2003-08-21
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Official Visit to Greece and Cyprus
Official Visit to Greece and Cyprus
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, happy birthday on behalf of all of us!
I am pleased to report to the Assembly this morning on my impending official visit to the republics of Greece and Cyprus. Honourable members may be aware that I depart for Greece on 31 August as head of the Northern Territory government’s official delegation. Other members of the official delegation include His Honour the Administrator and Mrs Anictomatis, the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Kon Vatskalis, and a delegation from the local Greek community made up of the Honorary Consul for Greece, George Kapetas and Ros Bracher, Honorary Consul-General for Japan, his partner; John Nicolakis, President of the Greek Orthodox Community; John Halkitis; John Vrodos; the Secretary of the Greek Orthodox community Tony Miaoudis and Rena Miaoudis; and the President of the Greek Orthodox School, Savvas Halzivalsamis.
The fundamental purpose of the official visit is to maintain and strengthen the strong social, cultural, sport and economic relationships between the Territory and Greece and Cyprus. All honourable members will be aware of the magnificent contribution of the local Greek and Greek/Cypriot communities to Darwin and the Territory. Since coming to office, I have received numerous representations from my friends in the Greek community to head an official delegation to Greece. Greeks, as we all know, are very family orientated, and minister Vatskalis and I will be accompanied by our partners and children. None of the cost associated with the travel of our children will be borne by the taxpayer.
The itinerary for the official visit includes Kos, Kalymnos, Athens, Istanbul and Cyprus. Our Territory Greek community comprises people from all regions of Greece who have worked hard to maintain their culture and traditions. Kalymnians comprise about 75% of the total Greek Territory population, and there are strong family ties and interaction between our Kalymnian community and Kalymnos. Kalymnos was the first sister city-type relationship established by the municipality of Darwin. Our local Greek/Cypriot community is relatively small but long established. Its contribution to the Territory is widely recognised, and there are substantial opportunities to attract Cyprus-based investment to the Territory. Prior to the departure of the official delegation my colleague, Hon Kon Vatskalis, Minister for Ethnic Affairs, will visit Athens to consolidate government-to-government relations with Greece.
While itineraries are always subject to finetuning, minister Vatskalis has meetings programmed with the Minister for Education and Religious Affairs, the Minister for Culture, the Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad and the Managing Director of Aramark-Desko. The official delegation will meet influential ministers, politicians and citizens, including the President of the Hellenic Republic, His Excellency Constantinos Stephanopoulos, Prime Minister, His Excellency Costas Simitis, and His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. I believe this may be the first occasion on which the Patriarch has directly invited a Territory or state delegation to Istanbul, and I am certainly looking forward to that.
During the visit, contact will be made with Professor Privolos, who is responsible for education of Greek children abroad. We will explore opportunities with her for assistance with the introduction of Modern Greek at the Charles Darwin University. There are also opportunities to establish links between Greek university schools for hospitality and the Charles Darwin University. The company Aramark-Desko, of which we will meet the Managing Director, Mr Milonakis, will cater for the Olympic Village, and the options of sourcing products for Territory origin will be discussed. I will be pleased to report back in detail to this Assembly about the outcomes of the visit.
Madam Speaker, in recognition of the close relationship between our respective communities, successive Chief Ministers have visited Greece. I was very pleased to be part of a small visit paid in January 2001. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and I visited Cyprus, Kalymnos and Athens in that visit. I am sure all honourable members will support the visit of the government’s delegation, and the strengthening of the Territory’s relationship with Greece and Cyprus.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the Chief Minister said, her visit to Greece continues a longstanding tradition of Chief Ministers of the Northern Territory visiting Greece. It is indicative of the high regard that Territorians, through their government, pay to the outstanding contribution that the Greek community has made to the Northern Territory over many many years. In that regard, the opposition supports the trip.
In fact, the Chief Minister would be very familiar with Greece now. This would be the second trip in three years to Greece. Apart from applauding the intent of the trip, because it is important that, in her capacity as Chief Minister she takes advantage of that position to indicate the strength and high regard we hold for the Greek community, and is also being accompanied by senior members of the Greek community - we welcome that. If there is a word of caution and criticism, it would be that, prior to coming to government, the Chief Minister announced to this House in her capacity as Opposition Leader - I think it was in her policy - that when ministers did travel they would not go unannounced. The travel that ministers undertook or the time that they were away from their duties, would be well and truly forecast to Territorians, and the reasons for them being away from duties would be well and truly flagged. In this case, the Chief Minister has honoured that commitment.
I question why minister Vatskalis has to go to Greece again. Mr Vatskalis is on his second trip to Greece within two years, at a time when he has large numbers of people, I know - and there is one developer who has been trying for some time to even get an appointment with minister Vatskalis. The issues that concern that developer should not be left sitting on a table all the time he is away. Therefore, I would urge him to make arrangements to ensure that issue is progressed.
Minister Toyne has been in Macedonia recently - no announcement to Territorians. Minister Henderson has been on leave.
Ms Martin: He was on holidays.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: It does not matter if he has been on holiday, or not. He is a minister away from his duties in parliament …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … and one thing this government does do is spend …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … more time on leave or away on …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: … unannounced trips rather than attending to the duties of ministers.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, can I just respond to a couple of points that the Opposition Leader is trying to raise erroneously, when he says the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General was in Greece recently, and where was his announcement?
We are, as ministers, allowed to take holidays and those holidays and what we do on them are our business. Certainly, I will stand here and protect ministers, saying when they are going on holiday and there is no impost on the taxpayers, they can do what they like. In stark contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, who went away for a number of weeks, visited New York and South Africa and Lord knows, Madam Speaker, what kind of benefit there was for the Territory.
The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General went on holidays and, quite appropriately, visited Greece. I thoroughly support it. That is in stark contrast to what the Opposition Leader did, supposedly, on his working holiday overseas.
National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I inform the House about the release of the first national recreational and indigenous fishing survey.
This survey was a joint initiative of the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments to obtain information on non-commercial fishing in Australia. The outcomes of the national survey can be used in conjunction with commercial catch data to obtain a better picture of the overall catch by all groups, including recreational, commercial and traditional fishers. More than $3m was allocated to allow the survey to proceed, and anglers throughout Australia had the opportunity to participate in the most ambitious survey of their sport in the history of this nation. The Northern Territory contributed around $150 000 directly and considerable in-kind support.
The survey was based on the highly successful survey of local recreational fishers undertaken by the Northern Territory in 1995. The experience and skill of the Fisheries Group within the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in this type of research is highly regarded, with the Fisheries Group commissioned to undertake much of the survey work throughout the Top End.
The survey highlighted that, first, almost 44 000 or 31.6% of the Northern Territory population over the age of five years fished at least once in the 12-month period; the Territory has the highest fishing participation rates in the country; and the majority of anglers, just over 70%, were male. That is not to forget female anglers. The second Reel Women Barra Classic fishing competition is to be held on Corroboree Billabong and at Shady Camp very soon, and that will encourage greater participation by women anglers. I will be opening that competition. Thirty-seven per cent of Territory households have at least one recreational fisher living there. Basically, in the 12 months prior to May 2001, Northern Territory anglers spent 1.9 million hours fishing. The main species they targeted were snapper, barramundi and mud crabs. Nationally, one in three fish caught is released. The Fisheries Group is undertaking research to further catch and release, particularly barramundi.
Fishers in the Northern Territory spent an estimated $27m on fishing-related equipment and activities, and an average of $608 per angler. This was above the national average, with recreational anglers spending an estimated $1.8bn nationally each year. Over 20 000 or 92% of indigenous people in the northern region of the Northern Territory went fishing. Indigenous people undertook almost a quarter of a million fishing days in that 12-month period, and the main species that they targeted were shellfish, mullet and mud crabs. A total of 1.5 million entities, which included fish and non-fish species, were harvested. The national recreational representative body suggest that recreational fishers spend about $62 per kilogram to catch their fish, which is considerable.
I commend departmental staff for contributing tothis very important national survey that has provided a complete overview of the total level of harvest by all sectors. It is only with this level of information that we can continue to ensure that Northern Territory fisheries are sustainable.
Madam Speaker, it is likely that the national survey will be undertaken every five years.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that research and development and the establishment of baselines are important in all our fisheries in the Northern Territory and, indeed, across Australia.
It is great to see that the government has finally taken some notice of recreational fishing in the Northern Territory. I hope this survey spurs them into some sort of action. I remind honourable members that it has been two years since the Labor government promised to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. Still nothing has happened. It has taken two years, and we are waiting; amateur fishermen are waiting. The survey confirms how many people are relying upon those promises being fulfilled.
The work of Northern Territory public servants should be acknowledged and the are congratulated in compiling the information that forms the substance of this survey in respect of the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution. I have been given a little quote about the phenomenal amount of time that we all seem to spend fishing. It is an ancient Assyrian tablet that says: ‘The gods do not subtract from the span of men’s lives the hours spent in fishing’. That is a pretty good saying.
On the issue of the Adelaide River, it is an election commitment of ours. We will honour it in this term of government. I remind members opposite that, at the beginning of our term, we had one promised river closure, which was the Adelaide. We have already closed the McArthur. At the end of this term of government, there will be two major rivers that are closed. I can give that assurance. Regarding Bynoe Harbour, yes, we are looking at a marine reserve there. There are a lot of issues that will have to be worked through. Those discussions and thinking processes have already started.
History Grants Scheme
Dr TOYNE (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, today I am proud to inform the House of funding grants totalling $50 000 under the Northern Territory government History Grant Scheme. The scheme was established to commemorate self-government, giving historical knowledge back to the Territory. Sharing knowledge about our history helps to develop our sense of how we see ourselves and our society.
Our 25th year of self-government provides an ideal opportunity for reflection on our history and the achievements in the Northern Territory. These grants provide much-needed financial support for historians researching the history of our Territory. Building on my announcements on the establishment of a much-needed archive service in Alice Springs, the grants will help to ensure Territory stories and characters are researched and recorded before they are lost to future generations.
Seventeen grants have been allocated for amounts up to $5000. Allan Powell will continue research on the American army engineers in the Northern Territory. Christine Gordon will research the history of Wadeye. Glenice Yee will look at Chinese migration in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Police Museum and Historical Society is now set to continue recording oral histories of Northern Territory police members and their spouses. David Bridgman is investigating the history of tropical colonial architecture in Darwin. Klaus Newman is researching Darwin’s response to deserters and deportees. Colin De La Rue will be looking at the military presence and activities at Fort Dundas on Melville Island. Dennis Foley is developing a history of governments in the indigenous business enterprises in the Northern Territory.
Peter Monteath is working on the diary of Emily Creaghe and researching her involvement in the Favenc expedition of 1883 through Northern Australia. Robert Gosford will develop a bibliography of Arnhem Land ornithology. Linda Clack will continue work on Olive Pink’s experiences in the Northern Territory, and her perspective on anthropology and indigenous affairs policy. Andrew McMillan will work on the history of the Roper River region. CAAMA Productions will research the life and times of Gurindji man, Kumadjai Wilson Jupurrula. Megg Kelham will use her grant to continue to research and document the Pine Gap peace camp of 1983. David Roberts is researching the history of western Arnhem Land through the documentation of Aboriginal rock art sites. The Genealogical Society of the Northern Territory will research Centralian deaths at Hermannsburg, Arltunga, Stuart Town Cemetery, Winnecke Depot, Horseshoe Bend and Mt Riddock. Finally, Karen Hughes will research Ruth Heathcock and her relationship with Aboriginal women in the field of remote health in the Northern Territory in the 1930s.
I congratulate all those people on their success in receiving these grants, and look forward to seeing the results of their work.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I congratulate, on behalf of those on this side of the House as well, the recipients of grants. Anything than enhances our history enriches our future for generations to come. Well done!
Small Business Training Workshops
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, the Business Growth Program facilitated by my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development offers business people in the Northern Territory real support to grow their business through a formal, structured business plan using the expertise of local business consultants. These programs have directly contributed to the success and growth of many Northern Territory businesses. Today I would like share with this House the experiences of some of those businesses.
Didgeri Air Art Tours is a unique Northern Territory business. It offers aerial tours to various indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, and provides opportunities for Aboriginal art buyers from around the country and the world to meet artists and view their work in their communities.
Earlier this year, the owner of Didgeri Air Art Tours, Ms Helen Read, came to my department seeking some assistance with her business. At that time, Ms Read was struggling with which step to take next and, after consultation with the client manager from my department, a business growth program was selected. Ms Read applied for and received approval to undertake a business improvement program. The process has enabled Ms Read to address a number of issues relating to her business, including implementing policies such as credit management and discount policies; implementing the documentation of systems and procedures; assisting her to acquire financial management and management accounting skills, thereby being able to implement financial management controls; and understanding the importance of customer feedback and planning.
When asked if the program was worthwhile Ms Read replied: ‘Absolutely! It will take a little while to action all the points I need to work on in the business, but with this business plan the myriad of colours and movement I was staring at down the kaleidoscope have become neat little gems in lines that can be seen and controlled clearly’. A full-page article in the Australian Financial Review on 8 May 2003 featured Didgeri Air Art Tours and Ms Read, and I am pleased to report Ms Read praised the Territory government for its timely support for her business.
JR Communications and Cabling commenced business in 2001 as the Ericsson accredited dealer, providing sales and maintenance for Ericsson PABX equipment in the Northern Territory. Earlier this year, the firm’s director Ms Jayne Rothall identified a planning need for her business and came to my department for assistance. Again, after consultation with a departmental client manager, a program was selected. During the subsequent business planning process, Ms Rothall discovered a wealth of important business factors she had previously overlooked. When asked if the program was worthwhile Ms Rothall noted: ‘It is something you do not realise how important it is until you do it’, and ‘How our business ever survived, I do not know’.
To highlight another example of the usefulness of the planning services facilitated by this government’s Territory Business, early last year the Mindil Beach Sunset Markets Association came to me to discuss how the markets could plan for their future. As all members well know, over the years the markets have grown to be one Darwin’s major tourist attractions and represents the groupings of nearly 200 individual small businesses. The general manager, Mr Tim Robinson stated that:
- The association lacked a strategic direction. The historic growth of the market and subsequent growth of the association necessitated the development of formal policy documents’
And:
- The program has led to a greater understanding by the participating membership and the management of the needs and weaknesses of the organisation. A point of reference now exists with regard to strategic direction; this allows for a more structured evolution of our business. I would have no hesitation in recommending the process to other businesses within the Northern Territory.
The business manager of Mortgage Choice NT, Ms Julie Schelling recently completed another program facilitated by my department, the Upskills Marketing Workshop, and comments:
- Having never been self-employed before, and after two years of guess work, I wanted to know if we were using all of the tools to ensure we were marketing efficiently, effectively, and using modern methods to draw people to our business.
After attending the workshop Ms Schelling said:
- A huge benefit to me was the reassurance that we were not working in the dark ages and had a reasonable grasp of modern methodology and logic in the marketing world. Another huge benefit is that we did not have to pay a cent; that is a great benefit to business.
The owner of Isobar Travel, Ms Michelle Combs, also recently attended the Up-skills Marketing and Financial Management Workshops and had this to say:
- I attended the workshops to support my business endeavours. This is my first business and I was lacking in both financial and marketing skills. The Financial Management workshop assisted me to set up my chart of accounts on MYOB right from the start. The benefit of this was that I started gathering the correct financial information for my business from the start. The marketing workshop taught me the importance of having a marketing plan and how to formulate your target market, together with some cheap but savvy ways of advertising. The programs were defiantly worth my time. I am thankful to the government for supporting small business.”
Madam Speaker, these are just some of the examples of the practical and supportive approach being adopted by this government to upskill Territory businesses so they can grow and flourish in a fiercely competitive market. As we all know, this kind of economic development translates directly into jobs for Territorians. It was a key election commitment to small business that we would implement these programs, and I am really pleased how they are travelling.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker. I thought I was in an ad there for a while with all those personal endorsements: ‘I like blue Omo’.
This is the business of government. It is most important that government facilitate business acumen and guiding the way through the labyrinth of government regulation, assisting businesses that are new, and assisting pioneer businesses. It has been going on for many, many years and I am glad the government is continuing with it. October Business Month is coming up soon and it will be awash with speeches from people who are actively involved in successful businesses, with workshops.
It is good to see the Labor government continuing the fine work that has been put in place. I suggest that the government send some of their GBDs along to these because, as we found in the budget, there has been a massive decrease in the profitability of these GBDs since Labor came to power. Perhaps it is one of those things where one arm of business can help the other, and they can go and have a look at those government business divisions and put them on a more appropriate entrepreneurial footing.
Madam Speaker, we congratulate those five businesses cited by the minister, and we are very pleased that they have been able to assisted in this way through a government program which is free. We know that the return to government will be strong viable businesses, people consuming more, and a healthy, economic Northern Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his supportive comments. I believe everybody in here supports small business. It was a key election commitment to establish a client managers’ one-stop shop for businesses in the Northern Territory and a small business up-skills program. I have met quite a number of people who have taken advantage of these programs; that is just a snapshot of the comments. I urge anybody who is reading these transcripts - we are out there promoting these programs, and as local members, get behind these programs. If you talk to small business people and they are having trouble in managing their business, there is assistance available. It will continue to be available, and I thank the member for his comments.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
BUSINESS TENANCIES (FAIR DEALINGS) BILL
(Serial 175)
(Serial 175)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The prime purpose of the bill is to establish a regulatory framework that promotes greater certainty, fairness and clarity in the commercial relationship between landlords and tenants, for certain small business tenancies. In the main, the regulatory provisions of the act will apply to shops and premises of a like nature. A secondary purpose of the bill is that of consolidation into this act of the provisions dealing with evictions currently contained within the Commercial Tenancies Act.
For many years, concerns have been expressed throughout Australia about market problems that affect the trading viability or contribute to the failure of small to medium sized business tenancies, with the main problem area being that of retail shops. These problems may arise out of inadequate knowledge of key information by shopkeepers and an imbalance in the relative bargaining strength of landlords and tenants. These concerns have led to the introduction, in every Australian jurisdiction other than the Northern Territory, of comprehensive retail tenancy legislation. The development of this legislation in the Northern Territory has quite a history.
Members may recall that the Tenancy Working Group was established by the previous government in the early 1990s to review tenancy law in the Northern Territory. The Tenancy Working Group made a number of recommendations for reform to the law relating to commercial tenancies. However, no action was taken to implement these recommendations. In 1997, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology heard submissions from many representatives of the retail sector and, in May 1997, produced a report entitled Finding a Balance Towards Fair Trading in Australia. This report, known as the Reid Report, set out a number of principles to provide minimum standards for retail tenancy laws. Following the release of that report, the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers with responsibility for retail tenancies met in December 1997 and endorsed the objective of establishing consistent legislative or regulatory retail tenancy standards, implementing the recommendations arising from the report.
Although the then Northern Territory minister responsible for retail tenancy legislation agreed, in 1997, to establish such legislation, nothing further was done. As I said earlier, the Northern Territory is now the only jurisdiction without retail tenancy legislation. In March 2000, the then Labor opposition, introduced the Retail Tenancies Bill 2000. This bill was defeated. In 2000, the then Department of Industries and Business released a discussion paper relating to possible retail and commercial tenancy legislation. The then Minister for Industries and Business formed a further working party to consider submissions, and to present a report and recommendations. The report of the working party was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 6 June 2001. The then minister advised the Assembly that the report would form the basis of a bill to be prepared and introduced in the Assembly.
No bill had been introduced by the time the Martin Labor government was elected in August 2001. The Martin Labor government came to office in 2001 with a firm commitment to introduce retail tenancy legislation to address the issues that had been raised over the previous decade. Today, we are delivering on this promise. In February 2003, I released a discussion paper and draft legislation for public consultation. Approximately 200 copies of the draft bill and discussion paper were distributed to interested members of the public, and the documents were also available from the Internet.
Seminars on the draft legislation were held in Darwin and each regional centre in the Northern Territory. I take this opportunity to thank those people who contributed to the development of the bill by making submissions or attending meetings. The feedback from these consultations has been critical in ensuring the government has developed legislation that represents a fair balance between the interests of tenants and landlords, and is legally sound. The Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Bill has been developed following extensive consultation with industry and other stakeholders, taking into account best practice in legislation in other jurisdictions, as well as local conditions.
I shall now outline the main points made in the submissions, and the government’s responses to them. First, a number of submissions contained suggestions that the coverage of the legislation be extended to all commercial premises. However, at this stage, the government is not convinced there would be a nett benefit in providing for such an extension. This is said noting that the majority of the problems sought to be remedied by the legislation occur in the retail sector. Thus the draft bill covers, in the main, only small retail premises.
However, the provisions dealing with repossession of the premises and freedom of association, which were formerly in the Commercial Tenancies Act, have been included in this bill. For this reason, and to better reflect the objectives of the act, the name of the bill has been altered to Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Bill.
Additionally, it can be noted that the schedule in the discussion draft of the bill, containing a long list of the types of premises covered by the main parts of the bill, has been deleted. It has been replaced by a definition of ‘retail shop’, which will permit other types of premises to be added or deleted on an as-needs basis.
Second, a number of submissions argued in favour of ratchet clauses remaining lawful in the Northern Territory. Ratchet clauses in leases provide that rent can increase in line with market trends, but cannot decrease in the event of an economic decline. This means that where rental is based on market rent, the tenant assumes the risk, should there be an economic decline. The prohibition on ratchet clauses in leases is one of the key issues agreed to by all jurisdictions in 1997, and ratchet clauses appear to be prohibited in every other Australian jurisdiction. The Property Council and others representing property owners have suggested that the prohibition of ratchet clauses may result in financiers viewing development or funding proposals less favourably, as there will be no guaranteed rental stream. The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development has approached various financial institutions for their views on ratchet clauses. The resulting advice is to the effect that ratchet clauses are largely irrelevant to funding decisions. Additionally, ratchet clauses are prohibited in every other jurisdiction without apparent detriment to property development in those jurisdictions.
The government has also noted the contrary view, namely that ratchet clauses are merely a mechanism for establishing a minimum rent over a period of a lease. If such clauses are prohibited in future leases, landlords will seek alternative mechanisms for maintaining base rent, whilst achieving rent increases that may operate to artificially maintain high rents. For example, rent increases linked to CPI. Notwithstanding this consideration, the prohibition on ratchet clauses has been retained in the bill on the basis that it is inherently misleading and unfair to link rent review to the market, but only where the market will produce a higher rent.
Third, some submissions raised the issue of increasing the bureaucracy with associated costs of administration. Whilst the bill creates a statutory position of Commissioner of Business Tenancies, the legislation will be administered by the Department of Justice, through the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, with the existing Commissioner of Consumer Affairs assuming the role of Commissioner of Business Tenancies. Current staff of the Department at the Department of Justice will be responsible for day-to-day administration of the act. The main expenditure is expected to arise because of the educational programs that we will need to run in the period leading up to the commencement. These are expected to cost approximately $25 000. Once the act is operational, it is expected that it will be largely self-regulatory.
The act will provide a prescriptive set of rules and, as such, will not require a bureaucracy. The Commissioner of Business Tenancies has limited jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes, with the main function in dispute resolution being the conduct of mediation or conciliation. The parties will be required to meet the costs of such mediation and conciliation.
Fourth, commentators raised the question of compliance costs for landlords and tenants. It is quite true that the legislation will require more structured relationships between landlords and tenants. Thus, for tenancy relationships that are currently ad hoc, or one-sided, there will be additional costs of compliance; for example, in providing draft leases and disclosure statements. However, the point has been made by both proponents and opponents of the proposed legislation that most of these requirements represent best practice in the core aim of the legislation, which is that of ensuring that landlords and tenants enter into tenancy arrangements that are fair and, in terms of rights and responsibilities, fair.
In summary, the legislation is likely to impose some initial cost burdens on small scale landlords of shopping centres. For larger shopping centre owners, there should not be a significant cost. I also note that the Department of Justice is to complete a National Competition Policy review of the bill, by the time of the passage of the bill. Having regard to the objectives of the bill, this review will test whether the benefits of the legislative proposals in the bill justify the costs imposed on the community by the bill.
The retail sector of the Territory is the largest single sector of employment. Providing a framework that outlines the accepted rules of conduct of tenants and landlords, protecting them from unfair practices and, at the same time, enhancing the job security of some 15 000 Territorians, the bill is designed to cover leased retail premises, both in shopping centres and main street, or strip shopping precincts. This legislation is intended to encourage an environment of fairness, to the benefit of both landlords and tenants.
I now turn to the key elements of the bill. Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters. In line with legislation in other jurisdictions, the legislation, other than Part 13, covers only retail tenancies, or tenancies of a like nature. This includes any premises used wholly or predominantly for the sale or hire of goods by retail, or the retail provision of services, and any business that is carried out in a retail shopping centre. A retail shopping centre is defined, and may include not only the shopping centres such as Casuarina, but also more traditional street front or strip shops.
Again, consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions, there are certain exemptions. These include the large tenancies, where the tenant is most likely to have at least equal bargaining power as the landlord, such as leases for shops with a lettable area of 1000 m2 or more, or leases to publicly listed corporations. Recognising the need for flexibility, the regulations may prescribe other classes of premises which may be exempted from the operation of the act should this become necessary.
Part 2 of the bill establishes a statutory position of Commissioner of Business Tenancies, and sets out the functions of this position. The Commissioner of Business Tenancies is to be the existing Commissioner of Consumer Affairs under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. It should be noted that the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs also administers the Residential Tenancies Act. This act will be administered by the Department of Justice staff in the existing tenancy area of the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs.
Part 3 of the bill sets out the rights and duties of each party before they enter into a retail shop lease. The objective of these provisions is to ensure that each party is as informed as possible before committing to a lease. Tenants should not face unexpected charges and bills for outgoings after a lease is signed. Similarly, landlords can be comforted that their tenants understand all the requirements that are placed on them, increasing the likelihood of having a stable, long-term tenant, capable of meeting their liabilities to the landlord.
The bill includes provisions that require the landlord and tenant to give each other a disclosure statement before entering into a lease. Tough penalties will apply where a party fails to give a disclosure statement, or provides one that is misleading, false or incomplete. The content of disclosure statements is to be prescribed by regulation but, for the landlord, will include such things as the details of the tenancy, costs and expenses the tenant will be responsible for, rent calculation and reviews, outgoings to be paid by the tenant and, if applicable, the shopping centre details. The bill provides that tenants have the right to a five-year term. This brings the Territory into line with interstate legislation, and it is an important improvement in the tenant’s security of tenure. However, this provision does not apply where a tenant seeks a shorter term and has obtained legal advice about the implications of waiving their right to a five-year term.
Part 4 deals with rent and outgoings under a retail shop lease. The bill contains important provisions in regards to rent, particularly rent reviews. The basis or formula on which a rent review is to be conducted must be set out in a lease. Importantly, ratchet clauses which allow rent to increase with market forces, but never decrease, are prohibited. The prohibition of ratchet clauses was one key issue arising from the Reid Report, and ratchet clauses are prohibited in every other jurisdiction. Under the provisions dealing with sinking funds and outgoings, the landlord will be accountable to the tenants for monies received, and will be limited in what fees and charges can be passed on to tenants under these categories. The landlord’s capital cost, depreciation and interest on borrowing cannot be passed on to the tenants as outgoings.
