth area. In my discussions with the federal Tourism Minister last week, it was common ground that this is something that places such as the Northern Territory need to harness. There is much to gain, but the concept that this government has not appeared to have understood in its relatively short reign, is that with promises comes commitment. It must be committed to getting the results that it says it will get. Again, I look forward to details of the increased marketing emphasis on indigenous tourism - easy to say but hard to do. The announcement made by the minister this afternoon in Question Time of $250 000 over two years for the marketing budget, whilst welcome, does nothing to move towards increasing the marketing emphasis of indigenous tourism. So, the government, in terms of commitment, will need to put its hands in its pockets. It will need to spend and invest in order to obtain results.
Another aspect of its plan under the heading, ‘Continue to Develop New Tourism Products’, I note that there is a reference to reviewing regional tourism development plans with the view to further developing new destinations. Well, this will not be done from Darwin; this will require this extremely busy minister - and I feel for him in that regard - to travel the Track; not just once, not just twice, but to have I would have thought, a number of forums in regional areas getting information not just from bureaucrats, but from the people on the ground in the tourism industry. Subject to the minister’s timetable, I would like to think that I would be able to say to tourism operators in regional areas: ‘Yes, the minister is on his way, he is anxious to hear from you’. I certainly did not see anything to that effect in his reply to this debate yesterday.
Another worthy objective is to promote business tourism opportunities throughout the Northern Territory and target events to support this. Well, to a significant extent, this is in hand. A fundamentally important initiative of the former administration was the building of the Convention Centre in Alice Springs. Business tourism, not unlike indigenous tourism, is something that we should all harness - the possibilities, to a large extent, are endless. The former government invested, did the hard yards, provided facilities such as the Convention Centre in Alice Springs to which people from around the country would be attracted; thus it is good for the economy, in particular Central Australia. This government, so far at least, seems to have been bereft of ideas. Again, I look forward to positive announcements - not just of talkfests, but of actual plans. Of course, it follows actual outcomes. Again it is a bit of a mixed bag; it is a case at this stage of ‘watch this space’.
Another part of the plan, Building a Better Territory, is to continue to promote the development of a Darwin convention centre. Well, to a large extent, this government seems to have been gazumped by the Darwin City Council. As I understand it, the council beat the government over the line in coming up with its outline of the Darwin convention centre. The longer I go on, the more embarrassed I am, quite frankly, because the government seems to be pipped at the post by just about everything.
We have, for some time, been saying, for instance, that since the mini-budget; since the critical events of 11 September, and 14 September - that is the collapse of Ansett last year - this government should be injecting funds into the tourism industry. Unlike so many other governments around this country and, indeed, the world, this government chose to reduce funding to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. However, I was pleased - and I have spoken to a couple of tourism operators and they are also pleased - that at least the government has seen the error of its ways - erratic and generally unhelpful. However, it is better than nothing - some would say: ‘Too little, too late’. In any event, I digress.
Another interesting thing, whilst I have digressed slightly, is this quirky issue of an aviation ambassador. There was a bit of argy-bargy - unsolicited by me I am very happy to say – in an NT & Beyond, the effect of which that I would be very welcome on the opposition benches. Hell will freeze over, I might say, before I get to the opposition benches. But, I would be welcome over there because the idea …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Small ‘o’ opposition I should say, Madam Speaker, for those of us who have a regard to English. Anyway, there was a bit of argy-bargy and it was about the fact that we came up with this proposal of getting an aviation guru. There was an article in NT & Beyond. Strangely, the next day, Camden Smith, I gather, put in the NT & Beyond article that in fact it was not my idea. It arose as a result of an aviation report.
Well, I spoke to a number of people, and have done so more so in passing than for any other reason about this aviation report. No one knows of its existence. I gather from speaking to a particular person yesterday that, whereas the government minders said on the one hand it was an aviation report, that it slipped a bit to possibly being something of a pamphlet, or maybe being written down somewhere. They were unable to confirm any more than that.
The point of these stories is that the government is bereft of ideas. We are very happy to assist them from the opposition benches. I would not be doing my job very well at all if I did not come up with ideas for government. Certainly, I have in the past, and credit where credit is due. When they see the light and start doing the right thing, I am the first one to jump up and congratulate them.
Getting back to Building a Better Territory, a fascinating reference is:
- Use the Tourism Drives Management Committee to lead a whole-of-government approach to provide
appropriate road infrastructure to support visitor touring programs and regional dispersal.
As I understand that, it is a commitment to improve roads in the Northern Territory. Yet the government must score, at this very early stage, a big fat zero out of 10 because it was announced recently that the government shelved plans of their promises made during the election campaign to provide $40m over two terms of government to establish a sealed east-west highway from Docker River to the Queensland border as the Northern Territory’s contribution to the Great Outback Highway. I have been looking at this issue in recent days for some other reasons, and have been wading through copies of media releases that were issued during the election campaign. There is no doubt at all that this was an election promise. It was made in Alice Springs and the evidence is there. Yet we have this government, almost 12 months into its administration saying: ‘No, no, no, no, no. We did not actually promise that. Oh, sorry. Things have got in the way. We are not going to do that’. If they knew that they were going to abort that promise, I would have thought that the government would not have a reference in this document - which the government says is all important - to improving road infrastructure.
Coming back to the theme of my address, this is something of a mixed bag. The government says in the plan that it will promote increased industry accreditation. The CLP started accreditation of the industry. For my part, based on what tourism operators have said to me, I look forward to increased industry accreditation, and I wish the government well in that regard.
Something else the government has promised - and I take this document at face value; it is glossy. I also note with some interest that the Chief Minister, when she was in opposition, indicated that she would never produce any glossy documents and that the CLP always had so many. Well, I have seen truck loads in recent times. I lost count of them some time ago. But in this glossy document …
Mr Maley: It looks pretty glossy to me.
Ms CARNEY: It looks pretty glossy to me too, member for Goyder. But I take it - and I assume that the Chief Minister wants all of us to take this as gospel - this is their outline. This is their plan and they will be judged on it in due course. It is, therefore, with some interest and scepticism that I refer to the part on page 20 of the document where it states that the government will increase air transport access into the Northern Territory. It goes on; it says it will continue to develop business cases. I wonder where I have heard that before? This Tourism Minister goes around the Northern Territory - and I have seen him - sprouting off the Northern Territory government mantra ‘business case, business case’.
Those words have rung in my ears - and the ears of others - since about October last year. There is an indication here that this government will increase capacity of domestic and international carriers to better service Alice Springs, Yulara and Darwin. Because Virgin Blue services the top half of the Northern Territory, then Darwin is, to a significant extent, better placed than Alice Springs. Already, again, I think, for the third time in this reply, I have said that the government will score zero out of 10.
They are my preliminary observations from this report. I go back to my expression about it being a mixed bag. For those matters which I have said at the outset, I wish the government well - the strategic tourism plan; its efforts to lift cabotage and so on - I look forward to results in this regard. However, not to put too fine a point on it, the government is already behind the eight ball; it is in deficit in terms of meeting some of its lofty ambitions contained in this document. In a sense, the government can only go up. We look forward to it, but the government ought not think for a moment that it will not be scrutinised in any way, shape, or form by this opposition in relation to so many of the noble statements contained therein.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Population Strategy Issues Paper
Population Strategy Issues Paper
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to provide the Assembly with a ministerial statement on the release for community comment of the Northern Territory Population Strategy Issues Paper. In releasing this paper, my government is furthering its commitment to consult the community in forming policy directions in important areas of Territory life. We are seeking the engagement of individuals and key community members, such as indigenous groups, ethnic organisations, employers, unions and non-government organisations. This issues paper is another step in our process of active community engagement, to involve the community in the social and economic planning. This will create the common vision that will shape our planning for the Territory’s future.
The government acknowledges that governments are responsible for the development of infrastructure to meet the needs of normal population growth. The planning for roads, schools, hospitals and utility services is all based on future population growth projections. With the release of this issues paper, the government is particularly keen to engage in discussion about how we might better manage population growth, what level of population growth we want, and where it might come from. A key objective from the issues paper is to ensure that, in the process of investigating Territory population policy strategies, there is vigorous and open public discussion within our community. With this in mind, indigenous communities, business associations, trade unions, local community groups - in short, all Territorians - are encouraged to contribute and provide comment and feedback.
In recent months, there has been a national discussion on the development of Australia’s population over the next 50 years. There are those who hold the view that the Australian population has to increase significantly in order to fulfill the economic potential of the nation. Against this are those who consider that any further growth in the population will have an adverse environmental impact on this country. This debate is interesting, but not entirely useful, in helping the Territory to shape a population policy. We need an approach to population policy that reflects the unique realities of the Territory: our high indigenous birth rate, our high population mobility and our special skills needs. Each of these aspects of our population structure requires special attention.
In November last year, the government held an Economic Development Summit, which identified a range of population issues for the Territory. The lack of what was seen as a critical mass in the population of the Territory underpinned many of the discussions at this summit. Many in the business community expressed the belief that a bigger population would automatically bring higher economic growth rates. I think this is an interesting topic to explore, but as I will discuss shortly, the issue is more complex than that and requires further research. Let us go to some background.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in June last year the population of the Territory was estimated at a shade over 200 000: 52% males and 48% females. The estimated Australian population as of that date was 19.5 million. When we break down these figures further, we find some interesting differences between the Territory and Australia as a whole. For example, the estimated indigenous population of the Territory as of June last year represented about 29% of the total Territory population. In contrast, the total indigenous population of Australia represents about 2% of the total. Since the majority of indigenous people live in communities remote from major population centres, this large and important group, as we know, brings its own unique challenges for the provision of government services. My government has implemented, or is designing, several initiatives to address these special features of the Territory’s population structure. I refer here to the Health Department zones and our responses to Bob Collins’ Learning Lessons report.
Another important fact is that the Territory has a relatively young population, with a median age of approximately 29 years, which compares with the median age of approximately 35 years for the Australian population as a whole. According to the projections made by the ABS covering the next 20 years, the median age of the Territory population is expected to rise to approximately 32 years, while the median age of all Australians is expected to increase to approximately 41 years. In all likelihood, we will continue to have a relatively young population in national terms. This is important because it means that we will continue to have a high proportion of our society who are juggling work and family. It contains a high level of demand for particular types of services; for instance, such as primary and secondary education and primary health care.
The Territory has the highest birth rate of any Australian jurisdiction, with a considerably higher number of younger mothers than the rest of Australia. This is mainly a reflection of the high proportion of indigenous women in the population whose birth rates are much higher than those of non-indigenous women.
In July 2001, the ABS published population projections for the Territory covering a 20-year period to 2021. These projections were compiled with the significant contribution from the Territory government’s statistical liaison committee. The government has used these projections for the purposes of this populations strategy issues paper.
Of course, population growth in the Territory will occur whether or not there is any action on the part of government. Nevertheless, it is the desire of the government to anticipate such future growth so that proper services can be provided when and where they are needed. To do this, we need accurate information about our population growth rates and mobility. Perhaps just as importantly, we need to work out how to attract more people of the right skills, and keep those who are here for our overall economic and social benefit.
Before I talk about how that may be done, I want to discuss one very important aspect of population policy here; and that is how we can improve indigenous social outcomes. In May this year, my colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Services, made a statement to this Assembly with regard to the proposed changes in the delivery of health services to indigenous communities in the Territory. The government is determined to achieve improvements in the living conditions and outlook for our indigenous communities. While indigenous people have a high birth rate, they suffer from a range of difficulties including poor health, high infant mortality and low life expectancy. In fact, the current social and economic conditions under which a majority of our indigenous people are living, are simply unacceptable to this government and, I believe, to this House. As this House knows, the government plans to improve indigenous access to general education and health care. As a result of our plans, we are hoping over time there will be a substantial reduction in infant mortality rates and a significant improvement in indigenous life expectancy. It is a well known fact that as social conditions improve in many societies, birth rates tend to decline. This may occur in the indigenous community, but it may not occur. In any case, our approach to indigenous issues will not be governed by population management considerations. Our approach will properly be governed by trying to assist the indigenous communities to get access to the same health and education opportunities as are available to other Australians.
Let me now turn to another important aim of our population policy; and that is how to keep and attract a skilled work force. This is one of the core issues that any population policy debate must address. The government considers that it is essential that investors and employers have access to an educated and skilled work force so that the full economic potential of the Territory is realised. The Territory’s work force is typically young, mobile and transient. The mobility of the work force adds to employment costs and makes it difficult for Territory businesses to compete in national and international markets. We know that there are high rates of immigration to other states and abroad amongst skilled and professional employees. What we do not know is why that is so. We are already in dialogue with employers, employees and unions to develop ways to make Territory workplaces more attractive; to encourage the retention of educated and skilled workers. But it may be that more needs to be done. We must try to make the Territory workplaces more inclusive and better recognised for adopting the best work practices and employment policies. It may also be necessary to question existing policies. For example, is it time to question the need for a mandatory retiring age?
With the construction of the AustralAsia Railway, the expansion of the Port of Darwin and the emerging development of oil and gas-based industries, there will be a dramatic change in the skill requirements of the Territory. With this in mind, there is a need for a comprehensive reassessment of our work force needs. We need a population plan to build our skilled work force. It is also essential that we improve our understanding of what is happening in our work force. To this end, the government considers there is a need for a centralised, coordinated and active approach to population data collection, analysis and research. The government also considers that, as part of this data collection, there needs to be qualitative and quantitative exit surveys of young graduates, those in the work force, and retirees, to better understand the dynamics of population movement.
The government would like to ascertain the reasons why people move in and out of the Territory. The government considers it important for policy makers to appreciate the causes for population movement, particularly interstate movement. Also, the government would like to better understand the dynamics of intra-Territory population mobility, much of which involves our indigenous communities. As can be appreciated, the consequences of this mobility have a far-reaching impact on the delivery of services to these communities. The government is well aware that there needs to be a balance between population growth and preserving the pristine environment with which we are blessed in the Northern Territory. The challenge facing the Territory will be to avoid repeating the environmental mistakes made in other parts of Australia while developing the Territory for the benefit of all Territorians. These are some of the areas identified where additional government effort will be needed in order to make a positive effort to support the Northern Territory’s population growth.
As I noted earlier, there are also areas - mainly relating to migration - where this government may consider new programs to accelerate population growth. It may be that we need to consider incentives for overseas and interstate migration to the Territory. The government could consider specific strategies which will encourage greater numbers of business and skilled overseas migrants. In this regard, the federal government has introduced flexible overseas migration programs that are regionally focussed. This enables states and territories to address specific skill shortages and attract overseas investors to establish new businesses and joint ventures. Compared with other jurisdictions, in recent years the Territory has not fully utilised the opportunities to bring in more skilled and business migrants. There is scope for the Territory government to take a more proactive approach to promote the Northern Territory as a desirable migration destination. Since 1997, the Territory has been losing many residents to other states. There is no proper statistical evidence that points to specific reasons for these outflows. The government accepts that more information is required as to why people leave the Territory and what measures we might introduce to try to halt this.
In order for the community to have ownership of the Territory population strategy, the government intends to seek feedback on this issues paper and also hold a series of discussion sessions across the Territory. The details of these sessions will be advertised through local media and on the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development web site. I urge Territorians to become engaged in this process. It is a very important discussion about our future. The release of an issues paper marks the start of the community discussion about how the Northern Territory should plan for the economic and social needs of our population 20 years hence. It is the intention of government to present in this place a finalised population policy by May 2003. That policy will reflect the discussion initiated today with this issues paper.
With the completion of the construction of the AustralAsia Railway and stage two of the development of the Port of Darwin, plus the development of downstream gas-based industries as a consequence of gas coming onshore, the Territory is on the verge of a significant economic take-off. To create a sustainable economy from these developments we need, as a government, to seize the initiative. This will require better services to improve the skills of our current population, and it may also require active steps to attract and retain an adequate, skilled and capable work force. It is also an integral part of this plan that we create the conditions that will allow indigenous Territorians to participate fully in this new economy.
What we are aiming for, as I have said before in this place, is to improve the fairness of our society along with the strength of our economy. We believe these two aims go hand-in-hand. This holds true for building a good population policy as well as in all other aspects of government policy. Good policy in this area can only be achieved in partnership with the people of the Territory, and that is why I am so pleased to be able to start the consultation process with an issues paper for debate and discussion.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome this statement from the Chief Minister. The statement flags a desire by the government to engage the community in an active discussion on population growth, asking the questions of what level we want and where it might come from. The discussion paper highlights, essentially, three areas for discussion. First, how can we improve indigenous social outcomes? In that regard it points to the fact that we should ensure that Aboriginal Territorians have access to health and education opportunities as are available to other Australians. I would suggest that that is a laudable and self-evident duty of any government. Second, how to attract and keep a skilled work force, particularly in an environment of current and potential infrastructure opportunities emerging with the railway, the port and gas, which will require a comprehensive reassessment of our work force needs. Third, issues on migration where the government is looking at considering strategies to encourage greater numbers of new businesses and skilled overseas migrants.
We can all benefit from knowing more about why people come to the Territory or why people leave it and, in particular, what more needs to be done. In fact, that was one of the reasons the previous government engaged in the surveys and market research that led to the ‘The Difference is Opportunity’ campaign. Those surveys asked Territorians what they liked about the Territory and why they lived here. Similarly, we sought information from outside on what they thought about the Territory and what they wanted. From that we could build an image to sell the Territory to attract new Territorians and new investment.
There has never been any doubt on this side of the House that we knew the Territory was going to grow and we actively sought that growth and planned for it. The basic economic rule of critical mass, as the Chief Minister mentioned, leads not only to further growth - particularly in jobs - but to a market of sufficient size that will produce - if not lower - prices for goods and services, that are at least competitive with other states.
It is interesting to note, if you look at the ABS statistics, that 30 years ago the population of the Northern Territory was about 80 000 people. At the time of self-government in 1978, it was just under 120 000 people. Now it is estimated to be just over 200 000 people. In other words, the number of Territorians - or those of us who would like to be considered Territorians - has increased in that time by 67% since we gained control through self-government of most of our own affairs in 1978. In that same time, the population of Australia has risen by about 36%. It is a pretty interesting comparison that you have a 67% growth over that 20-year period compared with an average growth of about 36% Australia-wide.
In that regard, we need to recognise that here in the Territory the public policy of successive governments has been dominated by two underlying facts: first, the need to address the benign neglect the Territory had experienced in the 67 years of direct rule from Melbourne or Canberra; and second, to cope with the demands and needs of a rapidly expanding Territory population. In that regard, if we are looking at what the strategies are that we need to think about for the future, it is worth recognising that successive governments have positioned us well for the future challenges. It is important that we do not ignore those things that have gotten us this far. Perhaps a reflection on that simple fact - that the Territory population has increased by 67% since self-government compared to the rest of the Australia at 36% - should give us some cause to consider what we have now that is a successful model; albeit a model that can always be improved.
These are facts that the Labor Party itself does not dispute. They acknowledge that the Territory is great. It was their election campaign: ‘The Territory is great; we are going to make a better Territory’. They went to the election on that manifesto and, of course, the jury will decide on that achievement at the next election.
The future of the Northern Territory can only be looked at, in my mind, in terms of people. I am talking about our children, our grandchildren and those who come here, living in comfort and good health, working together enterprisingly, enjoying the uniqueness of our natural environment and the infrastructure we continuously build to enhance that lifestyle. We have a relaxed lifestyle that is attractive and different. We have a virtually untouched landscape. We offer excellent health and education services for those who wish to access them which, in turn, provides opportunities and jobs for those who want them. Our economy is built on hard work and direct government stimulus, that has created outstanding successes in tourism and resource development. With the completion of the AustralAsia Railway, East Arm Port, gas to the Northern Territory, and Darwin’s pivotal role in the wider region, it will simply be cemented by those initiatives. The Territory will reach its potential as a service and distribution centre for the region.
I accept that there are those on the other side who may not agree with that, but there is always more that we can do, and more that we can learn. Previous governments took such initiatives as establishing the Northern Territory University to provide young Territorians with an alternative to having to go elsewhere for their tertiary education. In the same way, projects such as this very Parliament House were given the go-ahead in order to keep a skilled building work force in the Territory when other work had dried up. There is always a need for such strategies, just as there is always a need to rethink the established way of doing things, as the Chief Minister has flagged. For example, as she said, is there a need for a mandatory retiring age?
I have to say to you that I have not had a long look at this particular document that has gone out as an issues paper. I accept the fact that it provides a basis for further discussion and, in that regard, it is fine. One of the key issues in this particular paper is where it says, on page 11 of 17:
- Key issues:
Need for a centralised, coordinated and proactive approach to population data collection
and research
dynamics of population movements
On my quick perusal, might I suggest to the government that the first examination I would do would be of the data that seems to be accepted in this particular document straight off - data such as migration to and from the Northern Territory. If you look at the graph, it would, on the face of it, paint a picture that causes some concern; that people are leaving the Northern Territory and, therefore, we need to address that imbalance. Firstly, if you look at the graph on page 16, those migrating to the Northern Territory and those leaving the Northern Territory, the first thing that struck me is the rapid build-up of population beginning around 1993-94 and ending around 1997-98. The rapid build-up of population that indicates up to about 1500 people or more in interstate migration. The Army build-up was at its peak then. Also, if you look at the fall-off in people leaving the Northern Territory since then, most Army posting cycles would be about two to three years. I do not know whether I would read anything into that graph at all that would cause me any cause for concern. I might be wrong, but I simply say that on the face of it, I just cannot see where the key issue - further investigation of negative flows of interstate migration - holds up.
I pulled out the ABS figures on overseas migration in the Northern Territory from 1980 right through to the year 2000. If you look at permanent and long-term overseas migration arrivals in the Northern Territory over that time; the figures of those arriving and leaving have not really changed. For many years, there has been a slight plus, and it is only in this last couple of years that there has been a very small - sorry, in terms of overseas migration, in fact, it is a net plus. Generally, in that trend over the whole period, ending up in the year 2000, 2414 permanent long-term arrivals came to the Northern Territory and 1472 left. So, there is about a 1000-plus in overseas migration. If you look at the interstate migration for the states and territories over the same period, you see that the arrivals have generally been matched - those arriving and departing interstate - with the only difference, really, ending up in the year 2000. This occurs from time to time over that period. However, the only difference in the year 2000 is that there were 16 274 arrivals and 17 145 departures. To my mind, the most you can get out of that is a 1000 people.
I say that it seems to me that the graphs themselves need much further interrogation. The issue of people leaving - whether it is particularly interstate migration - needs to be seen clearly in terms of not only the seasonal changes that occur in the Northern Territory, but also the fact that the Army posting cycle is moving along the way it was intended. I cannot see anything that would cause me alarm in terms of our migration numbers, or that overseas migrants are leaving the Northern Territory. That does not say you do not need to put in better programs to attract more overseas migrants to the Northern Territory. I applaud those initiatives and anything that can be done to leverage off the programs that are in place nationally to attract overseas migrants to the Northern Territory.
The other thing that I thought was interesting was that there seems to me to be a contradiction in the statement. I am not quite sure whether the statement is saying this: ‘We have a large economy and rapidly growing economy that we have to have sufficient skilled people and population to meet’, or ‘We have a problem in the Northern Territory whereby people are leaving and we have to do something about it’. We might have both, but I cannot see it in the historical data to date. The historical data is simply this: in the Northern Territory for the last 20 years, we have grown the Territory by 67%. People have been attracted to come to the Northern Territory in overwhelming numbers, in comparison to the Australian average of 36%.
The thing that then strikes me is, if you look to page 7 of the issues paper, and t the year-on-year projections of population growth - and the Chief Minister points out that these ABS projections are based on three series. Series A assumes a high fertility, high net interstate and overseas migration; series B assumes medium low fertility, medium net interstate, overseas migration; and series C assumes low fertility, low net interstate migration and overseas migration in terms of population growth. If you look at the highest prediction, it predicts the Northern Territory to grow from 203 400 to 308 700 in 20 years. That is an increase of 50%. At the high rate of growth on ABS predictions, you are 10% slower on the growth rate that we have not only experienced but accommodated; and accommodated extremely well.
If you go to the low series, obviously there is a problem because there is only a growth rate of 28 000 people or 14%. 14% growth rate over 20 years compared to a 67% growth rate of the last 20 years is cause for concern. It seems to me the end result of all of that is that in the Northern Territory - firstly, I do not believe there is a problem. I cannot see where the Northern Territory has a problem in terms of accommodating the projected growth. It seems to me that the fundamentals that have been in place since self-government are attractive and are working, otherwise we would not have such a large population growth over that time. So, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water; let us look for reasons how we can, maybe, look at strategies that worked in the past and enhance those strategies for the future.
There is no doubt that if you then go back to say: ‘Righto, what does the Territory have that is attractive to people, that would convince them to stay here?’, you would go back to that idea of the difference is opportunity. I hope that we never get to a stage in the Northern Territory where government action is such that we fall into line and become just another state like the rest of Australia, with the same types of legislation and environmental and law and order issues, and all those things that essentially predominate in a crowded city environment experience - that is where you are hoping to get most of your population from.
People want good education opportunities for their kids. The previous government recognised that when we put in place the NTU. There was a real need in the Northern Territory, I believe, to take the issue of the Northern Territory University as a number one issue for government. It has to be made far more attractive to keep the students who want to gain tertiary qualifications, and also to keep them in a way that not only will they study here, but they will stay here.
The same with health. No, you do not attract families in a modern age to any place unless you have adequate health facilities in place. Not only that, but access to specialist services that families expect nowadays. That has always been a continuing problem for the Northern Territory in attracting not only doctors, but skilled specialists, and the obvious need that we have to enhance those facilities right across the spectrum, particularly in the remoter parts of the Northern Territory.
With regard to lifestyle, people want a good lifestyle for their families. They want a relaxed lifestyle if they work hard. They are working hard to get ahead. They want to be able to relax in a way that is good for them and their families, and that is one of the things that we have prided ourselves on.
I wonder how much this idea of ‘the difference is opportunity’ boils down to jobs? Because many, I believe, have been attracted to come to the Northern Territory because of the opportunity to get jobs; better opportunities than exist in other places. That assumption is borne out by the rapid economic growth that we have had over the last 20 years; the simple fact that abundant jobs have been available for those who wanted to pursue them. That has been a prime attractor of people to the Northern Territory over that time.
One of the things the Northern Territory CLP government did some time ago was take an active decision to say: ‘If we want to stabilise and grow the Northern Territory population, what are the things that we can do to do that?’ I have listed some of the things that we did. Also, we said: ‘We have to make it possible for people to be able to buy their homes in the Northern Territory’. We had too high a rental population; too mobile a population. You not only need to attract people to come here but you have to encourage them to stay here. That was a recognition that in the Northern Territory, the home ownership was far below the national average. The national average of home ownership is about 67% of the population. In the Northern Territory, it is well below that. Even after the strategies that the CLP government employed, it is still around about 48% of the population. Those strategies included things such as low home interest loans for first home buyers and low interest loan schemes in any case.
The active involvement of the Territory government in the marketplace, in ensuring that there was adequate land made available, and made available at a price that entry home buyers could afford, ensured there was an attractiveness for them to stay in the Northern Territory. It is interesting to see how that particular fundamental has changed. It was not so long ago that a traditional home block in the Northern Territory would be classed, as most people would agree, about 800 m2, and that you could have bought one of those home blocks for about $45 000. I know that it was not uncommon for 1000 m2 home blocks to go for about $60 000. But the availability of what we would all agree was a traditional home block of about 800 m2, was available at around the $45 000 and, in many instances, much less than that.
If you are looking at the demographics of a young family who want to settle in the Northern Territory …
Ms Lawrie: It might be Palmerston rates, not Darwin.
Mr BURKE: You say not in Darwin. I am saying if you are looking at the demographics of a young family who want to settle in the Northern Territory and want to buy their own home; talk to the real estate agents and ask: ‘What is the level at which they cannot obtain bank funding?’ On the inquiries that I have made, it is probably around about $180 000. For that, they need to put aside about $130 000 - $120 000 to $140 000 - for the three-bedroom house with no frills at all. For them to get their house-land package, you then have to put a package of land in that. If the land is not available for less than $60 000 a block, they are done; they cannot get in.
Worse than that, if they really want to aspire to the Australian dream, as many do, home affordability translates now into small block affordability. That is something the member for Nelson mentioned before. I believe we need to actively re-enter that particular market as a government; and I have done it. I have looked in terms of, for example, the land that is being released in Palmerston. In the greater Darwin area, it would probably be the cheaper land that is available, compared with the northern suburbs of Darwin. If you look at that land availability and say: ‘How much does a traditional block cost you?’, the first thing you would find out is that there is a new definition of what is a ‘traditional block’.
A traditional block is now no more than 600 m2 and probably dropping in many respects. Then you have blocks as low as 350 m that are being marketed somehow as a family block, or can accommodate the family home. For the person who is going out there looking for their 800 m block, they are not in the hunt. I can run through prices here. You just cannot find an 800 m block. There is one here in Rosebery, 800 m, $80 000; 830 m, $80 000. If you drop back to 600 m, $59 500; 597 m, $57 000, at some of the better estates in Palmerston. I say this as well: I think it is great, the way the sweep of developments have occurred. It has done a great service to the Northern Territory the way the amenities of those developments have been turned off; it is fantastic. But what we need to ensure all the time is that there is a suite of land available for all the economic levels of people who are looking to buy their own home. We did that in the past. It is disappearing now and we need to actively get ourselves involved in it because you simply cannot buy one place here in The Chase - high standard development; great development. But if you look for an 800 m block of land, you are into $85 000 at least. If you drop down to the 600 m blocks of land, you are in for at least $67 000 to $70 00-odd. You can go right through land availability in Palmerston, and I can tell you, you cannot find an 800 m block or a 600 m block at a price that can get a home-land package in a general sense - obviously there are always exceptions - to get you in at about $180 000.
I believe that that is one of the things that we should actively involve ourselves in, and I would urge the government to do that. Look at what has happened in the past; at the fact that when the CLP government released land, it released land packages for developers to develop, and it was actively involved on the caveats on those developments, and that so much land would be reserved for entry level purchasers. In some cases, the government themselves held that land and auctioned the land out with a reserve price that was no more than we believed first home buyers needed.
That has disappeared, it disappeared in the last instance, because of the hold-up of native title in Palmerston over the Bellamack/Rosebery subdivision. What happened was we turned out the Farrar subdivsion without any of those caveats. That is a good subdivision. It is going ahead, but it does not have that proviso in there for first home buyers’ land. Certainly, with the land release the government has negotiated now with Rosebery/Bellamack, none of those caveats are there. I would urge the government to look at that very closely: a recognition that you need a whole suite of developments, a high standard developments, and large scale blocks for those who like rural living; but you have to keep your eye very closely on the ball as to what the first home buyer can afford and what is available in the marketplace. If you do not do that, I believe you will have the same congestion that exists in cities where you have villa style homes - so-called. Nice names, and they certainly suit some people. However, for many people who have young families and are trying to buy their first home, they find themselves in a very small house, on a very small block, in a very crowded amenity, in a general sense.
I hope that that is one of the things the government does look at with its population strategy. As I said, it is a paper statement from the Chief Minister that essentially lays a few issues on the table and seeks wide comment from the community. I hope that that comment comes through. I hope that the government comes forward, eventually, with some very proactive and practical strategies for how we meet our population needs in the future.
In summary, I do not believe that the paper itself substantiates some of the concerns, because I believe the graphs themselves need some further interrogation. But in a general sense, we know the Northern Territory is on the verge of large scale economic development. We do need to skill-up our work force. We do need to not only attract more people to the Northern Territory, but attract them in a way that will encourage them to stay here. Many of the strategies that have been employed in the past we know are successful because of the percentage growth rates we have achieved. Those strategies should be maintained and enhanced. I hope that from this issues paper other ideas and initiatives come through, and the opposition will look forward to seeing what they are.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development) Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is good to follow the Leader of the Opposition in a genuine constructive mood. Certainly, some of the comments that he made are issues that the government is looking at.
In terms of the history of this paper and where it came from, the Economic Development Summit dictated one of the clear things the community wanted the government to look at was the issue of population and sustained population growth in the Northern Territory. I suppose we need to look at that recommendation and the climate of the time in terms of what was happening and what had happened in the economy over the preceding two years.
It was at a time - whether it was the first time in the Territory’s history, but certainly for the first time in many years – when we had gone through the 2000-01 financial year, where we had zero growth in the Northern Territory economy. It was in the climate of the implementation of the GST and the completion of the massive Defence build-up in the Northern Territory with nothing to replace it, particularly in the construction sector. We are a very small economy; we have a very narrow base to our economy where the construction sector plays a large part in the economy. The construction sector had really hit a brick wall, and it was within this climate of the economy at the time that the Economic Development Summit was held, and this initiative was put fairly and squarely on the table.
If we refer to the graphs on page 16 that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about, we can see that, essentially, what was happening - and I suppose the debates will bear this out – was that the numbers of interstate migration to the Northern Territory did peak around 1996-97. As the Leader of the Opposition said, that was at the peak of the move of those Defence Force personnel and their families to the Northern Territory. The impacts that that had on the economy, particularly in the construction sector in terms of constructing the new facilities, homes, shops, and schools to accommodate that big increase in population that was occurring at that time, was huge.
I believe what has happened since then is - and, again, this is what is borne out in the paper that we need to have the better demographic research - as the economy hit the wall, those Defence Force personnel and their families had located here and, as unemployment went from an average of around 3% to 4% to double that, to 8% - predominantly most of that increase was in the Darwin, Palmerston area - with the high cost of living that we have here in the Northern Territory, people just could not afford to live here without work. So, if we look at the chart, that exodus does coincide with the downturn in the economy.
The other factor that needs to be looked into through this public consultation period is the high cost of living here in the Northern Territory. If we go back 10 or 15 years in the Northern Territory, I agree, the reasons that people came to the Northern Territory in the first place - the reason why we had that 67% growth since self-government the Opposition Leader spoke about - was predominantly jobs and opportunity driven. It was certainly what brought me to the Northern Territory 20 years ago, and very many other people. What attracted us here was the fact that it was known that the jobs were easy to get and they were well paid jobs - and substantially well paid jobs in comparison to what was on offer interstate. We were at the top of the pack for many years. The ACT used to pip us from time to time in terms of wages for ordinary working people. What we have also seen during that period is those average weekly earnings for Territorians have slipped back and we are now, if not in the middle of the pack, just beneath or around the middle of the pack. So again, we have come back to having wages in the Northern Territory to be commensurate with that found in the rest of Australia, but still a high cost of living. I believe – and it will be interesting to see what comes out of this consultation period - that has also led to, in part, the general trends to that net migration loss over that period. It is something that I believe we need to really refocus on: how we can become a high wage economy again in the Northern Territory.
I am hopeful that this document will really start to tease out some of those issues and also that the community will come forward. The community has to come forward; it cannot be a totally government driven exercise. The business community and the broader community has to come forward with a real effort in terms of re-establishing the Northern Territory as the place to turn to if you are looking for work and opportunities for your family.
In rising to support the Chief Minister’s statements on the release of the population strategy, I wish briefly to provide the Assembly with the economic backdrop against which the government is promoting the growth of the Territory’s population. The Territory is strategically placed to benefit from its proximity to Asian resources and markets. The multicultural mix that makes up the Territory community assists Territory business to access these resources and markets. It is a very key resource to work through our multicultural community here in the Northern Territory to further develop our economy. There are great opportunities to look at how we can significantly increase the number of overseas migrants who choose to settle in the Northern Territory.
We all know that we have 1% of the population of Australia’s population in the Northern Territory but, from the research that I have seen, over the last four or five years we have only managed to achieve 0.2% on average of the migrant intake to the Northern Territory. So, we are not even commensurate with our population. If those figures had been achieved last year, that was an additional 600 people who would have settled in the Northern Territory. Those migrants can come from the business stream, from the family reunion stream and also the refugee category. I am talking about the genuine refugees that are accepted in Australia. We have opportunities there and it is going to be really interesting to see what comes out from this community discussion paper. Even if we can reach relativity at 1%, that will, year on year, be a significant boost to our population.
The Territory has developed an important relationship with Asia and I acknowledge the work done by the previous government, and which we will continue to build upon.
In the Australian context, the Territory is a small economy that is resource rich. Much of the potential of the Territory has still to be harnessed and, for this purpose, the government considers it essential that we have a growing educated population. The Territory economy has yet to transform itself from being a primary producer and service provider to a manufacturer involved in high-tech value-adding, which will contribute much to our economic growth. In anticipation of this, in our economic development strategy we have committed to work with business and industry to release a manufacturing strategy by June 2003, and this will be a first for the Northern Territory.
As a consequence of the AustralAsia Railway, the development of the Port of Darwin and the bringing onshore of gas, over the medium term the Territory is expected to undergo a major phase of economic developments.
Independent forecasters, Access Economics and BIS Shrapnel, forecast that the Northern Territory economy will grow strongly over the next five years, driven mainly by construction investment. These forecasts are based on the assumption that the large gas projects will go ahead within the next five years or so. Access Economics has forecast an average annual Territory growth rate of 4.6% for the five years to 2005-06, despite uncertainty with regard to the development of offshore gas projects, while they anticipate the national growth to be 2.9%. The employment growth of the Territory has been estimated at 3.3% over the period. On the other hand, BIS Shrapnel forecast an annual growth rate of 6.5% over the same period compared with a national growth forecast of 3.8%.
There are many areas of economic activity that will develop the Territory and will expand the Territory’s population over the next 20 years. As we all know, the Timor Sea gas contains significant world class gas and oil reserves that are ready for development. As the Assembly is aware, it is expected that, with the development of value-added projects such as the LNG plant to be constructed at Wickham Point, there will be substantial employment opportunity for Territorians. I do not need to remind the House again that the construction of that plant when it goes ahead, just during the construction phase alone, will employ at its peak 1500 people. We need to make sure that a lot of those people will have to be recruited from interstate, but that we do everything we can to keep those people once they get here.
Investment in Bayu-Undan stage one, for the production of condensate and LPG, is underway and is expected to come into full production in 2004. While the major portion of the engineering work is occurring overseas, that portion of the work that is carried out in the Northern Territory will have a significant impact on the local engineering sector. I go to the Opposition Leader’s comments about a lot of the growth we have seen in the Territory economy over the last 20-odd years has been as a result of direct government stimulus and active involvement in the marketplace.
We acknowledge that that is the way to go, but if we contrast that with the federal government’s position on the development of the Sunrise field at the moment, this is precisely the point of argument that we are putting to the Commonwealth: that we have to, as governments, get involved and state the outcome which we wish to achieve and then work with the producers and industry to arrive at that outcome. There is no more better example than the previous Chief Minister’s comments that if we are looking for economic growth or population growth, there has to be jobs. It is a bit ‘chicken and the egg’. At the end of the day, governments do have to be involved. Governments are involved in the economy, particularly in the Northern Territory where we are such a dominant player by the spending power that government still has on our economy. We must diversify that. The best opportunity we have over the next 10 years is to bring this gas onshore. That direct government stimulus and active involvement is certainly something that we are encouraging the Commonwealth to come to the party on.
The mining of minerals in the Northern Territory is a mature industry. Downstream mineral resource development projects and processing opportunities are being identified and evaluated. Again, if we get that gas onshore, we are talking about billions of dollars of investment in McArthur River, Borroloola and at Nhulunbuy, in processing and value-adding to the resources that have been taken out of the ground there. That is where we have to move to. Technical and market research in conjunction with the Northern Territory geological survey is identifying new opportunities for targetted mineral exploration and facilitating pre-feasibility studies of known mineral resources.
In June this year, I launched the International Trade Strategy with the intent to finalising the strategy by the end of September the year. The feedback on this paper has been overwhelmingly positive, and has highlighted the importance of trade to the Territory’s future.
The Territory’s export of commodities increased by a massive 65% to $4.6bn in the financial year to 2001. However, this increase - and this is where we have to be careful with these numbers - is mainly due to the increase in oil exports which account for 70% of Territory’s exports; most of those from the Laminaria field which is currently Australia’s largest single producing field. When you strip those numbers out from the mining and the resource sector, that is where we have to put the emphasis, as well as not losing sight of the importance of that sector in growing the primary industry services sector. Because, if you take one project out of those figures and the deck of cards falls in.
The services sector accounts for over 10% of the total Territory exports. In the short term, trade will be effected by the negative impact of 11 September, the terrorist attacks in the United States; the winding down of the United Nations’ operation in East Timor; and the collapse of Ansett. However, with the anticipated development in the resource sector and the transport infrastructure, it is expected that further out, there will be a major boost to the Territory economy.
More than 1.5 million visitors come to the Northern Territory each year. Many of them come to the Territory to see ‘the real Australia’. In domestic and international tourist markets, the Territory is positioned as an outback nature and adventure destination. The Territory has a great opportunity to further develop the tourism industry. Certainly, we as a government are hell-bent in building opportunities for the industry and, in many areas, we are only scratching the surface.
With the construction of the railway, continued development of the gas and oil projects, and stage two of the East Arm Port, engineering construction is expected to provide the greatest growth over the next few years. It will be important - it will be essential - that Territory business get their fair share of the economic activity associated with these projects. It will be a great opportunity for Territory business to grow and prosper and develop their businesses and the skills of their employees.
As a government, we are committed to releasing an enhanced local content policy by the end of the year. We are intent on maximising the capability and opportunities for Northern Territory suppliers, services and labour, to participate in all phases of development projects from design through to construction to operation and, where appropriate, rehabilitation. The policy will be an integral part of the governments Territory-wide economic development commitment, and will be developed in line with our national and international obligations.