Part 5 contains provisions dealing with the relocation and other disturbances to the premises. These provisions recognise that certain actions by the landlord in managing the building can have a significant adverse effect on the tenant’s business. The bill contains provisions related to the relocation of the tenant’s business, and which deal with alterations, refurbishments, demolition and damaged premises. Depending on the circumstances, the tenant may be entitled to reasonable compensation, a right to terminate the lease, or an entitlement to be offered a new lease on the same terms and conditions. These reforms provide significant improvement in security to tenants during the term of the lease.
Part 6 deals with the assignment of leases and provides that consent to assignment of a lease should not be unreasonably withheld by the landlord, provided the proposed assignee has appropriate financial resources and business skills to fulfil the obligations of the lease.
Part 7 deals with the renewal and extension of leases with the key provision being that landlord is to give the tenant an indication, at least six months before the end of the lease, whether or not a further lease or an extension to the lease will be granted.
Part 9 deals with matters specific to shopping centres. A landlord in a shopping centre is not to disclose turnover information related to an individual tenant’s business without the consent of the tenant, other than in certain defined circumstances. The landlord is to be accountable to the tenant for funds received for such expenses such as costs of gathering statistical information about the shopping centre, and marketing and promotion. The landlord is not permitted to terminate a lease for inadequate sales by the tenant, and is not permitted to prevent a tenant from trading in premises other than the shopping centre. Trading hours cannot be changed, except with the consent of the majority of the tenants.
Part 10 deals with the unconscionable conduct in relation to retail shop leases. This is a major initiative involving the drawing down of unconscionable conduct provisions of section 51AC of Trade Practices Act 1974, and setting out a non-exhaustive list of matters which may be taken into account in determining whether a party has acted unconscionably. The unconscionable conduct provision should encourage a cultural change and adoption of good business practices. It gives tenants greater security without imposing prescriptive requirements on landlords.
Part 11 of the bill deals with dispute resolution. The provisions of Part 11 are designed to provide a speedy, low-cost procedure for resolving disputes. In the first instance, a dispute must, other than in certain limited circumstances, be referred to the Commissioner of Business Tenancies. The commissioner will generally refer the matter for mediation or conciliation, where the parties will attempt to resolve the matter between themselves. Interstate experience suggests that this model will be effective in resolving disputes and, therefore, avoid the need for formal court proceedings. No court action can be taken without the commissioner providing a certificate stating that conciliation has failed, or that the commissioner is of the view that conciliation would not resolve the dispute.
The commissioner will have a relatively small jurisdiction for the hearing and determination of disputes at inquiry up the value of $10 000. Above this amount proceedings may be taken in the Local Court or in the Supreme Court, in line with those courts’ usual jurisdictions. The commissioner is to ensure that, where possible, a matter is resolved within 28 days. Appeals against decisions of the commissioner at the inquiry may be made to the Local Court.
Part 13 applies to business tenancies generally. These provisions have been taken from the Commercial Tenancies Act and relate, in the main, to the process of regaining possession of business premises. These provisions are included in this bill, and the Commercial Tenancies Act is to be repealed in response to industry calls to rationalise the number of acts applying to such tenancies. However, I foreshadow that there will be further legislation dealing with consequential amendments to other legislation. In developing that legislation, I will ensure that the Department of Justice consults with the Law Society and the land-based professions in respect of the inter-relationship between the provisions in the bill and the provisions in Part 8 of the Law of Property Act.
Part 14 deals with various miscellaneous matters, including transitional matters.
In conclusion, this bill is a major reform package that delivers on the government’s commitment to introduce contemporary retail tenancy legislation, enhancing the regulatory framework to enable business to operate in a fair trading environment. This legislation brings the Territory into line with other jurisdictions. It is not about imposing a burdensome regulatory regime on business but, rather, establishing the parameters of sound business conduct in an open and transparent way, with disputes able to be resolved in ways that contain costs for both parties. As such, it is likely to promote further investment by property developers and retailers in the Territory, thus boosting employment and the level of economic activity generally.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY BILL
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
Continued from 13 August 2003. Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I make the initial comment that this is, for me, the most significant legislation that I have contributed to from opposition since I have been shadow. It is one that I have been supported in approaching the minister and his staff, and which I and my colleagues appreciate. I pay also my note of appreciation to Peter Plummer and DEET officials, Professor Ken McKinnon, Dr Chrissie Berryman and Janie Mason at the NTU, and to the education union.
When we approach a piece of legislation such as this which deals with such an important institution in the Northern Territory, it is important to understand that legislation and to consult as widely as possible, because we can spend a lot of time talking about physical infrastructure, railways and, as we all know, it took many years before the vision of a railway translated into a physical railway. However, the infrastructure that we have here within a university - an institute of higher education, TAFE and senior secondary education - the facilities that we speak of here are, to me, the primary infrastructure that must be developed and dealt with in such a way as to unleash a ready accessing of a future for all Territorians. Things such as railways will be made all the more possible. The future dreams that we have will become real through the harnessing of the intellectual capacity, the ability to discuss and understand issues related to the Northern Territory and, once we have an understanding, a definition of an issue and a problem, to formulate well considered policy. These are all the domain of Charles Darwin University as it is described in the vision that has been articulated through the university, and is facilitated by the passage of this legislation.
At the outset, the opposition fully supports this legislation. However, it is beholden upon the opposition to raise specific issues that do need addressing. There is one problem. We do support, however it makes it a little difficult to be fully confident in what we have presented to us owing to the time constraints.
I heard the Chief Minister speak at the university late last year. Mentioned in the second reading speech was this oft-repeated phrase - in this case, it is Charles Darwin University: ‘It is one of our government’s highest priorities’. We have ‘highest priorities’ in practically every area. In this instance, the rhetoric of ‘highest priority’ is difficult to fully accept. If it did have the highest of priorities, why was this legislation not presented at the last sittings? I guess the human response from government would be to say: ‘It was not our fault. We were trying to get it together, and other factors came to play and it certainly is not our fault’. I am of a different view. For the sake of a comprehensive discussion of the issues that are affected by this legislation, we needed it before this Chamber prior to this sitting so that we had sufficient time to address some areas. There are some hot points in this legislation. There are some legislative issues that I have had brought to my attention as late as this morning.
In this case, they are not major. I have not, though, had the opportunity to fully research them, but there are issues. These issues are going to be the responsibility of this government to ensure that the hot spots are well and truly attended to. I understand the minister has the best interests of our university and the progressing of education at heart. There is going to be some work in this, minister, to make sure that those hot spots are well and truly attended to, not for the sake of the credit of the current government, but it is about the future of the Northern Territory. It is about getting this right and ensuring that we have the structure that will allow us, as a community, to mature and approach the future with confidence.
It needs to be understood in the broader context from whence this came. No doubt there will be media releases attributing this implementation and the crafting of this vision to the current government. I can understand that motivation, but the fact is that the ball commenced play with Dr Brendan Nelson, who articulated a national vision for higher education, much of which is reflected in this legislation. I have a lot of time for Brendan Nelson, and have read much of what he has articulated with regards to where we need to go in higher education reform, and I am supportive of that. There are some aspects of it that need to be further considered in how they will actually be applied in the Northern Territory.
As far as I am concerned in opposition, even though Dr Brendan Nelson is my colleague, I have some issues, which will not be touched on in this response, which I will be taking up with the federal minister in respect of Charles Darwin University.
The ball did commence play with Dr Brendan Nelson and his reform agenda, not with this government. The vision was articulated clearly in response to that which was already set by Dr Brendan Nelson by Professor Ken McKinnon. I acknowledge Professor Ron McKay for the KPMG review which was conducted. Many of those recommendations were implemented through the transition to Professor Ken McKinnon, where he was able to articulate quite clearly a new vision for the proposed Charles Darwin University. There has been a significant amount of work in formulating and refining that vision through the management and staff of NTU. To my knowledge, there has been assistance from federal agencies to ensure that this is right. I guess the last one to join the game has actually been this government. They have made the right sounds, but there has been a very slow process in bringing this together. There have been some challenges - and minister, I know there have been significant challenges behind the scenes to make this actually happen - to implement the reform agenda of my federal counterpart, and our federal minister for Education.
We have full support for this legislation, because we can do nothing else; it is required to do so. There are some practical implications in stalling it. There are some serious practical ramifications if we were to not support its passage, to protest loudly, and to draw excessive attention to issues of concern. It is in good faith that we approach this, and allow this to continue. Nonetheless, we must draw attention to areas of concern, which I will be dwelling on as we move forward. It needs to be understood why this has to pass now. Not many people realise that this Charles Darwin University does not actually until we pass this legislation today. Therefore, Charles Darwin University cannot enrol any students - technically cannot enrol them - because the facility does not exist. When enrolments close on 30 September, before the commencement of the new academic year in 2004, we realise that we are in a position where it must pass.
Ms Martin: Enrolments close in September? Applications!
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, for your additional information, admissions for the 2004 higher education programs close on 30 September 2003. So, if we do not have passage, the university cannot enrol students in an institution that does not exist. They cannot legally enrol students until we pass this legislation. I certainly do not want to be responsible for derailing this in any way, because we must support the university. What I am drawing attention to is that this legislation should have been brought before the House earlier than this.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, if I may interrupt, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 12 students, who are probably very interested in this debate. They are from the Darwin High School, and are accompanied by their teacher, Elizabeth Mountford. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, the passage of this bill will enable the Charles Darwin University to now, with authority, market itself in the marketplace. There has been an expectation already raised within the field that this is going to occur and, effectively, this will allow it to officially occur. However, until it officially occurs, there can be no real marketing.
The other point to why it has to pass is that there have been raised community expectation. The vision was referred to some time ago - you can go on the web site, and I have press releases of a smiling Chief Minister, and smiling minister, when an announcement was made - and the expectation has been raised. It really is a well articulated vision, and it does inspire people when we see vision, and we see the press releases echoing that. The expectation has risen in the community, and it seemed to have stalled a little. We wondered what was actually going to happen. Is it Charles Darwin University or not? No, officially not, but yes it is. Well, we have to pass this legislation so that now it is Charles Darwin University.
We do not want it to stall. When we get people moving together and working behind a vision and, hoping with that momentum to overcome some of the challenges that we will face, then we must pass it. However, I would have to say that it has been stalled and we have had that momentum compromised to a small degree.
Staff morale is very important in all this, too. I understand that, generally in the balance of things, the morale of staff has really picked up significantly through the whole restructure program and the defining of the vision. I hear a new language and see a new energy amongst the staff and that is tremendous. However, I believe the pressure has fallen in later times upon the management to manage and sell this. So, there is that expectation and we cannot compromise the fragile state of morale which, at this point is high. I guess with passage today, we will be able to capitalise on that and move strongly forward.
They are some of the reasons. In fact, there are a number of technical reasons why it must pass today. I am mindful of those and respectful of the institution, to ensure that it does receive the full support of the Northern Territory opposition. Therefore, we will be out of limbo shortly.
What are some of the problems? There are a number of industrial issues which the minister would well be aware of. I am of the view that they are industrial issues that need the full attention of this minister and, undoubtedly he will give that full attention. However, unfortunately, due to the time constraint, it has not allowed that important element to be injected into any of these negotiations; that is, adequate and well considered consultation. When you have a bill enter the parliament on urgency, it sends precisely the wrong message to those who will be directly affected by this decision - those on the ground, in particularly the relationship between TAFE employees, DEET employees and employees of the Charles Darwin University.
The time constraint has seriously compromised that very important issue dealing with people; the people who will carry this vision forward and make it happen. These people will carry the vision to students - such as the students we have in the gallery - when they are teaching them, have them in their care, are talking to them about their discipline that they want to refine to make a difference here in the Northern Territory. It will make it just a little better if we had more time and were able to adequately consult staff so that they understood that their concerns were fully considered and taken on board, and brought through to successful implementation.
What we have is a certain amount of faith there in the system to make sure that the MOU which will be signed between DEET and Charles Darwin University with regards to Centralian College, in this instance, will carry, deal with and recognise all the concerns that have been raised by the staff - by the education union in this instance.
At this point, we do not have detail on the MOU; it is something that will be attended to after passage of this legislation. Therefore, I would have to say that you have many staff who will be looking to see that that MOU process carries the concerns of staff. We must look after the teachers because that is what actually makes the difference to an institution. That is how it resonates: you can set the vision and describe it; you can have nice letterhead and promote and use the right rhetoric but, unless that translates right down to the teacher in the classroom, the lecturer who also resonates and carries that enthusiastically, you will not be completely hitting the target. I do believe we can, but it requires a significant amount of work, minister, to ensure that that does occur. In opposition, I would be ensuring that that does occur. It is beholden upon opposition to ensure that those issues are brought to the fore.
It is known that the last EBA with the NTU took 28 months to negotiate. That is currently before the minister for his signing-off, and it is still a work in process. Therefore, there are still a number of issues unresolved. That, to me, is a significant hot spot, which I am not able, due to the shortness of time, to go into in significant detail.
There are some legislative issues which I would like to now draw attention to. Only this morning I noted that, in Part 3, section 8(2)(a) reads:
- In particular the council is to –
- monitor the performance of the Vice-Chancellor;
Where does it say, that the council is to appoint the Vice-Chancellor? I understand it is the role of the council to appoint the Vice-Chancellor, but I cannot see it in the legislation. Perhaps in the minister’s reply, I can be …
Mr Burke: Section 13.
Mr Stirling: Your boss has found it.
Mr MILLS: Another aspect which does not, to my information, challenge the governance protocols that have been dictated by Dr Brendon Nelson, is contained in Part 8, section 39. I say it does not challenge, or offend, the governance protocols as dictated by the federal minister, but the federal legislation contains the need to have the annual reports and the financial statements presented to it within four months. However, in this legislation, in Part 8, section 39, we have six months. If it is presented in six months, that will be six to eight months after the tabling process before it will be presented to the NT minister; when the federal legislation requires it to be four months. I present that to the minister because it only came to my attention this morning, and I ask for the minister’s comment on that, in his reply.
Turning now to the future. We all like a good story and a great picture. We have all talked about art this week. We like good pictures that have good balance. The picture that has been painted about Charles Darwin University, I reckon is a good picture. It is an attractive picture, it is a great vision. It is empowering, it lifts our eyes up and we can look to the future and we can say: ‘Yes, this rings true. Maybe it has some issues but, overall, it is something that can carry us forward as a community’. The community can start to have faith in that vision and to see that the university then becomes a part of the mainstream driving of ideas, the development of policy, and addressing difficult policy issues. Things that we like to see implemented can be facilitated through a university when the community starts to believe in it.
I believe that the vision is actually a very good one. I am very supportive of it. I have to, at this point, pay my respects to the work of Professor Ken McKinnon, in this specific instance, and how he has been able to lift the morale of the staff and inspire all of us who have taken the time to listen to what a university can do. The Charles Darwin Symposia have been a tremendous vehicle for bringing together people to start to consider ideas: about the Northern Territory, things that are possible, social issues, health issues, technical issues, and industrial issues - things that we can talk about as a community. The university, with the right kind of support, is going to lead us into a new place. Therefore, it is a good picture and a good vision. We have to balance the excitement of a great vision and the possibility of it, with the next stage. In opposition we have the responsibility to ensure that the implementation of that vision is done very, very carefully, particularly in respect to Centralian College. Centralian College, to my knowledge, is a well respected and a very successful operation. It seems so right that it should become a part of Charles Darwin University.
The alarm bells are ringing because there is a smell of something else in the air. It is such a good idea, we are moving on to the next good idea too quickly. Centralian College is a special place and, in this instance, it is suited to this amalgamation. I acknowledge that the consideration of bringing other senior secondary operations into this grand vision is attractive, and I am attracted to them. It has a flow-on effect right through our schooling system where we have senior secondary connected to a tertiary institution, so you have Years 11 and 12 who have their minds on higher education; they are heading that way. That then allows us to look back at Years 8, 9 and 10 and, perhaps even the Year 7s. Sometimes we think that the Year 7s do not quite fit in primary school. Why not put them into a middle school? It has implications for a restructure of secondary education.
The minister, of course, will talk about the review into secondary education. That is good, and I have a lot of respect for and confidence in that review. But there are a couple of dynamics in operation. We have the implementation of this vision, which has a dynamism of its own and implies that we should be looking at Years 11 and 12. It is implied and not denied by the minister that Years 11 and 12 might be considered by this government as a fitting partner for Palmerston or Casuarina Senior College. That is all right, the ideas are attractive, but a word of serious caution, and I am sure the minister will respond to this: we must see how it works with Centralian College. We must hasten so slowly with this because it is the current cohort, but there are cohorts to come. We have enough information out there to know that there is a fair amount of enthusiasm for progressing to the next state.
There is another dynamic at play here. We have the implementation of this vision, the amalgamation of Centralian to form the new Charles Darwin University. Great. That is one dynamic. Then we have the review into secondary education. That is another dynamic. They are operating separately, but they overlap. Then there is a third dynamic, a local one, a Palmerston one; that being that Palmerston High School is filled to capacity. ‘We must have a solution to that. Bingo! Let us flow on, because this whole idea is so attractive, and relocate Years 11 and 12 to the Palmerston campus, give them a shot in the arm and we have solved the problem and are on a roll’. There has been too much in the public domain that has not been robustly rebuffed. We find, I fear, that the scapegoat is going to be the review into secondary education. What are we going to do, minister? We will see with the secondary review has to say. Lo! And behold, they will probably float the idea. They will be the ones who will probably recommend it.
As I have already demonstrated, there are three distinctly different dynamics in operation. I reckon that we could be headed for a bit of a problem because, in playing with ideas and restructuring education in the Northern Territory, resourced in every respect - intellectually as well as financially - we could end up having a result that has already been determined, or the appearance of it. That is the greatest danger, minister. You know it. The greatest danger is managing the people part of this.
As I indicated, probably not strongly enough at the beginning, the issue has been leadership. The fact is, as I said, the ball was put in play for the reform of higher education by Dr Brendan Nelson; he started the process. I know the minister and this government were nervous of that grand vision and how it translated here into this campus, this institution. I know there was nervousness, and I would understand that, because how do you marry this thing? How do actually do something which is someone else’s idea. ‘It seems really attractive, are you going to back us up, or not? We will look after you, don’t you worry. It is a great idea’. So we implement a great idea. No, you do not implement the great idea, we get a Vice-Chancellor who talks it up, and explains it all. The government gets a little more confidence in the idea. They go and make some nice speeches to all the …
Ms Martin: This would be good based on fact, Terry. It would be useful, particularly since we have school children in the gallery. Fact is a very good thing to have in parliament – the facts.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms Martin: Sorry, Madam Speaker, but it is a load of rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Blain has the floor.
Mr MILLS: I will continue, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is alarming to hear such assertions being made. I ask that you listen because I will be listening very carefully to the government’s response.
It is the people part of this that does need to be managed, and I do not believe that those fires have been put out. There is still this sense that something is going to happen that is not going to be directly in step with where the community currently is. It is going to be slightly ahead; that is the expectation. The fact is that this perception does exist, and I believe that it is a fact that must be dealt with. It is not being adequately dealt with. I guess with the passage of legislation today, we will then have the attention of the Labor government in dealing with that community expectation and managing the people part of this. We have the issue with industrial matters, that have not been able to be properly attended to due to the rushed passage of this. That is a fact; that is a perception that must be directly dealt with by this government. They have to deal with it. They have brought this on; they now have a responsibility to attend to it - and attend to it they must. The opposition will ensure that attention is drawn to the issues where attention must be drawn, including the other issue of community expectations and uncertainty with regard to what is actually going to happen. What is the plan? What is the plan of this government with regard to secondary education due to the flow-on effect? Enough has been said on that. Now the ball will be in the Northern Territory government’s court to ensure that that is managed, for the sake of secondary education - not for the sake of fine-sounding rhetoric and a nervous leadership.
The next issue I would like to put on the agenda is in regards to the implementation of this vision. As I have already mentioned, it is a compelling vision. I believe it is an empowering vision, notwithstanding the issues that have already been alluded to. I believe the government has to overcoming some reticence and nervousness in attending to the unfolding of this vision because, in carrying it through in the governing process, you have an issue that I would ask government to seriously consider. That is, if we have the community considering - and not all negatively managing this process - what is going to happen in secondary education. That has flow-on right through middle and primary school. That dynamic is already released, as I have already indicated. However, there is something else that I believe government should also attend to; that is, on the face of governing for the whole Territory and looking over the horizon, Batchelor Institute.
I believe that we should now start turning our attention to a dialogue and discussion of how we can actually develop a greater synergy between Batchelor Institute and the new Charles Darwin University. I believe there is potential there, I really do. That is coupling, brokered perhaps over an extended period of time, that could really add to and enhance Charles Darwin University. I ask government to seriously consider how we can unfold and make that happen. It could develop a whole new momentum and profile for indigenous education in the Northern Territory if we can achieve that. That will be a challenge for the Northern Territory government which espouses its great credentials in the ability to broker and negotiate difficult things, particularly in indigenous matters. It will be yours, and I am fully supportive of that. That is the direction you must head down.
In finishing, I acknowledge the contribution that the Northern Territory government has made to the Institute of Advanced Studies. That is money well invested. I would urge continued and increased support for the Institute of Advanced Studies, because it is the flow of funds into such operations that will make this all make sense and connect to reality.
Many comments that have been made by Dr Brendan Nelson really do ring true. We need now to re-engage institutes of higher education, higher learning and so on, with the real world. I grew up in Western Australia and attended the University of Western Australia for a time. It is a fantastic looking place but, for the average person who is driving on their way to work, it looks like a place that most people do not go to: ‘Only really brainy people go there and they talk about funny stuff that really has nothing to do with me, on my way to work as a plumber’, or working in a shop the CBD or something like that. That old concept of the old sandstone universities that seem to be imposing - a bit like fortresses that keep people out and all these strange people inside who talk about stuff that does not make sense to anybody - has to change. I believe the reform agenda is going to facilitate that. We have an opportunity in the Northern Territory - a unique opportunity - and it is only proper resourcing of things such as the Institute of Advanced Studies that will allow meaningful dialogue to occur, dealing with issues that are real to ordinary people.
As I mentioned in a previous debate, and I link it now to the Institute of Advanced Studies, with regards to developing trade links with our regional neighbours. It is a good idea and we could probably have a few statements on it and we would applaud them as they sound fantastic. However, it is difficult to implement some of these ideas; it takes a lot of research and negotiation. There are a lot of layers to these things; they are so complex. An Institute of Advanced Studies would be the most effective vehicle for focussing the task onto a group which is charged and well resourced to formulate a policy, a response to a problem that we all have; that is, how to more effectively engage with our regional neighbour, using that as an example. It could be indigenous health.
When we have an Institute of Advanced Studies, they have the capacity to look outside the square. We get trapped by politics, sadly. It is the thing that I try to fight against as much as I possibly can, so that we can actually do some good. However, we have an Institute of Advanced Studies …
Ms Lawrie: That is when he is not fighting …
Ms Martin: Yes. When is that? Was that over the last 35 minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Chief Minister! The member for Blain has the floor.
Mr MILLS: Tell you what: I find that really quite offensive and cheap, and weak.
Ms Martin: But you have not been playing politics over the last 35 minutes?
Mr MILLS: Anyway, I will let that go, but I would have to say I find that offensive.
The proper resourcing of something like the Institute of Advanced Studies will allow proper engagement with ideas that are real to Northern Territorians such as indigenous health issues and, as I have already mentioned, education - transport links and infrastructure in that regard - and perhaps the way we implement and unfold education into remote localities. These are things that really rightly belong in a fully-resourced, independent and empowered institute for higher learning, and TAFE in Charles Darwin University.
I have covered a number of issues there, and I am sure that the minister would be well informed and be able to respond to those aspects that I came across this morning but, in the shortness of time, have not been able to have answers to - particularly to those two legislative issues. With those comments - and I await the minister’s reply - this passage of legislation has the full support of the Territory opposition.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will respond. The minister will be responding in detail to the points - some of them confused - raised by the shadow minister; and I will respond to some. Despite the politics we have listened to for the last 40 minutes from the member for Blain, today is an historic day, and one which will be long remembered by future generations of Territorians. I thank the opposition for their support.
Today we pass legislation that sees a creation of a new university for the Northern Territory. It is a sad reflection, but unfortunately true that, since the mid-1990s, the Northern Territory University has struggled. Certainly, it struggled under the previous administration in the Northern Territory. It has been battered by reduced funding and, in its struggle with this, it lost its focus. I believe the university needs to hold centre place in the innovation, in the intellectual thrust and creative thinking of our community. It needs to be at the forefront, tackling the issues and challenges presented by the Northern Territory’s unique factors of isolation, remoteness and closeness to Asia. It needs to provide leadership in research and in presenting solutions to our social and economic challenges.
The Charles Darwin University Bill allows for the amalgamation of the Northern Territory University and Centralian College in Alice Springs. The amendments to the Menzies School of Health Research Act will establish a close formal relationship between the school and the new university. In the words of the Northern Territory University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ken McKinnon: ‘The people of the Territory will enjoy a university that is strong and embraces the knowledge and enthusiasm of three previous separate institutions’. What Charles Darwin University will do in the Territory in the way of excellence in teaching, training, research and development will help the Northern Territory develop and contribute to world knowledge.
Establishing close links between the university and the Menzies School of Health is expected to lead to increased funding and capacity in health, education and research for the Territory. It also ensures that Menzies research staff are recognised in the Australian university sector as leaders - as they are - in tropical indigenous health research and in post-graduate training. This legislation means that Alice Springs will have a university, and that, Madam Speaker, must be joy to your ears. This will bring increased opportunities and access for Central Australians to education and training, and see growth in the development of research in the centre. With its spread of campuses and study centres across the Territory, the university will provide all Territorians, especially our young people, with a flexible, integrated alternative to studying interstate.
The partnership agreement between the university and government that was signed earlier this year will see government and the new university working collaboratively to improve the economic, cultural and social development of the Territory. That partnership agreement was another historic agreement. To have the university and government working in partnership to support the development of skills and research capacity at the university will only see future growth at the university and bring great benefits, not just to governments capacity, but also right across the Territory. It was a very historic partnership agreement.
The new university will increase the capacity of more Territorians to access the benefits of strategic alliances, such as the one recently signed with the Australian National University. These cooperative alliances extend the knowledge and skills base of our university, and provide staff and students from other universities with access to research and learning opportunities in the Territory.
For the first time in the Territory’s history, we will have a Territory-wide facility offering enhanced education, training and research opportunities. We have an outstanding Vice-Chancellor, with a world-class reputation in Professor Helen Garnett, who takes up her position in October. Professor Garnett has already identified an important role for the university, as, in her words, ‘… being an engine for the Territory’s growth and opening people’s minds to the opportunities in the Northern Territory’.
This legislation represents a leap forward in education, training and research for Territorians. This is a significant moment for the Northern Territory. We are witnessing the birth of a university; a university that will grow into a world-class institution with a distinctively Territory identity.
I pay tribute to our interim Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ken McKinnon, who came on board last year with a very difficult job to do, and he has done it with great distinction. He has taken a university that, as I said, had lost focus and was struggling because of underfunding, and has moved with the university and given it the capacity to grow. I believe that in the hands of Professor Helen Garnett, it will do that. Helen Garnett, working with our incredibly capable staff at the university, with students and the Territory government, will produce a university that has capacity to grow the Territory, and to grow our reputation. I thank Professor Ken McKinnon for his work. He has not gone yet; he is here and we will treasure him until October.