Again, we can see significant commercial building construction activity going on, particularly in Darwin at the moment with a significant number of major projects underway. Chinatown is about to start - another $200m project - with smaller office development occurring. But there is no doubt that the residential sector has been and is still very flat, and those smaller operators who do not win subcontracts to the big companies such as Barclays and others, are still suffering. It is going to continue to be difficult for those people until we start seeing that population growth that is going to drive the demand for the housing sector. That is where the population strategy is very important. Again, even if we were to achieve a representative number in our migrant intake combined with our total population, that would be 600 people a year. That is a lot of houses, and year on year is a lot of additional shopping centres and schools, which is all good for that residential construction sector.
The Northern Territory’s telecommunications infrastructure, a high proportion of which is now fibre optic cable, is modern and reliable. The commitment of the federal government to the equity and access to all Territorians has resulted in additional funding of communications infrastructure projects, and the Northern Territory government has been funded to provide increased band width capacity to 14 remote communities. Through the Networking the Nation initiative, the Electronic Outback project has been developed to provide technical equipment and infrastructure to communities so that data, faster e-mail and Internet access - and even video conferencing - will be accessible. The Local Government Association has been allocated funding to provide 23 community councils with the hardware and software necessary to access the Internet, e-mail and other e-commerce opportunities. Council will be provided with public access personal computers for general community use. Again, this technology does afford us the opportunity - and it has been highlighted in the population strategy and over many debates in this place over the years - to actually start seeing some sense of equity in service delivery to those remote communities: equity of access to information, diagnostic health services, and to education.
It is just not feasible in any budget allocation to have all of the health specialists that you need and require in every remote centre of the Northern Territory. However, through the use of this technology and the access of this infrastructure that is now being funded, we have to grasp that opportunity and look at new models of service delivery to those remote communities in the Northern Territory; therefore assisting the population development of those regions by providing better education and health services, and creating and providing economic opportunities for the regional parts of the Northern Territory.
The Territory is on the threshold of a challenging and exciting future as it faces the task of fulfilling its full economic potential. The government considers that the growth of the Territory population is a prerequisite to fulfilling this potential. There are new developments and opportunities that will be available to all Territorians. The commitment and contribution of all members of the community will be paramount in achieving this economic success. I would urge all Territorians who have an interest in this issue to get involved. I will certainly be talking to the business community - particularly the industry associations - to get their shoulders behind this particular push and really start to analyse what they can do to help keep and retain their work force. There is nothing more confronting to business in the Northern Territory than the high transient nature of the work force and the cost that continual recruitment and training has. Government is going to look to play our part, and I will be encouraging business to look and really analyse where they can assist to help keep people here in the Northern Territory.
Before I close, I have to recognise a public servant who has done a huge amount of work in putting this paper together: Chandra Seneviratne, who has been working in my office. He has done an enormous amount of research. The first draft of this strategy which came to me was about five times the size of this; a lot of very challenging options and opportunities in there. He has done an enormous amount of work in understanding the very complex issues and drivers of population. That work is now within government, and we will now be looking for the community to feed back to us in where we go jointly on this particular issue. With that work that is already done in government, I am very confident that, by May next year, we will be able to come out with very specific strategies and, hopefully, some targets. Working together with the business community and our ethnic communities in the Northern Territory, and the Commonwealth government, we really will be able to get out there and get more people from around the world and Australia to call the Northern Territory home, and realise the opportunities that are here. It is a great piece of work, and I would encourage all Territorians to have an input if they so desire.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this part of Australia - this part of the world, I guess - has always been, in the early days, a bit boom and bust. A lot of the people, including the previous speaker, the member for Wanguri, came here for jobs and opportunity. That has been a feature of this place for its whole life, I guess. There are places like Burrundie, Fountain Head, Birdum, that do not exist anymore. Like Union Reef, they were once thriving towns; they were situated on a railhead or an ore body. Sometimes hundreds and hundreds of people came in and lived in places like that, that no longer exist. They do not live there any more, and some of them are still gazetted towns. What it says for the Territory is that we have had people come to this place, use it for its opportunities and then depart. It has been quite a stoical, strong breed, I guess, that stayed and made the place their home.
This has, of course, changed. However, it is interesting to see those early days and our heritage, because I was a Commonwealth public servant before self-government, and we were a breed of people called compulsory transferees. At that time, Commonwealth public servants, for instance, could not buy their houses. The Northern Territory Public Service had two types: permanent services and industrial. The industrial were the long-termers; they were the guys who drove the cranes and the buses, and the mechanics in the workshop. The permanents were these dudes who came in every two years on two-year terms. They were the bureaucrats and the admin dudes, and they flitted in and out of offices and went back from whence they came.
We built vast suburbs in places like Wulagi and Anula that were 100% Housing Commission - 100%. Those suburbs were pretty much public service enclaves. If you look at the home ownership, for instance in Wulagi now, you will see it is something like 80% and 90% owned by the people who live there, many of whom have been public servants at about self-government time. You have to ask the question: what prompted them to stay? How did we stabilise the population? How did people who came from an ethic of a two-year term come to this place, get as much as they could out of it and leave? - and being encouraged to do so, I might add. The ethic was such that even for a local recruit such as myself, we got air fares every two years. It was predicated on this notion that this was a wilderness and every two years you had to go back to civilisation so you did not go troppo. You went to Sydney or some civilised place like that.
With the advent of those air fares going, you started to see people who said: ‘No, I do not want the air fare, I want the money because I want to build a pergola; I want to put in a new kitchen’, or ‘I would like to put a swimming pool in my place’. That was one of the telling features of the maturing of our public service: that people saw it as an entitlement that they did not want to lose, but they wanted some flexibility in how they spent it. They wanted to spend it at home, ie here, rather than being compelled to hop on a plane and go to the southern climes.
This has been a gradual thing, but it certainly accelerated at self-government. I guess after the cyclone really, because the people who came back to Darwin after the cyclone had been through a fairly strong test of loyalty to this place. For those who left: I do not bear any grudges against them because it was a pretty horrifying event for many people. But for those who came back, they came back with their hearts and lived under their floorboards because they wanted to be here. We were fortunate that self-government happened not long after that, because I think we built a strong, robust bunch of people who called this place their home; who wanted to stay here and buy houses. That is our heritage now; the heritage which augurs well for our population, I might add. The heritage now is that we have people who are third and fourth generation who are not going anywhere else.
One of the problems I have always believed that the Territory suffers from, is that Australia was settled upside down by Anglo Celts who looked for a place that replicated mother England or Ireland. They went to these cool places where you could grow apple and oranges and believed that the tropics were not good places for people of their ilk, and were wastelands. That view still pervades in Canberra and the southern cities today. This place should be much bigger. If we had been settled from the north, and had we been settled by people who had a tropical disposition, I think that Australia would be - certainly in a population sense - in the top and not down the bottom.
We have great resources: 25% of Australia’s groundwater resource is here; massive amounts of land; great climate; and that all augurs well for a continuing growth of population. Melville Island is a massive place. It is certainly much bigger than Hong Kong, which supports millions of people. So, if you look at how many people we can fit in here, and other places and the density of population, we are still a fairly empty place.
If you then move from the Wulagis and whatever, at about the time of self-government, the government planned and said: ‘This city will grow’. We planned a place called Palmerston. I can remember the hilarity with which that was treated, because the Palmerston Development Authority was actually in the same work area as I was. There was the feeling that this was a very foolish initiative of government and someone should put a chain mesh fence around it and forget they ever did it; and go back to selling land in the leafy northern suburbs. The thing was seen as a big mistake; it was not going to work. When it really hit its straps, it surprised many people just how fast Palmerston grew.
When we started talking about Weddell, there was this same hilarity. One of the problems with it is that we are planning for people who are not here now - people who have no voice, who are absent. But they will come; they will come in droves.
When we made submissions about Kenbi and talked about the need for Darwin to be able to grow, that too was treated with a great deal of hilarity that Darwin would be the size of greater London or something. Most of our population extrapolations have been under enumeration. We have looked at our population rate and have been wrong on the bottom side. We know that, in this century, our population will pass a million people. Some time during that we will pass the waning state, which is Tasmania, and we will overtake it. This brings up issues that are not in this issues paper like, for instance, self-government, statehood, and how many Senators we have. Some of those issues, believe it or not, are predicated on population. Some of the debate about how small we were - we were like a giant shire in NSW and Tassie is bigger – well, those issues will become a bit sharper soon because our population will force them to reckoned with.
If you look at what the CLP tried to do with statehood you will see it is fairly evident in the history - and it was touched on by the previous Chief Minister – about the issue of population stabilisation. We inherited a public service that saw their home as somewhere else; that were used to travelling frequently back to touch base with that home place; and were inducted with a transit nature. We had to address that pretty quickly. One of the ways we did it was with a scheme called the Pension Concession Scheme. As the shadow minister with the responsibility for seniors, this is still a good scheme today. It is still a good scheme, not because it addresses impecuniosity among our senior citizens but because it addresses a reward for people who make a decision to stay here. It gives them a benefit that is more generous than that available in any other place. It is partly a recognition that they have chosen to stay. It also is not a strictly economic policy, and was never seen in that way. It is seen that the seniors who do stay in this place can provide a great social benefit to us in terms of family support and their contribution, in a non-economic way, to the various recreational, social and sporting clubs. Our pension concession scheme has played a part in population stabilisation.
We are proud, for instance, that we have put in initiatives like our seniors villages. I was very disappointed when the member for Wanguri actively promoted a campaign against the seniors village in Leanyer. I am glad it is there; it looks very nice. Those people who live there are pleased to live there. The neighbours realise that the lies they were told that it could be something like Kurringal are now untrue, because it is not. The various myths that were put around about it being a high density residential development have been proven to be untrue, because it is there. It is something that, in some of his moments, the member for Wanguri must feel some sense of shame about; that he spent so much time actively campaigning against it. But we did it because we believed that we had to stabilise our population; we had to provide a range of accommodation types.
When we built the Marrara Sporting Stadium, it was seen by some visitors to this place as an extravagance. Our recreation facilities, fishing policies, art, cultural and heritage policies, law and order policies, university - these were not things that were put in because there was already a demonstrable need. Sometimes they were put in place in advance of a demonstrable need. They were put in because it was felt that we had to develop icons and facilities of this nature, in order to be able to actively go out and market this place and attract people to come here and live here, because there were all those activities and services that they had come to expect in other places. That is the proud legacy that we leave behind. We leave behind a legacy which is still able to be used as a springboard to market a campaign to bring people to this place.
Some people have talked about critical mass, and that will be achieved in different environments and ways. However, from a health industry perspective, the decision to build the private hospital was a very brave one at the time. The monies that were put in to the Menzies research facilities were also very brave decisions, because they were fairly large amounts of money when you look at the activities of those facilities. What we have now is a campus that has a child-care facility, research capability, private and public medicine all in one place and, for a practitioner coming from another place, it provides a fairly exciting range of work experiences and capacities for them. People who walk to the Royal Darwin Hospital campus and see what is there would realise that this thing did not just grow like topsy; it did not just occur by spontaneous generation. It occurred because there was very thinking planning that went in by far-sighted people who had a horizon view to the world.
The population strategy should look at issues of urban drift. This statement from the Chief Minister which was associated with it, is long on matters relating to indigenous people, and I can understand why that would be so. However, we still have to address something that has been an issue here in the Northern Territory for the past half century. Jack Doolan, a previous ALP member, was one of the first people to go to Maningrida to set the place up. If you look at some of his published papers - and people who know him will know - one of the reasons for doing so was to stop the urban drift of people from Arnhem into Darwin.
We are still seeing that phenomena in some way, shape or form; notwithstanding that people now have much better housing and access to education and health. The infrastructure resources are largely there, and I would agree with the Housing Minister that there is some way to go in that particular area. But we have to look at why people are choosing to leave their land in such numbers and live in such hard conditions in urban centres; and the incapacity of us to be able to replicate that type of urban centre in a places like, for instance, Port Keats, Maningrida or Ngukurr. We should be looking to the normalisation of these communities so that they replicate the same type of places as a normal urban town like a Timber Creek or a Borroloola.
They are issues for governments for the future. We have to look at whether Aboriginal people are keen to have a community excised so that it runs in a mainstream style of approach in a hinterland surrounded by Aboriginal land. Obviously, a community of that type is attractive to many Aboriginal people because they are moving to communities that are like that. They are issues that we should consider in this paper.
Likewise, the seniors retirement age. That is something that is moot. It is something we should be considering in our community, particularly given its arbitrary and discriminatory cut-off. We are saying that there is a particular age when human males and females should desist from paid work. You wonder why that would be the case, particularly since both males and females in this country are living longer. I know that there are probably some good social reasons why you would put such an arbitrary measure in place, but the paper proposes it is a good point that should be discussed in the community. I agree that that is something that should get some airing and feedback to government.
I welcome the paper. I note its heritage; it has come from the very document that we are debating currently, which is Building a Better Territory. It sits quite strangely, I thought, because I had read it and when I went back to look for it, I could not find it. It is under ‘Business Environment and Growth’, which is a bit of a hard economic policy driving thing because population, obviously, has a social connotation as well. It sits in the subsection of ‘Developing our Skills Base’. In there, the priority action is to develop the population strategy with the discussion paper released August 2002 - ha! We have hit that one - with reference to population strategy; encourage migration of skilled people to the Territory.
It seems that some of the economic rationalists have entered this argument. It is raison d’tre came out of an economic imperative. It is good that the Chief Minister, in her discussion, has included some of the social and other imperatives that go with a demographic discussion of this type. The attraction and migration of skilled people to the Territory is important. I note it is about No 10 in here, I think, among the issues to be discussed. That is probably where it should be because there are many, many other issues that are of consequence that are in here.
I encourage the government to continue with issues relating to a lifestyle that encourages people here. That is the great legacy they have inherited: of good sporting, art, and cultural infrastructure. I would like them to consider further endowments in that area. I note Lake Leanyer is one of them, for instance, where the CLP government built something in the northern suburbs. I recall the Chief Minister on radio at the time being very dismissive of it over a period of some time while it was under consideration. In fact, she referred to it as something like a ‘giant spa’. Obviously, she did not have much idea of perspective at the time. The facility is well utilised. If it is developed appropriately it will continue to be well utilised.
It should be remembered though, that that facility - the skate park and other facilities in the northern suburbs - the ready access to open space and the facilities at Marrara are all things that have been inherited from this government. It is incumbent upon the current government to continue to develop those facilities and to preserve the lifestyle of this place, which has been a major force in attracting people from other places to the Northern Territory, and to Darwin in particular.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to contribute to the debate on the Northern Territory Population Strategy Issues Paper, because I believe the issues paper clearly shows that this government is willing to be visionary and bold, to shape the Territory into the future. Crucial to the Territory’s future is, obviously, its people. This paper gives us an opportunity to take an informed look at who its people are likely to be in terms of cultural and social background, and where they may choose to live in the Territory’s diverse urban, regional and remote areas. Planning for growth is vital to our economic and social development, and I look forward to following the debate that this issues paper is designed to promote, and seeing the outcome in the final Northern Territory Population Strategy due out next May.
The issues paper will be taken to the regions for discussions in Territory towns. It is refreshing to see a Northern Territory government that is encouraging its citizens to participate in debate on key questions: what is the optimum sustainable population for the Territory; and what are the policy initiatives that need to be implemented to support this level? I have seen the Territory population grow over nearly four decades without a population strategy. There is no doubt that we have continued to remain a relatively young population in comparison to other states. However, we now finally we have a slight trend increasing of an ageing population; our senior citizens are deciding to stay.
Also, hopefully with improvements in indigenous health and education, we will see a reduction in the unacceptable death rates among our first Territorians. It has been the nation’s shame that the 2000 Australian Bureau of Statistics stats show that, in overall terms, indigenous Australians have death rates at least twice as high as the total population. This issues paper will prompt debate on the role indigenous Territorians will have in the Territory’s economic and social development over the next 20 years. In short, this issues paper is not just to look at population numbers, but the effect population trends will have on our economic and social development.
Dear to the hearts of many Territorians is the issue of balancing population growth with environmental and social concerns. I draw members’ attention to section 1(d) that canvasses the issue of how to manage the environmental risks involved with land clearing and the provision of adequate resources. Importantly, the issues paper promotes debate on how to avoid repeating the environmental mistakes made in other parts of Australia. We have a natural beauty that is our asset; I believe the jewel in our Territory crown. I believe that planning for population growth can ensure we are better placed to preserve our natural environment.
It also gives us the opportunity to support our regional towns which, sadly I believe, were neglected by our predecessors. The Territory’s pioneer towns of Tennant Creek and Katherine - to name just two - deserve to be a focus for any population strategy. Economic drivers such as the Alice to Darwin railway, and mining and pastoral growth, provide us with an opportunity to both keep and attract people to the regional towns.
As a representative of the Territory’s most multicultural electorate, I am delighted with the key issue outlined, of taking a more proactive approach to the promotion of the Territory as a migration destination. This issues paper provides us all with a tremendous opportunity to actively facilitate business migration, but also enter into discussions with the Commonwealth to encourage improved family stream migration. Family reunification is still too far out of reach for many of our citizens. I hope that our ethnic communities take up the challenge to guide our policy development that will facilitate the removal of the many remaining barriers currently affecting and preventing crucial family reunification. These are the families who have worked tirelessly in our community, with the fruits of their labours borne out in the increase in small business in the Territory and enhanced primary industry and fisheries industries.
The Asian and Indian subcontinent migrants have become the backbone of a major tourist attraction, our Mindil Beach Markets. I have witnessed the Asianisation of Darwin, beginning with the refugees from Vietnam in the 1970s, who quickly joined well established Chinese, Greek and Italian families to boost business. The Chinese Timorese business migrants, and many Timorese refugees, also settled here in the 1970s. The region is tuned in to opportunities, and I believe the settlement of these business migrants and refugees has encouraged, in the 1980s and 1990s, growth of migrants who came here to settle from Indonesia, Thailand, Laos and the Philippines, as well as a continued migration from the Indian subcontinent. It is timely that we take stock and look at the future migration opportunities. Timely, due to economic potential brought about as the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development showed us, from the railway, port and oil and gas projects.
I also want to touch briefly on initiatives that I believe will impact on population growth. I share, with the member for Drysdale, a high regard for our senior Territorians. I encourage them to speak out on their views as to what could be put in place in terms of policy, to ensure that we can continue to keep them here as active, healthy and contributing members of our society.
I also encourage women to speak out on what issues they believe are relevant to overcoming barriers to growing our own; that is, having babies. It has been my experience that a high cost of living necessitates both partners in a family working. The Territory does have very little work-based child care. Indeed, to find work-based child care is rare. You can cite the hospital and the university, and you cannot find many others. With a young population, we have very real pressures of meeting child care demands. Further, while I congratulate our government on increasing the child-care subsidy to assist families in this budget, the reality that high child-care costs are a very real disincentive to parents choosing to have more children. Just a few years ago, as a working parent, I paid $320 a week in child care. For many, this would have been close to their net weekly wage and a very real barrier to them opting to work. Parents are, I believe, basing the number of children they have on economic imperatives more and more. This is a social tragedy.
This issues paper is designed to spark debate, and it gives us all a tremendous opportunity to participate in the shaping of the Northern Territory’s population strategy. As a Territorian by birth who has worked interstate and overseas, I am someone who came back by choice from my heart. But my head tells me that we should plan for our future now; no longer be content for the hand that time deals us.
I congratulate our Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and our Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development for this bold and, I believe, visionary initiative. I am indebted to Chandra Seneviratne for the excellent and highly professional work he has undertaken in putting together the research on this issues paper, and being the architect for what I believe is an incredibly crucial blueprint for our future. In closing, I commend the Northern Territory population strategy issues paper to Territorians, and I encourage their participation in this important debate.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to join the debate and speak a little from the Central Australian perspective. I recall when I first arrived in the Northern Territory back in 1981 when there was not very many people. I believe there was about 150 000 people in the Territory; perhaps a few more. In terms of Alice Springs, I recall that there was only about 16 000 people then. But at that stage, Alice Springs, like the rest of the Northern Territory, was just in the third year of self-government and there was tremendous growth in the Territory at that time. We just had self-government handed to us in 1978. There was a tremendous amount of federal funding to help stimulate the Northern Territory and to provide the massive infrastructure that the Territory had missed out on prior to 1978 at self-government. So there was a lot of business activity, development, housing, and office complexes popping up in Alice Springs, literally like mushrooms.
I understand that, at the time, Alice Springs had 6% annual growth rate and that was just unheard of anywhere in Australia. The town and the community continued to grow at that great pace and, very quickly, the town grew to some 25 000 people. I think we achieved that target by 1985-86. I recall I was then on the Alice Springs Town Council and we were projecting our continued growth at that rate. Unfortunately, through the pilots dispute and also the advent of the Brisbane International World Expo, we suffered a huge downturn in tourism industry, which led to a consequential drop in development and construction. The town lost something like 3000 of its population and only over recent years have we gradually crept up with a growth rate of 1.5% if we are lucky. I understand that according to the census we are at about 28 000 or 28 500. It has taken a long time for the community to recover.