To deal specifically with the issues raised by the shadow minister for Education. It was interesting; he raised the issue of why we are dealing with this legislation under urgency. We fully briefed the opposition on this. In a way, it would have been preferable to have this legislation before the House in June; that would have been the ideal situation. However, creating a new university from three bodies, including Centralian and Menzies, took a lot of cooperation between all parties. There was careful consultation, and that cannot be done quickly. While we would have liked to have had this legislation before the House in June, it was not possible. The legislation required careful drafting. Looking at the relationship between the Charles Darwin University and the Menzies School of Health Research took time. While I accept that the opposition might say: ‘Why is it here on urgency? Wouldn’t it have been preferable to have that done with presentation in June and debate now?’, it was not possible.
I believe the arrangements reflected in this bill do credit to all parties involved, and taking the extra couple of months to achieve that has been worthwhile. The opposition can criticise the urgency, but what we have is a bill that has cooperation and agreement from all parties. From time to time, bills do come before the House on urgency. While the opposition can play politics and criticise, they should also understand that there are time frames to be met. While we thank you for your support, playing politics with criticism is unnecessary.
While, on one hand, the member for Blain criticised us for going too fast in some ways, he criticised us for going to too slowly in others. He presented an inconsistent message to this parliament. Either we have gone too fast or too slow. To criticise us on both counts does not underpin sensible argument from the opposition.
He also became a bit angry with accusations that he was playing politics, but the presentation he gave about where the drivers had come for this change to the university were simply wrong. I am proud of the involvement of our public sector and of members of this government in seeing the changes that we now have reflected in this bill today. He said this government has ‘lots of high priorities’. Let me assure the member for Blain that the university and its future is one of the highest priorities for this government. I am proud to say that we have been intrinsically involved in the changes we see before us today. We have worked cooperatively with the federal government; there is no doubt about it. I can clearly remember, just over two years ago, 19 August 2001, sitting down and looking at some of the issues confronting us as government. One of the first identified was the Northern Territory University and the concern that we had, as the new government, that the university had lost its way, its focus and the confidence of our community. It was one of the first issues we identified that the energies of government and our public sector had to be focussed on. There has been considerable work.
I understand the politics from the member for Blain. He has to be there seeming to be saying this Labor government has done nothing, and I can understand that. He pretends on one hand he is such a nice guy, and he does not do things like play politics, but there he is, going for it full bore, saying this government did nothing. We know what the federal government did. Well let me say, the member for Blain …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister and member for Blain, you have both had your say. That is enough.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, here am I, dealing with facts. It is important, as we have Year 12 students from Darwin High - and it is great to have you here in the House - that we actually deal with the facts of what is happening. I sit here, responding to the fact that not everything the member for Blain said was actually fact. It is important we put it on the record.
One critical thing is that this bill we have before us today is about the work that has been done in partnership - this government, the university, the federal government, Centralian College and Menzies School of Health Research - over the last two years. If the member for Blain wants to play politics, that is fine. I am here to put on the record that we have worked, with great focus. We have not been out bagging the federal government over this, playing politics about it. We have been working cooperatively.
However, we would like to say to the federal Minister for Education that we will be following up on the commitment that has been given very closely, because funding is a critical issue for the new Charles Darwin University. We are a university that does not have the same type of situation facing us as if we were another capital city like Sydney. In Sydney, there are a number of universities. We have one, and it serves one-sixth of the country’s land mass. There are particular factors that have to be recognised, particularly with funding, when it comes to the Northern Territory. We will continue to work cooperatively with the federal government on those issues. We were very encouraged by the commitment two years ago, and over the last couple of years, from the federal Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, and want to recognise in here his support for what we have achieved.
The member for Blain should think about what he says before he goes in and demeans the hard work that has been done by public servants in the Northern Territory government, and the hours they have put in and the commitment they have shown to produce the bill we have; to produce the new vision and opportunity for the Charles Darwin University that we have today. I am sure they would be very disappointed to hear the inaccuracy and politics of the member for Blain.
This is an historic day. I congratulate all those who have been involved, and certainly, while it is churlish support, thank the opposition for their support for what is an historic bill and an historic day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I join in the debate on the formation of the Charles Darwin University. Firstly, I congratulate the education institution for another step in the history of the development of higher education and other forms of post-compulsory school education in the Territory.
I bring to your attention an e-mail I received this week from a high school student at Casuarina Senior College. I will only use her first name, which is Mel. I will read my response to her so it can be put in context:
- Hello Mel,
Your e-mail would be one of the most detailed of any I have received from a student. Well done for thinking through the issue and posing these questions. Because you have shown that you are prepared to put time into it, I will do likewise. I will do my best to provide you with my thoughts on the matter.
My background to Centralian College and NTU/CDU is that I was the Chairman of the Alice Springs College of TAFE between 1987 and 1993, and was instrumental in bringing the Alice Springs College of TAFE to merge with Sadadeen Secondary College to form Centralian College. I then chaired the college council until just before my election in 1994.
Centralian College is seen as the lighthouse institution for the country, delivering TAFE and senior high school studies from the one institution, under one governance. It also offered limited higher education courses, on contract to NTU. For a small community of some 30 000 people, such an educational institution with its course offerings makes Centralian College one of the best around. Its management structure was efficient and was able to compete in TAFE offerings across the Territory, and including Darwin.
My background to the NTU/CDU is that I was on the Post-School Advisory Committee in 1984. The Post-School Advisory Committee was given the responsibility to bring about a university in the Northern Territory. It was an ambition of the then Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, that we should have a university. After two years of long hours of work and planning, the University College of the Northern Territory was opened in 1986 at the old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. The UCNT was placed as a college of the University of Queensland.
The UCNT Council was then commissioned to work towards being a fully-fledged university through the amalgamation of the UCNT with the Darwin Institute of Technology. The NTU was opened in 1989 and became the newest university in Australia, possessing state-of-the-art equipment and technology for any university. We also had the best staff to student ratio back then, with the highest number of PhD staff per capita compared nationally. Things have changed considerably since those halcyon days.
Mr Burke: With a new name.
Dr LIM: Yes, with a new name. Yes, that is right. I take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. That is all she has done - all very cosmetic. This is very cosmetic stuff. The reality is, this has been …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Let me come back to my response to Mel. She asked some very pertinent questions. She asked a question:
- I read in the Estimates Committee that you had concerns over the budget allocation for Centralian College. What are your concerns?
My response was:
- Centralian College was considered a separate entity under the CLP government and treated accordingly in the budgets. That allowed satisfactory scrutiny of its operations and budget allocations and expenditure. With the 2003-04 budget, there was no clearly delineated budget line for Centralian College. This was done in anticipation of Centralian College being merged with NTU to form the CDU, and that CDU would then control the total budget, including Centralian College’s. My concern is that there will be no longer any transparency of the management of Centralian College or the Centralian College component of the Charles Darwin University.
Then Mel asked: ‘Are they being dealt with?’ My response was:
- As you would have read from Hansard, my question to the minister for Education in relation to the Centralian College budget for 2003-04 was posed. However, I have not yet received a formal response from the minister. I have been at briefings with officials of the Department of Employment, Education and Training and with the Vice-Chancellor of the NTU/CDU that processes are in place to ensure good management. I have yet to see the detail. I believe the intent is there to ensure that the Centralian College component of the Charles Darwin University will be preserved and it is a very efficient ‘agency’.
Mel also asked: ‘Who initiated the merger of NTU and Centralian College?’
The Chief Minister says: ‘It is our work’. Well, I told Mel:
- The merger of the Northern Territory University with Centralian College is a natural evolution of both institutions. Back in the 1960s, there was the Darwin Community College with its presence in Alice Springs, then called the Darwin Community College Annexe. Following Cyclone Tracy, the operation of the Darwin Community College was moved to Alice Springs. When it was returned to Darwin, the Alice Springs Annexe became the Community College of Central Australia. Then, it was housed where the Anzac High School now resides ...
I remember because I did some computer courses then in those buildings:
With the development of its current campus at Sadadeen, which is a suburb in Alice Springs and in my electorate, the Community College of Central Australia became the Alice Springs College of TAFE. The shift was around 1983-84. That was when I first became involved in its governance, as one of the council members.
Almost 10 years later, the Alice Springs College of TAFE became Centralian College as I described earlier. Now, almost 10 years later again, Centralian College has become the Alice Springs campus of the Charles Darwin University, or it will be, once this legislation goes through …
Mel asked: ‘Why was this merger initiated?’ I had a few points to make on that. First of all, it was a natural evolution of the educational institutions in the Territory. In Darwin, we have gone through from the Community College of Darwin to the DIT to the NTU; we had the UCNT in between, and also the Alice Springs experience that I just mentioned.
The second point I made on why the merger was initiated was that it brought about a rationalisation of costs and infrastructure in offering of senior secondary education, up to higher education in the Territory. It provided a seamless transition for students, from senior high school to university, with opportunities for students to take on high school subjects at the same time as TAFE subjects. When they are finished their Northern Territory secondary education, they can also qualify for a TAFE certificate in the same subject. This sort of parallel streaming, as I would describe it, allows students to fast-track their training - it is important to understand that this must not be confused with VET in schools; VET in schools is not the same as TAFE - and having Centralian College high school students doing a TAFE subject in a TAFE institution, as well as doing their high school studies.
The fourth point I made about the merger is that it introduced high school students to an adult learning environment through their interaction with TAFE and higher education. You see that every day at Centralian College. Northern Territory University was struggling on its own, to garner adequate student numbers, in both higher education and TAFE sectors. As federal funding for universities is now geared to student numbers, the Northern Territory University was facing a difficult time with a restricted budget. Hence, less course offerings and staff leading to fewer students completing this vicious circle which was forever decreasing.
The sixth point that I made about the merger is that the merger of the NTU with Centralian College will improve student numbers, provide opportunities for residents in Alice Springs to access higher education courses, which they would otherwise have to move out of town to access. Remember that in Alice Springs, Centralian College had offered university courses on contract to the NTU such as the Bachelor of Fine Arts. I know that Bachelor of Business studies were also offered in Alice Springs for quite a while. It depended on student numbers, obviously, that Centralian College, being such an efficient unit, was able to do all those things. Therefore, when the Chief Minister got up and said: ‘Oh, well, we now have a campus of the university in Alice Springs’, we have had that for a while and, again, it is not her doing.
The last point I made about the merger, was it would allow the Charles Darwin University to also develop expertise in arid zone research. The Charles Darwin University will be seen and be appreciated that it could develop expertise in both tropical and desert knowledge. I think that is a fantastic idea.
Then Mel asked: ‘Do you feel that students of the college would benefit from this merger?’ I wrote down:
- Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But I will be watching closely that the successes that Centralian College has had over the last decade, is not damaged by the difficulties that NTU has had in the same time period.
They will ask why, and it has already been answered in the seven points above, anyway.
Mel proceeded to ask more detailed questions such as:
- How enrolment/low economical return courses currently offered at Centralian College may be cut.
I am not certain that this will be the case, because the combined student numbers should increase and, therefore, courses previously offered to small numbers of students should now have larger numbers. This was the experience at Centralian College. I assume that with the Charles Darwin University, the same principle will apply. Again, it is something I will be watching closely.
Mel then asked:
- Teachers of Year 11 and 12 at Centralian College will come under a new award and their conditions may erode.
This is more of an industrial question; I believe the matter has been worked out at the moment between the authorities and the union, but I am not quite sure of the outcome. Not being in government, it is not something that I really would like to be involved with. However, let me assure people that when we formed Centralian College, we had a group of instructors that were in the TAFE sector, and we had high school teachers. We were able to blend them together fairly well under a single employment structure for Centralian College. If Charles Darwin University were to do it properly, look at the Centralian College experience, I am sure that they will learn a lot about how we went about doing business.
A further point that Mel made was:
- There will be a job loss of career promotion opportunities for Centralian College staff, especially teachers of Years 11 and 12.
Again, I said this was not the experience at Centralian College when the merger between the Alice Springs College of TAFE and the Sadadeen Secondary College occurred. In fact, in enhanced staff opportunities. Again, it is an industrial matter and I leave it to the minister and his staff to work through.
Then Mel said:
- This is seen as a way to prop up the Northern Territory University, and get increased enrolments, not necessarily a good option for the Year 11 and 12 students in Alice Springs.
My response was:
- Of course it is one of the ways to boost NTU numbers. Education funding is a numbers game, and we need to ensure that the Territory maximises its opportunities. There is nothing cynical about this. If we do not do it, we will not get our fair share of funding and, in the longer term, students like you will benefit from the exercise through having a viable institution in the Northern Territory offering as wide a range of courses as possible so that you, the student, have a realistic choice. With my experience at Centralian College and my depth of knowledge of Alice Springs, this will be a good thing, but done cautiously and without haste.
Then Mel asked whether Casuarina should expect a similar merge with NTU, being the senior school it is like Centralian College. I responded and said:
- Here I have to disappoint you that the Casuarina Secondary College is not like Centralian College. It is a high school that offers VET in schools
As I made the distinction earlier:
- My opinion is that Casuarina Secondary College should hold back and see how CDU functions over the next few years, learn from hiccups that will definitely will occur …
They will occur, and I bet you that this legislation will be coming back with amendments in the next six or 12 months, if not longer. Let us wait and see how things pan out following close scrutiny of the present process.
It is important to understand that the opposition is not against the formation of Charles Darwin University. It is a good thing for the Territory. It has to happen from the student numbers point of view, from the development of expertise point of view, from the natural evolution of the whole educational system in the Territory. We are but a very young community in longevity of government. Is important that Alice Springs has significant input into the Charles Darwin University management and that Alice Springs has its own advisory council or committee so that input can be formalised from the Central Australian community into the CDU Council, to ensure that our local needs in Alice Springs are met. In fact, at a briefing recently, I offered the suggestion that the Charles Darwin University Council met one in three meetings in Alice Springs so that the council members can truly absorb the culture that exists in Alice Springs.
The minister himself has admitted and accepted that Centralian College unit is a very efficient functioning unit, and has made great inroads into TAFE training in the Northern Territory, right into the heart of Northern Territory University land. It has done it so well, and able to compete so aggressively and well in this tight financial market where TAFE instruction is concerned. It is important for this government to learn from that experience and adopt many of its practices. I am sure if it did that, Charles Darwin University would continue to prosper.
Mel’s last question was whether the students should be concerned about this merger. My response to her was:
- Students should always be concerned about the educational institutions that would have impact on their education and lives. They should be spending time, like you, to get across this issue. It is fundamental to all students who may want to study at high school, TAFE or higher education. They are all respectable and different arms of education, both highly valued and desired in the community. Going to TAFE should not be seen as a second choice to higher education. There is as much a need for plumbers as there are for doctors. In fact, probably more need for plumbers than doctors. In times of disaster, who is needed most? The tradesmen - he gets fresh clean water to you, and that is more important than fixing your broken arm.
I believe it is important for government to promote TAFE very strongly. We all get so hung up about university education and getting your degrees, and getting a PhD. The reality is, all education is important, whether you come out as a high school student and go into the working industry, or you go to TAFE and get yourself a trade or other technical expertise, or go and get a degree. They are all equally important, all of equal value for this country. One should not be elitist, and say: ‘Oh, I have been to university, I am better than you are’. I do not think you are. You just read a book that somebody else has not read; that is all you are. You have read something else that has not been read by another person. Let us value education highly, strongly, and make sure that the Charles Darwin University offers courses right across the Territory that are of great value to Territorians.
I also happened to serve on the Menzies School of Health Research Board for some six years, around the time that I was on the UCNT Council, the Northern Territory University Council, and also at Alice Springs College of TAFE. I was really fortunate, for some period of 10 years, I was across education from kindergarten to Year 12, on a school board of studies for a 10-year period, TAFE for a 10-year period, university for 10 years and Menzies for about six years. I was one of the few people who had an overview of education across the Territory from kindergarten to higher education, and it was a great experience. I do not aspire to be the minister for Education …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: … but it was a great experience to give me such a great overview of education and a true insight and history of education in the Territory. This is where that side across the room is sadly lacking - absolutely sadly lacking. They guffaw and carry on, without any idea. That man who calls himself a lawyer - if you could read a book properly, then you would be a lawyer.
Let me say this: this government has really done Territorians an injustice in the sense that this legislation should have been worked upon a long time ago. It has taken them a long time to get to this point and, had it not been for the sense of urgency that has come through, we probably would still not see it. However, then to have it here for only a week, the time is a little short. It could have been done better. Again, I ask the minister to have a look at the Centralian College model that was done with great consideration and purpose. That is why we achieved the success that we have. We achieved the success that we have because we did it in a very considerate manner, with great detail and great consultation. Talking about the consultation, the Chief Minister said: ‘We consulted widely’. Well, you ask people in Alice Springs if they have been consulted widely. They might have consulted the people at Centralian College, but consulted widely? That is another thing that you have to take the Chief Minister to task on because, from talking to people in Alice Springs, that is definitely not the case - definitely not the case.
Talking about this being an historic day - well, it is historic in the sense that the University of the Northern Territory continues; there is now amalgamation or merges of institutions across the Territory which again, is a good thing. Alice Springs will be one of the very, very few communities of 25 000 to 30 000 that would have the presence of a university in a significant way. Not just an annexe or a place of education offering a few university courses; this is truly a campus of the CDU in Alice Springs, and that will be good. It is important to note - and this is something that I was given assurance of during the briefing this week - that the TAFE sector of the Charles Darwin University would, in fact, be housed in Alice Springs. That is a good move; that satisfies my concerns that maybe there will be less governance of Centralian College - or the Alice Springs component of CDU - if everything was moved up all the way to Darwin. A thousand miles might seem not very far to a lot of people, but the cultures in Darwin and Alice Springs are so very different - it is so very different. You and I, Madam Speaker, come from Alice Springs and we keep talking about the Berrimah Line. Keeping the TAFE section or administration in Alice Springs and the higher education in Darwin would allow those two cultures to mix at regular intervals, and that would be a good thing.
I appreciate the hard work that all the staff have put in over the last six to nine months to get this together. Talking to staff at NTU and Centralian College, there have been lots of traumas. I am glad to hear that most of it has been worked through. They tell me that the staff are all very keen to see this happen, and they are all prepared to put their effort into getting a positive outcome from this merger. I wish the Charles Darwin University well.
I look forward to this government putting effort and money into the Charles Darwin University, to ensure that it continues to do well. The government can look at how it farms out its consultancy funds. We have talked about that lots of times before and, for some reason, government has not listened in the last couple of years. You can always go to Charles Darwin University and say: ‘We have a particular subject we want you to research’. Sure, they might not have the expertise there, but they can use the contract money to purchase in expertise, which will add to the pool of expertise that Charles Darwin University would have.
Mr Stirling: Exactly what we did with the secondary review.
Dr LIM: There has to be more of it, taking the minister’s interjection on board. There has to be more of it, instead of farming the consultancies out of the Territory to Sydney, or to wherever else. In today’s paper, the Chief Minister is trying to justify why she sent a contract to Sydney. That is the thing that we should not be looking at anymore. We should be saying to Charles Darwin University: ‘We have something we need to research for the Territory. We know you do not have the expertise, but here is the contract; you go find somebody and pull them in’. That person might only be occupied for 25% of their time doing that consultancy, but the other 75% of time could be used for the university itself. Who knows? Once you have the pool of knowledge, intellect and expertise in the Territory, work will start coming in. The research for the Darwin Port, or for the railway - for advancing the export industry from the completion of the railway and the Darwin Port - all those things should be pulling together in a very holistic manner.
Mr Kiely: We have the Darwin Research Centre.
Dr LIM: All these empty vessels continually inject and they rattle around and, as we all know, the emptier you are the more noise you make.
It is important …
Mr Kiely: Have your snide little shot, Richard. Have your snide little gos.
Dr LIM: Here he goes. He just cannot stop, can he?
Madam Speaker, the Charles Darwin University will be a good thing. I look forward to it working well and for the betterment of Territorians. I look forward to it being an effective contributor to Alice Springs’ growth and to continue to retain students in Alice Springs. Even my two daughters had to go interstate to study, because there were no offerings that were available for them in the Territory. In fact, the younger one – now, that is a story; I have a couple of minutes left – she went to Adelaide to university to start a course in occupational therapy. After two years she decided, no, she did not like it and, as a parent, you moan: ‘Two years, half way through the course then she decides to drop out’. She then applied to do a Bachelor of Business in Marketing and Public Relations and she got in, obviously, fairly easily. Having completed the first year, as parents, we were able to convince her to return home to the Territory to finish her studies because it is available at NTU.
Well, she did. She came back here, lived in Darwin and went to NTU to do her second year of Bachelor of Business. Having completed that, with high distinctions and distinctions, she was told: ‘Sorry, you cannot do your final year at NTU’. We all threw our arms up in despair and said: ‘What the heck is going on?’. ‘You cannot do your third year here at NTU. We can only offer you the course as an external student’. She said to me: ‘Dad, there is no point in my staying in Darwin if I cannot do the course on campus. I might as well go elsewhere’. So she went to the Queensland University of Technology and she got full credit transfers across so, obviously, the standard of training here is more than acceptable. Now she is going to graduate with high distinctions and distinctions from Brisbane, and good on her.
That is what happens. We try to keep our kids in the Territory. Hopefully, with the formation of CDU and its larger pool of students and staff, we can actually promote our children to live, study, graduate and work in the Territory. That is what we are about. Good luck to the CDU. However, minister, we could have done a lot better. Take care of Alice Springs.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I want to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the students from Year 6, Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teacher Briseis More. On behalf of all members, I offer you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Committee of Privileges – Request to Refer Matter
Committee of Privileges – Request to Refer Matter
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise you that earlier this afternoon, I received a letter from the member for Goyder, pursuant to Standing Order 83, in which he raised a matter of privilege and sought precedence of other business for the purposes of moving a motion to refer the matter for Committee of Privileges. The letter, in part, is as follows:
- It has recently come to my attention that the minister, Kon Vatskalis, has been advertising a translating service whilst the minister of the Crown for an hourly fee of $US30. Please find enclosed a copy of the advertisement which appears at the Internet site www.translators.com. An examination of his declared interest pursuant to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interest) Act today reveals that no such business has been specifically declared. Section 10 of the act provides the wilful contravention of a requirement of the act is a contempt of the Assembly and may be dealt with accordingly. The matter should now be accorded priority and be referred to the Privileges Committee of this parliament.
- The purpose of this correspondence is to seek your authority to have the matter brought before parliament as a matter of urgency this afternoon, as parliament does not resume again until 7 October 2003. A contempt of this parliament is the most serious offence that a politician can commit, and convention dictates that it receives priority.
In considering the matter I sought further detail as to the matter which the member for Goyder considered constituted an alleged contempt. The member for Goyder has provided me with further detail.
I advise the Assembly that I have considered the member for Goyder’s request and taken into account the guidelines provided for by resolution of the Assembly, dated 23 May 1996 and, being aware that today is the last sitting day until 7 October 2003, I have determined the motion should be given precedence of other business and that it be dealt with following the consideration of routine business. That means at the end of the business of the day. Accordingly, I call on the member for Goyder to give notice of his motion.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Committee of Privileges – Refer Matter
Committee of Privileges – Refer Matter
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I give notice that I will move, at a later hour this day, the following motion:
- That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges; namely minister Kon Vatskalis’s apparent breach of section 10 of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interest) Act, for his failure to declare his interest in the business of personally providing a Greek translating service, advertised on the Internet at www.Translatorscaf.com.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Quorum of the Assembly
Quorum of the Assembly
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am aware of statements made relating to the calling of quorums in the Assembly yesterday and this morning. I refer you to a statement I made in the House in May 2003: Standing Order 39 provides that, when the attention of the Speaker or the Chair has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of members present, no member shall leave the Chamber until the quorum is present or two minutes has lapsed. I also take this opportunity to remind you it is a well established parliamentary convention that it is the duty of all members to form a quorum, not just government members. As parliamentarians, you have been elected to participate in the business of this parliament.
Members interjecting.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Katherine
Member for Katherine
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you. I have been asked by the member for Katherine to make a personal explanation. I refer the member for Katherine to the letter that I wrote recently to members and remind him that he must keep straight to the subject that we agreed to.
Mr REED (Katherine): Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker. The minister for Industry and Business made allegations that I was conducting a business, through my web site, as a tour operator. That is not the case. If I were to do so, I would require a registered tourist vehicle, appropriate insurances and other arrangements to be in place to be able to do so. It is for that reason that I do not conduct tours for which I charge. I do, from time to time, when my constituents ask me - particularly those who are in the accommodation industry - take some of their guests on bird watching tours. I have the pleasure of being able to do that free of charge for the benefit of the local tourism industry. That service is very much appreciated.
In relation to the reference that the honourable member made about the book for sale at $6.50 including postage interstate. Unlike the member for Casuarina …
Madam SPEAKER: Keep to the topic.
Mr REED: … when I first produced that booklet I declared that on the Register of Members’ Interests, not because I expected to make a lot of money out of it - and I have not because it only covers costs. Simply, because there was a charge to cover the cost of the production of that booklet, I thought it appropriate to put it on my Register of Members’ Interests whether it was a necessity for me to do so or not, just out of openness, clarity and honesty, so that members of this House would know what I was doing in that regard. I regret that it has been misinterpreted by the honourable minister in an attempt for him to make some political points.
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY BILL
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation to the people of the Northern Territory; to the long-term future of the Territory and its work force in particular but, especially, to that of our young Territorians. One of the things which people talk to me about when I doorknock in my electorate is that they want to send their children to university in the Northern Territory, and they want to see our university strengthened and competitive. The legislation moves us forward and offers a brighter future for Territorians.
As minister for Health, my interest in this legislation relates particularly to the relationship of the Menzies School of Health and health and community services-related courses at the university. The Menzies School of Health Research is one of the jewels of the Northern Territory. Its outstanding record of excellence in both research and education certainly speaks for itself, as it continues to lead Australia and, indeed, the world, in its studies into infectious and chronic diseases. The significance of linking the Menzies School of Health Research with an education institution was acknowledged in 1985 when it was established as a cooperative endeavour between the Menzies Foundation, the Northern Territory government and the University of Sydney.
Established to improve outcomes in indigenous remote and tropical health, the institute has become a success story and gained national and international recognition through its high-calibre work and outstanding group of researchers and teachers. In the Territory, we are confronted on a daily basis with the reality of indigenous ill health. I talked about this in my indigenous statement to the House last year. What I said then was that we all have the opportunity to make a difference by breaking down barriers and moving forward. This vision is encapsulated in the Menzies School of Health Research’s mission statement: to improve the health of people living in northern and Central Australia, and regions to the near north, through multi-disciplinary research and education. This government shares that passion and strongly supports the Menzies School of Health Research. This year, we have contributed $3.1m and further in-kind support through collaboration across a variety of research projects.
Crucial to the success of Menzies has been the links the organisation has created between people. Exceptionally productive and creative relationships have evolved between academics, clinicians and educators all working closely together. The co-location of centres for disease control, hospitals, clinical schools and research organisations is unique. It means that research is connected to the people who can do something with it. This bring me to the new collaboration between the Charles Darwin University and the Menzies School of Health Research.
I said in the past that innovation happens at intersections in those areas where people from different backgrounds and areas meet to work collaboratively on the same set of problems. The amendment bill before us today will contribute to the Menzies School tradition of developing such collaborative partnerships. It will establish an historic relationship between the Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University; a partnership that will strengthen the capacity of research and education within the Northern Territory.
What I must stress at this point is that this new arrangement will, in no way, change of impede Menzies’ functions or independence. The research school will retain its autonomy. I see this as vital for productive research. The ability of a research institution to be able to follow its own expertise and the inspiration and know-how of its workers is a fundamental part of the kind of collaborative venture I have been outlining. What this formal collaboration will do is bring great benefits to both parties. It will provide the Charles Darwin University with greater links to Menzies School of Health Research to build on its excellence in health research and education. It also demonstrates the commitment by this government to build a vibrant university for the Territory.
There has been a considerable amount of consultation with the Menzies School of Health regarding this, and I am happy to say that Menzies is very happy about this. I would like to read into the Hansard a media release from Professor Kerin O’Dea, the Director of the Menzies School of Health Research dated 12 August 2003:
- Menzies School of Health Research Forges New Partnership with Proposed Charles Darwin University
Legislation introduced today has formalised links between Menzies School of Health Research and the proposed Charles Darwin University in an historic partnership arrangement, which will strengthen the capacity of research and education within the Northern Territory.
Menzies School of Health and Research Director, Professor Kerin O’Dea, said that under amendments of the Menzies School of Health Research Act, the institution will become a controlled entity of the Charles Darwin University, but will retain its autonomy.
‘This close formal relationship allows Menzies School of Health Research to retain its own act of parliament and an independent board while, at the same time, being a foundation school within Charles Darwin University’s proposed Institute of Advanced Studies.
‘This partnership brings great benefits to both parties. The new Charles Darwin University will benefit from closer links to Menzies School of Health Research by building on our reputation for excellence in health research and education and, over time, Menzies School of Health Research and the Northern Territory stand to benefit by increased access to funding for research infrastructure’, she said.
Professor O’Dea is also very positive about the appointment of Professor Helen Garnett to the position of Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University.
‘Professor Garnett comes to the university with excellent research credentials, and we are looking forward to working with her to strengthen opportunities for building the capacity of health research and education here in the Territory’.
This is a ringing endorsement of the moves we are making in relation to Menzies School of Health, the NTU and Centralian College coming together. I would like to add that Professor O’Dea does a particularly excellent job as the Director of Menzies, and that she has brought a considerable amount of money into the Northern Territory for many research projects during the time she has been here. Menzies continues to have an excellent relationship with many other institutions around Australia, and this power of the Menzies School of Health Research will be increased by this new relationship with the Charles Darwin University.
More broadly, the establishment of resident intellectual capability and knowledge production under the new university is in line with the government’s Economic Development Strategy, which emphasises the importance of innovation and the knowledge economy. The Northern Territory University has an established record of excellence in education, training and research, and with strong links to community and business leaders, the university continues to build a strong national and international profile.
We already have a proliferation of health units on offer at the university, such as Bachelor of Nursing, Psychology, Pharmacy and Social Work, as well as several diploma and post-graduate studies. Through the new arrangement, the Menzies School of Health Research will be able to contribute more directly to the expertise contained in these courses. This historic partnership will now enable Menzies research staff, who are, in their own right, leaders in tropical and indigenous health research, to receive due recognition and credit in the Australian university sector.
The new collaboration will also very significantly attract additional Commonwealth revenue to the Territory by making the Menzies School of Health Research eligible for research infrastructure funding payable to tertiary institutions. This additional funding, likely to be to the tune of $3m a year, will build local capacity and health research, and support research that contributes to improving the welfare of Territorians.
Increasing research capacity, through collaboration, partnership and increased grants, underpins the effectiveness of health research at the Menzies School of Health Research. As a centre agent for the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Tropical Health, it already has close linkages with the Northern Territory University, as well as strong industry partnerships with my Department of Health and Community Services and Aboriginal medical services.
As a government, our immediate focus is on health services, but our goal is to improve the health and wellbeing of all Territorians, particularly indigenous Territorians. I am confident that Menzies will continue to honour its vision and continue to make a huge contribution to achieving that goal.
I would like to put on record my thanks to Professor McKinnon for his leadership during this past year, in putting together these major changes, which is of great significance for the Northern Territory. His leadership has been well received. We have an excellent product here in what we see before the House. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the appointment of Professor Helen Garnett to the position of Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University. I look forward to meeting Professor Garnett. We are looking forward to a very successful and bright future for tertiary and other education in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in this debate. I welcome the bipartisan approach that has been shown here today to this very important issue of higher education in the Northern Territory, because this is crucial to our development. The member for Greatorex spoke about his involvement over a very long period in a whole range of sectors related to education in the Northern Territory, and he is to be commended for that. I thought that, generally, he made a very good contribution to this particular debate.
I suppose we all think about the importance of universities, and the particular importance of universities here for us in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister alluded to the fact that we have the one university here - not just one, but there is the one university here - and the diversity and dispersed nature of our population, our demographic, with small numbers. We do face rather unique challenges within the Northern Territory. Generally, when most people think about a university, they think about the disciplines and professions associated with a university. They think of universities as being wellsprings of ideas. They think about debate, criticism, and thought on a whole range of very important issues. Also, universities, if you like, are a civilising influence; that is, it makes our society a more civil place to live in. I am talking about the social democratic system and fabric of the society that we live in - of course, addressing the peculiar and very important problems that confront us here within the Northern Territory.
A university can become a repository and a focus of knowledge, but it can also tap into the knowledge that exists already in the community around us. That was the point that the member for Blain made about sandstone edifices and the importance of a university integrating with a community. We have such a diverse community; often diverse systems of knowledge, it behoves us in a university to actually tap into them so that we can all benefit.
When I was a candidate I was doorknocking. The person was not home and I got a telephone call saying: ‘We would like you to come around as we would like to ask you a few questions’. It was a little like a job interview, where a relatively young couple asked me a whole series of questions about myself and what I thought I could bring to this position, to the parliament and to the Northern Territory. One of the questions that was asked was: ‘What do you think Darwin and the Territory will look like in 25 years? It was specifically about Darwin and the environment. The way the question was framed, it was more about the way Darwin would look: what would its appearance be; what would the buildings be like; what would be the institutions. That is the way I started to move with that question in my own mind. I started to think about Darwin in 25 years time, and the importance on the community landscape of the Northern Territory University as an institution.
The Northern Territory University, or as it is about to be known, the Charles Darwin University, is absolutely crucial to our social, economic and cultural development within the Northern Territory. It is a pivotal institution; it has been since its inception and, looking into the future, it certainly is. That is why members on both sides have really come together on this. Granted, there was short notice on this particular issue, and those issues have been covered. However, we all basically agree that this is the next very important step for the Northern Territory University to take, with the amalgamation of the institutions. However, I will talk about that soon.
The Charles Darwin University and these bills that we are discussing here today really present a framework to achieve the vision. There is a lot more work to be done, more energy to be expended, more imagination to be applied here and, certainly, a lot of hard work.
The member for Greatorex mentioned his own history in relation to tertiary education in the Northern Territory. It is a very significant, and I applaud that. I am also well-qualified to speak about this; not only having been a student as most of us have been, but I spent approximately eight years as a university academic lecturing in the sciences: anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. I was also a researcher, most recently within the Menzies School of Health Research. I will allude to that a little later when I come to discuss the Menzies School. I have a commitment to tertiary education. I have served on councils of tertiary education bodies and I know the importance of governance, of the teaching and research aspects within tertiary institutions, both here in the Northern Territory and beyond.
To be honest, there have been problems with NTU. This is not pointing the finger at anyone, because people have done their best for NTU over many years. However, there are peculiar things that are associated with the Territory. I have already mentioned some of them: a low population base; people expect the university to be everything to everybody; and everyone expects their son or daughter or themselves to be able to take just about any course that they could take at a southern university and, of course, that is not possible because of a lack of resources. Universities have been plagued by a lack of resources and it has been both sides of politics, on a federal level, that have played around with the university sector, often to the detriment of the university sector. I know when I went through as a student, universities were very well resourced, and today we see that universities are struggling. They are struggling to make ends meet and that is a real shame. The university, I know from doorknocking and meeting people who either live in my electorate and work at NTU in a variety of roles, or are students, or prospective students, or thinking about sending their children to NTU, that there was low morale at NTU. Unfortunately, there was a low public esteem towards NTU, and many people associated with NTU would acknowledge that.
It had a very small research base. That is very difficult for any university because that is where the dollars, the students and the expertise pours in; when you have a research base that you can build on. These are all difficulties for NTU. I will mention one area of excellence that I am aware of, and I am sure there are many other areas of excellence within NTU. I know Dr David Parry, when I was doing my PhD was very, very helpful to me. I did quite a significant amount of chemical analyses within his laboratory and he has state-of-the-art equipment. He and his group do very high quality analytical research and there are, undoubtedly, quite a number of areas at NTU with very high calibre of researchers like David Parry. So, there is excellence there. Other people within the university have struggled with the issues that I have mentioned before, through no fault of their own,.
The proposal that is outlined in these bills is to amalgamate Centralian College and NTU, and also bring the Menzies School into a closer relationship. It makes imminent sense; it is strategic. I believe that it will be successful. It also offers opportunities for research, tertiary education, TAFE education and training, so it amalgamates and builds on the history and provides a whole range of opportunities for many different Territorians, for many different locations in the Territory, from many different backgrounds.
I applaud the establishment of an institute of advanced education in clause 23. In the act, it talks about the establishment of an Institute of Advanced Studies. Then, under clause 25, it talks about the Menzies School of Health Research being a research school within that institute. However, as I will come to later, it maintains the autonomy, very importantly, of the Menzies of School of Health Research. There is going to be a close and formal relationship established between Menzies and NTU. There has been a relationship for quite a number of years. I sat on a number of joint committees in Menzies with the NTU, so this relationship has been building, as other speakers have pointed out. Menzies was established with a very close relationship with Sydney University but, over the years, there has been a close working relationship with NTU and it has progressed. It is good to see Menzies moving with this and welcoming these changes, because they do have a lot to contribute to this new Charles Darwin institution.
By this relationship I have just mentioned, Menzies will be able to access Commonwealth grants for research infrastructure of approximately $3m per year. That is very significant, that is very important regarding the state-of-the-art equipment that much of the research Menzies requires. That $3m will come in very handy. I am also led to believe that Menzies is able to maintain its status as a benevolent institution, which allows them to have salary sacrificing for their staff. They do have limited salary money and it allows them to offer attractive salary packages, particularly for medical personnel who might be used to earning a hell of a lot more money. For most of the medical staff that I know who come to Menzies to study, money is not the issue, but one likes to see them properly remunerated. Many of them make a sacrifice to study and work at Menzies School of Health Research. Like all staff there, they are incredibly dedicated.
As well as other relationships, there is a commonality between Menzies and NTU. Richard Ryan, as most people would know, is chair of the Menzies board and holds senior positions on the university council. There are a number of people who sit on both boards. Menzies will retain its board and a large degree of its autonomy under this legislation. That is very important for the Menzies School and the Menzies ethos, and I am proud to be a part of that.
The Menzies report has recently been released. It is in the Table Office, and I commend it to members. It shows the achievements of the Menzies School, particularly in research, which is the area they are going to add to the Northern Territory University. In their annual report for last financial year, 22% of their total income was from Commonwealth government grants - $2.2m. Most of that is NHMRC grants, and they are very competitive grants to secure. I direct members to page 61 where there is a whole range of grants; top line science and research. I counted 15 under the category of New Research Support - 15 new NHMRC grants to Menzies. That is incredible. Then there is a range of ongoing projects, all very important. I am not going to read through them all. There is support from non-government areas as well as other research granting organisations. Menzies has been very successful in that and has established an international reputation that we can all be proud of.
With Menzies is CRC for Aboriginal and Tropical Health doing tremendous work, engaging Aboriginal communities with research and education. That is very important. You only have to look at the Menzies publication list to see, on page 56, I counted 93 referee journal articles in the past 12 months, another 25 in press. You might even see the name Burns in there a couple of times. Here is one! Clough, Jacups, Wang, Burns, Bailie, Cairney and a few others: Health Effects Associated with Kava Use in an Eastern Arnhem Land Aboriginal Community in the Internal Medical Journal.
Mr Kiely: What Carney is that?
Dr BURNS: That is another Cairney. I am proud to be associated with Menzies and I hope that my relationship with them continues. It is an institution of which we can all be proud.
There has been another research body that has raised its head in Darwin. It is called the Darwin Research Centre. They have a place; they fill a niche. I am interested, as others are, to read what they release; it is one point of view. It is a little unfortunate that they have chosen the name Darwin Research Centre because it could give rise to some confusion about the Charles Darwin University.
I read in the minister’s second reading speech that the Charles Darwin University asked the family of Charles Darwin whether they could use the name ‘Charles Darwin University’. I notice on the web site for this Darwin Research Centre they have a sketch of Charles Darwin on the home page. I wonder whether they have asked the Darwin family whether they can use that image. This group, the Darwin Research Centre - good on them - are partisan political. There is no doubt about it. You only have to look …
Mr Mills: Does the Darwin Library have to ask the Darwin family if they can …
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Mr Mills: Do you have to ask the Darwin family if you are going to use the name ‘Darwin’ anywhere? It is the city of Darwin, for goodness sake!
Dr BURNS: It is being polite. The university asked them whether they could use the name. There is a range of people, Mr Shane Stone; Robyn Cahill - she is one in the Darwin Research Centre; and Mr Peter Murphy, who have been in the news lately. They are putting forward a certain point of view. It is partisan political and, in fact, someone actually said that this Darwin Research Centre was a CLP ossuary - an ossuary of ideas. I am not being personal with the people at all. There is this Mr Jason Briant, who had been a research officer with the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1998. He has been a research economist with the public service, executive director of the Menzies Research Centre, part-time associate lecturer in economics at the Australian National University, member of the HR Nicholls Society. His areas of interest are economics, welfare dependency, education - a whole range of things. I sent an e-mail to Mr Briant and I asked him for his publication list. I have not heard back yet. I am looking forward to his offerings in the Darwin Research Centre. There it is: the Darwin Research Centre. As I say, it is unfortunate that they have used the Darwin Research Centre. They should have used another name, possibly the Everingham Research Centre, or ERC. Possibly they could have used the Perron Education Research Centre, or PERC, or the latest iteration could be just BERC.
I digress, but I enjoyed that little digression. I am coming to a conclusion soon, because this really has been a bipartisan debate. Once again, I acknowledge the contribution of members opposite, which has been very constructive. We are all going to be very interested in the progress of the Charles Darwin University. The government structure of the new university is very important. I know some people have commented on this. There has been a reduction, I believe, in the number of people on the council, from over 20 to 15. Having served on lots of boards and councils, most of us would agree that something over 20 is unwieldy; 15 is getting fairly close to the mark. My magic number is a bit like the Good Lord and the Apostles, that is probably a pretty good number as a maximum number for any board or committee. It is my view that it is going to be more workable at 15, that is very important.
I applaud the move towards a single academic board; that is very important. I believe that that is going to be a process that is going to take place over time to integrate what you might call the more academic sector with the TAFE sector. It is very important that we recognise the significant and important work that the TAFE sector does. The member for Greatorex talked about the importance of plumbers versus doctors. Probably in a lot of remote communities, the work that the plumber and the essential services officer does is probably, in some cases, makes a very significant contribution to health, and lays the foundation to health that often doctors are unable to do.
I have already mentioned the Institute of Advanced Studies, and I applaud that. Having Menzies there as a nucleus will give some foundation - a step, if you like - for others in the university to make that transition to start to do more and more research, because it is crucial for the institution.
Like others in this debate, I applaud the work of Ken McKinnon, who has done a fantastic job as an interim Vice-Chancellor, and the new appointment of Professor Helen Garnett. She is obviously someone who has been in charge of a large organisation. She comes with big wraps. I know Professor Kerin O’Dea is very pleased that Helen Garnett is the Vice-Chancellor of the new university.
Let us not forget the contribution and dedication and commitment over many years of Professor Ron McKay as Vice-Chancellor. He experienced many difficulties that I mentioned before, about low population base, everyone expecting the university to be offering every course, and a lack of resources. There have been many contributors. Of course, Nan Giese, for many, many years has been Chancellor of the university; a stalwart and very dedicated to the university. There were all those community members who served on the council - and I cannot name them all - over many years. I am sure each of us knows a number of people who have done that.
There is a lot of goodwill towards the Charles Darwin University. I believe this legislation sets a structure for us to build and further develop the university. We have to do it in a cooperative fashion, and the future is bright for the Charles Darwin University. I am looking forward – I hope I am around in 25 years, as I discussed with that constituent – to the Charles Darwin University being a major part of life in the Northern Territory, a contributor socially, economically and culturally, and will be an asset, a jewel in the crown, because a university just adds so much to any community or society. I commend this bill to honourable members.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, this legislation brings the Northern Territory University and the Centralian College together into the one institution, and establishes the Menzies School of Health as a control entity within the new institution. It is an auspicious day, Madam Speaker, in this parliament - both your birthday and the passing of this legislation, which is, as the member for Blain pointed out, extremely important legislation.
Under the government new arrangements, a council will be established under the trustee model, with members operating ad personum; that is, as individuals and not representatives of particular constituencies. Council’s composition complies with the proposed university governance protocols outlined in Backing Australia’s Future. It will be a 15-member council, comprising the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chair of the Academic Board, eight persons to be appointed by the Administrator, one elected higher education academic, one elected TAFE academic, one elected undergraduate student and one elected post-graduate student. There will be a single academic board. An advisory board for the Institute of Advanced Studies, including the Director of the Menzies School of Health Research, as a member, will be appointed by council.
The Menzies School of Health Research Amendment Bill, tabled with the Charles Darwin University Bill, maintains extensive Menzies autonomy over its research priorities and general management, whilst making it formally part of the university. Menzies will become a controlled entity. This change will be enacted through amendment to the Menzies School of Health Research Act and the Charles Darwin University Bill. In a controlled entity the financial accounts are recorded as part of the parent entity’s audited accounts. The level of control has to be such that the parent entity can align the controlled entity’s strategic directions and financial accountability with its own. The Menzies School of Health Research accounts will be incorporated with those of the university.
The legislative amendments proposed for the Menzies School of Health Research Act are: a 13-member board comprising the Menzies Director, the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, 10 persons appointed by the Administrator, of whom five are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Charles Darwin University Council, one appointed on the nomination of the minister of this act, one appointed on the nomination of the minister of the Charles Darwin University Act, and one appointed from the nomination of the Menzies Foundation, two are to be appointed on the nomination of the DCU Council and Board. The board will elect a chair and deputy chair from the 10 people appointed by the Administrator.
The quarterly reports and annual report will be submitted to the Charles Darwin University Council. The Menzies School of Health Research annual report and Auditor-General’s audit report must be included in the report for the Charles Darwin University.
With the Institute of Advanced Studies, under the Charles Darwin University legislation, the council must establish an Institute of Advanced Studies. The council must establish an advisory board for the Institute of Advanced Studies, and the members of the advisory board must be appointed by council. The Institute of Advanced Studies may establish research schools, each with a director and advisory board.
In terms of funding, Charles Darwin University will draw together a number of fragmented and separately funded institutions: the Northern Territory University, Centralian College and Menzies School of Health Research. University revenue will come from several different sources:
revenue to support higher education component of the university’s teaching activities is from the
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Technology under the Higher Education
Funding Act;
Department of Employment, Education and Training;
Department of Employment, Education and Training;
research projects and other contracts;
expenditure is governed by the individual contracts including the $5m from the Northern Territory
government, and a further $1.5m from the Northern Territory government for the Institute of Advanced
Studies; and
cash and in-kind donations from the University foundation.
The transition arrangements for the Charles Darwin University include arrangements for the establishment of a new council; for the provision of education for Years 11 and 12 in the Alice Springs campus; and for the staff of the Centralian College. With delivery of Year 11 and 12 education, Charles Darwin University and the Department of Education and Training will formulate an agreement in relation to delivery of education for Years 11 and 12. The process for this agreement will include consultation with the stakeholders, staff, parents, DEET and Charles Darwin University. Centralian College staff will have until January 2005 to make a decision on whether they want to move to DEET or stay with the Charles Darwin University. As Centralian College ceases to be a college for the purposes of the Education Act, and ceases to be a body corporate, the existing college council is not incorporated.
As soon as practicable after commencement of the act, the Charles Darwin University Council will be appointed, elected as per section 9 of the act. Nominations and elections will proceed almost immediately on assent. Under the act, the Charles Darwin University Council may appoint committees, and it is envisaged that the council will consider establishing a committee of council to advise on issues in relation to the Alice Springs campus of Charles Darwin University. Centralian College already has a parents committee, staff committee, and indigenous committee and these could be retained as subcommittees for the purpose of advice to Charles Darwin University Council.
In relation to timing of the bill itself, a point picked up by the member for Blain, the government needed to be assured that the amalgamation and relationship between these entities was going to be founded and go forward on mutual trust and, I guess respect and, most importantly, mutual agreement. We were not going to force a relationship between the old NTU and Menzies or, indeed, Centralian College for that matter, that either party felt less than comfortable with, or felt someway disadvantaged by. A great deal of work had to go in to working toward a formal relationship that satisfied both institutions but, nonetheless, brought the institutions together in a formal arrangement, in a way that preserved the prestigious name that the Menzies School of Health Research has across Australia and preserved its autonomy in retaining that name but, at the same time, brought advantages to Menzies in revenue and funding that they simply could not accrue in their current format. To try to crunch a less than healthy relationship between any of those institutions would have been a disaster. It simply would have been a disaster; we were well aware of that fact.
Disappointed we might have been, nonetheless, that work was not complete by the time of the last sittings, and necessitated government holding this bill back and having to pass through all stages in these sittings. Our preference would have been to introduce the bill last sittings and pass it during this sittings. The opposition spokesman would understand and appreciate some of the sensitivities involved in that matter and the paramount need to get it right. We were not going to be in a position to have a situation where you crunched institutions together; that was never going to work. That work had to be done; it did delay the bill until these sittings. I appreciate the support of the opposition, notwithstanding that urgency has had to be invoked in order to get the bill through, which is something the government prefers not to do. Centralian College, of course, also had issues to be resolved. Some were the transition provisions to 2005 for staff and conditions of service so that, with the best will in the world, we were simply not in a position to introduce legislation last sittings.
I agree with the member for Blain that it will be important to monitor the situation of the Years 11 and 12 in the new university, and we will. There will be no head-long rush, as he seemed to suggest, to build other Years 11 and 12 into the university. I pose this as a scenario: if, for example, the secondary review came up with any such recommendations – and I do not expect to receive that report until late September, so I have no idea whether the report contains such ideas – I can assure the member that this government would engage the school communities affected by any potential change in full debate and consultation, and no changes would be made without very considerable lead time - I would suggest in the order of 12 months.
I thank all members all members for their contribution. I thank the Chief Minister for her commitment, resolve and assistance to me as minister for Education, in reaching this stage of the reform process. There were many meetings with different individuals along the way, most of which she attended, and I appreciate the support I have had from the Chief Minister.
The Northern Territory University was one of the first universities visited by the federal minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, when he assumed the education portfolio. He listened to the views put to him by the university community, his own department and our department. He listened to this government’s view, too. I thank him for his commitment to the process of reform. He has been there to encourage and cajole. We still need to see the colour of the money in support for the Institute of Advanced Studies. We will continue to work with him. We have established a healthy and cooperative relationship between this government and the federal government on matters of education, and we will continue to work with him on future funding arrangements and the need for greater assistance from the Commonwealth. I imagine he will be delighted that this bill will have passed all stages with the support of the opposition today.
Professor Ken McKinnon, of course, has carried the bulk of the day-to-day change agenda, never an easy task. I would have thought far from an easy task when you are talking about higher education and the world of academia. He has shown enormous enthusiasm and has lent great vigour to the job. He has put this university very firmly and clearly on the road to reform. All members will join with me in thanking him for the job he has done to date.
My thanks also to our Department of Employment, Education and Training and the CEO Peter Plummer. He has driven the process very hard and watched it closely on behalf of this government. Charles Darwin University will be led, from October, by the new Vice-Chancellor, Professor Garnett, who will be responsible for seeing the reform process through. Again, I am sure that all members will join with me in wishing her and the Charles Darwin University all the best for the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
SWIMMING POOL FENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 168)
(Serial 168)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, it is quite surprising that I should be given this opportunity to jump at this point. I shall not comment about your words before about attendance in the House, far be it from me to reflect on anyone’s attendance in this place.
I support the amendment. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, this is really an operational amendment in order to make the act more readily useable by the public. The purpose of the bill is to consider an amendment to section 19 of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act to provide greater flexibility in the exercise and discretion of the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority.
It is important to note that what we are talking about here is that the bill is to allow discretion to the swimming pool authority. The amendment is not in any way meant to give discretion to the swimming pool inspection team. That is an important point to make at the start of this debate; that the bill is all about allowing discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. The bill will allow the authority to register some swimming pools that cannot meet the required Australian Standards without compromising the intent of the legislation to provide an effective barrier for small children gaining access to residential swimming pools.
As you will recollect, late last year, we debated the bill. From memory, it was a long and somewhat hard slog during the debating of this bill. In all, it lasted for many hours; it was the last day of sittings. It was good to see the attendance and the contributions, particularly of the members for Goyder and Greatorex. They were here while it was Christmas time and there were all sorts of activities going on around the place, but they stuck to it. They stuck in here along with all members of the government and debated this bill.
I it is interesting to note, and I refer to Parliamentary Record No 9 of 26 to 28 November. The debate took up 172 pages of the Parliamentary Record, so it was a fairly comprehensive debate that we had on this particular bill. It was a debate that I took part in. From memory, the member for Johnston and the minister took part in the debate. I believe the members for Millner, and Greatorex contributed to the debate, as did the member for Nelson - he had a go at it. The member for Goyder was quite fulsome in his contributions to the debate. The member for Drysdale also had a lot to say on it. He had a particular interest, because in debate he brought up his own peculiar circumstances, where he lives in the urban area on a five acre or two hectare block, and the implications of what the act meant for him. I thought it was quite interesting. I am sure there are probably other members in the Assembly who have contributed to it, but the members of the opposition contributed. I would like to say that we as a government, as a parliament, thought it was great to see that the opposition supported this bill. Let us get that straight on the table. Each and every member, when they stood, stated that they supported it; and we thank them for their support. It is a marvellous thing. It is not too often that you get bills going through where they fully support them, but they did.
Mr Dunham: The bill was changed as a result of debate.
Mr KIELY: You supported it, and I am glad that you supported it, member for Drysdale. I am very, very happy. It is on the record - I told you the pages to look at: debates, page 3138 to 3200. It is all there, member for Drysdale, if you want to have a look. You are there, you debated.
I did have some problems following the debate because, while they supported it and each of them stood and said they supported it, the opposition members each took different positions during the debate.
Mr Dunham: So did the government. You changed the bill.
Mr KIELY: Well, that was okay. That is the way the opposition does things, unlike government where we sit down and work out the bill and our position on it. The opposition seemed to have a practice - it is one that I have observed many times - where they can take any position they like, as individual members. They take positions on who is going to be the captain of the ship over there. That is how they go about it, but it does show the independence within the CLP team; that they can take any position they like, no matter what they say the same position is.