What I am saying is that, obviously, employment and development is a great stimulus for any community to grow, and Alice Springs is no different than any other. It is the centre for a huge area of arid Australia and it services communities literally 500 km to 1000 km away from that regional centre. The top half of South Australia, the bottom half of the Northern Territory, part of Queensland and Western Australia are serviced by and through Alice Springs. Take the hospital alone; while the town might have 28 000 people - and that, you would assume, would be its patient population - that hospital services, I believe, up to 50 000 people within its sphere of influence.
So, employment and construction are very important to population growth. I believe any policy that looks at population growth in the Territory has to be very, very focussed on employment; stimulating employment in any way it possibly can. The Alice Springs to Darwin railway, nearly 100 years in the making, is finally on its way, and is obviously a great stimulus for the Territory. I am not so certain how well it will stimulate Alice Springs after the railway line is completed. I will wait to see the impact of the railway. However, that is now bringing some activity in transport, in terms of the construction of the railway line commencing from both Katherine and Tennant Creek. Anyone driving between Alice Springs and Darwin would see the clear physical evidence of the activity. The earthworks alone are just absolutely massive.
But employment and construction comes also with availability of land. Land for development and housing in Alice Springs is, unfortunately, lacking - absolutely lacking. We are surrounded by native title claims that have imposed a major restriction on the possibility of continued development within Central Australia. There are blocks of land within the municipality that have been earmarked for tourism development, for instance but, because they were owned or held by the Crown, a claim was lodged against them and hence that land is locked up. Until such time as the native title claim is worked through, no way in the world can any development occur.
I refer particularly to the triangular block that is east of Lasseters Casino, between that and the big stormwater drain. That would be an ideal site for a five-star hotel that Alice Springs desperately needs at the moment. With the completion of the Convention Centre and the great amount of bookings that has received for the next 12 months, the town needs four and five-star hotel beds. While the total number of hotel beds in Alice Springs will be able to cater for the convention traffic, I suggest to you that those people who come to a convention in Alice Springs will not be looking for two and three-star accommodation; they will be wanting better. We need to have some form of land release, desperately urgently, to allow this sort of development to occur.
Similarly for housing. If you want to bring people into Alice Springs to grow the population, or even people to reproduce and have bigger families, they still need room and housing. There is no residential land in Alice Springs to provide cheap housing, especially for our very young population. Land that is in Larapinta, along Stevens Road - I am sure the area of land along Stevens Road would be able to provide accommodation for thousands families. All that land is locked up and, while the native title holders, the traditional Arrernte people, have every right to have claim on it, it has been a long drawn out process. I understand that the new native title holders’ incorporated group continues to struggle within itself to come to any agreement as to what will happen to their land. Until some resolution is reached, that type of land for residential development will also not occur.
Owen Springs, a property that the Northern Territory purchased under the CLP government, was intended to retain freehold land for the unfettered expansion of Alice Springs. I know that all the proposals, research, and advice from the department about Owen Springs Station had been with the minister for many months, yet we have heard absolutely nothing about what this government intends to do with Owen Springs. We hear gossip, we hear lots of conjecture about what the government wants to do with Owen Springs: giving it to one owner for the owner to then farm it out it out according to how the owner sees fit. That is the unfortunate thing: this was a freehold piece of land that was purchased for the unfettered expansion of Alice Springs in terms of housing, tourism, sports and recreation, and pastoral industry. None of that has been decided. It has been 12 months now that this government has been in and still we have had no decision. It is about time something comes out of that otherwise the town continues to be hampered. It is no good talking about population growth when the government is not prepared to encourage land release. That is very important. You know what …
Ms Scrymgour: You are so wrong.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I shall not complain, I will just keep on going. Do you know the average land price in Alice Springs at the moment - the average housing block - will now cost $85 315. I repeat that number: $85 315 for an average block. A residential block of land at the golf course in Cromwell Drive, for instance, will cost $150 000 - an empty block. Well, it is serviced, yes, but it is an empty block. In Melbourne, a comparative block will cost $75 000. How ludicrous is that? In a place like Alice Springs, in the middle of the desert, with thousands of kilometres in all directions, uninhabited in terms of urban or municipal development, a housing block costs $85 000. Whereas in Melbourne, where there is over three million people living, it costs $75 000. It just does not make sense. It is important for this government to start getting down to doing the hard work and getting land released. Otherwise, this issues paper will be a mockery and a waste of time for the hard-working public servant. He has done a lot of work on it, I agree, but unless something is done, those issues are not going to bring out any benefit.
If we are going to grow population as well, the cost of living is a significant factor in the Northern Territory. The present Deputy Chief Minister and I served on a committee that looked at Territory food prices. I must say that the report that came down was pretty well unanimously supported. The Deputy Chief Minister had one dissenting page, which talked about power prices. He told the CLP government, while he was in opposition, that he felt we needed to drop power prices so that we can then make food prices cheaper. Well, I see nothing happening with this government doing anything to drop power prices. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. They have done nothing about power prices; have not dropped a thing. If the government, then in opposition, could demand power prices to be dropped, then they should do something about that. Well, they have not, have they?
Furthermore, talking about dropping petrol prices; what have they done about it? You might want to do an inquiry - another inquiry. The government in opposition was loud in saying they would drop petrol prices when they came into government. What have they done? Nothing about it either.
The Deputy Chief Minister and I both agreed that, to help Territorians have a cheaper cost of living, we should have quarterly food price surveys across the Territory, so that every regional centre would have three monthly food price surveys which would then be published. Those food price surveys would be conducted in each regional community and surveyed across different stores so that anybody living in any particular regional centre could determine which store sells food at the cheapest price. What happened? As soon as this government came in, it threw it out the window, and told everybody they were going to do it twice a year. Well, did they do it twice a year? They relied, not on their own survey, but on the ABS. You know what the ABS does with food price surveys? It does it twice a year, and just in capital cities - just Darwin. So, it does not matter what happens to the rest of the Territory, as long as Darwin gets surveyed; that is fine.
The Chief Minister had the audacity to claim the six monthly survey by the ABS as hers. That is the deceit that I think deserves a lot of criticism. You cannot say that, by using the ABS figures which surveyed food only in the capital city - and the capital city in general. There is no comparison of food prices across the stores. How can people in Darwin force stores to drop their prices if they cannot tell which store is selling food at a cheaper price than another? You need to do food price surveys across stores and do it for all the regional centres so that other people living outside of Darwin, can get some benefit from the food price survey. That is important and it needs to be done, and I ask the Chief Minister to re-institute food price surveys as was done previously by the CLP government through its Treasury Department. That must be done.
Finally about population growth, obviously, there is going to be an urban shift of people. People living in Katherine and Tennant Creek might choose to live in the bigger regional centres. People living in the bush might want to move into the regional centres because, there is the bright lights, the entertainment, perhaps even the alcohol, that will attract them. For sure, the major centres will have health and education and other welfare services that people would need and therefore will come to. Some people will think: ‘Well, now that I am here, maybe it is a good place to settle anyway’.
We need to have some mechanism in place to deal with the urban shift, otherwise we are going to have, literally, a displaced population which will call neither the bush nor the regional centre home. What do we do with them? How do you deal with them? We need some policies to deal with that urban shift. I do not deny that people have the right to live anywhere in Australia. That is fine; that is not a problem as far as I am concerned. However, unless there is adequate housing provided in urban areas, then people such as those visiting from the bush into Alice Springs, will inevitably go and live in the river, which is not a particularly good place to live at the best of times - particularly now when the temperatures have gone well below zero in Alice Springs on many occasions. I would not like to be living there myself.
I draw those points for the Chief Minister to consider in terms of population growth in the Northern Territory, particularly in Central Australia. The biggest constraint will be land availability in Central Australia. I ask the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to consider doing something by Owen Springs urgently. He cannot leave it sitting in the bottom of his pile of files, because it is urgent now; it has been going on for too long. I also ask the Chief Minister to consider how she can reduce the cost of living in the Territory by removing the taxes that she has levied against the cars on registrations and third party insurances and all of that; and also by doing something about real or genuine food price surveys across the region. That will help Territorians make their choice where they can shop; that will produce competition which is what is needed to then cut the cost of living. By doing those few things, it will make life a lot easier for Territorians, and I look forward to some positive outcomes out of this initiative that the Chief Minister spoke about.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will only be short so those waiting for an adjournment debate can get into theirs; although I have my adjournment debate here.
It is a very important issue where we go with population. I remember when discussing the issues about Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, there was always talk from the planners that we are going to have a million people by the end of the century. A lot of people were pretty horrified. Whether that happens or does not happen - I suppose I will not be around to see - depending on which batch of figures you get there, it possibly could happen, especially if you take the higher growth rates. But whatever is going to happen, it is going to affect the environment, and also, I suppose, the way we perceive living in the Northern Territory. Many of us came here because it did not have much population. You had a life that was free and easy.
But it will certainly affect the environment. An increase in population will not only mean more land to be cleared; more pressure on our wetlands - and there are a lot of wetlands, especially in the north of Australia - the requirements to build dams for water supply; the requirements to build more and bigger roads; issues like looking at public transport and making sure we are planning for things like that. On top of that, of course, we have the cost of living, although, in some areas, recently shown in the NT News, our cost of living is not necessarily a lot more than down south. Especially living in the northern part of the Territory, you do have one saving - you do not have to wear as many clothes as you do if you live in Central Australia.
Mr Henderson: Sausages are cheap.
Mr WOOD: Sausages are cheaper, although I still am amazed that bananas are cheaper in Hobart. I have yet to see a banana plantation in Tasmania; but that is another issue.
The issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition about housing and land are very important. Land and housing is becoming unaffordable, especially for families that are trying to get off the ground. I prefer to go one step further than the Leader of the Opposition: I think the government should go back to being the one that subdivides its own land. If it is Crown land, it owns the Crown land; it should subdivide the Crown land. You take that extra layer out; that is, the price that a private developer pays at an auction for that land. That private developer has to recover that cost, and that, of course, is seen in the price of land. Original land in Darwin in the northern suburbs was developed by the government, and that helped keep the price down. Of course, you also leave land set aside for people who are first home buyers; so there is still that provision.
Land availability is an issue and, as much as there is a lot of talk about doom and gloom, native title, land rights - especially when it comes to native title - I think with good will which can be seen in the Rosebery and Bellamack subdivisions, it can be achieved. The difficulty is the time span to do it. There has to be better or quicker ways of dealing with the native title issues, so that …
Mr Bonson: Mediation and negotiation.
Mr WOOD: Yes, there was some discussion. Recently, I think, the Leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament may have mentioned something about trying to make that system more efficient.
We should continue to have migration. Migrants tend to centre themselves in some of the big cities, but we certainly should be encouraging them here. The one thing I love about living in Darwin is that you can meet so many people with so many cultures. That is what makes it a great place to live. We are now getting people from Africa which is, again, making it a bigger melting pot of ideas and cultures.
Attracting people from interstate is the other form of immigration. When the rail is up and running, perhaps we can get some cheaper seats on passenger trains where we can encourage movement from families up here who can visit their families down south and vice versa, so people do not feel so isolated. Plane fares are now pretty dear; they are not that cheap, especially if you want to take a family and take the usual week off work to go and visit some relations. But if we could convince the rail people to actually have some cheaper fares for families, perhaps people would not feel so isolated.
There is also an issue of whether we should decentralise. Even though the Territory only has 200 000 people, the amazing thing you see from the statistics in the issues paper is that out of 200 000 people, Darwin city has 35%, Palmerston has 11% -- that is 46% - add in Litchfield, you are up to 54%. 54% of the population of the whole of the Territory is living in this very small area around the top. We have exactly the same feature in a smaller way that the eastern states have, where your population centres round Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne.
In fact, some of the country areas in Australia are depopulating because there is an drift to the cities. If we are looking at population growth, we should be looking at whether there is room for other cities. For instance, Borroloola is on the coast, to a point, but there is a tendency for cities to develop where there is water. Whether there are opportunities to try and decentralise - maybe they cannot see the sea some days, so it may be too far away.
Mr Henderson: Borroloola a city. That is a good one.
Mr WOOD: Well, it has mining and that is where cities develop. Look at Mt Isa. Admittedly, it is not near the sea, but it is a city that developed where there was mining. I prefer to see decentralisation, and then the Territory gets the population that it is after, but at least it does not get it in one spot where all the pressures for development occur.
This issue that I raise - and it was probably to some extent raised by the member for Karama - is that if we are going to encourage some populating growth then we have to have more security for families. I talk about two issues here. There is the issue of child care, but there should be - and I am only talking about a philosophical debate if someone wants to challenge me on the cost of things. I feel that we need to not only support families in raising children, but encourage the family unit. In a lot of cases, that would mean if one spouse in the family - and I specifically think of the mother when you are talking very young children - could be paid sufficiently enough money so that they can stay at home and one person go to work. One of the reasons people have to have child care and cannot have many children, is simply that they cannot afford it. Surely we can make a system which encourages families to perhaps have one more child. If the average is two, and you had one more child, you certainly have natural increases in population.
I remember Malcolm Turnbull recently talking about trying to help families. He said some of the social costs on society is that a lot of families are breaking up so often these days. It is a burden on our society and is reflected in some of the issues that we have with our children; whether they have split families and that can sometimes create social problems. I wonder whether, if we are talking about population and encouraging families up here, we make sure they have the support that they need. If it means that we pay a spouse to stay home and that amount of money is adequate enough for that person to at least be given the option of whether they would like to work or stay at home, that would be good.
The other issue is, I suppose, a little controversial. However, I always find it sad that when we talk about increasing population, we have some children who were never born in the Territory because some pregnancies are terminated. I always find it sad that when we have a population so small, that some of those children never see the light of day. I wonder whether - even though I am strongly opposed to abortion and others may not have the same feeling as I have - we could have some scheme which would encourage mothers to continue with their pregnancies so they do have those children. Some people say: ‘There is a financial reason why we had an abortion’. Why can’t we at least help with that? Why can’t we encourage people? It seems to me a bit of an anomaly that, when we ask for an increase in population, on the other end of the spectrum we do not allow some children to ever be part of that population.
I do not know whether other people have other ideas, but I would like to see policies that would at least, if not get rid of abortions, reduce the number by encouraging mothers to go through with their pregnancies, because life is important. Life is what we are all here for, and there are great opportunities those children miss out on because they are not born, because the Territory is such a great place to live.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I raise an issue that has been raised by a lady in Alice Springs with me and, indeed, received a little press in the Centralian Advocate on 9 August this year. It pertains to a problem with campers on the lady’s boundary. The lady in question is Mrs Gerry Baddock of Alice Springs. She has a property on the north Stuart Highway known as Packsaddlers Ranch, which is inside the Alice Springs town boundary.
Over recent times, the river which runs nearby her town boundary has become a camping site for many itinerant people, many from the communities. Mrs Baddock has expressed some deep concern in relation to this matter because it affects her. She is 82 years old and was utterly fed up with the behaviour of the campers. She has complained regularly to the police over recent times, and the police had cause to attend the site of the camp on Mrs Baddock’s boundary. She had witnessed police and council officers attempting to move these people on, because camping is a breach of Alice Springs Town Council by-laws.
The curious thing was that, whilst these people were being moved on, according to Mrs Baddock and information that I have received, the police and council officers actually had to retreat because of threats made against them. In an effort not to escalate any situation that occurred there, they chose to retreat and try for a negotiated settlement, which apparently was completed some time later. However, I received a telephone call from Mrs Baddock a short while ago, and she advises me that those campers remain in that place, which is a matter of grave concern to her and, certainly, should be a matter of grave concern to the town council. Indeed, on 31 July 2002, Mrs Baddock was so concerned about the incident that she saw fit to write to Hon Syd Stirling in Parliament House. I have a copy of that letter here and a couple of photographs of the people in question on the boundary. I seek leave to table both the letter and the photographs, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: In this letter which I will hand it over to parliamentary staff shortly, Mrs Baddock reiterates the complaint to Mr Stirling. However, I would like to quote sections of the letter for the purposes of this debate:
- The police officers, council inspectors and river wardens, trying to move on over a hundred people who
had been camping there since the previous Monday, were placed in a dangerous and very explosive
position, because weapons were involved, because the campers shouted that they would go and report
the officers to Peter Toyne, because Peter Toyne had told them to camp there.
She also had contact with Mr Bowden of the Office of Central Australia, and I go further into the letter:
- The camping escalated in this area after I reported the remarks made to me by Bowden, (speaking, he said
on your behalf) …
That is the minister for police:
- … that these people had every right to drink and parade half naked in the Charles, because of a
landmark decision, obviously not made by a ratepayer of Alice Springs.
The newspaper did cover this particular allegation about the Minister for Central Australia, and I have a copy of the Centralian Advocate report for members. I also seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: In this report, Mr Peter Toyne denies ever giving such permission. Normally, I would be satisfied with that. However, finally I have had cause to speak to Mrs Gerry Baddock, who was also visited by some of the women from Yuendumu, who were also camping in that area. Once again, they reiterated the same information quite independently of the other campers: that, indeed, the Minister for Central Australia had given those people permission to be there in the river.
Out of this arises several issues, not to mention public health issues and things of that nature. There arises a question as to the lack of control that appears to be exerted over town campers in Alice Springs. It is an issue which is becoming increasingly problematic in the community of Alice Springs, seems to be having less and less control being exerted over it by the authorities; both at a local government and Territory government level.
Mrs Baddock is feeling very vulnerable as a result of this group of campers living on the boundary of her property, and is very concerned about the public hygiene issues that are being caused by the people remaining there. Also, for the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, the issue is basically what, minister, are you going to do about this situation? It is not new; the situation has been going for quite some time. Indeed, I am very concerned that the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services has not been able to respond effectively - or the Police Department - to Mrs Baddock’s concerns.
According to Mrs Baddock, and from other information that I have received, these people are often armed, drunk and engaging in behaviour which is very poor by any standard. I hope that the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services will respond very quickly to these issues. The questions that he needs to ask are: what investigations are being conducted into the potential breach of by-laws by the Minister for Central Australia; what is being done to move these campers on in terms of breaches of Territory law and requirements under the Summary Offences Act; what communications has the minister engaged in with the town council to try and resolve this problem; what communications has the minister engaged Tangentyere Council to try and get these people out of the Charles Creek River which is in breach of the council by-laws; and, ultimately - a question that really begs out of this, and is a more general issue, not only based on the issues raised by Mrs Baddock - what is he going to do to fix the increasing level of antisocial behaviour inside and around the community of Alice Springs?
I am waiting with bated breath for the liquor restriction results to come in. However, anecdotally, I am not satisfied that there are good or tangible results coming out of that. However, I have supported those and hope that they will provide a proper set of numbers before too long. Also, I hope that the minister contacts Mrs Baddock as a matter of urgency and listens to what she has to say. She is a lady who wants to live her life in peace. I hope the minister takes up the very important responsibility of providing for the people of Alice Springs - and particularly Mrs Baddock - a safe community. That, ultimately, is the primary role of any government: to create a safe community in which people can go about their lawful business.
The new government has promised to control all of this. They have introduced legislation like drug legislation to go after drug barons. They have wound up former CLP legislation which was empowering police officers to move people on. Here is a clear example of the day-to-day problems that the residents of Alice Springs face. I feel, as a matter of urgency, the minister needs to respond - and needs to respond to Mrs Baddock particularly. So, I am keeping a watching brief on this. I will continue speaking to Mrs Baddock and I will bring to the attention of this House and the media, the quality of the response from the minister in this regard.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I give you the acknowledgement I want to point out for the purposes of accuracy, I am Acting Deputy Speaker, if anyone wants to be accurate in their references.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I talk tonight, with real sadness, about a man who will be greatly missed, not just by the people of the Nightcliff electorate, but the Darwin community. On Sunday, 30 June, Mr Skevos Politis, lost his seven-year fight with cancer. He was only 67 years old. Skevos and his family have been residents of Nightcliff for 42 years. He was well known as the generous, jovial and friendly owner of the Aralia Street shops in Nightcliff, always ready with a smile for his customers.
Skevos Politis moved to Darwin in 1954, at the instigation of his older brother, Steve. They were among the first Greeks to settle in Darwin after the World War II - a move Skevos never regretted. After they moved to Darwin, the Politis brothers brought their parents to Australia from Greece in 1957, along with their twin brother and sister, Sophia and George. Their brother, Peter, arrived a year later. In 1959, his mother suggested Skevos consider marrying the nice young seamstress, Despina, who was their neighbour’s daughter in Rhodes. Little did she know that her son was already enamoured with Despina, who soon became his wife for 42 years. Together they raised five daughters: Irene, Tammy, Poppy, Alexandra and Joanne, all still residents of Nightcliff.
Skevos was a family man, always there for his parents, siblings, children, and nieces and nephews. He was a wonderful grandfather doting on all 12 of his grandchildren. Skevos was also popular with the children of Nightcliff, who knew him affectionately as Papou, and he would spoil them with lollies when they visited the supermarket. I know this to be very true; my own children always enjoyed seeing him at the shop, and miss his cheery smile and friendly and caring manner.
Skevos had a varied career during his life. In Greece he had been a shoemaker, and on arrival in Darwin started working at Savvas Shoes. He also worked as a carpenter, building houses before building the Aralia Street shops in Nightcliff in the late 1970s, which his wife Despina continues to manage today.
Skevos was a great family man, an excellent businessman and contributed greatly to the development of Darwin. Skevos Politis was also a much loved member of the Nightcliff community. His family, friends and compatriots in the Greek community will sorely miss him. I and my family extend sincere condolences to his wife Despina, and daughters and their families. We will all miss him.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I also would like to pay tribute to Skevos Politis.
As it happens, Skevos Politis was the very first Greek I met when I came to Darwin. I remember very well we arrived early in the morning, flying at midnight from Port Hedland, Western Australia, arriving in Darwin about 9 o’clock. We managed to get a motel in Aralia Street and I went to buy a bottle of milk our then young son, Alexander. The closest shop was the Aralia Supermarket. Unbeknown to me, I walked in, picked up a bottle of milk and went to pay, and Skevos was sitting behind the counter. He looked at me and he said to me in fluent Greek: ‘Are you Greek?’ I, of course, said: ‘Yes, I am’, and we started talking. That was the first day I met Skevos.
I knew him very well through my career in the public service, and I always enjoyed when I had to go to inspect his shop because I knew always there would be a cup of hot Greek coffee and an hour of a Greek chat of what was happening around town. I heard many stories about Skevos and all of them were good. I have never heard anybody say a bad word, as we say in Greece, about Skevos. People trusted him with their families. One friend of mine actually trusted him to go with his wife and two children to Greece, as he was unable to accompany them.
It was a shock when I found out that Skevos was seriously sick, and it was even a greater shock when I found out that he went to hospital, never to come out again. I was in Alice Springs when he died, and I was very sorry that I could not go to his funeral. However, I will remember Skevos. I will remember Skevos in his best days, as a jovial Greek person with great interest in the community - not only the Greek community but also the Australian community. I will always remember what a good father and grandfather he was. My sincere condolences to Despina and his family.
I would like to continue referring to an issue that the member for Greatorex raised yesterday about Alice Springs minibuses during his adjournment speech. I would like to clarify the situation because I believe that the member for Greatorex will not let the truth ruin a good story. At the time I implemented a cap in Alice Springs there were 50 minibus licences operating in Alice Springs. Now there are only 10 minibuses operating in Alice Springs. Over the last nine months, a large number of people who operate minibuses asked me to transfer their licences to other towns because of the downturn in business in Alice Springs.
One of these operators, Mr Cooper, advised me that, for family reasons. he would like to come back to Darwin. He would like to surrender his licence in Alice Springs but he would like to sell his minibus to somebody else if it was possible. Mr Cooper and Mr Benson came to our department and advised that there was written agreement from Mr Cooper to sell his bus to Mr Benson, and for Mr Benson to take over his bus in Alice Springs. Mr Benson was operating in Darwin. He undertook to surrender two Darwin minibus CVLs - commercial vehicle licences - in order to facilitate the purchase of a minibus in Alice Springs.
As I said before, at the time of the introduction of the cap, there were 50 minibus licences in Alice Springs, and today there are only 10 minibuses operating in Alice Springs. So, at no time was the cap exceeded. We were already short by five minibuses in Alice Springs and there is the potential for another five minibuses to take licences in Alice Springs.
The deal fell through. Mr Cooper reneged on his promise or his request to come to Darwin and Mr Benson, of course, found himself in the difficult position that he could not purchase the minibus and as a result, the whole thing was up in the air. Mr Benson was given permission from my department, and with my signature, that he could go down there with his minibus and operate for three months until the deal went through. Since that deal did not go through, he was advised that he had to return to Darwin as per the agreement. I am not familiar with what he is going to do at the moment but, if Mr Benson wants to go to Alice Springs to apply for another licence - or two or three - as I said to you before, there are already five licences available in Alice Springs and he is welcome to do so.
I will continue with the taxi industry which seems to have generated a lot of interest for the member for Greatorex. I wonder if it generated so much interest when the government proposed to liberate the industry; to free the taxi numbers thus creating all these problems that we have. We have problems. For example, the professionalism of taxi drivers was questioned. We had a spate of incidents where people were assaulted or disturbed. We had cases where young women were complaining about comments made by the taxi drivers. I believe one of these young women was the daughter of one of the Alice Springs aldermen, who I believe you know very well. I have to admit I was not very impressed.
Now the CVL white paper was circulated to the industry. We received a number of comments. I read every single submission from the industry and I cannot recall receiving any submission from the member for Greatorex who now shows so much interest in the industry.
I have to say that the industry is in trouble. Fortunately, we put a cap on, but we have to be very careful because the ACCC expressed great concern for how long we are going to keep this cap in place. They are resisting any attempts to extend the cap further than December 2002. At the same time, during my trips in other states for business, I inquired about taxis. I have had a look at how the taxi industry operates in other states and what kind of taxis they operate. I found out that the Territory is the only place where minibuses without taxi meters are permitted to operate.
In north Western Australia or north Queensland, where minibuses cater for Aboriginal communities, as they do here, they have taxi meters and they charge people for what the taxi meter says at the end of the trip.
Coming now to Darwin and, in particular, to the Ashmanor Pty Ltd that the member was referring earlier in his question. The member asked me what happened to the nine licences that Ashmanor Pty Ltd had, and since Ashmanor Pty Ltd was bankrupted, what happened to his licence? First of all, this company did not go bankrupt.
Dr Lim: I did not say they went bankrupt, I said liquidated.
Mr VATSKALIS: They went into voluntary liquidation.
Dr Lim: That is what I said to you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Under your CLP regulations - and you were there, you should know - there is nothing we can do if a person or a company is not bankrupt. This person can still keep his licences without having any vehicles.
Dr Lim: Is it dealing on the black market?
Mr VATSKALIS: When the person goes bankrupt, then he has to apply to us to keep his licence, and there is no way we are going to allow that person to keep his licence …
MADAM ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex and minister, I remind you to refer your comments through the Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, my apologies.
If that person or the company goes bankrupt, they have to return their licence to the MVR. At this stage, Ashmanor Pty Ltd is in voluntary liquidation so it does not have to surrender its licence. However, Ashmanor asked to transfer his licence to another company together with his taxis, something that we absolutely refused because the licence belonged to the government, as I have stated earlier today. There is nowhere else that this licence can go but in to the government, MVR, so other people can apply for it. He can sell his taxis but he cannot sell or transfer his licence.
Dr Lim: Who is using the plates?
Mr VATSKALIS: The plates remain the property of the government.
Dr Lim: Yeah, who is using them?
Mr VATSKALIS: He can use them if he wishes, if he has the vehicles. If he does not have the vehicles; because he is not bankrupt he can still keep his plates without any vehicle. He cannot allow other people to actually use his plates with other vehicles. Also, because there is nothing in the existing legislation that the CLP drafted years ago, we are going to tie the licence now to the ownership of vehicles.
Mr Bonson: It all comes back to the CLP.
Mr VATSKALIS: As my colleague quite rightly pointed out, it all comes back to the CLP.
Not only did they take a really good industry and ruin it because they had this bright idea of freeing it by pouring $1m into it that we have to pay over 10 years - paying an enormous amount of money in taxes - and then, in reality, forcing people to pay $60 000 a year to have these licences, they opened the market; and where we had about 100 taxis, now we have 184. The problems with the industry were not created by anybody else but the by the CLP.
Now we have to fix it, and because of the changed circumstances in Australia with ACCC and the National Competition Council, we have to be very careful how we are going to do it in order not to attract the wrath of the ACCC. At the same time, we have to find a way for the people who work in the taxi industry to make a decent income to take home. I do not know how often the member of Greatorex uses taxis. I have used many taxis, and every time I enter a taxi, I hear the same story: the best thing we have done is put in the cap, even though the wage they take home is not what it used to be. One of the things we said is that we are going to fix it. Not everybody will be happy, but the industry will be fixed to the best of our ability.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to say a few words about Kevin Joseph Bonson, or Uncle Joe.
Kevin Joseph Bonson was born on 8 June 1937 in Darwin to Don Snr and Patricia Bonson, nee Ahmat. Joe was the third eldest of 12 children. He was the brother to Gwennie, Don Jnr, Uncle Johnnie, Robert, Patsy, Kenny, Betsy, Lynette, Dorrie, Leah and Marie.
In January 1942, Joe and his family were evacuated to Pine Creek just prior to the bombing of Darwin and Katherine. Soon after, he and his brother Don saw nine Japanese bombers flying over Pine Creek on their way to Darwin. They were evacuated by Army convoy to Alice Springs. From Alice Springs, they were transported by train to Balaclava where they stayed for a few months. There next move was to Merbeen in late 1942, where they remained for approximately four to five years.
On the move again, they travelled via Adelaide to Alice Springs by train, and then were the first passengers on a new bus run to Pine Creek in an open eight to nine seater bus. They remained in Pine Creek for one year before moving back to Darwin and taking up residence at Nightcliff Army camp in approximately 1948. The family’s final move was to Stuart Park in 1956.
Uncle Joe’s schooling was at Darwin Primary School and Darwin High School. He left school at 14 to commence an apprenticeship as a plumber, then working for Works and Housing. In 1968, Joe joined the NT Fire Service where he served as a firefighter for 27 years. Joe made many lifelong friends in the brigade and had the honour of working alongside his brothers, Robert and Kenny, and his brother-in-laws, Ian McLeod and Allan Oates, as well as many cousins and relatives - a real family affair. Joe retired from the Fire Service in 1995 after being diagnosed with emphysema.
Uncle Joe first met his wife, Pat, in 1954 when her family moved into the Nightcliff camp where the Bonsons were already residents. Pat became good friends with Joe’s sister, Patsy, and soon she and Joe became teenage sweethearts. They were engaged on 18 October 1960 on Pat’s 18th birthday, and married on the 21 October 1961. In fact, Pat and Joe walked out of the church with the Works and Housing Tigers, now known as the Nightcliff Tigers, providing a guard of honour. It is fitting, almost 41 years later, that Uncle Joe once again received a guard of honour by his beloved Nightcliff Football Club.
On 3 July 1962, Pat gave birth to their first son, Joey. Unfortunately, Pat and Joe also lost a baby daughter, Annette, shortly after birth on the 21 March 1969. On 12 March 1972, the youngest son, Rodney, was born. It was Joey and Rodney, and their wives Pacita and April, who organised Pat and Joe’s surprise 40th wedding anniversary party, an event that took some 12 months to organise. It was a fantastic event, and Uncle Joe gave one of the all-time great speeches. Basically, it revolved around the most important things in life: his families and friends.
Joe as a person, was one of nature’s true gentleman. He was clearly loved by all family and friends. No one ever had a bad word to say about Uncle Joe and likewise, Uncle Joe never spoke a bad word about anyone he met. All of us seem to have a great story to tell about Joe. Most of them seem to involve a fishing trip, family function or footy dos. I am sure many great stories will be shared at Uncle Joe’s wake.
Uncle Joe left his mark on life in many ways, but it was his ability as a sportsman, especially as an Aussie Rules footballer, that made Uncle Joe a household name in Darwin. He was a true legend of the game who became a cult figure, not only with his beloved Tiger fans, but with the NTFL community also. Joe became the first player to win back to back Nichols Medals, achieving the honour in 1958-59 and 1959-60. He was also runner-up another two times, in 1957-58 to his best man at his wedding, Teddy Cooper, by one vote; and then again in 1962-63 by the same margin to Bertram of Waratahs.
Uncle Joe played over 200 games for his beloved Tigers and was awarded life membership for this feat. To prove what a family affair it was, Joe’s wife Pat, his parents and brothers, have also received life memberships at Tiger land. In 1983, the NTFL awarded Joe life membership for services to NT football. But Joe considered one of the greatest honours for him and his family was when the NTFL named one of its main entrance gates to Football Park the Bonson Gates. This was in recognition of the Bonson’s 70 year of service and achievements in NT football.
Uncle Joe’s sporting talents were not confined to Aussie rules. He was also a talented cricketer with Nightcliff, and a very talented basketball player with the Pioneers Club, from which he also received life membership. To further emphasise Joe’s multi-talented sporting ability, he was an NT representative in both Aussie rules and basketball.
Uncle Joe was diagnosed with a life-threatening cancer in March of this year, and was flown to Adelaide to receive treatment. The high point of his stay in Adelaide was a visit from his good friends, Terry and Tanya Killalee, who took him and Pat touring for three days, with Joe’s personal favourite being a visit to the Bradman Museum.
In typical Joe Bonson style, he settled down to fight the disease, and also in typical Joe Bonson style, he passed away quietly on Tuesday evening, 6 August. Not only the family, but the whole community, is so much the poorer for the loss of this gentleman.
One of the great stories, I suppose personal reflections, was that Uncle Joe used to ring me up when he retired and say: ‘Take me down to the Fannie Bay Races’, and off we would go. His wife Pat, of course, did not like him smoking cigarettes or drinking anymore because of his emphysema, but often we would go and he would be smoking a cigarette and having a drink and he would say: ‘Make sure you do not tell Aunty Pat’. So, sure enough a couple of my friends rocked up and they said to Uncle Joe: ‘Oh, Uncle Joe, we heard you were a great footballer in your time’. He had a puff and a drink and looked them in the eye and said: ‘Mate, it was that long ago, I can’t remember’. If you look at those dates when he won those medals and lost the grand finals, it was just over 30 years. He was a humble person indeed.
He was also a very proud man and proud of his family. He supported his beloved Tigers, and he also loved the Collingwood Magpies. You cannot have everything; can’t be all good, can you? That is a bit of joke there, Uncle Joe. His years as an NT firefighter he was especially proud of his two boys, Joey and Rodney. Many was a time at a family function that he would call me over to brag about his two boys and their achievements. In the last few years, these stories then changed to his grand-daughters exploits. I must have been a good listener because Joe would often sit with me and tell me stories of his days working as a plumber alongside his brother, Don, who was a carpenter; especially the pride they felt working on their parent’s house together. He had a very dry sense of humour and told many stories that tickled his funny bone. I will relate a few short ones.
When he and his brother were young men about town and were getting ready to go out, Joe was the only one who would not rush around, ironing his own clothes. He would sweat on his brother Johnny to iron and prepare his clothes and, when Johnny went to have a shower, Uncle Joe would quickly dress in Johnny’s clothes and bolt up town. He often faced the consequences later. Although he was a qualified plumber, at Bon Villa at the Narrows, he and Pat live for 10 years with only cold water as Joe had not connected the hot water.
Everyone knew that Joe had three loves in life. They were having a beer and a cigarette and also having a punt. Joe got a call from his brother, Don, to come to the Parap for a bit of all three. At the time Aunty Pat had been at Joe for quite a time to mow the lawn, and she said he could not go until he had done it. Much to Pat’s delight she soon heard the lawn mower running out the back of the house. Joe seemed to be spending an awfully long time mowing the back yard. When Aunty Pat went outside to investigate, she found the mower running tied to the clothes line, and Joe nowhere in sight. Three guesses where he was.
I would like to also pay a special tribute to Joe’s wife, Aunty Pat, for her devotion and dedication to Joe throughout life together and, especially her commitment to Joe during the battle with illness. Joe was often referred to as ‘No fuss Joe’ as he did not like being the centre of attention. I am sure if he was to look down today he would say: ‘Bugger this, I am off to the pub; there is too much fuss going on here’. So, I would like to end by offering my sincere condolences to Aunty Pat and Joe and Rodney and their wives and their families. We lost a great man.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on Territory Day this year celebrations were doubled in Nhulunbuy as the town celebrated its 30th birthday. Unfortunately, I was not able to be there but I want to put on the record some of the celebrations that took place. The official ceremony was conducted on the new Hindle Oval. The ceremony drew crowds of spectators to witness the raising of flags that represent the five aspects of the community; the cutting of the celebratory cake and fireworks display; and also a presentation to Territorian of the Year, Eva Cantrell, a greatly deserved award and I congratulate Eva for her achievements within the community. She has been the driving force behind the completion of the skate park in Nhulunbuy with her unyielding commitment to raise funds for the facility. Her efforts will be rewarded by the smiling faces of the kids in town for the years to come. She also designed the mural for Federation Frontline gardens. She is the president of the Senior Citizens association and Red Cross collector. Eva’s been involved with the Country Women’s Association for over 20 years, and has transformed the neighbourhood op shop into a major fundraiser. Her endless community spirit is inspirational and proves her worthy of this honourable award.
The Young Territorian of the Year award was presented at the Nhulunbuy 30th birthday celebrations to a 16-year-old, Pia Castelli. Pia has made extraordinary contributions within the community, particularly with achievements in the areas of music and sports. She plays saxophone with the Nhulunbuy High School Band, the combined school band, and was one of the original members of the Nhulunbuy Town Band. Pia has regularly represented Nhulunbuy in swimming. She is a member of the NT Development Squad; the NT High School exchange team; the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving club in which she holds Bronze Medallion; and will captain the Rookies Patrol competition. Pia also represented the Territory at the Arafura Games and has participated in Tournament of the Minds competitions. I would like to congratulate Pia on all of her achievements to date and wish her the best of luck next year when she travels to the US on a Rotary Exchange Scholarship.
The creation of the town, of course, would not have come about without the Nabalco alumina plant. The previous Nabalco operations were taken on by the Canadian company in 2000, and 1 July marked the official date that the company is now known as Alcan Gove Pty Ltd. Mr Michael Hanley, President, Alcan Bauxite, Alumina and Specialty Chemicals presented the town with a stage during the celebration. Many other businesses in Nhulunbuy also celebrate the 30-year milestone. I congratulate Perkins Shipping, Gove Pharmacy, Guys of Gove and Woolworths for their continued support of the Gove community.
Another local business success story is that of Yirrkala Business Enterprises. YBE was originally established as a small brickmaking project, and developed in 1970 to provide training and career opportunities for Yolgnu people of north-east Arnhem Land. This business has customised its program to suit the needs of the community to become the profitable and valuable business it is today.
An open day was held at Gove District Hospital in July to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the hospital. Tours of the facility were provided, and several health promotion stalls were held within the hospital ground. I was delighted to make a presentation at the staff party later in the evening to Suzie McDonald for her exceptional service over her 26 years of employment. Although she is still working at the hospital, she was one of only two people there in the evening who were there on day one when the hospital opened its doors 30 years ago.
For the first time, Nhulunbuy participated in the inaugural Croc Festival on 29 and 30 July. There was a huge range of activities including theatre sports, dance workshops, designing web page workshops, art and craft demonstrations, a health expo, and sports such as basketball, football, AFL, athletics and softball for youth from all over east Arnhem to participate in. The Croc Festival is a great way to celebrate youth culture, designed for indigenous and non-indigenous students. Students from Nhulunbuy Christian School, High School, Primary School, Yirrkala CEC, Yirrkala Homeland School, Gapuwiyak CEC and students from as far away as Mornington Island, rehearsed to perform at the finale on Tuesday night.
The Arafura Festival is held on the first weekend in August, thanks to Adrian Ross, the Chairman, Len Waddington, Narelle Netherway, Chris Thomas, Jackie Thomas, Alice Nirven, Carlo Matchuzi, Leanne Rodney, Ray Evans and all the sponsors and community organisations who helped to bring together a tremendous weekend of entertainment and fun for the community. At the Arafura Festival, I was delighted to take part in a judging panel for the float parade and decorated bike competition, and I congratulate everyone involved on the success of the events. It is the best float parade we have ever had, and I have been watching them for quite a few years.
Recently, Gove hosted regional finals of the Australian spelling championship, Ozspell. Participants included students from Nhulunbuy Primary School, Christian School and Alyangula Area School. I would like to congratulate the winner, John Dewhurst, a Year 6 student from Nhulunbuy Primary. John took the prize after eight tough rounds of competition. John takes with him the opportunity to compete in the national finals at the Seymour Centre at Sydney University.
I am delighted and proud to congratulate local East Arnhem artist, Mr Garawun Gamana from Gangan, who took first prize in the Telstra national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award for his memorial pole. There was a great photo in the NT News of this old man from the bush. This is one of the most modest and humble men that you would ever meet, and he is just a delightful, beautiful person. One of the privileges in this job is getting to know people such as Garawun, because he is a beautiful man. It is another great feat from one of our many talented local people. It brings with it a significant $40 000 prize and I could not think of a more worthy recipient.
This government more recently announced a $3000 grant to be awarded to study the history of the contact art of north-east Arnhem Land. That grant was awarded from annual Northern Territory government grants.
On 21 June, Nhulunbuy High School participated in the World Skills Metal and Engineering Regional Competition. I was pleased to attend and make presentation to the winner, Kyle Williams, who won the opportunity to represent the Northern Territory in Newcastle. World Skills is a great way for young people to develop their skills and confidence in the performance of their chosen field. I believe all participants will benefit from the challenge and experience gained from participating in the competition.