Sometimes, I feel, gee, wouldn’t it be great to have that freedom, that lack of discipline? It is like being able to take off your clothes and run naked in the bushes, isn’t it? - that sense of freedom that the CLP has in their approach to legislation. I commend them for that and, if that is how they like to operate, then full points to them. I have absolutely no problem with that; it shows a freedom of spirit. It does not show any sense of purpose, but it does show a sense of freedom. It is something to be commended: this freedom of spirit, joyful youthfulness they have about them, this willingness to go where no one else will tread.
Dr Burns: Capriciousness, that would be a word.
Mr KIELY: That is the word I was looking for, thank you member for Johnston – capriciousness. This capriciousness, this ‘devil may care’ attitude to legislation. What will we bring in? As we saw with the cat and the Cruella legislation from the caf latte set of Sydney, it is good where we get Sydney legislation introduced into here. It is enlightening and enlivening.
We had this great debate going and, as members will remember, in the committee stage, there was a lot of very strong and vigorous debate regarding the amendment. There were some strange points, once again, that I had trouble grasping – it must have been one of my thick days, it must have been - because I really could not make hide nor hair out of half the things that they were saying. There was one stage there where reference was made to the swimming pool authority and the swimming pool inspectors going in and shooting dogs.
Mr Wood: Is this relevant to the amendment?
Mr KIELY: No, no this was a serious piece. It is important to note the vigorousness - gassing the dogs. We were going to have brown-shirted people with some sort of insignia on their arm, goosestepping into properties looking for hidden pools, gassing dogs, kicking in doors, abducting children and sending ransom notes. It was heading that way. It was vigorous and it went on for four hours, and we on this side were pretty astounded by the depth of knowledge and concerns of the opposition in making sure that all these amendments went through to make good law for the people of the Territory.
Considering that they supported our legislation - they said so at the start of every introduced speaker - I was pretty pleased about their contributions. As I said, this went on through many, many of the clauses of the bill that was introduced. It is interesting that when we get to the clause that we are dealing with, clause 19 which is what we are on today - let me have a look. I will just read from page 3193. Let us see, we have:
- Mr Wood: Thank you, just clarifying; I thought you might have supported my amendment there for a minute.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 to 19, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
And agreed to! So, everything else was of great import and we knocked it all out; got it all agreed. Everyone was happy. Everyone walked away for their Christmas break, all full of cheer – some of us full of mirth. Section 19 was agreed to as a whole; no need for debate. This was fine. So, learned friends over the other side, who had interrogated the bill to the nth degree; were happy with section 19. I was happy with section 19. I believe the member for Johnson was happy with section 19. I certainly believe the member for Drysdale was extremely happy with section 19.
Mr Dunham: You were wrong, weren’t you?’
Mr KIELY: No, no, it is here in the Hansard. I will pick up on that interjection.
Mr Dunham: I think you were wrong again.
Mr KIELY: No, I was not wrong. The member for Drysdale has a habit of rewriting history and stating things and twisting them afterwards.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. This man is reflecting on my character and it offends parliamentary standing orders.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Sanderson.
Mr Dunham: Withdraw.
Mr KIELY: Withdraw what? I am sorry, I do not even understand …
Mr Dunham: Were you able to hear what he said, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I did not hear what he said.
Mr Dunham: It did offend me when he talked about me twisting the truth and matters of such like and I believe it offends standing orders.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, will you withdraw?
Mr KIELY: Certainly. I certainly will withdraw it, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. He is a sensitive chap and I did not truly mean to offend him. I apologise if I have offended you, member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: Well, you did.
Mr KIELY: Well, I apologise. What more can I do?
As I said, section 19 was agreed to by everyone. However, that was some months ago and now the authority has been out in the field, operating quite effectively for some many months now, much to the chagrin of the opposition and the churlish claims that they make on the airways all the time. The swimming pool authority has been quite effective in its business it has been going about delivering …
Mr Henderson: And they do not wear brown shirts.
Mr KIELY: Yes, and they are a very good crew. I have had some dealings with the Swimming pool authority. Just around Christmas time we decided to move house. The house that we were living in was on a main road in Wulagi, in the wonderful leafy electorate of Sanderson, where, I might say, you get sea breezes from Shoal Bay. People wonder why I am interested in the Darwin Harbour Plan and the mangroves. When living in Wulagi you get those sea breezes from Shoal Bay, it is beautiful. So, anyway …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what this has to do with the amendment.
Mr KIELY: Well, I am telling you.
Mr WOOD: My point of order is relevance.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: If the member for Nelson would stop interrupting I would get to it and he would clearly see it. He will appreciate it.
I had my house on the market at Christmas time; it was not selling too well actually - a bit of a shame. However, I had spotted another house in Anula which I purchased prior to this act coming into force. The contracts were signed on 24 December, as a matter of fact. So, here I was, moving into a new house, after signing the contracts. I had my old house which had to be inspected, because I knew that it would be past 1 January until there was a purchaser to be found. When this legislation came into place I got in contact with the swimming pool authority and I registered my interest. I phoned them and said: ‘There is a swimming pool at 78 Wulagi Crescent which I would like you to have a look at’, and they said: ‘Great’. I said: ‘As well, I am purchasing a property at Anula and that has a swimming pool. I would like to put that on there’; they said: ‘Fine’. When I went over and saw the conveyancing people, they actually put it on the conveyance documents. Knowing that this law was about to come in force on the 1st. - and I would say that they were not alone in this practice – the conveyancer had written into the conveyancing documents that the house and purchase price was subject to the pool meeting the standards, as per the legislation. That was written into that contract.
We moved over into the new house. I got back onto the swimming pool authority and told them my situation – and this is the level of service from these people – that I had sold my house, they gave it a priority listing, as we said they would. The minister said in the House that this practice would be adopted so that no one is disadvantaged during the sale period of properties. He told the truth, as he always does – that part never came as a surprise to me. The authority acted professionally. They inspected the property and, within a matter of days, I had the report back and could send it over to the conveyancing people. It passed, I am happy to say. It should have passed because I have had an interest in pool fences for quite some time.
When I put the pool in, I made sure that it was up to standard, as did quite a number of other people in the area. It passed, went through, went over to the conveyancer and everything was right for the sale. Well done, authority.
With the house I moved to, because I was an owner prior to the introduction of the legislation, I was on the list, because they had to look at all the rental properties, all the places going up for sale. I understood where their priorities were. The swimming pool authority inspected our property, probably a month ago, after phoning, giving their name and making a mutually convenient time of 8.30 am. I said, because I have to go to work, 8.30 am would be good …
A member: He starts late, doesn’t he?
Dr Burns: At least he goes to work every day - more than you do.
Mr KIELY: That is right! I question the hours that some members on the other side keep here. I could have them come around at 8.30, members of the opposition, because I was not catching planes down to Sydney. I was not drinking latte on the Manly ferry. No, no, no. I was getting into my office at Sanderson and looking after my constituents or coming into the House and sitting on committees. I was not representing anyone except my constituents. So I could …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! This is persistent irrelevance. Could we get back to the subject at hand, and that is the Swimming Pool Fencing Act amendment?
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was invited to comment on my hours of starting at 8.30 am. It was not me who introduced the irrelevance. I was invited by the opposition, and I did.
Mr Dunham: Okay, it’s my fault! I am sorry, Gerry.
Mr KIELY: I will move on, but the member for Nelson is being a little precious.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: I will move on. The member for Drysdale asks provocative questions and you respond …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. Would you move along, please?
Mr KIELY: Certainly. An inspector came and I went to work, leaving him there. I said to him: ‘You do your inspection. There is my dog. You won’t gas him, will you?’ He said: ‘No, no. We do not gas dogs’. That is the fear the opposition is spreading. I was a bit concerned about leaving my dog there, but they did not gas him. He was okay when I came home. They inspected and went away. About a week or so later, I received the report. Do you know what? It did not pass.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Did I go out and riot in the street because of it? No, I did not do that. The pool did not pass. Not only did it not pass the Australian Standard, but it did not pass council standard. So you see, this is the situation that these inspectors have to face. There are a lot of pools …
Mr Mills: It is terrible, putting up with blokes like you.
Mr KIELY: What was that?
Mr Mills: I said it is a very difficult job to inspect pools.
Mr KIELY: Oh.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Stop the chatting across the Chamber, please.
Mr KIELY: I thought he was making leadership bid again; he got my attention.
So you see, they came in, and it was interesting because, when I was purchasing this property, I could see - blind Freddy could see - it was not up to the new standard. However, I thought it was up to council standard. I was told it was up to council standard. I thanked the pool inspectors for coming in and finding that out. Now, I have drained that pool. That spa is drained, it is empty, it is sitting there. I do not mind that. I am thankful to the inspectors for doing it.
However, I am pointing out - and this is the relevance, member for Nelson - that these are the sort of things that the inspectors have to deal with. While they inspect, they are not only dealing with looking at seeing whether pools are up to code - and the expectation of the owners are that at least they are up to council code. Well, they are not. These inspectors send out the report with what has to be done to bring it up to standard. I have a list of work that I must do to make this fence comply. But, standards are standards. It is up to the authority to apply those standards, and that is what you will find in section 19.
Section 19 of the act, what we are here today amending, is about trying to give a little latitude, but not to the pool inspectors. It does not empower the pool inspectors; it empowers the authority. As I said earlier, we are trying to give a little latitude, because it is intent that we are looking at. If a fence has a slight variation, but the intent that it should be stopping drownings is there, no one is trying to stop, for one reason or another - the workmanship might not be quite right, it might be a couple of millimetre out here, a couple of millimetre there. Under the way that section 19 was drafted previously, or how it stands at the moment, the authority did not have any latitude and, therefore, no option or discretion to say: ‘We know that it would do the job, but standards are standards. This is what it has to comply with’. People were getting pretty frustrated for what they thought were minor inconveniences, and it was not too fair on the inspectors either.
In my contribution to the debate last time around, I pointed out in my summation:
- Nothing we can do in the Assembly, under any conceivable circumstances, will prevent future child drownings in pools. They will happen, just as children are killed in safety seats in cars. No one can stop it, but we can do our best to provide a system of barriers that will cause delay when children try to get into swimming pools.
Well, that is what section 19 and the amendment that we are debating today is all about. We are talking about barriers that will cause delay. On pools, let us say, for example, the distance between the segments might be, in the standard 100 mm section, 10 cm. If it is 103 mm, 105 mm or something, I believe that the authority may well have the discretion. They may well look at that and say: ‘The intent is there, it will act as a barrier’. This will give them the latitude to be able to approve those pools because the intent is there, and not have the angst of the owners with the additional costs involved. They are not out to put a shonky fence up, we appreciate that. It is well known the owners of swimming pools are not out to try and make some gain on the sly through not complying. It is not like they have just bunged up an old cast iron bed as a fence and said: ‘Close enough is good enough’. These are people who have tried - and tried awfully hard - to make the standard but, for some reason or another - a bit of a miscalculation with the tape or something of this nature - they are penalised.
Section 19 will now give the authority the opportunity to use its discretion and to say: ‘Okay, the intent is there, the fence will do the job. Let us go for it’, without leaving the pool inspector or the pool authority with allegations of mismanagement and chances for potential liability. It is a very good amendment. The amendment itself is only a couple of words, although it has all been re-drafted to fit in. It is not a huge amendment that we are debating here.
I would like to talk about how busy the authority has been since the Swimming Pool Fencing Act came into play. It is after nearly eight months, but it is a time that we had a look at the pool fencing statistics. The Pool Fencing Unit was established from scratch, and we should appreciate the difficulties they were confronted with. It was established from scratch, an now consists of 17 inspectors and eight administrative management personnel.
Mr Henderson: None with brown shirts.
Mr KIELY: No, none with brown shirts, CS gas, or bloody dog – oh, I will take that back Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I believe the horror pictures that were being painted for everyone in that debate were just incredible. These are professional public servants going about their job and doing a wonderful job; sometimes under difficult circumstances.
Mr Dunham: Can we give him a note too? Gee, I would love to give him a note.
Mr KIELY: I am sure that I would like to share something with the member for Drysdale as well.
They have 17 inspectors and eight administrative management personnel. This more than doubled the number anticipated at the commencement of the act due largely to the higher than expected number of tenancy transfers and property sales, and the number of visits required in order for the pool to be registered. It is unfortunate to know that the number of existing pools which do not meet previous by-laws is very high. I gave that example, after the member for Nelson - who is doing some sort of vaudeville stand at the moment - asked about relevance. Well, there it is; there is the relevance! You have to paint a picture for these people, but you have to paint an accurate one. There is the relevance of the story I was referring to about getting my place inspected, and what had happened. It was supposed to have met code, but it did not.
Mr Henderson: And your dog lived to tell the tale!
Mr KIELY: He did! And his name is Wags, by the way!
Clearly, this new legislation was very necessary and timely. Let us talk about statistics. The following statistics demonstrate the high level of activity by the unit as of 8 August: the number of applications for registration was 4843; the inspections outstanding, 1412; number of inspections completed, 3431 - and that is quite a substantial number; the number of registration certificates issued or being processed, 2543; the number of compliance certificates issued or being processed, 1317; the number of grants processed, 427 to a value of $303 651; the number of loans processed, 24 to a value of $28 978; the number of invoices for new pools, 22 coming to a total of $2200.
It is also worthy to note that the level of formal complaints has been very low. I will say that again. The level of formal complaints has been very low: ministerial briefs, five; Ombudsman, two; Swimming Pool Fencing Authority, two; review committee, nil; and Lands and Planning Tribunal, nil. While the opposition was painting this doom and gloom picture and trying to spread scare tactics, scaremongering, and horror stories throughout the community, the fact is, like any good law, there is a review mechanism. There is a review mechanism built into this law so that, if people are not happy with an administrative decision, they can go through a process and get it looked at with a review. However, there has been no one who has taken it to review committee stage. There has been no one taking it to Lands and Planning Tribunal, so there must be something working here.
Yes, member for Drysdale, I have had people phone me up about this. I have had people talk to me while I am doorknocking - it is a wondrous thing that I do that you might want to try some time, member for Drysdale. When I am doorknocking, I am prepared to stand and talk to them and explained this legislation, and put them in contact with the authority, because I believe that they do a great job, are very profession, articulate, concise in what they say to people; and people come away knowing what the law is and what their expectation should be.
Prior to the commencement of the legislation, based on figures from municipal councils, it was estimated that there were approximately 18 000 pools in the Territory. However, the current application rate does not demonstrate the anticipated numbers to date. We expect to have a better estimate later in the year, which will provide an opportunity to review the take-up of the early registration incentive scheme, which is due conclude in June 2004.
The amendment to the act introduced on 13 August 2003 does provide the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority with additional flexibility in non-standard favour. There is one other statistic that I forgot to mention, which I am sure will be of interest to the member for Greatorex. In his debate, he flagged that there were going to be spy planes or perhaps spy satellites taking photos from the sky of people’s backyards. Let me say, member for Greatorex, that in the stats that I had pulled for me there was no mention of any spy flights, so we have saved money. There was also no search warrants issued and there was no dogs killed. So, all in all, they are pretty good stats I would say.
I will conclude by saying that the Pool Fencing Unit carries a difficult task and is well aware that the job must be done with sensitivity and diplomacy. I commend the officers of the unit. They are great, professional public servants. I wish them all well …
Mr Bonson: They are doing a hard job.
Mr KIELY: It is a hard job, because people painted this terrible picture of them. The opposition has done no credit. They do not help out our public servants who are carrying on a difficult task; they need all the public goodwill they can get. They are clawing it back through their professionalism but it would have been a lot easier if the opposition had come onside and said: ‘These guys are out there doing a job for us. Let us not can them. You do not like the legislation, you talk to your local member. But do not get stuck into the public servants’. They do it on far too many times - far too many times. We value our public servants. We do not can them as you have done many, many times, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The speaker is reflecting on what he believes to be negative attributes in my place in this place and he should withdraw.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member for Drysdale is on the record within the Public Accounts Committee attacking the former CEO of Health, Mr Bartholomew.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, for the sake of …
Mr DUNHAM: Will he withdraw, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Mr KIELY: No!
Dr LIM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, if I may. Let me quote Standing Order No 62, Offensive or unbecoming words:
- No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or any member of the Assembly or against any House or member of another Australian parliament or against any member of the judiciary, or against any Northern Territory statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, nor shall a member attribute directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives …
Mr AH KIT: Speaking to the point of order also, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member for Drysdale just last week in an adjournment debate attacked public servants who work for my department. I will not stand by and allow him to stand up here, late in an evening, and attack public servants. On the one hand, he said he respected the local government councils throughout the Northern Territory, and then he also said in the same breath that he was a millimetre away from choking an alderman who is a democratically …
Mr Dunham: An alderman! He is not a public servant, you goose!
Mr AH KIT: Well, a councillor. This the man who has attacked public servants as recent as last week. He owes those inspectors who work for my department an apology.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I ask you to sit down, member for Greatorex. This has gone on far too long. Member for Sanderson, there are a number of things that go across this Chamber. I ask that you withdraw so that we can hurry up and progress this debate.
Mr KIELY: As you wish, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I would not wish to offend you; I honour you.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am pleased to confirm the swimming pool authority and all who work there are doing a great job. They are doing it without fear or favour, and I commend them for their work. I commend the amendment.
___________________
Suspension of Sittings
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly suspend until the ringing of the bells.
Motion agreed to.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the House will resume at the ringing of the bells.
___________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this amendment. It is a good amendment. There have been complaints made to me about various issues in respect of non-standard fencing enclosures. I hope that these amendments will make it easier for inspectors and the authority to make a judgment on those fences.
I listened to the CEO on radio a few weeks ago talking about some of the issues that the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority had come across. All I can say is that if these changes, although they are relatively minor, make it easier for the authority to act on these non-standard enclosures, I welcome it.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the amendment. It is fairly simple and provides a degree of flexibility for the authority in terms fencing and the physical structure of the surrounding terrain in which the pool is built. It also reflects - and this is spoken in probably the most constructive way it possibly can - that this legislation has been thrown together rather hurriedly, nine months ago, following a promise by the Chief Minister.
No doubt, we are all in support of child safety. No doubt, we do not want to see any child drownings, or near drownings. That is not what it is about. With a promise that was rashly made in the heat of the moment, suddenly legislation is thrown together and, hence, you get into problems. There are a few problems that need to be repeated now, so that the minister and the authority can take them into consideration at a later date.
Understand that, when you are providing a grant to pool owners who need to put up fences to comply with the legislation, that you are funding on the lowest common denominator - and I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere - using chain mesh. I understand that chain mesh comes in 1.2 m, 1.5 m and 1.8 m in standard width, and you need 1.8 m in chain mesh. All you need is for somebody to top dress the lawns, or put pavers around the fence, and suddenly you are below 1.8 m. There has to be some flexibility built into that also. If it is only 10 mm different, that that should not make a fence non-compliant. Somehow, somewhere you need to build into it that there is a tolerance in the way the inspectors go around checking out whether fences are correctly erected or not.
In discussing pool fencing with many people who live in Alice Springs and Darwin, and with some pool fence contractors and other people involved in pool maintenance, there has been a fair amount of inconsistencies between one inspector and the next. I do not know how you are going to change that, unless you bring all the inspectors into one room and give them exactly what they need to follow, and make sure that they do that. If there is going to be any flexibility or discretion brought into it, it needs to come back to the director, so there is only one person who has that level of flexibility. That way, you weave out of the equation variations between one inspector and the other.
Another matter, minister, that you might want to take into consideration is an issue about the distance between each vertical strip of the fence. The current measurement that is required under the legislation is 100 mm. Where you are talking about a tubular fence, each vertical bit turns into a curve to join into its adjacent vertical tube. Some inspectors would measure the pool fence height from the ground right up to the very tip of the loop of the fence, while other inspectors would measure up to where the tubular steel starts to curve away from the vertical. That could sometimes be a matter of about 3 cm to 4 cm. Then what would be compliant under one inspector will not be compliant under another, and that needs to be brought in. If that has already been sorted out, well and good - I do not have any criticism about that - but if it has not, then I draw your attention to that.
It is important to ensure, when you go through the review of the legislation, that you make sure that it is equitable to everybody - at the moment it is not - that it should not be punitive, and that people who have adhered to various legislations in the past should not be punished or penalised by this legislation.
I know that the member for Nelson has an amendment to make, and I will make some further comments at that stage. I also have an amendment that will be put forward, and I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that when it comes to the debate.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the comments that were made, and may I start with Dr Lim. The member had some criticisms and that is obvious; we expect those. However, all the other stuff has been supported and I welcome that support. I also welcome the support from the member for Nelson. I also should add, I welcome the contribution from the member for Sanderson.
The purpose of the act is to provide a barrier for young children that would provide time for adults to intervene and reduce the incidents of tragic drowning. The Water Safety Advisory Council was established by the government as one component of the strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of childhood drowning in the Northern Territory. The Water Safety Advisory Council has consulted widely, and will be releasing its Water Safety Plan in the near future. I would just like to acquaint you with some of the findings of the Water Safety Council in preparing their Water Safety Plan.
The Water Safety Advisory Council has found that the Northern Territory has the highest drowning rate in Australia - not a record that we can be proud of. Unlike most other states that have shown a decrease in the number of incidents over the last decade, the Northern Territory shows no such decrease. Research data indicates that risk groups for drowning include children from zero to four years, children living in cities with high swimming to population ratios, children living in hot climates, children living in areas with lack of isolation fencing, and indigenous children.
While there is limited published data relating to the Northern Territory, it is obvious that our environment places us in the high risk category for young childhood drowning. Tragically, there were 42 children who drowned in the Northern Territory between 1983 and 1999. There has been no significant change in the incidence of drowning over this period for children aged zero to four in the Northern Territory. In contrast, the incidence of drowning in Australian children overall aged zero to four reduced significantly over this period.
Obviously, the over-arching legislation to provide pool fencing legislation throughout the Territory is a necessary step towards reducing these tragic statistics. The legislation received support from all members at the time of its introduction. However, members will recall that the member for Goyder had fanciful predictions that pool fencing inspectors would be breaking through doors and gassing dogs and similar. None of this, as we know, has happened. Implementation of the new legislation has been carried out in good spirit and, certainly, without any of the predictions made by the member for Goyder.
As I said in my second reading speech introducing the bill, this smooth implementation has been achieved because the legislation has generally worked well, and because of the cooperative approach of the Pool Fencing Unit in my department. The Pool Fencing Unit has gone, at times, to extraordinary lengths to work with pool owners to find ways of achieving compliance with Australia Standards while maintaining the amenity that pool owners seek. The hard work and dedication of the Pool Fencing Unit was complemented by the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory in a letter I received earlier this week. The Chief Executive Officer of the Real Estate Institute NT wrote to me supporting the amendment that we are debating today. I would like to read that letter in full. It is quite short but I believe it provides good testament to the hard work and professionalism of the Pool Fencing Unit:
- Dear Minister
Re: Swimming Pool Amendments.
On behalf of the REINT Council and members, I write to express our appreciation of the swimming pool fencing amendments that will be passed shortly in parliament.
REINT and our members would also like to mention that David Coles, Bill Stuchberry, Graham Franklin and Karen Wilson have always been available to discuss issues of concern to our industry in relation to the swimming pool fencing legislation and, in the face of much adversity, have handled the enforcement of the legislation under trying circumstances with outstanding professionalism.
We look to working with the swimming pool fencing team, and may even iron out a few more problems.
Yours sincerely
Sue Shearer
CEO -REINT
I table that letter for information of the members.
I would like to add my own appreciation for the professional work of the inspectors and all the staff of the Pool Fencing Unit. Over 8000 inspections have been carried out by the inspectors. This is a significant achievement in itself and has been achieved with just five formal complaints. Most importantly, there has been a significant improvement to the safety of young children flowing on from these inspections and registrations.
In a letter this week, the member for Araluen referred to a letter from a conveyancing firm commenting on the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. Under the legislation, the authority is the only body which has the ability to approve compliance certificates, registration certificates, grants and loans, etcetera, in order to provide a consistent approach throughout the Territory. I understand that some conveyancers have been setting settlement dates Territory-wide, prior to consideration of pool fencing requirements. This increases the pressure on the time frame available for pool fences to be inspected, any remedial work to be done, re-inspection to occur if necessary, for the authority to approve the issuing of compliance certificates, and for certificates to be posted. Pool owners, agents and conveyancers are urged to allow sufficient time for pool fencing inspection and any remedial work that may be required during the conveyancing period similar to other standard considerations, such as building inspections, pest control and mortgage settlement times. Advertisements have been placed in the real estate sections of Territory newspapers providing this advice to the industry.
The Pool Fencing Unit has reconfirmed that, to the best of their knowledge, no property settlement has been held up on the basis of pool fencing inspection requirements. I emphasise again that the great majority of real estate agents and conveyancers have established very good working relationships with the Pool Fencing Unit. The Swimming Pool Fencing Authority does have options for delivery of compliance certificates where there are urgent settlement cases in regional centres. As in all cases, I encourage the industry to discuss these options with the Pool Fencing Unit. The pool fencing unit has the priority to deal with all clients professionally and in a timely manner. If clients have any difficulty, they are encouraged to contact the Pool Fencing Unit manager, who is more than happy to discuss any concerns. It needs to be always kept in mind that the purpose of the act is to maximise protection for young children and provide time for adults to intervene so that tragedy is averted wherever possible.
The purpose of the bill is to amend section 19 of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act to clarify flexibility in the exercise of discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. The bill will allow the authority to register some swimming pools that cannot meet the required Australian Standards without compromising the intent of the legislation to provide an effective barrier for small children from gaining access to a residential swimming pool. The primary intent of section 19 is to provide the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority with the discretion to approve registration of a non-standard enclosure. This discretion is provided where it is considered unreasonable or impractical to require full compliance with the fencing standards, and where the authority is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, there is not an unacceptable risk to children and that the owner understands the risks of the pool to children.
The proposed amendment ensures that this discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority is able to be applied without the necessity for the non-standard enclosure to be linked to the specified descriptions of a non-standard enclosure as set out in section 20 of the act.
The member for Nelson has proposed an amendment to the definition of ‘small premises’ to reduce this to 1.8 hectares. I would like to inform the member for Nelson that the government supports this amendment. As the member for Nelson has pointed out in discussion with me, surveying and subdivision practices have produced a significant number of blocks that are just less than two hectares but are zoned as though they are two hectares or more. I am also advised that the member’s proposed amendment will mean that some 320 properties in this category will be excluded from the definition of ‘small premises’. This amendment will not have any retrospective application in regard to any property.
I understand that a significant number of pool owners in the rural living areas have voluntarily fenced their pools utilising the government’s early registration scheme. This is a good outcome, and I encourage rural block owners to utilise the early registration incentive scheme while it is available.
The government’s early registration incentive scheme provides pool owners with generous financial assistance in making their pools safe for our children. This scheme provides a grant of up to one-third of the estimated cost and the remaining two-thirds as an interest-free loan. The scheme is capped at $5000, which meets most remedial action or new fencing requirements.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 53.1, after clause 1 insert:
1A. Interpretation
- Section 4 of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act is amended by omitting from the definition of ‘small premises’ in subsection (1) ‘2 hectares’ and substituting ‘1.8 hectares’.
I say at the outset that this amendment is in no way intended to send out a message to people that they should not install swimming pool fences. It is being introduced so that there is some flexibility in the minimum lot or premise size required for a swimming pool to be registered. The act requires a swimming pool to be registered for all small premises where there is a swimming pool. The interpretation of small premises means premises that are less than two hectares.