On 22 June, I went to Arafura Holdings pearl farm to officially open a new state-of-the-art pearl hatchery. $10m has been spent developing and building this farm at Elizabeth Bay, consisting of the latest in technology to grow oyster shell. It will provide a great economic boost to the area. The feature also provides new long-term job prospects in the region, and ratification by the Northern Land Council of a 20-year lease. Arafura Holdings has made other improvements to its operations, including a workshop, office, satellite communications system, kitchen area, employee living areas, power generation plants, internal roadways, water supply, farm plant and equipment, and absolute state-of-the-art laboratories, which are required to grow pearls. The first crop was produced on the farm last year, and they are currently harvesting this year’s return. I have asked them to send me a photo of this year’s crop.
I also pay tribute to a retired member of the Northern Territory Police Force, Senior Constable William John Jacobs, a Territorian of long standing. He passed way suddenly on 18 July.
Bill was born on 11 May 1929 in Sydney during the depression, and grew up in Lidcombe. One of six children, by the time he reached adulthood he had developed a unique blend of talents and skills. He first began work at the age of 15 as an apprentice butcher. He tried his hand as a timber sawist, sheep sheerer, drover, horse breaker, camp cook, yard builder, carrier and wool presser, not to mention his eclectic music taste and prowess with spoons, guitar, mouth organ, squeeze box and ukulele.
Prior to joining the police, Bill was a drover at Bourke. He did many trips, for as long as four and five months. He drove the supply truck, did the cooking and setting up of the camp. He was always cheerful and always had a great meal ready. He could find a good camping place and kept his eye out for feed for the horses and where the best water was.
Bill always wanted to join the police force but felt he lacked the schooling. He realised his dream when he joined the South Australian Police Force in March 1952, where he served for nearly a decade. Members of this era would agree, when Bill joined the South Australian police, the land lost a good stockman.
He was escort to Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Phillip during their royal visit, riding a horse he had broken in himself. He was proud of this and had the photos to prove it. Recognising he was eminently suitable for the mounted squad, Bill was then stationed at Oodnadatta. During this time, Bill developed friendships with members of the Northern Territory Police Force. By 1961, he had slipped over the border and joined our own Northern Territory police. When Bill had completed his recruit training, he was allocated to temporary duty as Assistant Police Prosecutor, a change from the saddle. Not so; within a few weeks Bill found himself droving to Malapunyah Station, where he spent several weeks tailing a herd of cattle that were court exhibits in a Supreme Court case.
After his move to the Territory things improved for Bill on the personal front, when he met and married Anne Mulhern, a nursing sister in Darwin. They were married on 25 May 1963 at St Mary’s Cathedral by then Father Ted Collins, now Bishop, and had three daughters, Kiim, Leanne and Tania.
Most of Bill’s working life in the Territory was spent in Darwin, with a short stint in Batchelor. His true forte came to the fore early in his career when he became involved in youth work, and by 1965, he was placed in charge of the Police Boys Club and subsequently devoted the remainder of his service to the youth club. A new club site was acquired on McMillans Road in 1987, with the complex completed and open in June 1991. It is due to Bill’s dedication, determination and sheer hard work, that the Police Boys Club, as it was then known, has evolved into a vibrant and dynamic Police and Citizens Youth Club that it now is; currently catering for hundreds of children weekly with a myriad of activities.
Bill always remained a devoted horseman. With his experience, he was called upon to judge blood stock and ring events at the shows. In 1961, he and five members breathed life into the concept of a pony club, and by 1965 had approached Dr Goff Letts to try and obtain some land for a permanent site. They squatted on five acres adjoining the 27 acre section that became the Robbie Robins Reserve until, in 1974, Lot 1634 Tivendale Road was secured. At this moment, Wongabilla Pony Club came into being and Bill spent long hours developing this pony club, now known as the Wongabilla Equestrian Centre. Over the years, many hundreds of children have been taught to ride and care for horses. Aboriginal children have been trained in stock handling, and Junior Police Rangers have been taught riding skills. Bill was a role model who touched the lives of many young people, introducing them to a variety of sports and extracurricular activities through these two clubs.
During his career, Bill’s efforts on behalf of the youth of Darwin have been recognised by all, and it was appropriate that he receive the Queen’s Police Medal in 1980 for service to the community. He also received a national medal in 1977, and the bar in 1982.
He came from an era when police officers were judged by the ability to stand on their own two feet and handle whatever confronted them. He measured up. His reputation was built on integrity, loyalty and trust, and he was respected and admired by his fellow officers in the community at large, as evidenced by the hundreds who attended his funeral.
He retired from the police force on 5 September 1983, with 31 years of policing behind him. Over the years, Bill has been witness to the Northern Territory Police Force making its transition from mounted patrols and one-man stations to the modern technological force it is today, with the latest in police vehicles, communication and greatly increased support for the officer in the field. However, he could still take pride in the fact that the Northern Territory Police Force continued to be held in high stead by the communities it served, not because of the latest technology but because of the calibre of officers it attracted. Bill Jacobs and others of his era were largely responsible for this. I offer my heartfelt sympathy to his wife Anne and his daughters Kiim, Leanne, and Tania, and their respective families, on the passing of this great Territorian.
I would like to make special mention of some long serving employees recently retired from the Department of Employment, Education and Training with the public service.
Shirley-Anne Hooper began full-time teaching in the Territory in 1975. She was a founding Assistant Principal at Sanderson High School where she worked for 11 years until 1995. During that time, she earned a national reputation as the leader responsible for the acclaimed quality of the school’s pastoral care program and its political timetable.
As principal at Nhulunbuy High School from 1996, Shirley was highly successful in creating strong links between the school, the community and local employers. Her considerable efforts to see the school become a registered training organisation to offer Vocational Educational Training to its students was a resounding success, and continues to offer students meaningful and appropriate career pathways. As a result of Shirley’s personal vision, energy and leadership, a strong partnership exists between Nhulunbuy’s main employer Alcan, and Nhulunbuy High School. Both parties have a commitment to investigating areas of mutual benefit for the benefit of students. One outcome is the sharing of personnel and physical resources between Alcan and the school. Shirley’s breadth of knowledge, dedication and commitment to providing meaningful educational experiences and leadership for students, has resulted in a number of highly successful and ongoing initiatives.
Dennis Blaiklock retired on 21 July after 35 years of continuous service. Dennis commenced his teaching career at Adelaide River in 1967. After three years, he moved to Mataranka where he remained a further eight years. In 1978, Dennis moved to Alice Springs to the position of Assistant Principal at Bradshaw Primary School where, apart from a six-month period as Acting Principal at Acacia Hill, he remained until 1991. He spent the following three years as Assistant Principal at Ross Park Primary School, School of the Air, and regional office. In 1994, he became the Assistant Principal at Braitling Primary School, where he continued until his recent retirement. During his long service with the department, Dennis has had an interest and expertise in teaching and promoting the arts and information technology. His knowledge and understanding will be missed by students and colleagues.
Anne Rogan commenced teaching in 1968 in North London. After travelling to Australia, Anne began teaching at Darwin High School in January 1972, where she taught classes on geography, English, history and human relations from Year 8 to Year 12. Anne spent time travelling through South-East Asia, and teaching English as a second language in Greece for 18 months. Upon returning to Darwin in 1982, she undertook a role at Casuarina High School as the social science faculty senior, and was a key person in the transition from high school to senior college.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are a number of notes – they are non-contentious, I can assure you. They are in tribute to people who have retired from the department and I seek leave to have the balance of those remarks incorporated.
Leave granted.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you all for your support.
- Anne was also the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (SSABSA) coordinator
responsible for the enrolment and data management of all results for over 1000 students.
In 1992, Anne became Assistant Principal at Darwin High School, responsible for 500-plus students
in Years 11 and 12.
As Principal of the former Driver High School since March 1998, Anne has provided the vision and
leadership to turn the school around. In 1998, there were 400 students; in 200 the school had grown
to 750. Anne’s commitment and dedication to providing a meaningful education, and valuing young
people, together with her enthusiasm, good humour and energy, has resulted in the success of
Palmerston High School.
I would like to thank Anne for her dedication to the education of young people and wish her well in
her retirement.
Malcolm Henry Dyer retired from the department on 19 July, after 34 years of service. Malcolm began
teaching in Alice Springs in 1965 at Alice Springs High School - now Anzac Hill High School Campus
– until 1970.
Following a three-year break from the public sector, Malcolm was appointed to Alice Springs High School
as a maths/science teacher. He continued in this position until 1987, when he became the Assistant Librarian
at Alice Springs High School.
In 1990, Malcolm commenced at the Alice Springs School of the Air as the Librarian, and from 1995 to
retirement, as a classroom teacher.
Edwin France began teaching in the Territory in 1964 at Warrabri (Ali Curung). After two years, he
moved to Maryvale and taught there until the end of 1967. Edwin left the public service until 1971,
when he returned to teach at Lake Nash.
A highlight of Edwin’s career was his representation on the Camooweal Board of Sports, a joint NT and
Queensland initiative, in 1972.
At the beginning of 1973, Edwin returned to his original post at Warrabri, where he remained until the end
of 1975. Mr France also had extensive involvement in the inaugural music festival of Central Australia in 1975.
Edwin’s next teaching position was at Bradshaw Primary School until the end of 1980. Edwin then spent
20 years teaching at Alice Springs School of the Air.
Jenny Cluney, a science teacher at Dripstone High School, retired from the department on 26 July 2002, after
more than 24 years of service to education in the Northern Territory.
Jenny graduated as a Bachelor of Science from the University of Queensland in 1967, and began her
teaching career in Papua New Guinea in 1969, until 1971. She moved to the Northern Territory in 1978
and taught at Tennant Creek High School for five years; then moved to Darwin and taught at Dripstone
High School for 19 years.
In 1993, Jenny was awarded Master Teacher Level 1, and of note is the fact that she chose to devote her
entire career to being an educator in the classroom. Jenny ha also been an active member of the Science
Teachers’ Association of the NT since 1978.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 22 June, it was my great pleasure to open the 6th India at Mindil celebration. The celebration is the showcase of Indian culture in the Territory. It started as a modest event five years ago and has become a major annual cultural event for the Territory, with around 15 000 people attending.
India has given us some of the world’s greatest religions and there is always a special spiritual element to all Indian festivals. India at Mindil is also a great celebration of the Indian people’s enjoyment of life, good fun and food. The evening was packed with cultural events, dance and musical performances from local and overseas artists, food, crafts and garments. In recognition of the importance of this event, my government has increased its support for India at Mindil to $20 000, significantly more, I am proud to say, than in previous years.
I would like to congratulate Dr Vinod Kulkarni, President of the Indian Cultural Society, the organising committee, and all the members of the society for their ongoing efforts to celebrate and share their culture; and particularly for the way that each year we seem to be even further included in the celebrations at India at Mindil - we meaning the non-Indian community. That was June.
On 19 July, it was my great pleasure to present the keynote address at the Telstra Northern Territory Small Business Awards. Our involvement with the awards reflects my government’s commitment to encouraging excellence in innovation. Small business, after all, is the backbone of the Territory’s economy, accounting for more than 93% of total businesses and some 56% of employment. The Territory’s growing economy provides the scope and opportunity to establish or grow new businesses, and my government is committed to supporting small business with a range of programs and services.
Government is proud to support these initiatives and delighted to be a partner in these awards. The awards recognise and celebrate the excellence, innovation and achievements of Territory entrepreneurs. This year’s winners were Rorke’s Drift Bar and Caf who were absolutely delighted to win. They were the Telstra Northern Territory Small Business of the Year, and they were winner of the Ford Business Owner Award. A little about Rorke’s - but we do not really need to be told too much about them, because they are a most successful Darwin CBD business. Along with food and beverages, Rorke’s Drift provides customers with a range of entertainment from karaoke to live music and comedy nights. Their web site updates customers on their latest menu, events and merchandise; and customers can also subscribe for regular newsletters from the same web site. A new point of sale system is used to advertise their products and the services of neighbouring businesses as well as convey safe drinking messages. Rorke’s Drift prides itself on providing quality food, beverage and entertainment to its customers in a friendly atmosphere. They are big employers; they currently employ 40 staff. Congratulations to Mitch and Hilary; they were delighted to win, and certainly well deserving.
The winner of the Commonwealth Government Micro-Business Award, went to Pangaea Pty Ltd. Pangaea develops software systems which use graphs and pictures as the primary means of carrying financial information. The systems make financial reports, and the concepts underlying them, universally understandable without significant loss of information content. Pangaea software systems are used by telecommunications and mining companies, not-for-profit organisations and Aboriginal businesses. It makes you think, we should perhaps be putting next week’s budget out on Pangaea software to make it more accessible for all in here. Congratulations to Hugh Livesly and well done to Pangaea.
The winner of the MYOB Business Owner Award was DITS - Darwin Inspection and Testing Service - which offers inspection and control services to the oil, gas and mining sectors in northern Australia. This ranges from in-service inspections to non-destructive testing of chemical refineries during construction. In a first for Territory-based business, DITS gained Civil Aviation Authority approval to carry out non-destructive testing on civil aircraft.
I commend Telstra for the awards gala night dinner, and congratulate the other sponsors - Ford, Cisco Systems, MYOB, the Commonwealth government and the NT News - who have made this event possible. The organising efforts and leadership of Danny Honan, Telstra’s CountryWide Area General Manager, and Jeanette Button, State Manager Corporate Affairs, should be acknowledged, along with all those involved from the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development.
The awards are all about recognising and celebrating the Territory’s most outstanding business achievers and awarding their innovation and dedication. I am sure all honourable members will join with me in congratulating all the nominees and award winners.
It was my great honour to present NAIDOC awards to outstanding achievers from our indigenous communities during this year’s NAIDOC Week. My Labor government was proud to support NAIDOC Week celebrations and I was particularly delighted to host a reception to acknowledge the achievements of indigenous Territorians across a diverse range of activities. I understand that this was the first occasion that many of those present had ever been invited to Parliament House and, certainly, the first time that NAIDOC awards had been made at a presentation in parliament.
The awards were presented to Lenore Dembski, and it is never surprising; Lenore just continues to win awards. That was for the Prime Minister’s Award for Paperbark Woman. Teresa Cubillo won for the most senior elder in the community; Xavier Clarke, not surprisingly, the indigenous sportsperson of the year; the indigenous trainee of the year went to Erin Lew Fatt; the indigenous scholar of the year was Steven McGregor; indigenous youth of the year was Hannah Roe; and it is with great pride that I say the indigenous person of the year was none other than the member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour. A great achievement for Marion.
I congratulate all the award winners, the Darwin NAIDOC Week organising committee and its chairperson, Teresa Roe, and the sponsor of the awards, Paspaley Pearls. Nick Hanigan represented this great Territory company at the awards evening and winners were delighted to receive the magnificent Paspaley mother of pearl trophies.
Recently I had the pleasure to visit Ntaria, Hermannsburg. It was my first visit to the historic community in the shadow of the mighty Finke River Gorge - the world’s oldest river gorge, my geological mates inform me. Hermannsburg will be holding a weekend of celebrations next month, specifically from 6 to 8 September, to honour three important anniversaries. Firstly, this year is 125th anniversary since the arrival of the first Lutheran missionaries at Hermannsburg. Perhaps better known is that 2002 is the centenary of the birth of Albert Namatjira, perhaps the most famous Aboriginal artist in Australia’s history. Certainly not as well known is that this year brings the 20th anniversary of the hand back of control of the community to the local leadership of the Ntaria Community Government Council under the chairmanship of legendary Centralian Gus Williams.
I do not propose to use this occasion give a long-winded account of the history of the past 125 years at Hermannsburg. However, I would like to say that the early Lutheran missionaries of the Finke River Mission are an evocative symbol of the old Territory. At a time when Aborigines were thought to be a dying race, when governments and, indeed, the public alike were largely indifferent to their fate, these missionaries took an entirely different approach. Led by men of the calibre of Pastor Albrecht, the missionaries accepted much of the prevailing mission ethos, but also battled within it to gain secure reserves and support for the Western Arrernte on their traditional lands. They also worked hard to foster Aboriginal education, employment and leadership. Whatever one’s view of the mission times on Aboriginal communities, one must acknowledge the extraordinary personal commitment and the considerable openness of the missionaries to come to terms with a people very different from themselves.
As for Namatjira, there is no more famous a Centralian, no more famous a native of Hermannsburg. Much is known about his early contact with water colourist, Rex Batterby, his relatively rapid rise to fame as a pre-eminent artist himself, and the circumstances surrounding his imprisonment shortly before his tragic death. Much less is known or understood about why an artist of his extraordinary talent has been so neglected by the arts industry in more recent times. Even less is known about the enormous influence Namatjira has had on a succession of Aboriginal artists. These include his peers and family members, beginning in the 1930s at Hermannsburg, but also continuing to the present day in the works of modern Aboriginal water colourists and others who have chosen different techniques and styles to explore as artists. Of these, I note particularly the great founder artist of Papunya Tula, who passed a way recently. He always acknowledged Namatjira’s role in his own stellar art career.
The third anniversary is certainly no less important than the other two but, perhaps, not nearly as well known. I met with council members, Brian and Nathan Williams, among others, and their pride at achieving 20 years of local control was readily apparent. Gus Williams has been Chairman of Ntaria Council for much, if not all, of that time. He is still there, working hard to grow his community in between legendary visits to Tamworth around Country Music Festival time. Members of this House would be aware that Gus was inducted in to the Country Music Hall of Fame in Tamworth a couple of years back. Gus, his band and family members, will provide their fair share of the musical entertainment at what should be a mighty weekend.
I am proud that my government has been able to provide funding assistance for the Hermannsburg triple anniversary celebrations, and I look forward to celebrating many more. While at Hermannsburg, I visited the historic precinct for an excellent lunch with council. The precinct is presently managed my Grant Whan and his wife, and I can vouch that the famous strudel is as good as ever - and let me tell you, it is. The food was just fantastic. The sandwiches were made with homemade bread and they were the most delightful sandwiches you could imagine - followed by strudel. It was an excellent lunch. Grant was kind enough to show us around the art gallery with its superb collection of Hermannsburg school water colour landscapes.
The Western Arrernte Health Aboriginal Corporation Board was holding a meeting at the precinct, and it was good to be able to meet and talk with representatives from the region about health matters. Mavis Malbunka was especially helpful in briefing me on health issues faced by community members, most notably those living on homeland communities around Hermannsburg. She was ably assisted by Alison Hunt, who has undertaken a very challenging task: helping the women to organise themselves to tackle family violence and other problems such as substance misuse head on.
I am told that other Western Arrernte women like Elva Cook, Erna Inkamala, Daphne Puntjina, Rachael Tjukintja and Iris Taylor, are also playing leading roles in providing leadership and sincerity in looking for new ways to help their people. There are also courageous men involved in these initiatives, men like Djala Andrews, Arnold Nipper, Desmond Ebatarinja of Areyonga are working with Ralph Malbunka who is Deputy Chairman of the Western Arrernte Health Aboriginal Corporation. My thanks to them for all their wisdom and their determination to get results for their people.
My visits to Ntaria School and the Strehlow Clinic showed non-indigenous and indigenous staff working well together for the benefit of all, under quite difficult circumstances. It is especially pleasing to see so many locals working at the school, including Daryl Kantawara, also of country music fame, who is passing on his renowned guitar picking and song writing skills to the next generation of Hermannsburg country music legends. Les Smith, who would be known to many of you as a result of his police and amateur boxing days, is doing a great job working with council, especially on their economic development proposals like the caravan park, garage and towing service. His wife is working with Arrernte women at the Women’s Cultural Centre and achieving good results on the silk painting front.
I was also able to visit the very well known pottery, run by the Hermannsburg potters. This is a long running organisation, more than 10 years old, under the coordination of Naomi Sharp. She has trained the likes of Ida Enalunga, Carol Rontji and Judith Inkamala, among many others, to handcraft beautiful clay pots. After firing, the pots are then handpainted with scenes reminiscent of Namatjira’s work. The potters are a very hard-working arts outfit who have recently published and sold a book detailing their own history. This is a typical approach by these women. Their theory and philosophy is: ‘We can do it ourselves, we do not need others to do it for us’. It was great to see that Carol Rontji has won one of the major awards at this year’s Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards.
My visit ended with a visit to Tjuwampa Resource Centre, which specifically supports people living in the 40 or more homelands in the Hermannsburg region. My talks there with acting coordinator, Peter Burn and homeland residents like Lloyd Spencer from Ipolera, gave me much to think about in the area in the provision of services to remote homeland communities, particularly the importance of adequate road access. I look forward to future visits to Hermannsburg, when I am sure that I will see the results of the vision and hard work of people like Gus Williams, Mavis Malbunka, Alison Hunt, Daryl Kantawara, Carol Rontji, and the others of the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will use the adjournment debate to discuss an issue that was debated today in parliament; and that was Wickham Point. One of my concerns today was that this was a very important debate that should be held in parliament. We certainly did not have enough time this morning to discuss it anywhere near the depth that it should be discussed.
The whole area of the centre of Darwin Harbour being set aside for industrial development goes back to when the plans were put out in 1984 and 1990. You can still get a document called the Darwin Land Use Strategic Plans. They have always shown the centre of Darwin Harbour in a lovely colour of pink or purple, which has always represented industrial development. The problem is that the plan is called a conceptual plan, but in many cases these concepts turn into reality. Anyone who saw the amount of effort required to remove the concept of six dams for Darwin Harbour, which would have wiped out probably in the vicinity of nearly 2000 hectares of mangroves, would know that even though plans are conceptual, it requires a big effort to change them. Of course, we did change them; the 8000 people who signed petitions to say that they did not want the Elizabeth River damned. Since then, there has been an adjustment to the design of Weddell, which has fitted in with those requirements that the previous government asked for.
However, what has not changed is there are still those pink and purple areas marked on maps which show that the centre of Darwin Harbour is to be industrial. The previous government, which was a supporter of the LNG plant, did look at allowing so-called foundation industries to be in the centre of the harbour, and they were specifically GTL Resources and Methanex, both methanol companies. I have great concerns about those two industries being in the centre of the harbour, because I believe it is the thin edge of the wedge; that once you put those industries in the middle of the harbour, then more industry would come and the whole centre of our harbour would become industrial. There was no requirement for them to be there. The argument about Phillips is that they require deep water, and the deep water they require is in West Arm. I have always believed that if an industry could prove that it had to be close to the water, then government should certainly consider it.
However, I do not consider other developments as suitable for the centre of Darwin Harbour. Not only have I never believed that the methanol plant should be in the middle of the harbour - because they require natural gas and natural gas can be piped elsewhere - but I do not believe that we should have other forms of industries. Even though the opposition, which was then the government, supported the idea of foundation industries in the harbour, to be fair they said that there would not be any other industries. I did not agree with their foundation industries being there either.
The problem I have with the present government is that it sent out mixed signals on what should go next to the LNG plant. On Stateline, I think three weeks ago, the Chief Minister made the statement that she would only allow Winnellie-type development to occur in the middle of the harbour. At the AFANT meeting, the Minister for the Environment stated that it would only be benign industries going there. He actually mentioned the idea of a container terminal. I am a little bewildered by that because I am not sure why we would be putting a container terminal in the middle of the harbour, 30 km by road from the East Arm Port. I certainly have some queries about this so-called benign industries, or why benign industries have to be in the harbour at all.
I believe we should have no more industrial development in the centre of the harbour. The issue is very passionate with a lot of people, as was seen at the AFANT meeting. However, even outside of that, people have a great concern for their harbour staying as pristine as possible. My concerns go back more with the development of housing estates, which do an enormous amount of damage the way they are developed today. I am talking about marina housing estates, where a large amount of fill is dumped on top of mangroves to create an artificial canal system and, in the process, hectares of mangroves are wiped out.
There needs to be some thought put into alternative designs for canal estates if that is what is needed. I am not a great fan of canal estates; floating marinas might be a lot better, and people live on the land. The option was, for instance, to dig canals through the mangroves and into the hard ground instead of bringing half of a nearby pastoral station down and dropping it on top of all the mangroves. When you have attacks like the black striped mussel occurring in an artificial waterway, you have to wonder whether, by building more of these types of development, we are actually putting our natural environment at risk.
Of course, on top of that we have the East Arm Port. The East Arm Port itself is a large land mass that has been put out into the centre of the harbour. I always felt that the public had very little opportunity to debate whether we should have a land-based port. If you see the amount of area that it is meant to fill, it is an enormous part of the East Arm estuary that is going to be filled. It took out some of the coral sites, and I think it took out one of the shell islands as well - one may be going to remain inside a lock. One would have to ask why there could not have been alternate designs with most of the requirements for storage of goods back on the mainland. But that has happened now; people would stay it is progress. It is a pity that progress was not, perhaps, given a little more of a public airing.
I have had concerns about the future of the harbour for a long time. However, I realise that it is a working harbour and there are requirements for some development on the harbour. I do not believe that you can lock up the harbour in toto, but I think that you must be very careful of what development occurs there.
What are the alternatives? I believe there are plenty of alternatives for industrial development. The government is proposing a corridor from East Arm Port to Glyde Point. It is also looking at a corridor from Channel Island to Glyde Point via Humpty Doo south - if you want to put it that way - and then up through the boundaries of Black Jungle and to Glyde Point.
Before any more notions of industrial development are even considered in the Wickham Point area - and personally I do not think there should be anymore development there anyway - there should be a public and open study of what other alternative sites can be developed for industrial land. If you are going to build a corridor 100 m wide from East Arm Port to Glyde Point including a rail spur - possibly including a natural gas line, a road and electricity and water - you would think it would make sense to put any industrial developments along that corridor where there is land. The planners have told me they have looked at it. Well, I have not seen any debate on this. I have not seen any open discussion on what is wrong with alternatives along that corridor. Some parts of that corridor are in line with the airport, which will reduce any chance of residential development. Surely there are opportunities there for industrial development and for a container terminal.
I must query this container terminal again. I know from friends of mine who work in the container industry that, if you stack containers six high which I gather is the way they stack them, you can put 4166 containers on one hectare of land; and that is equivalent to 25 train loads. If you open them up a bit, so you can actually drive machinery between them, you might need two or three hectares. Why would we want to put two or three hectares of land in the middle of the harbour to hold containers which are for East Arm Port? The only theory I have heard is that we are going to become a container holding area - nothing to do with the railway. Places like perhaps Singapore - and that is the only guess I can have - does not have enough room to hold all the containers, and we will be a storage area for them. I do not know whether that is true or not. I hope the minister, if he hears this debate, at least straightens us out on why, or what is the reason for a container terminal.
There needs to be a lot more work done, and in the public arena, on where else we can put industrial development. Glyde Point is certainly one of those, but there are certainly lots of other options.
The other thing I would like to say tonight is that I put an application into the Department of Industries, Planning and Environment to rezone sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 in the Hundred of Ayers, or Weddell - as I think it is marked on Litchfield Shire’s maps - excluding the Phillips LNG site. I have asked for that to be rezoned to what, in the Litchfield Shire planning documents, is open space conservation. Sadly, that application went in about three weeks ago and I have not heard from the department yet whether they have even received it. I would have expected something to say that it was passed on to the minister. I did speak to the minister today; he does not appear to have seen it. In the end, it is the minister who will say whether that application for rezoning can be advertised. By putting forward this rezoning application, which any member of the public can do, we then start to open up this whole issue for debate. I would ask the minister, even without my application, for himself to put up the rezoning application. He can do it off his own accord.
I really think that with the use of this land for industry other than essential industry - and I once again say I support the Phillips proposal - that we are losing the one and only opportunity to create a city that is different. Along with the minister’s statement about protecting the mangroves, we can have land adjacent to the mangroves which will allow people - not only Darwin and Palmerston but the new city of Weddell - to have some breathing space around them; an area of high biodiversity; and an area that is a wonderful area for fishing or just boating, right on their doorstep. It can happen. People say: ‘Well, there is no way that you can have a national park in the centre your city’, and I say you can. Sydney has two major national parks in the city - Ku-ring-gai and Royal. They are on the outskirts, but Royal has been there for many, many years; it is well over a 100 years old. However, it has one other national park which I discovered a few months ago on the Internet: the Botany Bay National Park. There, with all those big industrial developments, you will find the headwaters of Botany Bay are part of a national park. It is not the greatest national park in the world, and it certainly has lots of issues.
It could be done and we could do it by declaring Darwin Harbour a national park. It would have various regulations that allow people to use it for fishing and other things. I do not think it has to be a Kakadu-type national park. But it would send out a signal that we love our harbour, that it is worth protecting and it will attract people forever and a day. This government could show it is different from the previous government by taking the bull by the horns and declaring the harbour a national park.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute tonight to a very dear friend, Dennis Blaiklock, who has recently retired after 35 years of service to the Department of Education in the Northern Territory. I first met Dennis and Mary in the 1960s when Mary came to Ross Park as a teacher. Dennis then went to university and completed his training as a teacher, and he and Mary went to Adelaide River in 1967 on their first posting. After three years, they moved to Mataranka where they remained for a further eight years.
In 1978, Dennis moved south to Alice Springs when he was appointed the position of Assistant Principal at Bradshaw. I remember that keenly because I had also applied for that job and felt quite miffed that this guy from the bush got the job over me. During his 13 years at Bradshaw, Dennis also took acting positions: one as Acting Principal of Acacia Hill and, in the following years, he went to Ross Park Primary and School of the Air. He also undertook a position in regional office, then moved back into the primary school setting in 1994 as Assistant Principal at Braitling Primary School, where he continued until his retirement this year.
During his long service with the department, Dennis has had a very keen interest and enthusiasm and a lot of expertise for teaching; in particular information technology. He was responsible for setting up systems in schools, and also for the arts. Dennis is a very quiet teacher; one of those stable, secure teachers children can relate to very keenly. Even though we all know he has a passion for gardening, he also is well known for having a great creative side. I have a rammed earth house, with a round, leadlight window. I gave Dennis the design and he went and bought the glass and made this beautiful stained glass window for us. It was the first one he had ever done. It shows that his expertise and ability is great. I am sure in his retirement, he is going to have a wonderful time exploring all of these talents that he has. I certainly wish him well, and I know he will be missed by many of those teachers he has gone out of his way to help over many, many years. Everyone knew if you asked Dennis to do something, he would always be there to do it. I wish him very well in his retirement.
I also want to bring notice to the fact that the federal government is giving commemorative military medals to people who completed national service after World War II. One of the gentlemen in my electorate, Geoffrey Clout, received this particular medal the other day. He was part of the first intake of 1954, and trained at Ingleburn, NSW in the Third Battalion. Interestingly, after his period of national service, he joined the RAAF for six years and served in Papua New Guinea. I am very pleased to say that the Chief Minister has agreed to present Geoffrey with his medal at the morning tea for Seniors Month in Alice Springs. A lot of people do not realise that, even though these people were conscripted, 187 national servicemen died and approximately 1500 were wounded during their service. They have made a huge contribution, and it is very pleasing that the federal government has, at last, recognised the service that they gave and are giving them these medals. I look forward to Geoffrey receiving that from the Chief Minister.
The other thing I want to mention - and I am glad the minister for the AustralAsia Railway is here - is the great work that Great Southern Railway is doing in preparing for our railway line from Alice to Darwin. I am one of those people who very strongly support that. I recently met with Steve Bradford, who is the CEO of the Great Southern Railway, and he showed me some of these particular packages that they are putting together. It is not just based on rail travel; they are putting packages together that include coach tours or air flight. For instance, this is Rock and Rail, Reef Rail tour. It starts in Sydney, goes through to Adelaide, up to Alice Springs and then they fly to Ayers Rock and then to Cairns; which is a great holiday concept. There is another one here, which starts in Sydney, goes across to Perth, flies to Darwin and then comes back along the track to Alice Springs, off to Ayers Rock and then down to Melbourne. So, the packages they are offering have been well thought out and they are advertising them very well at the moment.
Probably one of the most exciting things for overseas travellers is that they are now offering six months unlimited travel for 450, and that is a very reasonable package to be given to overseas tourists. I know there are many train buffs around the world, who would really love to take this opportunity to come to Australia to travel. Among the destinations, they can go from Sydney to Adelaide to Melbourne, then to Alice to Darwin and back along that track to Perth. Six months unlimited travel for 450 is a pretty good deal.
I put on record that I believe not only will the railway line from a freight point of view be exciting, but from the Ghan point of view, it will be even more exciting in opening up opportunities for people who are train buffs. I notice Steve Bradford came up in one of the refurbished old carriages which is offering executive travel. They were basically trying out what they had done, to make sure the airconditioning and the shower worked, and all those things. Adding that exclusive executive class of travel to the old Ghan will also be a great component to advance rail travel; not just in the Territory, of course, but in Australia generally.
I also briefly mention the primary schools essay competition that was sponsored by the McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge. I have to admit, I have never been in to a Masonic Lodge before; I had never seen one. I guess it is part of the fact that Masonic Lodges are becoming more open, so people can be there. I was quite intrigued and interested in seeing the lodge, which is men’s business only - and I was told that fairly clearly. I seek leave to have the winners of that competition incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
2002 Primary Schools Essay Competition
Sponsored by McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge
Sponsored by McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge
- Grade 6:
Winner, Sarah Hall, Bradshaw Primary School
Second, Raquel Eldridge, Bradshaw Primary School
Commended, Hannah Weir, Larapinta Primary School
Grade 5:
Winner, Kyra Humpries, Larapinta Primary School
Second, Jason Goodwin, Larapinta Primary School
Grade 4:
Winner, Sharni Welch, Bradshaw Primary School
Second, Hayden Wackerman, Bradshaw Primary School
Commended, Jonothan Pareroultja, Bradshaw Primary School
Overall Winner, Sarah Hall, Bradshaw Primary School.
Mrs BRAHAM: The overall winner was Sarah Hall from Bradshaw Primary School, and the winners were determined by a small writer’s group that meet in my office every second week. They are a group of scribes who come to meetings and read their writings to each other, and then have a critical analysis of what they have written. The fact that the Masonic Lodge is fostering a literary prize, encouraging children to write, is a really positive move. There were a number of parents at the presentation who were very pleased to be able to participate in this particular competition, and to know that their children had received the awards. I would like to encourage the McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge to continue their little competition that they run for Alice Springs schools. I would urge all schools to participate.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I put on the record my commendations for two public servants who have left my department in the past couple of months, both of whom have had more than 20 years service with the Northern Territory government. It is very important that, as the member for Braitling put on the record, we as members of parliament recognise public servants who have made such a significant contribution and spent so much of their working life working for the Northern Territory government.
First of all, I will talk about Barry Pietsch, who retired from the Geological Survey Division of DBIRD on the 24 May this year after a 23-year period of service. Barry started his career as a geologist in 1970 with Central Pacific Minerals, a small energetic Territory-based exploration company searching for gold, uranium and base metals. A short interlude during the minerals bust saw him develop his teaching skills. With the expansive opportunities related to self-government for the Territory, Barry was attracted by an advertisement for a Geologist Grade 1 in the newly created Northern Territory Geological Survey. On appointment, he moved to Darwin accompanied by an arsenal of fishing tackle and an impressive wine inventory. Then followed a long and distinguished career as a geologist, including a period as Regional Manager in Alice Springs, culminating in becoming the Assistant Director of Regional Geoscience in Darwin.
Together with a former director, Paul Le Mesurier, Barry pioneered the commencement of ambitious regional geological mapping programs. He himself produced the first standard series geological map of the Northern Territory; that for the Darwin 1:250 000 scale map. In the course of his tenure, he produced over 30 co-authored publications and maps, addressing all the regions of the Top End. This was where his team leadership skills, his logistical planning expertise, and his fishing arsenal came into play, to the benefit of all who had the pleasure to work with him.
Barry was well known throughout the Territory for his perspicuity, wit, engaging personality and friendly disposition. He brought cricket back to Borroloola, but the NTGS side could never beat the locals; although his legacy survives in the form of a pavilion he helped to build.
Barry played a major role in bringing geoscientific information to the mineral exploration industry and we see the fruits of those labours today. In retirement, Barry is planning on taking short-term assignments teaching English in foreign universities, especially those in emerging countries. I wish Barry well in his retirement and thank him for his contribution to the development of the Northern Territory.
I would like to talk now in regard to Dr Eric Nunn, who retired in July as the Director of Energy from my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. Having worked for nearly 22 years in the Energy Division of the former Department of Mines and Energy, Eric played a pivotal role in the commencement of gas and oil production from the Mereenie and Palm Valley fields and from the Amadeus Darwin gas pipeline. Subsequently, Eric was also involved in the first oil production from the Jabiru, Challis, and Skua fields in the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent area, pioneering the first installation of the floating production storage and off-take facility in Australia.
Over the years, Eric has been involved in the assessment of various other hydrocarbon discoveries in the Northern Territory administrative areas, including, more recently, the discovery and production from Laminaria. Eric has represented the Northern Territory at subcommittees of the Australian New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council, and later the Ministerial Council for Energy on legislative and regulatory matters of petroleum administration in Australia. Dr Nunn has also represented the Northern Territory at international forums and conferences.
Known for his regard for the efficient and effective administration of petroleum regulation for the Northern Territory, Eric will be missed for his astuteness as a diligent regulator, and for his level of client service. I can say in the short time that I have known Dr Eric Nunn as Director of Energy and attended a couple of national forums with him, he is very well respected by his peers in other administrations around Australia and, probably more importantly, by the private petroleum industry in general.
I would like to wish Eric and his family the best in his retirement and thank him for his contribution to the development of the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not mind being the last, I am used to doing that all the time.
I would like to rise tonight to report on the Last Camel Train. The Last Camel Train is an expedition organised by a group of very active citizens in Central Australia, to conduct an activity in the Year of the Outback 2002. The Last Camel Train will be one of the events celebrated to mark the occasion.
This event is currently underway, featuring a group of 24 camels and several support vehicles which departed the railhead at Oodnadatta on 9 August. The camel train will travel to Alice Springs culminating at the Telegraph Station, covering a total distance of 540 km. This event was endorsed by the Year of the Outback 2002 and is supported by the Alice Springs Town Council, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and the South Australian Tourist Commission. CATIA, the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association, also supports this event.
The aim of the Last Camel Train was to provide an opportunity for people throughout the world to gain a better understanding of Afghan culture, especially as it pertains to the opening up and supporting the Australian outback. Although the number of Afghans who came to Australia was small - I think it numbered no more than 3000 compared to other ethnic groups - their contribution to Australia has been greater than many people realised. Afghans were Asians who came to Australia in the late 19th century to work as camel drivers. Although the majority came from Afghanistan, others were from Rajastan, Baluchistan, West Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and Turkey. However, their Muslim religion and their understanding of the Pushtu language were common to most.
Camels have been brought to Australia as early as 1840, but it was not until the Burke and Wills expedition in 1860 that they were seriously considered for use in the arid interior of Australia. Since camels could carry large loads over rough or sandy country where there was little water, the animals proved invaluable in the construction of the oil and telegraph line from Adelaide to Darwin between 1870 and 1872. Camel teams became the lifeline of the early pioneers, and the animals and their drivers were employed in numerous expeditions. By 1900, there were about 6000 camels and more than 390 drivers throughout Australia. In 1891, the railway arrived at Oodnadatta and the town became the chief supply point for Central Australia, as well as forming a large depot for camel caravans which carried mail and vital supplies to remote regions including isolated communities, mining establishments, pastoral properties, as well as a starting point for many other expeditions.
The railhead remained at Oodnadatta for nearly 40 years. During those years, the Afghans and their camels provided vital transport service from the railhead to Alice Springs, a journey that often took up to two months. It was not long after the railway opened that the weekly train from Oodnadatta was dubbed The Ghan, a short term of Afghan. This came about because of the trains extensive use of the Afghan camel drivers, and their families, who made up the stable population of Maree and Oodnadatta until the camel services were no longer needed following the introduction of motorised transport. Most of the Afghan drivers then stayed in Australia and many sought employment on the railway.
The Last Camel Train will celebrate these contributions to Australia’s history. It will also provide an opportunity for people to get a better understanding and first-hand experience of the careful planning required for such a journey, as well as the challenges and difficulties which such a trip presented. As well as looking at celebrating Afghan contributions to the history of Central Australia, the event will also look at the contributions of the early European pioneers and the Aboriginal people, and how the three groups worked together and helped each other in the harsh outback interior of Central Australia.
For this event, schools in the area have been encouraged to provide lessons for their students covering various aspects of the journey, which will enable them to learn more about the history of the Afghans and their camel trains. Schools and community groups will be invited to participate in the event wherever possible. Other activities to promote interest, such as an essay competition for high school students, were considered. I am not quite certain whether that is still under way.
The camels on the Last Camel Train are carrying a mixture of official Australia Post mail, which I sent to myself, as they had been given approval for their own post mark, freight and passengers: The journey will take approximately 22 days, with nightly camps to be arranged at historic spots. I tried to look on the web site to determine the current location but, unfortunately, I have not been able to do so. They will also be camping at places of interest and other areas of specific significance. As I said earlier, the train departed Oodnadatta on Friday, 9 August, and will arrive in Alice Springs on Saturday, 31 August. A concert featuring Bloodwood was held on the night of 8 August, prior to the departure. I understand that a large group of people travelled by bus - sponsored by Buslink - which took them all to Oodnadatta for the occasion. When they arrive at the Telegraph Station at the completion of the journey there will be another concert.
This event has taken on greater significance since the announcement on 8 January 2002 that a week-long Year of the Outback Expo will be held in Alice Springs, commencing with the camel train arriving on Saturday, 31 August. It is anticipated that some 10 000 visitors may be visiting Alice Springs over that week. As for the web site, I read it into Hansard: it is www.lastcameltrain.com.
The people who are involved with the organising of the Last Camel Train were Eric Sultan, who is the coordinator; Robin Bullock, a former policeman, Chairman; Lyn Wilkinson, Secretary; the Alice Springs Town Council was made the Treasurer; Bern Kilgariff was the fundraising coordinator and Scotty Balfour, the trip coordinator. Other people involved with the organising committee were Jo Sherrin, Abdul Khan, Ted Egan, Michelle Smail, Dick Kimber, Kevin Shipley, Nick Smail and Alex Sherrin.