It has come to my attention that a Humpty Doo resident has been required to install a swimming pool fence because the lot size is 1.96 hectares. It seems that when this subdivision was approved in 1971, approval was given to allow a number of lots in Collard Road, Humpty Doo to be subdivided below two hectares. There are other blocks with slight variations. In fact, the minister is right when he made his comments that the number of blocks in the Litchfield Shire between 1.8 hectares and two hectares is 319, and that is to be compared with 5839 blocks above two hectares. It works out at about 5% of that total, so it is a fairly small number.
Of course, variations may occur in the future. For instance, when the local council or the Development Consent Authority decides that a road widening needs to occur - and that often is required when a subdivision is going before the Development Consent Authority - a lot size may then drop below two hectares. Many roads in the Litchfield Shire were designed to Goyder’s design; that is, 20 m wide reserves. To achieve an adequate road width for the provision of drainage, power, water and telephone, as well as looking towards the future - that is new development and road traffic - the Litchfield Shire Council’s policy is to at least try and take 5 m either side of the road to eventually acquire a 30 m road reserve.
As I said, if that occurs, then this could mean that some of the lot sizes may become under two hectares. Common sense would say that such blocks should not be included in section 7 of the act. As the minister said when introducing the Swimming Pool Fencing Act, some flexibility needs to be built into the act to allow approval of non-standard enclosures; so too with this amendment. This allows some flexibility and makes sure the government is not seen as over-bureaucratic instead of using common sense. The problem in Humpty Doo is that, basically, people regard themselves as part of the two hectare subdivision, as the minister said, and it would look pretty strange – obviously, if it was not much smaller than the block next door, yet required a fence for the pool to be registered.
Allowing 1.8 hectares as the minimum lot size would allow flexibility. It must be remembered that this variation is to allow those lot sizes which are smaller than two hectares because of an historical or practical variation in planning approval - such as that in Collard Road where, obviously, the lot size was under two hectares or five acres, and it was regarded as being two hectares or five acres. This amendment allows the variation in lot sizes also caused through no fault of the owner, but caused by decisions of other authorities.
How did I come to the figure of 1.8 hectares? I took the worst case scenario for a road widening, and that would be 5 m resumed for a corner block. That would be approximately 300 m by 5 m, which adds up to 1500 m2. To cover this scenario, a 10% variation for a two hectare block would amount to 2000 m2, which brings the lot size down to 1.8 hectares. I should state that this is not a message to planners, developers or councils if there is a reduction in the lot sizes for RL1, but is purely a sensible compromise to allow for fluctuations in land sizes as relates to the Swimming Pool Fencing Act.
My change is simply that. I believe the member for Greatorex would argue that you might run into problems with people saying we now have a 1.79 hectare block and, therefore, they ask for an exemption. My feeling is that, by stating carefully the reasons for this variation, people will understand what we are trying to do. If people are starting to use this to try and get down lower and lower, I do not believe that they will be able to, because you need to look at this variation down to 1.8 hectares in the light of what I have just said in the reading. Madam Deputy Chair, I hope this amendment has the House’s support.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, let me put some words to this rather than the member for Nelson putting words in my mouth. We had a long discussion about this and I heard the minister’s comments earlier that he was prepared to accept this amendment - and well and good that it should happen. The opposition supports the member for Nelson’s amendment, but I will draw caution to this, because again, this is like the slippery slope. You make it 1.8 hectares now, and that brings in all of those blocks that were mentioned earlier; some - what? …
Mr Wood: 319.
Dr LIM: … 319 blocks in the rural area that are affected because of survey errors, whether they be deliberate or otherwise.
You really would have to think about what will happen if suddenly a huge number of other people came along and said: ‘It is 1.79 hectares, or 1.75 hectares. What do we do? Our pool is equally as far away from the fence as somebody who has a block that is only two hectares in size’. There will be pressure put on you, and you are just bringing on pressure for yourself when you do not really need to. That was one of the reasons why I flagged the other amendment which is more generic, and will take in the wider field and allow the authority itself to have a level of discretion.
Anyway, I realise that there are a lot of people in the rural area who do have blocks that are less than two hectares and were caught by this - again, as I said earlier - hastily cobbled together legislation which has caused a lot of heartache for the public. People are not happy about it; they have already spent a lot of money previously getting their pool fences up to what they thought was complying with the by-laws of the day, and then suddenly find that they are up for thousands of dollars. For some people, it is nearly $10 000, if not more, to get their pool fence up to the current standard. It is such a pity that people have to do that. There is a lot of heartache out there, and a lot of expenditure that would be considered by people as not necessary. Think of the poor pensioner who lives in the rural area - there are quite a few of them - and getting caught by this, because their blocks of land are less than - what now? - 1.8 hectares. I hope you do not buy yourself any more troubles than you already have, and we will support this amendment.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, am I allowed to respond?
MADAM DEPUTY CHAIR: To your amendment? Yes.
Mr WOOD: We are in the committee stage.
MADAM DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, it is committee stage, it is your amendment, and you can respond.
Mr WOOD: I take up some of the comments of the member for Greatorex. The minister knows that I have some problems with the difficulty in having small premises versus large premises, because I have in my electorate the areas where it most applies - and that is Howard River Park and Whitewood Park. I can say now that a lot of people have found it very hard to understand why, on one side of the road they have to have a pool fence and the other side they do not. But we have been through that argument, and it is one that the government has decided to go along with, and that is the way the law is. I respect that.
However, the argument that this will cause the same problem, I do not think really applies, because you have to look at this from - I suppose you would call it a personal knowledge of the rural area. These blocks we are talking about, generally, are well and truly in RL1 land - that is, five acre or two hectare subdivisions - and they are not part of the Whitewood Park and Howard River Park areas. Therefore, it makes no sense to have these slight variations. We are looking at 5839 blocks, and I imagine they are not all two hectare blocks. You also have eight hectares and some of the bigger blocks, but a substantial majority of those would be two hectares. To have a block in a subdivision sized by sheer luck or by the decision of the Planning Authority many years ago, or by the change in a road width, and now say to the owner: ‘You have to have a pool fence’, would make the department look silly. It would look like it was being over-bureaucratic when it did not need to be.
That is one of the reasons we are trying to introduce this. I do not think the department needs any more flack than it gets occasionally in my part of the world than it needs to have. This is putting forward a sensible compromise to something that needed adjustment. I thank the person from the rural area who brought it to my attention. I did not really have the time to go looking at all the block sizes, and when somebody told me that their block size was 1.96 hectare, I thought it was a bit silly. I thank the government for supporting this change because it is a sensible change.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, in regards to the amendment sought, the government has, and I have, indicated that we will be supporting the amendment. But I would add to the comments from the member for Greatorex: we will consider practical amendments when given adequate time, and we will come to that shortly.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, the member for Greatorex laughs and we can have this now or shortly; it does not matter neither here nor there with me. However, I was approached last night with the amendment from the member for Nelson. My office was able to check it out with the Land Titles Office. We sought advice, researched and, at the end of the day, I had to make a decision. The decision, after consultation with our Caucus members, is that it is a sensible amendment that has been proposed, that we were given ample time to consider.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: To have the member for Greatorex to laugh and joke when he issues his amendment while the debate has started, is not a professional way to go about seeking support for amendments. We have said - and I did in the introduction last October - that there will be a review which will commence in November. I encourage and invite the member for Greatorex - in fact, any members in this Chamber, if they wish - to provide amendments, issues, concerns that they have had raised with them, whether it is in their constituency or not. Please do so, because that is what a review is about. We bring in legislation - the CLP has done it for the last 26 or 27 years – and as we move forward, we iron out some of the bugbears. That is what it is about; improving the legislation.
The member for Nelson’s amendment is going to pick up those 319 people who really believe that they are being hard done by and that we are not being considerate enough. I can tell members of this Chamber that we are, and we will pick that amendment up. We also have an opportunity to show, once again, that if they are common sense amendments, we will need to consider them. However, we need ample time, as I mentioned earlier. It is not a matter of slippery slope. We were asked to draw the line, we had enough time to consider where that line should be, and the line is going to be drawn at 1.8 hectares and above.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I move my amendment 54.1 as circulated to members.
I move this because I thought it would be more generic and, therefore, a lot easier to implement. It does not introduce a slippery slope; it gives the authority, in particular the director, the flexibility to approve pool fencing which he adjudges to be compliant. That way, people can come along and ask the director for a specific assessment, particularly in terms of land that is less than two hectares.
It also brings in whatever else that the authority wishes to prescribe by regulation. I take this case in point. There is a property in the city, 124 Vanderlin Drive, Wulagi, and I asked the authority to check it out. It is a property owned by Territory Housing, which also comes under the responsibility of this minister. This property has a stormwater drain which, if you look at it, poses a hazard to the young children who are living in that house. The drain traversers the whole of one side of the yard from the front to the back.
During the Dry Season, the drain is deep enough for a child to fall into and be seriously hurt. That drain is made of concrete. During the Wet Season, it will be a serious threat to life of a small child if she or he fell into it when there is a heavy stream of stormwater rushing through. That drain is 330 mm deep from the bottom of the drain to the very lip. That is deeper than your legislation allows not to be fenced. They have made a request for Territory Housing to fix it, and a letter was written to the minister about it. I hear, on verbal advice, that Territory Housing would have nothing to do with the drain.
If Territory Housing thinks the drain is safe, perhaps the authority should be writing a certificate of exemption through this amendment to Territory Housing so that the drain does not have to be covered or fenced off. Right now, Territory Housing is in breach of the legislation that the minister has introduced.
That is the sort of issue that I am talking about, not only issues of land size in the number of hectares, but any other subsequent issue that needs to have a level of flexibility. This hastily cobbled together act brings in such rigidity that people are forced into doing things so that they can comply. I have mentioned before pool fences that are a couple of millimetres below 1.2 m, and it depends on how the inspector measures it. I know of people who have put up a fence that was compliant and then, because they top-dressed the lawn around where the pool is, suddenly the fence is a few millimetres short of 1.2 m. Because there is such rigidity, there is nothing they can do about it, apart from digging the lawn back out, or else try to raise the fence. That is not what the legislation is all about, surely. It is about protecting children, and you do it properly.
I know of instances where gate locks have slipped a couple of millimetres, and that has incurred the wrath of the inspector on the contractor, and they have to reconstruct the gate so that the locks are moved up a couple of millimetres.
Minister, this is an amendment that brings flexibility into your legislation, which allows the authority through the action of one person, the director, to reassess a fence and allow it to go through if, within reason, it is compliant. That is the way this should be viewed.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I will just run through this stuff again. I touched on that, and it is not because the member for Greatorex and I do not get on in the Chamber from time to time. As I said earlier, it is about giving us ample time to research, to obtain the data, to consult, to seek further advice, as we were able to do with the amendment proposed by the member for Nelson and accepted. To have an amendment distributed just prior to the debate, or while the debate has commenced, is not professional. The member for Greatorex had ample time since the second reading speech to prepare himself for any amendments he wished to bring forward. I would have considered those, in the same way I considered the amendment from the member for Nelson.
However, as I said, we have a review coming up to commence in early November, and I invite him to put those concerns to us so we can consider them in the context of the review. The example he just gave in regards to the creek down the backyard, we will have a look at that. I invite any members to submit concerns about the swimming pool fencing legislation, the Pool Fencing Unit, the avenues for appeal, or reconsideration. The intent of the legislation is accepted by all members of this Chamber, and I believe it is fairly well accepted in the community too. We just have to iron out, as I said, some of the bugbears as we go. No doubt, the review will come up with a few others. We are making a real attempt to turn the situation around. I believe that if members, and the member for Greatorex especially, have concerns and examples, please pass them on to us, and we will have them looked at and respond to you.
I cannot support the generalised motion that has been put in at a fairly late time. We have not had time to consider it. It is not a matter of accepting this sort of stuff on the run. Legislation is very important to us in this House, it is taken very seriously, and so it should, because it impacts upon all Territorians. We want to ensure that the process is right, and that we get it right. I will be moving to vote this amendment down.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I thank the member for Greatorex for bringing the amendment to the House today. I will not be supporting it. I do think it has some merit. I would like more time to just go through it a number of times to see whether it fits everything that I was looking at. There certainly may be cases in the future which do not fit into some of the guidelines we have, even today. Maybe, as the member for Greatorex said, this would give some discretion through the idea of certificates of exemption.
I accept that there is merit in this but, as the minister said, perhaps it needs more time to be thought through when the review comes up. I welcome the review. In fact, I had forgotten there was a 12-month review. That will be a review about which I will be telling people who may have some concerns about swimming pool regulations, to put their two bobs worth in. This should come up at that time, and we can address that again there. At the present time, I will not be supporting it.
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report, July 2003
Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report, July 2003
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I present and lay on the Table the July 2003 Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report.
MOTION
Note Paper - Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report, July 2003
Note Paper - Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report, July 2003
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, section 26 of the Audit Act requires that a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office be conducted every three years. Consistent with recently established practice, arrangements were made for the review to be conducted by a senior member of staff of an interstate Auditor-General’s office. This approach was supported by the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Territory Auditor-General, as is required by the Audit Act and, as a result, Mr Neil Jackson, Assistant Auditory-General of the Queensland Audit Office, was selected to undertake the review.
I am pleased to advise the House that the review has concluded that the Auditor-General’s office is operating in an efficient and effective manner. It has also identified opportunities for improving the office’s operation. The more significant of the review’s 14 recommendations relate to: addressing risks identified with the office’s current level of reliance on contracted audit services; setting target levels of performance management systems audits; and determining funding levels on an ongoing basis to ensure the Auditor-General is able to provide appropriate emphasis for both discretionary and non-discretionary areas of its audit mandate.
The Auditor-General has noted the recommendations of the strategic review. In particular, he has responded to the review recommendations by undertaking to assess the structure and operating arrangements with the Auditor-General’s Office and present a formal proposal to government by the 31 December 2003, and consider the quantum of performance management systems audits and funding levels when developing the office’s performance, focus and budget for 2004–05. The Auditor-General has indicated he will involve the Public Accounts Committee in discussions about the office’s performance for focus and budget.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to present the report on the strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office to this House. I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development -
Interim Report on Issues Associated with the Progressive Entry of Cane Toads into
the Northern Territory
Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development -
Interim Report on Issues Associated with the Progressive Entry of Cane Toads into
the Northern Territory
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, pursuant to resolution of the Assembly, dated 28 November 2002, I table the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development’s interim report on issues associated with the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory. The committee is close to finalisation of this inquiry into cane toads and anticipates tabling its full report in the Legislative Assembly’s October sittings.
However, the committee believes there are some matters which are time sensitive, which require being placed before parliament in these August sittings. Specifically, it is the finding of the committee that cane toads are likely to reach greater Darwin and Palmerston during this coming Wet. In addition, we believe cane toads are likely to invade the historically and environmentally significant region of the Cobourg Peninsula during this coming Wet.
Accordingly, we urge that the Northern Territory government consider the following actions to ameliorate the significant impact that cane toads are likely to have during this coming Wet. The Environment and Sustainable Development Committee unanimously recommends:
construction of a cane toad proof fence on Cobourg Peninsula;
to pursue cane toad control methods;
educate the community about cane toads; and
and Northern Territory governments to protect offshore islands currently without
cane toads.
In its recommendations, the committee acknowledges that cane toads are an environmental issue of national significance which should attract Commonwealth, Territory and states’ funding. We acknowledge that a cane toad proof fence and quarantine measures are not failsafe measures to combat the incursion of cane toads. In the words of Dr Dan Holland, a consultant advisor for Parks North Australia, undertaking research in Kakadu National Park, we point out:
- First, the use of exclusion barriers and other devices in combination with intensive, long-term local surveys designed to detect and eradicate all life history stages of the toad, may very well prove to be a very cost effective means of excluding the species (cane toads) from significant areas such as the Cobourg Peninsula … and some of the offshore islands.
Are such barriers absolutely leak-proof? No.
In its submission to the inquiry, Environment Australia urged collaboration between the Commonwealth, Northern Territory and Western Australia, to develop long-term strategies to deal with the impact of the cane toads that included:
- … assessing whether there are relatively undisturbed islands, peninsulas, or other areas of high conservation value from which it would be economically and practically feasible to exclude cane toads. If it were feasible, it would be desirable from a conservation standpoint to maintain representative areas of the bio-region as toad free. This would involve: assessing the risk of toad colonisation of islands within the potential biological range of toads; examining whether any mainland areas could be kept toad free (for example, by controlled fences across narrow peninsulas); developing and instituting quarantine measures to prevent cane toads arriving on islands, including search and capture methods to locate any cane toads that enter toad-free areas; raising public awareness of the need to prevent toads being transported to islands; and involving Aboriginal people in patrolling quarantine areas for cane toads and in preventing their spread to quarantine areas.
The committee acknowledges that work is yet to be done on identifying any specific geographic placement of the proposed Cobourg Peninsula fence, its design and construction feasibility. The fencing of Cobourg Peninsula is a case of: be damned if you do and cane toad incursions occur; and be damned if you do not fence to protect a significant bio-diverse, historically, environmentally and culturally significant area. In weighing up submissions, the committee found that on the whole, fencing of the Cobourg Peninsula was desirable, with clear maintenance and monitoring control mechanisms in place to enhance its effectiveness.
We commend this interim report to members of the Legislative Assembly and ask that you take it in the context that more broad findings and comprehensive recommendations will be provided in the final report due in October.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I be given leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Renal Disease in the Territory
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I present a statement on tackling kidney disease in the Territory. I emphasise the urgency with which this government regards taking action on the pressing problems of health in the Northern Territory. As part of this commitment, we are dedicated to addressing the impact of renal disease on the Territory community and particularly on Aboriginal Territorians. Our vision is to improve renal health through the prevention and management of renal disease across the continuum of care. We will provide accessible, accountable and reliable services to reduce the number of people with deteriorating renal function, as well as offering high quality services to those requiring treatment.
Today, I will outline four main areas which we see as priorities for action. First, we are committed to providing appropriate and effective treatment for those who have kidney disease. In particular, we will support the provision of dialysis as close as possible to where people live, to minimise the health and social disruption that relocation to distant treatment centres often entails. Treatment is important but, by itself, it is not enough. We are also committed to developing appropriate prevention strategies to be delivered through a comprehensive primary health care system that works to tackle the underlying causes of chronic disease, including renal disease.
Our third area for action is building a collaborative partnership approach by strengthening our links with the Aboriginal community and its organisations, with other levels of government and, where possible, with private organisations.
Last, we acknowledge the importance of our dedicated renal work force of Aboriginal health workers, nurses, physicians, researchers and the many others who work on renal health. We want to build upon the strong reputation they have established for the Territory as an internationally recognised centre for knowledge and innovation in the treatment and prevention of kidney disease.
Before going into detail about what we are doing and what we intend to do in this area, let us take a step back to look at the dimensions of the problem. The Northern Territory has a small population dispersed across a large area. We have a diversity of cultures, where many people speak English as a second, third or fourth, rather that first, language. There is significant social inequality with indigenous people in particular being poorer, having lower educational levels, lower literacy, higher levels of unemployment, poorer housing, higher levels of substance misuse and poorer health. All this presents a challenging scenario for service delivery systems.
In this context, renal disease is a major contributor to illness and death in the Northern Territory. We not only have more cases of kidney disease than the Australian average, 726 cases per million people, compared with 555 nationally, but we have over three times as many new cases per year- 299 new cases per million people compared to 85 nationally. This means that the incidence of renal disease is increasing at a faster rate than the national average, at approximately 15% to 25% per annum, as opposed to the national rate of approximately 8%. However, there is also evidence that renal dialysis treatments in the Territory, while still rising, are not doing so as fast as was predicted. These changes are not consistent, and we will be keeping a careful eye on them over the next year or two.
Although 29% of Territorians are Aboriginal, they make up more than 85% of the people on dialysis. Additionally, this group are younger, predominantly female and tend to have significantly shorter treatment survival than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Within the NT itself, rates of disease are higher in remote regions.
These statistics do not tell the whole story. They do not describe the effect of end-stage renal disease on individuals, families and communities. The effects of this debilitating illness in purely physical terms are bad enough, but they are exacerbated by the social upheaval that the condition entails. Until relatively recently, haemodialysis treatment was only available in Alice Springs and Darwin. Anyone who developed end-stage renal disease was required to relocate to one of these centres for life-saving haemodialysis. The effects of such a relocation for Aboriginal people from remote areas was eloquently captured in a Central Australian Aboriginal Congress report, On the Machine: Aboriginal Stories about Kidney Troubles. In the words of one patient from a remote community:
- People can’t stay away from their families. They got no money to come down here ...
… it’s a real problem. I need family to stay with me. I am always by myself.
In addition to the personal distress of being separated from their extended family, their home and their community, relocation is linked to significant social problems: unemployment, homelessness, debt, kids not going to school, welfare dependency and the loss of key leaders from Aboriginal communities. For all of these reasons, this is an area that this government is passionate about addressing.
One of our early initiatives was to establish a dialysis facility in Tennant Creek. At the moment, up to six renal patients are being treated in the Tennant Creek Hospital, with the capacity to provide for 12 patients in the coming financial year. In the 2003-04 budget, the government increased renal funding by $2.5m per annum, with an additional $1.4m in capital program allocation for new dialysis facilities. This money will be used in a number of ways, including ensuring that patients can be treated close to their own community, instead of having to relocate to urban centres. In particular, we are working on plans for the implementation of dialysis at remote communities in the Top End at Borroloola, Groote Eylandt, Elcho Island, Maningrida, Ramingining, Numbulwar and Port Keats, and in the Centre at Kintore, Ali Curung, Mutitjulu, Elliott and Santa Teresa. The first services using this model are to be developed at Galiwinku and Groote Eylandt.
These communities were selected on the basis of having a relatively high number of members receiving dialysis, a high level of community support, and established health services capable of supporting community dialysis if needed. These services will be supported by a haemodialysis self-care training program, which is already being run from the Nightcliff Renal Unit. Self-care training aims to give the patient the skills they need to be able to carry out their own dialysis treatment. In addition, we will be establishing a satellite renal dialysis service in the Palmerston Health Precinct. This will provide a service to a growing number of patients who have been accessing the Nightcliff Renal Unit from Palmerston. Thus, the 2003-04 renal priorities for capital works are Nightcliff, Galiwinku, Palmerston and Tennant Creek.
When people develop end-stage renal disease, wherever medically suitable, the best treatment is transplantation. Encouraging the public to participate in organ donation schemes, and supporting patients to access donated kidneys are, therefore, important strategies. However, while people wait for a transplant kidney to become available, dialysis of some form is the only option. Providing dialysis as close as possible to where people live is a crucial step to providing effective treatment of renal disease. Our model is innovative for the Territory, but is based on sound evidence. We know it can be done. We recognise that establishing this kind of service faces many challenges. The provision of infrastructure, particularly safe and reliable sources of power and water, and a site for the dialysis itself, proper training of patients and their families, and the recruitment of staff who have the technical skills, and also are able to work supportively in a cross-cultural environment, all need to be addressed.
We do not underestimate these challenges, but we will not allow them to prevent us from making progress. All these challenges can be solved with the proper application of technical expertise, funding and commitment. This government has that commitment. It is a commitment we share with many Territorians in remote areas. To illustrate this, I want to talk about the Western Desert Dialysis Appeal, and the efforts of the Aboriginal communities of the Western Desert to tackle the problem of kidney disease. It is an inspiring story of the commitment of communities tackling their own health problems, of taking control. It is an approach that I support.
During the 1990s, Aboriginal people in Kiwirrkurra and Kintore became increasingly concerned about the sickness and deaths resulting from kidney disease. They were further concerned that many key family and community members were forced to relocate from their homelands to distant Alice Springs in order to undertake renal dialysis. Once they left their communities, none of the Anangu ever returned home on renal dialysis. At the end of the 1990s, the average survival time for people from the Western Desert on haemodialysis in Alice Springs was two years, compared to eight years nationally. Faced with this crisis, the community decided to take matters into their own hands. Many of their famed painters worked together to paint four group canvasses. These, and other works donated privately by supporters from outside the Western Desert lands, were auctioned by Sotherby’s in November 2000, with Sotherby’s providing their own significant support. The auction raised over $1m. A committee was formed and a manager employed.
A Return To Country program was begun, allowing the many patients in Alice Springs to be flown back to the Western Desert for visits with family, before going back to Alice for ongoing treatment. This program provided a great relief for Anangu, but the communities have greater plans. Specifically, they want to use the money they have raised to support remote dialysis at Kintore, based in the Pintubi homelands health service clinic. A special room has already been constructed for this function, and the issue of the safe supply of power and water have now been addressed. Accommodation will be provided on the community for staff and patients. At the same time, a training space is being set up in Alice Springs where patients and their families will be trained in the use of the dialysis machines. I understand that my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Housing, has approved the allocation of public housing in Alice Springs for this purpose.
The group is incorporated as the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyanjaku Tjutaku, meaning ‘making our families well’. What is particularly inspiring about this story is the extraordinary efforts of the Anangu of the Western Desert. It has become a bit of a mantra in recent years to demand that Aboriginal communities themselves take responsibility for tackling the problems that they face. I agree, but we must add to this the need of government to support Aboriginal communities when they do so. The provision of renal dialysis services at Kintore, and the Return To Country program, has significant advantages for government; in particular, the potential reduction of housing needs for renal clients in the urban area; collaborative liaisons and risk sharing between government and non-government agencies; and, most importantly, the huge benefits in health and wellbeing to patients and their families.
I believe our commitment to providing dialysis services as close as possible to where people live is a great step forward in addressing the issues of renal disease in the Northern Territory. However, we must also put the disease in context. Other services are required to prevent people from progressing to end-stage renal disease in the first place. The second step in tackling renal disease is strengthening comprehensive primary health care in remote communities. Primary health care can reduce the burden of renal disease through the early screening and detection of chronic renal insufficiency, as well as other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease. These illnesses share a common developmental pathway, with a diverse range of factors that contribute to the risk. These occur across the life course. Low birth weight, infant malnutrition, skin sores, scabies, previous episodes of kidney infection, and a high overall burden of infectious disease are all risk factors that arise in childhood.
Within the primary health care sector, the Preventable Chronic Disease strategy offers a specific framework for the prevention, early detection and best practice management of these conditions. More fundamentally, all of these chronic conditions and their risk factors are linked to social and economic circumstances. Dr Alan Cass, a renal physician, while working at Menzies School of Health Research, demonstrated a strong link between social and economic disadvantage in Aboriginal communities and rates of renal disease.
Last year, I advised the House on the reforms to remote health services through the Primary Health Care Access Program, PHCAP. As a reminder, the Department of Health and Community Services is combining current Northern Territory’s resource effort with new Commonwealth funding. This combined initiative will allow an expansion of primary health care services under the principle of maximising local control over those services. Another important part of the strength in primary health care sector is the ability to focus on the people who are showing signs of early kidney damage but have not yet progressed to end-stage renal disease and the requirement for dialysis. Efforts here will see dialysis numbers reducing over time. This will be achieved through the greater level of service integration between primary and tertiary health care, to improve management and follow up.
In addition, setting up monitoring and evaluation systems will improve service planning and allow the tracking of patients’ progress across different health sectors and agencies. This will, in turn, enable adequate long-term monitoring of progress towards reducing disease, as well as improving services. Moreover, a more direct linking of renal treatment services to the community-based primary health care sector will provide opportunities for renal health promotion, as well as for family and community involvement.
In the Territory, we have used evidence to guide good clinical practice in both hospital and our primary health care settings. Treatment of early renal disease with appropriate drugs that slow down the progression of renal disease by controlling blood pressure, was introduced in the early 1990s and incorporated into standard treatment guidelines.
Research results from the Tiwi Islands show the progression between 1994-95 and 1998-99 to end-stage renal failure to have slowed markedly. This evidence for good clinical practice is now being promoted to GPs across Australia as an essential primary medical intervention. However, we should not forget that, for many Aboriginal people, renal disease is a disease of immense fear, similar perhaps, to how the mainstream western world regards cancer. Aboriginal people’s experience of renal disease is all too frequently one of rapid decline and early death. Treatment is, therefore, not just a matter of the right medical intervention. To overcome that understandable fear, good treatment must be married with good and comprehensible information, and degree of control over one’s environment and the services one accesses. These two are vital ingredients of a proper comprehensive primary health care service.
The third step in building an effective response to renal disease is about partnerships. Much of this is inherent in the provision of services close to where people live, and in the provision of effective primary health care services. Working partnerships are built through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Health Forum, the working party of the forum representing AMSANT, the Western Desert Dialysis Appeal. ATSIC, policy and clinical expertise from my department, and Commonwealth Health recently created a renal strategic plan for the Northern Territory which provides clear directions for progress in this area. This plan is an example of working together and building partnerships to make a difference, and has been crucial in the forming of this government’s position and, indeed, this statement.
I also mention the role of private individuals and companies in this field. The Sotherby’s auction has already been mentioned as an example of private individuals and the auction house itself, working with Aboriginal communities. I support and encourage such philanthropic action from the private sector.
Before moving on from partnerships I want to mention the Australian Kidney Foundation. Anne Wilson, the CEO of the foundation, visited the Northern Territory two weeks ago to announce the extension of the foundation’s services and community awareness programs into the Northern Territory. The foundation will soon open an office in Darwin and, I understand, has appointed Dr Jeannie Devitt, who has many years experience working in the field of Aboriginal renal health, to work closely with the kidney fraternity, other health providers and communities in the Territory to support and facilitate initiatives which improve kidney health outcomes.
The fourth and last crucial ingredient for addressing kidney disease in the Northern Territory is work force. In particular, I pay tribute to the many dedicated staff working in this field: Aboriginal health workers, nurses, doctors, specialists and the many others whose roles are just as important. These people demonstrate the depth of knowledge and experience in renal disease we have in the Territory. Some of the leading researchers recognised Australia-wide and internationally work and or live here. The Territory has also successfully attracted specialist clinicians who are leaders in renal disease, such as: Dr Paul Snelling, Dr Paul Laughton, Dr Alan Cass, Ms Gillian Gorham in the Top End, and Dr Steven Brady and Ms Andrea Rolfe in the Centre; and in chronic disease management, Dr Tarun Weeramanthri, Dr Christine Connors, Dr Diane Howard and Dr Ciara O’Sullivan.
The high level of clinical experience, research expertise and community activism combine with the unique situation we face in the Territory to make this the place to be for anyone seeking to make a career in renal issues. We are in an exiting phase of service development, using innovative service models where multi-disciplinary teams work together in a cross-cultural environment. This is the quintessential high challenge, high reward field, the very opposite of a run-of-the-mill line of work.
To conclude, by the mid-1990s it was abundantly clear that end-stage renal disease was reaching frightening levels in Aboriginal communities across the Territory. Despite the concerns of Aboriginal leaders, organisations, health professionals and researchers, little was done to address this situation.
This government accepts the responsibility of facing the health and social challenges posed by kidney disease. We are not unrealistic. We know that it may take many years before we can say the issue is dealt with, but we are not going to let the length of the journey deter us from taking the vital first steps I have outlined today: the provision of better prevention through primary health care, renal treatment as close as possible to where people live, a commitment to partnerships, and the continued support of a dedicated and skilled work force.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on this important matter. However, after listening to her speak I am struck that this statement’s talk of urgency delivers little that is new. Most of it she has already said in this House.
However, the CLP certainly recognises the problems facing our community as a result of renal disease, and will support the government in its efforts to address them. The rate of renal disease is increasing by about 7% per annum in western countries. That, in itself, is of great concern. However, the rate of increase in renal disease in the Territory is much greater and, arguably, amongst certain groups in our community, we now have an epidemic.
A range of risk factors contribute to the development of renal disease. These include low birth weight, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, family history of renal disease, being older that 50 years of age, and being of Aboriginal or Islander heritage. Some of these risk factors are modifiable - for example, if you a smoker or if you are obese, you can do something about it - while other things are not modifiable - for example, your family history, your age or your heritage.
Currently, we know that kidney failure can be prevented, that people at risk of renal disease should undergo yearly blood pressure monitoring and urine protein testing, either opportunistically - for example, when they go and see their doctor or they go to their community health centre, the staff there should offer to do those tests to screen people for the early signs of renal disease - or, of course, nowadays you can do a self-test and the Kidney Foundation sells testing kits for about $10.
We also know that drugs can be prescribed to protect renal function and slow the progression of the disease and that prevention programs, which address some of the modifiable factors such as smoking and obesity, can and should be provided. So there is hope, but individuals have a role to play, too. Many of these risk factors can be changed if the person has a will to do so and, of course, prevention is better than cure, if you can get a cure. Unfortunately, it is possible for a person to lose up to 90% of their kidney function before any symptoms show. These included tiredness, weight loss, feeling unwell, headache and itchy skin. What is happening is that the blood is not being cleaned of its impurities by the kidneys and the body is slowly being poisoned. This is why pre-emptive screening for kidney disease may be lifesaving. Kidney disease is called a ‘silent killer’, so screening for early signs of the disease is vital to prevent more damage occurring.
A particular concern of mine is the correlation between low birth weight and the development of renal disease. This has been reported recently by Professor John Bertram of Monash University. Professor Bertram claims:
- Kidney disease in indigenous people around the world, including Australian Aborigines, seems to be at a much higher rate than in non-indigenous populations.
He explains that part of the cause of this is attributed to the number of nephrons, or blood filtering structures, in a person’s kidney. People who were born with a low birth weight have fewer nephrons and the fewer the nephrons, the higher the risk of developing kidney disease as they get older. They are born, quite frankly, with three cylinders instead of the average eight. They are in trouble from the day they are born.
The minister highlighted the value of screening in her statement, screening for things like: ‘… low birth weight, infant malnutrition, skin sores, scabies and previous episodes of kidney infection’. However, I am not convinced of her commitment. Last year, in the 2002-03 budget, this minister allocated $2.2m to increase regional health teams by 25 people. These people were to have specialist skills in child health, and to conduct things like screening for low birth weight, infant malnutrition, skin sores, scabies and previous episodes of kidney infection - all things we know contribute to the development of kidney disease later in life.
Unfortunately, last year’s promise of $2.2m was not worth the paper it was written on. The positions did not eventuate. Staff in the department were mortified. The message to them was that, due to budget problems - and we all know about those in this House - no money. program put on hold, big fanfare, big speeches, zero result. So now, the money has been moved to this financial year. I understand from my contacts in the area that six of the 25 positions are to be advertised soon. If we are lucky, those six people will be on the ground by Christmas. Hardly a startling effort, hence my cynicism.
Of course, the ideal situation would be to prevent renal disease in the first place. If that is not possible, then steps should be taken, through activities like screening and commencing early treatment programs, to reduce the damage caused by renal disease. However, the sad fact is that many Territorians do progress to what is known as end-stage renal disease, which is when the body starts to be seriously affected by the poisons it cannot get rid of. For these people, the management is often months, if not years, of renal dialysis. For the lucky few, a renal transplant occurs. I have known people whose lives have been turned around by receiving that most precious gift: another human’s kidney. It is terribly sad that so few Territorians receive transplants. There are many factors which contribute to this, including cultural and physiological factors. Hopefully, over the years, we will see more people saved by a marked increase in the provision of renal transplants. However, for most people with serious renal disease, dialysis will be their only hope of staying alive.
The minister talks about her commitment to the provision of dialysis services in this statement. She advises that Borroloola, Groote Eylandt, Elcho Island, Maningrida, Ramingining, Numbulwar, Port Keats, Kintore, Ali Curung, Mutitjulu, Elliott and Santa Teresa are being targeted in plans to provide dialysis locally. I assume these are to be the provision of haemodialysis and not peritoneal dialysis. For those not familiar with the difference, haemodialysis consists of linking the patient to a large machine, which uses artificial filters to clean impurities from the blood. Peritoneal dialysis consists of flowing fluid over the peritoneum, which covers a person’s intestines, and the impurities leave the peritoneum’s blood supply and enter the fluid. The fluid is then drained from the body. A person having peritoneal dialysis has a bag of clean fluid going into their abdomen through a tube, and then the contaminated fluid is drained out of the abdomen via a tube into a bag. Haemodialysis is a high-tech process. Peritoneal dialysis is less so. It will be interesting to see if the use of peritoneal dialysis increases in the Territory, for the provision of haemodialysis in remote communities will be difficult. Power and water supplies need to be reliable, specially trained staff need to be present. It is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
However, it seems from this statement, the focus for end-stage renal disease care is to be primarily haemodialysis. The minister has announced that capital works are to occur at Nightcliff, Galiwinku, Palmerston and Tennant Creek this year. It sounds grand, but only $900 000 has been allocated. That is less than $250 000 for each location. I wonder what that buys? It is not much money and, given the troubles the minister is having in delivering the much heralded hospice - a hospice which will not even get enough money for furniture - you have to be sceptical about what she will really deliver in renal services.
Of course, all our hospitals are currently providing renal dialysis services, but the funding for these hospital is in jeopardy due to the politics being played out by this Labor government minister. Members will be aware that, within the next two weeks, the minister needs to sign up to the Commonwealth’s Australian Health Care Agreement or lose $2m on the 1 September, and $31 500 each and every day after that, from the money which could have been provided. But instead of signing up and starting the flow of extra funding to the Territory today, the minister has joined her state Labor Health ministers and is playing politics against the Liberal Coalition federal government.
Shame on you, minister, going for political point-scoring while our hospitals - and that includes their renal services - are denied urgently needed funding. I know you will sign eventually, because your budget for this year has a growth of only $14m - $14m which you only get if you sign up to the Health Care Agreement. It is in your budget book under Commonwealth grants - the lot. Every cent is needed.
I welcome the government’s apparent commitment to putting renal dialysis services closer to the person’s home. In many cases, this will be in very remote areas. I also welcome an apparent commitment to preventing renal disease, but this needs money and commitment, too. I recall a study published last year and conducted here in the Territory, through Menzies I think, which claimed we need to spend an extra $50m on addressing renal disease over the next 10 years. I do not see that level of commitment here. A good start would be if the minister signed the Australian Health Care Agreement and saved losing $2m on 1 September and $31 000 a day after that. That sort of funding would make a real impact.
To conclude, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, renal disease is a growing concern, and an ever-increasing tragedy for many Territorians. I hope this minister delivers on this statement, but her track record on the delivery of promises is pretty sad, so I will not hold my breath, and I suggest you do not either.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement, and very strongly support the statement on the reforms the minister has introduced today in the House. I believe the rolling out of community-based or home-based dialysis services in the Northern Territory, to get people back to their home communities when they are afflicted by these terrible conditions, is not only highly overdue but very urgently needed in the Territory today.
The minister has already mentioned the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyanjaku Tjutaku. That is a new Pintubi name which I am still trying to master. I would like to expand more on the way this project is going. As has been previously stated in this House, the Pintubi communities of Walungurru, Kintore and Kiwirrkurra got together with the art dealers, mainly in Sydney but also Melbourne, and put together a collection of donated paintings and paintings produced directly from the community, and raised $1.25m to institute renal services out in the communities and away from the urban centres in the Northern Territory, to allow their people to come home if they have the need for this treatment. The project has recently become incorporated. The first meeting as an incorporated body was in June this year. The chairperson is Marlene Nampijimpa from Kintore and the vice-chair is Bundy Rowe from Mt Liebig. I certainly welcome the involvement of those two people on the committee; they are fantastically committed and talented people.
The first meeting was the first time all patients were able to attend, who could potentially go on to this method of self-dialysis or community-based dialysis. The Flynn Drive Dialysis Unit helped by rescheduling treatments to allow everyone to attend. People are very passionate and committed to the organisation and its goal of getting as many people as possible into self-care programs so they can return to country. The committee recognises that everyone might not be able to learn, and they are determined that even those who are unable to cope with self-care should be able to return home if they wish, even if it is for temporary visits.
The Housing Commission has offered the project a four-bedroom house in Alice Springs. Visits have been made to the neighbourhood to inform people of the proposed use of the house and the response has been very positive and supportive. We now need to go through DIPE to get permission to alter the use of the residential dwelling.
Two specialist renal nurses will be employed and, although not yet advertised, there has been a great deal of interest in the training position by experienced renal staff, from as far away as Hobart and England.
A draft MOU with the Department of Health and Community Services has received approval from Alice Springs office and will now go to the Darwin Renal Management Group for its final approval on 5 September. It will cover how to work with the renal unit in Alice Springs; allow the project staff to work with patients in the renal unit; cover emergency situations; and allow training to occur between the renal unit and the staff in the house. By employing two specialist renal nurses, patients will be taken on rotation from the dialysis unit to the training space, where they and their families can receive training and education in dialysis for three weeks. The same team will also go out to Kintore for a further three weeks, where a similar process will take place. At the end, they can either return to Alice Springs or, if they have completed their training, they can remain in Kintore or return to their own community in the region. It is expected that it will take 12 months for each patient and family members to learn to self-dialyse.
The new clinic in Kintore is complete with a room prepared for dialysis. Appropriate power, water and sewerage have been connected. The Department of Health and Community Services’ staff are working with the project nursing staff to ensure that they can successfully work as an extension to the regional renal team, to ensure safe, seamless continuity of patient care. At present, there are 15 patients on dialysis in Alice Springs, from seven different communities: men and women ranging from their mid-20s to their late 50s. Living in hostels, town camps, old people’s homes and hospital adds to the difficulty of maintaining viable, fulfilling personal lives. Joy Wurst has been working with families to support the idea of a dialysis family. The aim of this is to support personal initiatives where possible in conjunction with the existing services. The Return To Country program still offers six return trips per year for each patient, by whatever safe travel is possible. Waltja Tjutanku Palyapayi in Alice Springs is very supportive of this and provides transport wherever they are able to do so.
There have been many hidden benefits to this program. Many people in Kintore have identified with the beginning stages of renal insufficiency. They will be able to observe the processes and, hopefully, learn preventative care measures which can help delay end-stage renal failure. The mental health of patients should improve with their return to country. Families will not be burdened with the need to either relocate to town or the expense of travelling to town to visit patients. With dialysis happening three times a week, the renal nurse at Kintore will have time to screen other members in the community to check for any early-stage renal insufficiency, and to conduct training in the community aimed at preventative care. Dr Paul Rivalland, with La Trobe University, will conduct an evaluation of the process from the first fundraising initiative through to the end of the first training year.
This is, as the minister said in her statement, a pretty inspiring example of what communities will do when they recognise a very strong need for their kin. In this case, those communities went to the only substantial source of funding and support that they could, and that was as a result of them being the core communities for the very famous Papunya Tula artists. The art market itself can be commended for the enormous support that they showed with the $1m appeal. The donors group, of which I am very pleased to be part, continues its existence and we will look at further fundraising activities as they find appropriate moments to put further resources into either this project or related health initiatives.
Whenever I talk about this topic, I come back to one of my closest friends and that was Kumadjai Jampijimpa Zimmeran with whom I worked very closely on many projects over the years. We were certainly very closely associated in the appeal project leading to this dialysis initiative. I want to say that what Jumbajimba went through in the last parts of his life you would not wish on anyone, no matter what their status, let alone a person who was so prominent in his life with his people and his communities. Jumbajimba, although a non-drinker, was afflicted much too early in life with diabetes, and his health stayed on a terrible trajectory right through to the point where he had amputations, developed end-stage renal failure and, subsequently, went on dialysis in Alice Springs.
The situation that he found himself in, and the fact that his home community and his extended family and broader kin could see what had become of him, was a huge motivation towards getting this initiative going in the Western Desert. As a result of the situation that he reached, with the failure of his kidneys and the constant dialysis, like many patients around him in town, he developed secondary infections and went into a terminal condition from which he could not be saved.
I believe that it is well over time to be trying to put people into a more appropriate situation, if their lives are going to end because of these terrible conditions. They should be able and be enabled to have their family and their country around them if that can be achieved. These initiatives will go a long way to achieving that. However, I just want to remind members in this House that a civilised society cannot allow a prominent person such as Jumbajimba - a person who symbolised all that was decent about the Pintubi people and remote indigenous communities - to die such a miserable death, away from his country and with his family in the corridor of a hospital, with no dignified place to share his passage out of the world.
We still have things to do down there but, for all that, this is a very important initiative that the minister has brought here today. It is certainly going to offer the chance that people in the future will not suffer what my very close friend suffered.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend and congratulate the minister for this statement today, and for the information it contains and the work that is going to be done in this area.
Frankly, I am sickened and appalled by the hypocritical attitude of the not so long ago elected member for Port Darwin, who has no idea of the previous neglect of this area by the Country Liberal Party government. I am not only amazed, frankly, but embarrassed and ashamed that she would come in and seriously debate this statement. To stand there and criticise the minister for Health and cast doubt as to whether this program would run, is hypocrisy in the extreme. Frankly, it sickens me, because the fact is that it is this minister for Health in the Labor government, elected in 2001, that has put this at a very high priority in terms of health. It has taken this minister for Health to put it there.
For many years, constituents from my electorate and from the members for Stuart and Barkly - all of the rural electorates throughout the Northern Territory - were forced to relocate the individual and often the family, to either Alice Springs or Darwin, hundreds of miles from the homeland, in order to receive this sort of treatment. Families were forced to receive limited services. Those that could followed their loved ones into town, often to become long-grass people themselves, because there was no accommodation or no provision for the rest of the family. However, so attached were they to the individual member of the family that they believed it preferable to travel with that family, even though they were no resources. It was dysfunctional for the families, splitting the family up; sometimes some of the family would go and some would stay in the community. It was terribly hard for the individual, dreadful for the family, and appalling for the community, who often lost the loved one and the whole family, because they had to travel so far in order to receive this sort of treatment.
This side of the House well remembers - I should not think the other side would - where we lost a close friend and a colleague, a member of this House, the former member for Arafura, Mr Stanley Tipiloura - an absolute giant of a man, and a gentleman to his bootstraps - who died from this illness. I do not forget and I do not forgive the inaction of the Country Liberal Party government for so many years over this issue. That is just one case.
I will tell you about another one. This is about the life of a young Territorian that will change, and change just so much immeasurably for the better as a result of the actions of this minister for Health and this government. A young constituent from Galiwinku, Ms Marcia Gondarra, has been a renal patient in Darwin for 10 years. She is now 22; she came to Darwin as a 12-year-old. She is absolutely dedicated, of course, to family and her homeland of Elcho Island. Being away from her homeland has made her life miserable, and has made the life of her family miserable. Now, after 10 years of living in Darwin to receive this treatment, she will be going home at Christmas time. My colleague, the minister for Health, advises me that, when she heard this news that this was to occur, she went to her room and packed her bag, such was her excitement that her long-lived dream of being able to return home would be achieved. It will be achieved, despite what the member for Port Darwin says, by Christmas time. I congratulate and commend the action of the minister for Health for bringing this about.
It has been an issue at Galiwinku, probably since about the mid-1990s. I have had a lot of representation over the years, and that was at a time when a significant senior elder passed away. However, it remained an issue as numbers of patients within that region continued to grow over the years and, as I said, individuals and often the family, had to come to Darwin. In relation to young Marcia, I am sure there will be many stories such as that that will now be able to be told, where those families have been split up, partly relocated or fully relocated; where they will now be able to return to their community over the next couple of years and get this treatment at the local level.
The minister has also outlined a strategy that goes beyond the treatment of the disease on the ground. She has outlined a strategy of prevention, because it is through prevention that, over a period of time, we will be able to reduce the serious effects that this illness has had on the lives of so many Territorians. The minister has said that strengthening of primary health care services and identifying the risk factors where they are present in any one individual, and then tackling those risk factors, is the most appropriate way of overcoming this illness over time. It will take time, there is no question about that. However, if we are going to tackle it we have to strike out, as we are doing now.
Effective primary health care comes from effective resourcing and partnerships between non-government organisations, the government, the private sector, and the people themselves. The minister has demonstrated in her statement today the actions that this government is taking to bring that into practice. Important in this will be the delivery and the take-up of that message of promotion, because it will have to involve intensive education of the people: of what the condition itself means, how it happens and the factors that contribute to it. It is only by understanding the elements and the nature of the sickness itself that communities, families and individuals be suitably equipped in order to be able to come to grips with it. The government will need to continue to resource this campaign; both with infrastructure for treatment at the local level, including in primary health care, nutrition programs and that very vital and important educational awareness of the disease - the programs that we need to get out there in appropriate forms for indigenous people.
The minister for Health has driven this government; she has won the support of her colleagues for this course of action, which was long overdue. I commend her for it. She has won the support of her colleagues, not just to embark on this program, but to continue it until we get on top of this disease that ruins so many lives at such a young age.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not intending to speak to this statement tonight; however, I want to say a few words. I thank the minister for her statement. Generally, anything that can be done to try to arrest this disease is important, and is something that has to be commended and, in that instance, I commend the minister.
I know the minister referred in her statement to what is happening in the Western Desert country, in my neck of the woods, with the establishment of a renal unit there, which is a godsend. However, I do have some concerns about how it operates and how it may attract people to the Northern Territory over the border, which may ultimately represent a burden to the Territory budget. Kiwirrkurra is a Western Australian community, some 50 km or so away …
Mr McAdam: What border?
Mr ELFERINK: It is interesting. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Barkly. In terms of the border in relation to the Pintubi people who live in that neck of the woods; there is not one. That is the reference, I guess, that you are making. However, in terms of the fact that money comes through from different coffers and different means, there is a border out there and it is the Northern Territory/Western Australian border …
Mr McAdam: I know that!
Mr ELFERINK: The Northern Territory/Western Australian border is a real one for the minister’s concerns. The reason for that is that, because of the establishment of a renal dialysis unit in Kintore, there may be a greater burden placed upon her budget because of people moving from Kiwirrkurra to Kintore which, of course, crosses that border between Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Whether we like it or not, those borders are very real in the fact that money gets distributed to the states according to those borders. The demands placed on those various budgets are very real, and I am sure it is something that the minister would be concerned about.
It is also important to place on the record in this House that the federal government has also kicked the can in relation to that particular institution. I know full well that the sale of the paintings did raise over $1m initially to help develop a renal dialysis unit out there. However, there were some question marks as to the affordability, at that time, of the establishment of a renal dialysis unit, and whether $1m is going to be enough; not only for the establishment of the unit itself, but to be able to bring the very pure water that is required by these machines to operate effectively, both through haemo and peritoneal dialysis, and the ongoing costs of keeping renal staff in such a remote locality. Providing those sorts of staff are not cheap. Even if you can get a nurse at a cheap rate of $40 000 or $50 000 a year, the on-costs of housing and the other on-costs of employment would be a burden. It would eat into an amount of $1m. It sounds like a lot of money, but it would eat into it fairly quickly.
However, the Commonwealth did kick the can and establish the health clinic and health service out there. I had the privilege of being shown through it, even a few weeks ago. It is, indeed, a fine building. I know that minister Ruddock went out there to participate in the opening. I certainly hope that more people can enjoy living in Kintore and living on their traditional country - because I know it is very important to them - as a result of this.
The concern that I also have of the extra expense that this will, or become, a burden to the Northern Territory government may also have another unanticipated effect. It is something that the minister should be careful of: creatine levels currently are what inspired the establishment of the unit in the first place. I have the suspicion that those levels will now creep upwards by virtue of the fact, not that the standard of living has gone down in Kintore - I think the standard of living will go up substantially in Kintore as a result of this and many more people will be able to live on that country - but by the fact that there will be an artificial spike in those levels by virtue of the that you are going to have more people who are dependent on the service living in that area. It is something that would have to be taken into account, otherwise it may give a very negative reading where a very positive one is sought. The minister is surrounded by professional people who will certainly be aware of it. However, it is worth flagging because I would be deeply concerned if so much money was spent and the results of that service is misinterpreted by virtue of the fact that that there were more people dependent on renal analysis in the community, therefore giving a distorted effect in the community that one out 10, is now one out eight, now it is one out of six people dependent on the service. For future checking of that particular effect, it is worthwhile keeping an eye on it and how many people come from other places to become dependent on that unit out there.
However, generally speaking, the minister’s statement is something that I welcome. It is important to flesh out these issues in this House. I know it has been spoken about on numerous occasions in the past. It is a serious issue in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for bringing the issue into the House again. Anything that can be done to improve the situation out there are very important.
I certainly hope that there is also a greater approach taken by the federal government in how it delivers its services into and the way it conducts its business in the area: the effect in the expenditure of sit down money and those sorts of things, which directly contribute to these sorts of illnesses, as well as other ills that we see in so many other communities. I would like to see greater communication between Territory, state and federal governments in how these service areas are delivered. It is certainly a chance for the Minister for Community Development to have a look at what he can do through the ministerial statement he brought to this House yesterday about making better regions. There is a very important health component that can be worked into that. Also, the minister for Education can look at the way that education services are delivered into these areas as well, and how that can have an effect on renal dialysis.
I know that the former Senator Bob Collins in his Learning Lessons review turned his attention during the research phase to binding child endowment to school attendance, and I support that. He had difficulty with it. I know that Brendan Nelson - I think it is Brendan Nelson - currently has difficulty with the idea. However, I do not want to really concentrate too much on reasons why stuff cannot be done, but more on reasons why things should be done. In this instance, getting kids into schools gets them into an environment where they learn some of the basic things like staying clean by washing regularly. The effects of education on those basic things will help make these sorts of institutions less and less necessary over time. I would be much happier to see the prevention part of eduction and health in the classroom, through some process such as using something like child endowment to get those kids into the classroom. It would be a better way to deal with nephrotic problems than relying in these machines down the track.
I know, of course, that there are jurisdictional and political problems; there are all sorts of problems. But I would hate to see us fiddling whilst Rome burns in this instance. There are possibilities here that need to be explored. Certainly, if I could ever lend my voice to the Health Minister if she ever wanted to go to Canberra and suggest these sorts of things, once again, as I have suggested to other ministers over the last few days, I will join her in trying to achieve that. These processes, in terms of us, being Territorians, getting down to Canberra or wherever else we have to be, is something that we could probably achieve in partnership, as much as not.
I would certainly be encouraged if the minister contacted me at one point and asked me to write a letter, or in some way tried to see if I could assist in dragging policy changes around which would have a very serious effect on the mismatched way that policy delivery currently occurs with NGOs, local council, local associated bodies, state level governments, federal government, and other organisations. If it could be married up more effectively, through what the Minister for Community Development is talking about, we would have a very useful model and world’s best practice.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister for Health’s ministerial statement on tackling renal disease in the Territory. I just want to say, from the outset, that the opposition’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. I would have thought that, given the seriousness of the situation at hand maybe, in opposition, they would have thought just how badly they did it in government.