I became involved with the Last Camel Train organisers when I met them during the Camel Cup and they explained to me their efforts in fundraising. They were looking at some $60 000 of funds to help pay for the cost of the whole three-week exercise. They also told me they were still a long way short of their target of monies that they had to raise. They were short of food, fuel and transport. I invited a couple of the committee members to come to speak to me, during which time they presented me with a list of materials required. It was fortunate that I was able to speak with Wayne Anderson of the Central Oil Refinery in Alice Springs, who generously donated 1000 litres of diesel in 200-litre drums for the expedition. They will use that fuel to run three Toyota Landcruisers which were loaned from Peter Kittle Toyota, and sponsored by both Peter Kittle and Toyota, to be backup vehicles for the expedition. It is anticipated that this 1000 litres of diesel fuel will be more than enough to get them from Oodnadatta back to Alice Springs.
Through my position as the chairman of the food price inquiry, I made a lot of great contacts with the Coles enterprise. I rang Coles Corporate in Melbourne and sought their sponsorship of food for the expedition. I was very privileged to have a very positive response from Coles. Within a few days, I had a promise of 24 cartons of sports drinks, 10 cartons of soft drinks, 1320 health cereal bars, two cartons of oranges, two cartons of apples and two cartons of bananas. That was a great contribution. We spent a few hours Saturday morning two weeks ago - actually no, it was the Monday morning of Darwin Cup - loading supplies onto the trailer for them to take to Oodnadatta. As I said, the group from Alice Springs, particularly the onlookers, travelled by Buslink to Oodnadatta on Thursday 8th to spend the night; camped out at Oodnadatta to then wave the camel train off from Oodnadatta the next morning.
I am told that every member of the delegation will be taking turns walking with the camels, as that was the way that the Afghans led the camels from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs. It is not likely that anybody will be sitting on the camels, but I am sure there will be a few taking a welcome break sitting in the back of the Toyota Landcruisers while some lead the camels.
This is a very exciting expedition that is coming into Alice Springs in a week-and-a-half’s time. I hope that I will be there in Alice Springs to also meet with them and welcome them back home, and then receive my letter posted and delivered by camel train, with postmarks from both Oodnadatta and Alice Springs. That will be a most historic postal imprint on this envelope. It will be very much a collector’s item and I look forward to receiving that.
I encourage members of this Chamber to welcome the Last Camel Train into Alice Springs. It will be one of the last major recognised events of the Year of the Outback 2002, and is an indication of the recognition that Alice Springs has with this whole celebration for this year.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to report to parliament on a recent interstate trip undertaken under RTD travel. I believe my report will ably demonstrate the way in which such trips can constructively contribute to the life of the Territory and our work as members of the Assembly.
The major theme of this trip was to find out more about drug education in schools. Members on both sides will recall that Labor’s position paper, Tough on Drugs, released prior to the election, was very clear about our commitment for properly resourced drug education campaigns within our schools. Members will also recall that there are currently reviews taking place of drug education in our schools, as well as the NT school-based constable program, including the DARE program.
Apart from drug education in schools, other matters of interest that I will report on include: the Public Accounts Committee, and soon to be established estimates committee; bringing oil and gas onshore in Darwin; further support for the NT fishing industry; freedom of information legislation; matters relating to stem cell research and access to IVF programs - and I know the member for Greatorex is very interested in this - both issues likely to arise in all state and territory jurisdictions over the next 12 months.
Western Australia has recently introduced an exciting new curriculum framework and support network for drug education in schools, and this was my primary reason for visiting Perth. In addition, the Victorian government has also recently invested substantial funds into developing effective programs in this area, hence my reason for visiting Melbourne. In addition, as many members would be aware, Melbourne is the home base of Professor Alan Trounson, one of the world’s leading stem cell researchers, and has been the main focus of ethical debate in Australia relating to this issue, as well as issues related to access to IVF programs. I was also very fortunate to meet with a number of ethicists, including Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filipinni, and Fr Norman Ford, to discuss these issues.
Firstly, to the issue of drug education in schools. I intend to summarise my discussions with experts in this area, both in Perth and Melbourne. As an outline, my first briefing was given by Mr Trevor Shilton of the West Australian Heart Foundation. Trevor is very well respected as a health educator at a national level, and has also been involved at various times in the development of the drug education curriculum framework in Western Australia. Trevor gave what I consider to be an impartial and non-partisan history of this endeavour.
Due credit must go to the Court government for setting up a School Drug Education Task Force in 1997. The task force comprised all interested parties including: the Western Australian Education Department, including health educators and Aboriginal educators; Catholic and other independent schools; Western Australia Health; Western Australia police; various organisations representing educators and those training teachers; GP divisions; and expert researchers in the field such as Dr Richard Midford from the National Drug Research Institute. The task force operated for approximately four years and made great strides in developing the overall framework for action. Further endorsement and focus for action was given at a drug summit set up by Mr Bob Kucera, the current WA Health Minister.
I was extremely impressed by the excellent briefing given to me on the issue by Mr Richard Crane, from the Western Australia Education Department. In essence the framework consisted of five areas of action, namely:
- the curriculum, including the development of quality resources that are evidence based;
policy area, priority was also given to linking schools with support agencies and to upgrading
school personnel on policy issues relating to drugs, of course;
education at a community level. There are regional or local reference groups to facilitate involvement,
and a grants scheme to encourage local communities to set up their own support programs; and
ascertaining whether it actually works. Western Australia is, indeed, fortunate to have some of
Australia’s leading researchers in this area who work within the National Drug Research Institute
(NDRI) at Curtin University.
Some members may be familiar with Professor Dennis Gray, who works at the NDRI and who has done a substantial amount of work evaluating alcohol restrictions within the Northern Territory. After Professor Gray had given an invaluable overview of the work of the NDRI and some of his recent work on illicit drug use in Aboriginal communities, he introduced me to Dr Richard Midford who, along with Miss Nyanda McBride, has published extensive reviews of drug education programs in schools.
I quote from one review of Midford and McBride entitled ‘Alcohol Education in Schools’, published in the International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems, edited by Heather, Peters and Stockwell and published by John Wiley and Sons. This is from pages 785 to 804:
- An example of a drug education program with a long history of acceptance in schools but poor evaluation
records in achieving behaviour change is DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) … It essentially uses
the didactic approach to deliver a strong abstention message, although its distinguishing feature is that
community police officers, rather than teachers, provide the education.
Well published programs such as DARE and Life Education seem to build up a momentum that is difficult
to stop, even though the empirical evidence attests to their ineffectiveness. DARE continues to be the drug
education program of choice in America, despite over a decade of predominantly negative evaluations and
a recent review commissioned by the American Department of Education which concluded it was amongst the
least effective programs in use.
Another interesting perspective that Mr Kucera offered was that harmful drug use should be viewed as a health issue, whilst drug dealing and other criminal behaviours must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Finally, he was also insistent that drug education in schools also needs continuing support from community groups and commercial sponsors.
Whilst in Melbourne, I was also fortunate to meet with Mr Milton Long and Mr Lou Iaquinto from the Victorian Department of Education and Training. Similar to Western Australia, Victoria had a review of drug education in schools conducted by Professor Pennington. Over the past three years, the Victorian government has spent an extra $14.4m on drug education in approximately 1600 government and 700 non-government schools. As in WA, the strategy is based on evidence that the properly trained teachers are best placed to deliver drug education. Intervention is central to their framework, and the framework also aims to build resilience and communication for individuals and promote welfare and support. Another central theme is its school curriculum should give as many kids as possible the chance to succeed. Much of the effort has gone into building properly trained and adequately resourced core teams in school regions or school networks. A significant amount of funding has come from the Community Support Fund in Victoria, which draws on revenue from poker machines.
I was also privileged to meet with Mr Bill Stronach who is director, and Mr Geoff Munro, from the Australian Drug Foundation in Melbourne, to discuss drug education. I have had the pleasure of knowing Bill Stronach for some years. When I was an alcohol and drug researcher …
Mr Elferink: So you approve of using poker machines to fund drug programs?
Dr BURNS: Well, that is what they do in Victoria.
I have always held the work of the ADF in high esteem. This is because the ADF have always relied on an evidence base to develop effective curriculum resources that have a national and international reputation for excellence. Once again, in my interview with the ADF, it was made quite clear that all the evidence demonstrates that the best person to deliver school drug education is a properly trained teacher. Drug education should promote individual family and community resilience to harmful drug use. In this, the family plays a key role.
The community must also demonstrate that it will not tolerate harmful drug use whether it be alcohol, cannabis, benzodiazepines, amphetamines or opiates. Breaking down feelings of isolation in youth so that they feel connected to the community is also very important. Whilst the role of parents is central, there is also a great value in young people being able to also look to adult mentors for advice and friendship.
The emphasis of the school drug education task force in Western Australia and the drug education framework in Victoria, was to develop a framework based on best practice and what has been shown to work. I believe the same challenge exists for the Northern Territory. Moreover, given the diverse cultural nature of our populations, the challenges are probably greater. Nevertheless, this should not deter us from this extremely important undertaking.
I would also like to report on other meetings held in Perth before finally reporting on meetings held in Melbourne. With decisions on Sunrise gas drawing near, I was keen to meet with representatives of APPEA which is the peek group for petroleum producers in Australia; namely, Mr James Pearson, director and Mr Don Sanders, director of education and training. This group, APPEA, are vitally interested in Timor Sea developments. They were very positive in their appraisal of the potential economic developments of an LNG plant in Darwin, and future onshore development for the Blacktip and Tern deposits. In addition, such economic developments should also be viewed in a wider economic perspective for the development of the Territory.
Their briefing also emphasised how competitive the Australian oil and gas industry is. With energy needs in eastern states increasing at a great rate, they outlined three options. Apart from piping Timor sea oil and gas from the NT to eastern states, energy supplies could also be accessed from PNG and the north-west of Western Australia. This is why the efforts of the Chief Minister and Team NT should be highly commended for, without a united effort, the Territory may be overshadowed by its competitors.
Whilst in Perth, I also held meetings related to my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I was privileged to meet with Mr John D’Orazio, Chairman of the WA Public Accounts Committee, and other members including Mr Monty House, Mr John Bradshaw and Mr Ross Ainsworth. I thank those members for their hospitality and for further background as to how the Estimates Committee process works. Similarly, in Melbourne I met with Mr Peter Loney, Chair of the Victorian PAC and Estimates Committee and Ms Judy Madigan, Deputy Speaker and a member of the Victorian PAC and Estimates Committee.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it appears that I have run out of time and I seek leave for the remainder of my speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
- I have been somewhat dismayed reading a number of NT Auditor-General’s reports in relation to lack
of transparency and accountability in the NT Land Corporation. So, whilst in Perth, I met with senior
officers in WA Landcorp – Mr John Ellis and Mr Frank Marra – to find out how one of the best land
corporations in Australia operates in a transparent but businesslike fashion, to ensure maximum
financial and social benefits to the public through buying, selling and development of public land
assets. We in the Territory could well follow their lead, and I will be having some discussions with
my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning, on this issue.
Whilst in Perth, I was pleased to meet with Mr Mike Daube, Director General of the Western Australia
Health Department. Mr Daube is particularly keen to see improvement in cross-border linkages between
the Territory and north-west Western Australia, especially to improve and develop effective programs and
services to improve Aboriginal health. Like Mr Bob Kucera, I had also known Mike Daube when he was
Western Australian President of the National Heart Foundation. I know him to be someone who is wholly
committed to public health, and I believe that the health of Western Australians and Australians in
general will benefit from his output.
In Perth, I also had the privilege of meeting with Mr Ted Wilkes, a well-known Aboriginal leader who has held
very senior roles within Aboriginal health and justice organisations at a local and national level. Ted is also a
very well respected academic and accomplished musician. In any language, Ted Wilkes is a great thinker
and philosopher. He is currently working at the Institute of Child Health Research at the Princess
Margaret Hospital in Perth - obviously with a focus on improving health outcomes for Aboriginal children.
Whilst in Perth, I also took the opportunity to meet with Ron Edwards, who is CEO of the Australian Council
on Smoking and Health (ACOSH), which advocates strongly for positive changes in tobacco legislation and
policy. Ron was very complimentary of the review of tobacco legislation in the Territory. Since ACOSH
also bestows the annual dishonour of the ‘Dirty Ashtray Award’, one would hope that the Territory is able
to avoid getting the 2003 award – a change from the past 4 years.
Ron Edwards also has very strong connections with the seafood industry in Western Australia, and it was through
him that a meeting was arranged with Mr David Carter, CEO of Kaillis and Frances. This company, through
their subsidiary Newfish Australia, is a giant in the seafood industry, including the northern prawn fishery.
They have approximately nine boats operating out of the duck pond at Dinah Beach, injecting an estimated
$15m annually into the Darwin economy. The company plans to build cold storage facilities in Darwin which
would negate the need for diversion of between 550 and 1000 tonnes of prawns to Brisbane, and position
Darwin as a major point of direct export of product to Asia. This would have positive economic spin-offs for
Darwin in terms of increased provedoring and shipping activity, and I commend the project to the government.
I will now turn to other business I conducted in Melbourne. One of the most interesting matters relates to
ethical issues which are likely to be considered by many Australian jurisdictions over the next 12 months;
namely embryonic stem cell research and IVF access for single women and lesbian couples. To this end,
I conducted a number of meetings and briefings with ethicists such as Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filipinni and
Fr Norman Ford of the Caroline Chisolm Institute; eminent researchers such as Professor Alan Trounson;
as well as officers of the Victorian Attorney-General’s Department. These matters are extremely complex
and, given the available time left for delivering this report, best left for detailed debate when they arise.
Although I have my own personal views, the challenge for legislators is to represent the views of the
majority of our constituents, rather than our own personal views.
Whilst in Melbourne, it was my pleasure to meet with former colleagues from the National Heart Foundation,
Ms Robyn Charlwood, Ms Lyn Roberts and Professor Andrew Tonkin. As I have said many time in this place,
the Heart Foundation does a fantastic job. It was great to catch up on news from the health sector.
It was also great to catch up with two colleagues in the drug research area - Professor Paul Maruff and
Professor John Fitzgerald. Professor Maruff is a pioneer in the area of cognitive testing and is now
successfully marketing these tests world-wide. Professor Fitzgerald has done excellent research I the
dynamics of heroin addiction and the market which supplies it. He has also done considerable work
for the Commonwealth on the development of drug policies at a national, state and territory level – all
pertinent to my work as part of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community.
I did find some time for enjoyment and, on a personal level, I would like to thank some people for their
great hospitality: Kim Bannikoff, an old friend and now senior advisor in the Victorian Education
Department; John Ellis, another old friend for his hospitality in Perth; and finally, to Andy Bruyn for
helping me get a couple of tickets to the Richmond v Collingwood game.
Once again, I am grateful to submit this report to the House.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I adjourn in honour of Freda Roberts and Alex Thompson. They have both been extraordinary health workers over the years in the Ngukurr community at the Ngukurr health service.
It was a special occasion in the history of Aboriginal health workers in the Northern Territory when, on 1 July, a morning tea was held to celebrate the retirement of Freda Roberts and Alex Thompson from the Ngukurr Health Clinic. Both had reached 65 years of age and, between them, have served the cause of Aboriginal health and the Northern Territory Health Department for a total of 53 years. This is an extraordinary record, one unlikely to be equalled at a remote health service anywhere else in Australia. It demonstrates the deep commitment of Aboriginal health workers serving their people.
Freda Roberts was born in Borroloola and has traditional ties to Mara country in the Limmen River region. She moved with her family to the then Roper River Mission operated by the Church Missionary Society. She started work at the old mission hospital as a young child. Sadly, Freda lost five of her six children, so she always had a deep concern for sick babies at the clinic. It was the work of the clinic to which Freda devoted her life, starting work for the Health Department in 1975. Over that time, Freda rose to the position of senior health worker at Ngukurr and was of invaluable assistance to the many registered nurses and district medical officers who passed through over the 27 years of her service. Freda was the epitome of dedication to her work and the people she served at Ngukurr over generations.
Alex Thompson originally came from Gunbalanya and started his career at the leprosy unit at East Arm. Alex worked at Gunbalanya before he moved to Ngukurr Health Clinic. In his early days as a health worker, Alex accompanied the highly respected Dr John Hargraves to New Zealand and New Guinea. Alex was known by the locals as ‘Dr Alex’ because he also held certificates in midwifery and dentistry. Using these skills, he delivered several babies at the clinic, not to mention performing a few simple tooth extractions. He was also invaluable during emergencies. He once saved the lives of an electrician who suffered an electric shock while building the new school, and a child who cut his throat open on a rubbish bin.
In honouring the working lives of Freda and Alex, I remind the members on both sides of this House of the critical importance of Aboriginal health workers in sustaining our remote communities. They are not just trained in the core elements of comprehensive primary health care, their knowledge is rooted in knowledge of their communities they live and work in.
It was no accident that over 400 people attended Freda and Alex’s retirement party. There were 18 speakers and women dancers from Daguragu, hundreds of kilometres to the west. They performed in Freda and Alex’s honour. Freda and Alex were each presented with photo albums of their time at Ngukurr clinic, and were also given fishing tackle boxes for their retirement.
It is difficult for many of us, even in the Northern Territory, to comprehend the work of the staff of the remote area clinic. From the Aboriginal health workers through to registered nurses, doctors and allied health professionals, they all must work in isolation from much of the rest of the world. Every day they must make critical decisions about the lives of the community members they serve. Anyone who has lived in a remote community will know of the stresses that face health professionals who choose to work in such environments. Freda and Alex, who worked 27 and 26 years respectively for the Health Department, are fine role models for all of those people who work as health professionals in remote parts of the Northern Territory. I am sure I reflect the views of both sides of the Assembly when I thank them for their many years of hard work.
Of course, neither Freda nor Alex has retired quietly. I am told that barely a day has gone past without seeing Freda at the Ngukurr clinic and, although he has been a bit crook of late, illness has not prevented Alex from attending a community education workshop for the developing Sunrise Health Service that is being rolled out to the Aboriginal communities east of Katherine.
Aboriginal Health Workers are the bedrock of the delivery of comprehensive primary health care in the Northern Territory. In honouring Freda Roberts and Alex Thompson, I also honour the work of all Aboriginal health workers. I am sure all members of the Legislative Assembly would join me in this sentiment.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to report on an initiative developed by Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation in conjunction with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Community Development, the Northern Territory University, Stanbroke Pastoral Company, and the Cattle Division of the Department of Business, Industry, and Resource Development in Tennant Creek.
The Barkly Regional Indigenous Stockman’s Course was developed in response to a number of indigenous organisations and pastoral companies requesting a pilot pre-vocation course to prepare participants for jobs in the pastoral industry. The aims of the course are to create a pool of competent, fully trained Aboriginal stockmen to be accessed by the north Australian cattle industry; equip participants with skills adequate for further long-term formal training directly linked to employment outcomes in the cattle industry; to provide a group with basic formal skills relevant to the employment requirements of the cattle industry; to provide training in an environment closely linked to the commercial operations of a large successful pastoral company; to familiarise potential indigenous stockmen with the skills, requirements, and demands that go with working on a successful regional cattle station; and to familiarise the regional cattle industry with the potential associated with integrating local Aboriginal stockmen into commercial operations.
Training is provided by the Northern Territory University. It is an accredited course, Certificate 2, Agricultural, Beef and Cattle Production. The second part of the training program, which is being conducted at Brunchilly Station, approximately 70 km north of Tennant Creek, will include basic horseriding skills, mustering cattle and other such tasks. Initially, Ray Jansen from Helen Springs was to have conducted this part of the course, but he has other commitments. The course will be coordinated by Chris Towns from Brunchilly Station. To both Ray and Chris, I would like to thank you for your support; and also the Stanbroke Pastoral company for your cooperation in this particular training program.
I also pay tribute to Robin Hardiman from the Department of Employment, Education and Training. He performs his duties in a very committed and dedicated manner, and has been committed to getting this course up. Thanks also to Neil Price from the Department of Community Development, who has also performed a key role in coordinating other key stakeholders. Also to Jenny Purdie from the Tennant Creek Office of the Department of Industry and Resources.
I express my appreciation to Julalikari Job Place and their training team, in particular Pauline Buxton and Ross Williams. Ross, incidentally, has been in the field with the trainees for the duration of the course. Ross is a very rare person, whose commitment to trainees in Tennant Creek is unsurpassed.
Members would be aware that indigenous people and women have played an important role in the development of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Barkly. Over the last 20 years or so, there has been a decrease of indigenous people employed in the pastoral industry, and this initiative may go part of the way to restoring the number of indigenous people gainfully employed on cattle properties.
In conclusion, I would also like to pay tribute to the trainees Carlo O’Cleary, Terrence Kelly, Gavin Grant, Warren Riley and Gilbert Noonan. All of these young gentlemen come from around Tennant Creek, and I congratulate them for taking up the challenge to get a job.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016