Ms Carter: $2.2m, Elliot, it did not come through last year.
Mr McADAM: Member for Port ‘Melbourne’, I do not really want to get into a debate with you regarding money because we know that will always remain an issue. However, the point is this: the money that has been allocated to your government was never, ever spent in the bush, in respect to this issue. You and your colleagues deliberately - deliberately with absolute contempt - failed to address this issue. So don’t you get up in this House and talk about money!
Ms Carter: It would be interesting to see how things are in 10 years.
Mr McADAM: I am saying to you: don’t get up in this House and talk about money because you had opportunities to do it; you had dollars. The problem is you treated people in the bush with contempt. You did not have the guts to deal with it because, do you know why? It was politically motivated. It was expedient for you to waste the lives of people in the bush …
Ms Carter: So, it is not a problem in Queensland, not a problem in Western Australia. I do not think so.
Mr McADAM: I think so. You do not have a leg to stand on, on this one
Ms Carter: No, the Labor governments, a problem across Australia.
Ms Scrymgour: Hang your head in shame. We are talking about the Territory not the rest of Australia.
Ms Carter: Oh what, we live in isolation do we?
Ms Scrymgour: No, have a debate of what happened here in the past.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order, order! Member for Arafura, Member for Port Darwin.
Ms Carter: I did not start it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not attributing blame to anyone.
Mr McADAM: You did not start anything, ever!
Ms Carter: Oh spare me, where do you think …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now …
Mrs AAGAARD: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Port Darwin has already spoken in this debate. It would be nice to have a bit of silence so we could hear the very important words from the member for Barkly.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point, minister, it is a passionate and emotive subject. I am sure that the member for Port Darwin will allow people to get on with it, thank you.
Mr McADAM: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Health and Community Services for her commitment and dedication to addressing renal disease in the Territory. I guess it comes back to an obvious question which many people have been asking, being: how is it that the Minister for Health and Community Services, Jane Aagaard, is able to address this important issue, and your ex-minister could not, or would not? How is it that the CLP government only paid lip service to renal disease, and the Martin Labor government has proceeded to develop a comprehensive response, all within two years, as opposed to your 26 years of incompetence?
Granted, the CLP established dialysis units in regional centres and the Tiwi Islands, but when it came to my electorate, they chose not to. Only the ex-minister for health, the member for Drysdale, can answer that question, and try as he may, he will fall short. The best he can do, I suggest, is to say sorry to the people of the Northern Territory, the people of my electorate, to apologise to all the renal patients for his inaction and neglect, and to apologise to all the dedicated health professionals within Territory Health Services and the non-government sector.
Honestly, I want to know why he was unable to establish a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek. Even a half-decent answer would suffice. The community in the Barkly, as I say, deserves an answer. I know we will never get an answer, but I would suggest that Ruby Franks, a very courageous, traditional Warumungu woman in Tennant Creek, summed it up when she was asked by the ABC why she thought your government, the CLP government, had not provided a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek. She simply said: ‘Because we vote Labor’.
The Minister for Health and Community Services has already outlined some data in respect to renal disease in the Territory. It is not a pretty picture, the fact that indigenous people make up 29% of the population in the Territory, and account for 85% of all patients on dialysis. The fact that renal disease is increasing in the Territory is also an issue, given that the national average is around 8%, as opposed to the Territory rate of between 15% and 20%. The minister’s announcement to develop renal dialysis capacity in communities such as Borroloola, Ali Curung and Elliott and, indeed, a whole lot of other communities throughout the Territory, is great news and will be much appreciated by all. I acknowledge that there may be some difficulties, such as suitable building facilities and, I suspect, in some cases, maybe some water problems. However, they will not be insurmountable, and I believe that they can be overcome.
We have heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk about the social dislocation that goes on in communities, particularly the relocation as a result of patients having to go to regional centres. This social dislocation cannot be underestimated, not only for their families, but also for their communities. Many of my constituents have had to endure renal dialysis hundreds of kilometres from home, leaving behind their loved ones. Some of them had to move from the Barkly to Alice Springs, living there for years.
I refer to one person in particular, Mark Raymond Jimija, an important community leader from the Elliott/Newcastle Waters/Beetaloo part of the country. In the early 1990s, at the prime of his life, Mark was struck down by a serious kidney disease. At that time, Mark was working for the Northern Territory government as an assistant adult educator. He was studying at Batchelor College part-time. He was also coaching Elliott Hawks, the football team that had just entered the newly formed Barkly League. He was a senior councillor on the Gurungu Council, a very popular singer and leader of the highly acclaimed Kulumindini Band with three albums to his credit, a painter, and a founder of Mudbura Artists. Mark has a painting in the Northern Territory Museum collection, one of the few Barkly artists to do so. He was one of the new younger ceremonial leaders, working closely with elders to maintain his tradition, culture, language and ceremony. He was a very good hunter and bushman, and he prided himself on his ability to provide food for his family in a traditional way. He was the leader of the homelands movement across the Barkly by his efforts to secure title for his small homeland Jingaloo. Jingaloo is the subject of Mark’s powerful land rights anthem in a song that he wrote. He was a man with vision - a vision of economic independence for his people - and he hoped for the end of welfarism and a new bush life.
He was a man, you will agree, at the peak of his powers, with a large family - a wife and six kids - dependent upon him. His world came crashing down with the order to move to a hostel in Alice Springs or die. He was 32 years of age. He did not want his family in Alice - too far from their cultural roots with too many strangers around - so he lived in a hostel alone. He could not play his music anymore; his heart was not in it; his inspirations - land and family – were too far away. His great drive and enthusiasm for life slowly diminished in the face of three days a week of dialysis, and the loneliness of life in Alice Springs.
Every fortnight, he would save a few dollars that he had to buy a return bus ticket to his hometown 750 km away. He would spend two days with his family, where he would plunge again into community life, playing music, talking local business, being engaged in sport and ceremonies. Then he would jump back on the bus to the machine in Alice Springs and the hostel. Mark admitted to me at the time that it was killing him; he was losing the will to live.
On 18 August 2002, there was no prouder Barkly constituent than Mark Raymond when we won government. One of our commitments was to provide a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek. Mark returned to Tennant Creek in 2002, close to his country. His family also moved with him into Tennant. He began to become actively involved again in community activities; and to play music again. He started getting involved with the Elliott Hawks. I know that Mark will be very happy to know of our government’s intent to provide dialysis facilities in Elliott. I have no doubt that Mark will want to return back home when that occurs.
I want to refer to one other person, too, who was on renal dialysis. His name is DS. I cannot say his proper name for obvious reasons. But DS lived at Ali Curung. He was married and had a big family and lots of grandchildren. He was a very energetic person; a brilliant athlete, hard working and dedicated to his community, and a very passionate person about most issues.
DS joined the army as a young man, travelled around Australia. He was well read and very knowledgeable. He came back to Ali Curung as a qualified mechanic and immersed himself in the community. DS was appointed to the Yapakurlangu Regional Council where he was a very strong advocate for his people who lived at Ali Curung and in the bush. He played a key role in establishing CDEP at Ali Curung, and became council president for a very long period.
DS was a gracious man and a gentlemen who loved his country and worked hard for his people. Some time back, I met members of his family in Tennant Creek and I asked how he was. They told me that he had gone to Alice Springs because his kidneys were no good. A few months later, I visited him at the Alice Springs Renal Clinic. He was in a wheelchair and was not looking good and, I guess, I was very shocked to see how fast he had deteriorated. All he could say to me was that he wanted to go back home, that he was unhappy and that he wanted to be back in his community and with other members of his family. I knew straight away that it would not be possible in the short term. I visited him again on another occasion. He was still in the wheelchair, but was looking a lot better. He still had this immense desire of wanting to go home. He wanted to live at Mungkarta, a small community about 75 km south of Tennant Creek, and his intent was to travel into Tennant Creek three days a week for dialysis treatment. It was about six weeks ago that I attended his funeral. I will say to the minister for Health that if you put a dialysis unit into Ali Curung, it would be a nice way of honouring him.
The reason I have related the stories in respect of the two gentlemen is because too often we, as a society, sometimes choose not to fully understand and appreciate the circumstances in which a lot of these people live. I am aware that there are reasons why people get sick and I guess we do have an obligation to support them where possible. However, we certainly do not have the right to ignore them or their family. As a civilised society, I honestly believe that we have to make a real effort to ensure that there is a quality of life attached to people. That is where the CLP lost its way. They just failed to understand that the needs and the aspirations of people in the bush were no different than those who lived in the big towns like Alice Springs and Darwin. I guess it is a sad indictment on them of how they chose to address this matter.
On a more positive note, I would like to speak about the renal unit in Tennant Creek. That is something that the member for Drysdale said would not work. I would like to advise members of the House, that it is doing very well. Damien Loxton is the Clinic Manager who is doing a great job. Damien is developing renal education programs for his patients and their families. He is also developing training for Indigenous Health Workers. He is working in a cooperative partnership with Anyinginyi Congress, involving their health workers and staff in a real partnership.
I can recall also the member for Drysdale and others saying that it would be impossible to recruit staff into Tennant Creek to provide this service. Tina Herriot, a hospital-based nurse, has completed her renal training and now works on a part-time basis. Louise Warner is presently in Alice Springs at the clinic doing some training She will be back towards the end of September and she will be bringing back and extra three patients. That will be a total of nine patients in Tennant Creek. All of these people will be living in the community.
I advise the House that the clinic completed its 500th treatment; not a bad effort for a group of people who have put in the hard yards. It flies in the face of members opposite, who said it would not work. All it takes is a little effort and commitment. Member for Drysdale, I understand that you were born in Katherine and that you had affinity with the bush, that you were aware of some of the circumstances, the difficulties, that people lived in. I can recall a conversation that I had with Barb Shaw …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, member for Barkly.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Barkly to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: I would ask, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that he directs his comments through the Chair.
Mr McADAM: I intend to, member for Drysdale. I apologise, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I remember having a conversation with Barb Shaw when she was the Manager of Remote Health Services. She had worked with the local community on behalf of THS in trying to get a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek.
I remember, just after the member for Drysdale was appointed minister, saying: ‘I think he might be okay, because he seems to be talking the right language in terms of a renal dialysis unit’. I told her I hoped she was right, because he came from the bush so maybe he does understand. We were both wrong, and the people of the Northern Territory were right on 18 August 2002.
The renal unit itself will be going out to tender very soon. I pay tribute to Territory Housing, which has been doing a great job in providing houses for people. I particularly want to thank Esther Pearce, Natalie Fraser, Peta Henderson, Lorraine Werner and Ira Tate. All of these people have worked extra hard to ensure that, when people do come back to Tennant Creek, they have appropriate housing. I also extend my appreciation to the Minister for Housing, for his active support in providing these houses.
During the minister’s statement, she paid tribute to many people who have and continue to provide excellent support in respect of renal dialysis throughout the Territory. I express my appreciation at a local level to a number of people who have played an important role.
I thank the Board of Management of Anyinginyi Congress for their commitment and dedication over a very long period of time. To Carol Fitz-Slade and David Morgan, their leadership was vital, as was the role of Lindsay Johnson in respect to his ability to liaise and consult with members of the community. I want to pay a special tribute to Dr Helen Carney and Dr Randall Davis. Both of these people were employed by Congress. They played a very special support role to the community, and formed a very formidable relationship with Ruby Franks. I have mentioned Ruby previously. Those three people played a very important role. The support of Dr Mike Pearson and John Heslop from Territory Health Services in Tennant Creek has been appreciated. Also Jonathon Pilbrow, who is the social worker at the Alice Springs Renal Unit, provided an excellent service, and gave a lot of support to people who travelled from Tennant Creek and other communities to Alice Springs. I also thank Frank Gregory. He and a group of service clubs in Tennant Creek raised $1600 - I have mentioned this previously in the House - for the provision of television sets for the existing renal unit. I know there are some dollars left over, and part of those remaining dollars will go to the new facility. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for Health and Community Services and to her department, Territory Health Services, in addressing renal disease throughout the Territory.
A member interjecting.
Dr Toyne: How can you say that? Haven’t you got any shame?
Mr Dunham: What? What is your problem?
Dr Toyne: I have a few problems with you, mate.
Mr McADAM: The people in bush communities appreciate your efforts, minister, and those of …
Mr Dunham: I have not said anything and if you want to call …
Dr Toyne: I remember what you said in this bloody House, I can tell you.
Mr Dunham: What is that?
Dr Toyne: I have a good memory for what you said.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is some cross-Chamber chatter that I do not understand which includes threats and finger pointing. All I ask is that the member put it strongly on the record as an interjection, so I can understand what he is talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr McADAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr Toyne: ‘No shame’, very clear, ‘no shame’.
Mr Dunham: Okay? Yes well, if you want to threaten me in this place, mate, you want to be careful how you do it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you.
Mr Dunham: Eh? I am telling you, you want to be careful about threatening me.
Dr Toyne: If I threatened you, you would know about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I have called order. Member for Barkly, finish your remarks quickly please.
Mr McADAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will just repeat that again. I want to place on the record our appreciation to the Minister for Health and Community Services for her commitment and dedication in expanding renal services. Minister, be assured that people in the bush communities do appreciate your efforts. I thank the Chief Minister for her support. It is very important, and it redefines us as a government, in how we deal with matters. I congratulate everyone associated. It is in absolute stark contrast to that of the previous bunch. Minister, you have been treated quite harshly in this place by the opposition, and you have weathered the storm from people like the member for Drysdale …
Dr Burns: He saw you out, old boy, wore you out.
Mr Dunham: Am I the old boy you are speaking about?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Dunham: I am just returning because there is a lot of cross-Chamber chatter here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Barkly, would you finish your speech on the statement.
Mr McADAM: I was saying, Madam Speaker, that the minister has weathered the storm from members, in particular, the member for Drysdale. Your actions here today, as I said previously, have meant a lot to people in the bush.
Finally, to Mark Raymond, Ruby Frank and DS, from everyone in the Barkly: we thank you for your inspiration. I support the minister’s statement.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Health and Community Service’s ministerial statement. We have heard some passionate speeches tonight, in particular from the members for Nhulunbuy, Stuart and Barkly. Obviously, all three come from bush electorates.
One of the core principles and founding pillars of any good government, or good government policy - forgetting about what party you belong to or what ideology you follow – is health. The provision of health for all constituents - black, white, green or purple, whatever ethnic group, whatever cultural background, in urban city areas to remote areas, to towns, to outer suburbs, islands, etcetera – should be on an equity basis.
The member for Barkly highlighted an older lady, when asked by the ABC what the reason was that they were not being looked after, gave her opinion as: ‘Because we voted Labor’. People would think that they were being denied services simply because of they way they voted. There is no doubt in everyone’s mind and no argument, with the allocation of resources in the Northern Territory since self-government, that people in the bush have been denied services, whether it was education, health – any fundamental founding pillar of good government. It was simply because more people live in urban areas.
I represent an urban seat, and I have spoken to people in urban areas - in particular, the suburbs of Millner, Ludmilla, Coconut Grove and over to the RAAF Base - about this re-allocation of funds. When you first talk to people, they are very protective of their own resources and the ability to maintain resources in urban areas. However, when you speak to them about what the issues are - and what we are talking about here with this renal disease statement is about people’s lives - often if it is not happening right in front of people, they forget. When you go through the fact that people are dying in these communities because of lack of resources, people soon change their tune because, basically, fundamentally, every human being on this planet has good in their heart. In the end, it is not a matter of who they want to vote in, or who they do not want to vote in; it is about: ‘Well, if I can save someone’s life, is one extra dollar, spread out over my whole community, going to hurt me?’. Often people say: ‘Well, if that is what is happening, let us relocate those resources out there’.
From all the literature that I have read, and from talking to fellow members of parliament - the minister, bush members - there is no doubt, when talking to departmental people as well, that the department wanted change. The department wanted to address these issues, but it was hamstrung. When I was first elected, there were many people who came through my door with a health background saying: ‘These are the issues, this is what we have to change’. I have said before in this House that I do not have a health background, but it was obvious to me that, from all the departments out there providing services to the Northern Territory, there was an issue in health. One of these issues was how better to improve health in remote areas. This was obvious to me.
The minister touches on this historical neglect, as she refers it. She summarises it by:
- Nowhere has this historical neglect been more obvious in the inaction bordering on negligence that the former government displayed in relation to the impact of renal disease on the Territory community and, particularly, on Aboriginal Territorians.”
Yes, we do know that many indigenous people live in remote areas. However, there are many non-indigenous people who live in remote areas as well, and they have also been affected by this. We cannot forget that. It does not matter what colour you are or what culture you come from, being denied basic pillars of what fundamental good government is all about is a denial of justice; it is taking away the role of what any government should provide.
At the end of the day, when you go to an election, either party or many different parties run their policies, you vote, people get elected. However, when we enter this House, we are here to provide a service of good government. The day after the election the issues go out the window; no longer is it an ALP or CLP electorate. The minister speaks about renal dialysis going to Palmerston. Those two seats are held by CLP members. However, guess what? Those 30 000 people who live out there are Territorians. It does not matter that the members representing them are from a particular party. That is no longer the issue. It is an issue of good government that we have families, husbands, wives, children, kids, grandparents, who need education, employment, health, etcetera - what government is supposed to provide to them: a framework. We heard the opposition spokesperson speak tonight for 10 minutes - 10 minutes on an issue that is affecting people’s lives. The opposition spokesman on health’s contribution was poor, to say the least. I will not go any further into that.
The minister, like everyone, knows how the process of Cabinet works. She has to take an argument to Cabinet, and that argument has to be argued strongly and she has to persuade people to support her. What we have had here is an effort by the Labor government, through Cabinet, through the minister, to provide services to remote locations. I remember sitting through the first year of debates in this House, and renal services were mentioned as being a platform of what we wanted to deliver to remote areas. No doubt, the member for Drysdale will pipe up here. He often yelled across the Chamber: ‘Oh yeah, we will wait and see if you can deliver it; you will not be able to deliver it’. Quite often, the member for Barkly would say: ‘You wait and see’. Anyone who knows the member for Barkly knows what he is doing in Barkly: he has that seat for as long as he wants. The reason is he is a community worker who knows what the issues are in his community and he tries to deliver. One of them, of course, is renal dialysis. No doubt, the minister will get up and talk about the amount of effort that the member for Barkly has put in, in her office, making sure that Tennant Creek gets looked after - and looked after for the right reasons, because there is a need out there which is renal dialysis for people who are dying - dying. We cannot underline the reality too much - this is going to save people’s lives. As I have already mentioned, the department wanted change. We are going to give them the ability to make these changes, and I believe that people’s lives are going to be saved.
Another reason I talk about renal issues is that it is amazing how many people have spoken about this issue and have had personal contact with people being affected by dialysis. I am about to tell a story of how I am personally affected by people needing renal dialysis. At the moment, one of my uncles is struggling, I suppose, to go through the treatment. It is affecting his life and his whole family’s lives. This is a man who was a leader of his own community. We need him around for another 10 or 20 years because he provides a good role model in the things does and says to the rest of the community. He is struggling with this disease and he often speaks to me about the importance of getting good nurses, good employment, and the fact that people are coming in from remote areas and the issues that they have to put up with. There are, of course, also people of non-indigenous background who are facing renal dialysis issues. It is huge.
There are two sides to this story. Of course, one is what the NT government should be providing and the other is the patient making sure they do the right thing by diet, fitness regimes and following clinical advice. This is what the minister has talked about a number of times in this House: a partnership with the community. She outlined it by saying:
- Our vision is to improve renal health through the prevention and management of renal disease across the continuum of care. We will provide accessible, accountable and reliable renal services to reduce the number of people with deteriorating renal functions as well as offering high quality services to those requiring treatment.
We have heard members speaking about people who have died from this disease. Another uncle of mine, Stewie Buckle, unfortunately recently passed away. He struggled with this disease. Anyone who knows what happens to people – they lose their limbs, and they end up in a wheelchair, they still have their senses, but their body packs in. We have to do something about this.
I am not talking about people I know; I am talking about people who might live in Tennant Creek, and around the remote areas of Alice Springs, Wadeye, Nhulunbuy. I do not know who these people are, and I might never meet them in my life, but they deserve the opportunity of good health treatment. This is what it is all about. We know we have a small population. We know it is dispersed, we know it is in a large area. What we are talking about is social equity for everyone in the Northern Territory. That is what good government is supposed to be about. That is what we are going to provide.
The minister talked about figures, and I will include these figures because, as many in this House would know, people do go through our debates and they like to hear what each member has to say. The contribution by the government today has been very powerful and highly expressive of the emotions of this issue and, at the same time, have provided factual evidence. The minister said:
- ... renal disease is a major contributor to illness and death in the Northern Territory …
We have seen this over-representation, and we are often desensitised to the figures but, at the end of the day, they are real and we have to deal with them: Although 29% of Territorians are Aboriginal, they make up more than 85% of people on dialysis. Therefore, we have 85% of people who are indigenous, 15% who are not. But guess what? We have to provide a service to every one of those individuals.
Previous speakers have spoken about social upheaval. It has become quite apparent to people to whom I speak, and in academic literature, that many people in the long grass in the Darwin and Alice Springs areas are in town for health-related reasons and have not returned, or are still receiving treatment. This is an issue that is being pushed by certain groups of the community in the Northern Territory at the moment, through the media and through ground campaigning. However, here is a way that we can deal with the real issues: with helping people back to country, in their communities, living a healthier, safer lifestyle. It has not been worked on in the past.
The minister really needs to have the lights on her at the moment; she is doing very well. She has been under constant attack, and we will not say by what groups or how. However, she has come out the other side. She has had her initiation by fire, we might say and, at the moment, she is smoking. The thing about this is, she is delivering a real service in the community. I often get up in parliament and talk about realities: all the NT government, or state or Commonwealth governments can do to provide infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the main pillars of any government to provide. She talks about the fact that, without the infrastructure in their home communities, people are relocated, there are significant social problems, unemployment, homelessness, debts, kids not going to school, welfare dependency and there is a loss of key leaders from Aboriginal communities.
Anyone who knows of urban constituents of non-indigenous background who have to travel interstate to get health treatment - they may have to travel to Adelaide or Brisbane and set up in a hotel - it costs them money, and money is a real issue. They want to be with their family, but they cannot afford to do it. What happens is they have to fly back. That person is down here, receiving treatment and they have no community support. Why would it not be any different for someone who happens to be of indigenous background? This is what we are talking about; this is a service that needs to be provided to every person in the Territory.
The initiatives in Tennant Creek, with the dialysis facility there, enables Barkly regional patients to be treated closer to home. It goes without saying. I have been in conversations with the member for Barkly and, in no uncertain terms, in a quite forceful manner he has said: ‘We will get renal dialysis in Tennant Creek’. There has not been a person in the room who wanted to argue with him. He must be standing 10 feet tall at the moment - 10 feet tall. The reason is that it has been delivered and it is happening. As the member for Barkly and the minister have both said: in the 2003-04 budget, the government has increased renal funding by $2.5m per annum, with an additional $1.4m capital program allocation for new dialysis facilities. In particular, we are developing capacity to provide dialysis in the remote communities in the Top End, Borroloola, Groote Eylandt, Elcho Island, Maningrida, Ramingining, Numbulwar, Wadeye, and in the Centre, Kintore, Ali Curung, Mutitjulu, Elliott and Santa Teresa. Capital works are approved in Nightcliff, Galiwinku, Palmerston and Tennant Creek - obviously Nightcliff clinic being very important to my constituency.
At the end of the day, this government has made a purposeful decision to commit resources and infrastructure to a particular problem. You have to have the political will and the resources. No one has argued in this House - and the member for Barkly put it that it is always going to be an issue about resources, and about how much you can put into it. We need to lobby the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government will now know that this money will get to where it is going to go. That has always been an issue in the past. How could any Commonwealth government trust previous governments of the Northern Territory with delivering monies to certain areas where it is supposed to go? Well, this scheme is going to show that we are willing to commit resources.
In the minister’s speech she talked about the Western Desert Dialysis Appeal. I have had a great opportunity to do some research and to have a look at some of the newsletters. I found the story behind what these people are doing in the Western Desert Dialysis Appeal. In a paper entitled ‘Your place or mine - Dialysis in Central Australia’, under the heading, ‘Astonishing Fundraiser’:
- In early 2000, an informal alliance of Aboriginal community representatives, local ALP politicians, art collectors and dealers planned an auction of donated artwork and four specially commissioned paintings by men and women from …
Madam SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended so as to allow the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask members though, to concentrate on your speeches. If you stick to the point and get on with the them, we would not need these extensions of time.
Ms Lawrie: It is a very important subject, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I know, but you all have 20 minutes.
Mr BONSON: Madam Speaker, I take your advice. Like many members in this House, we do feel very passionate about this, and I ask you to allow me this extra time.
Madam SPEAKER: Ten minutes.
- Mr BONSON: … specially commissioned paintings by men and women from Kiwirrkurra (WA) and Walungurru (Kintore) in the Northern Territory. By the end of the year over $1m had been raised, an astonishing sum, principally through a Sotherby’s auction in Sydney. This money now finances the Western Desert Dialysis Appeal project, which aims to bring back individuals and their families from Alice Springs to dialysis on their home communities. Neither the NT nor federal governments has offered to match this money on a dollar for dollar, or any other basis.
The law is like a human being, it works with Aboriginal people – Anangu. Anangu and the law is together, if the law is weakened, people get weakened and they feel they are weak because they have taken away the power in the community. That is the whole issue about community control and Aboriginal law.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. I also would like just to restate again, that …
Mr Dunham: Bill? It is a statement, mate!
Mr BONSON: Sorry, the statement to the House. Thank you, member for Drysdale, it is the most relevant contribution that you have made to this debate so far.
Madam Speaker, the minister has made an extreme effort to concentrate and focus all our minds onto this issue, and the contributions by every member in this House – I am impassioned myself to get up and speak - I feel has been enhanced by their contributions. I look forward to further developments in this area because this is about saving lives. It is just a simple fact of reallocating resources to places where they are needed. If we speak to the public and explain what we are doing and, if members in the opposition and members of the government get together for the interests of every human being in the Northern Territory, then I am sure that the electorates that we all represent will be 100% behind it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak to the renal statement delivered by the Minister for Health and Community Services. It outlines welcome developments in the treatment of renal disease in the Territory.
As the minister has mentioned, it is Aboriginal people who overwhelmingly carry the burden of renal disease in the Northern Territory. No one is more aware of this than I am, as well as other members of those bush electorates. The member for Millner just touched on it before; all of us who stand and add productively to this debate can certainly tell of some things. When I looked at this statement, I thought of the former member for Arafura, my uncle, Stanley Tipiloura.
Renal disease is devastating communities in my electorate. The plan to develop renal treatment closer to the home communities of Aboriginal patients is a crucial step. For many years, it has been necessary for anyone seeking dialysis to leave their communities and relocate to the city. Therefore, I welcome this as an improvement which will help keep people on their land.
Other aspects of the plan outlined by the minister are also welcome, including the training of an indigenous health work force and the need to see renal treatment in the context of overall planning for comprehensive primary health care in the Territory. The utilisation and proper empowerment of Aboriginal health workers is the key to effective case management of existing chronic disease cases, and a central part of any multi-disciplinary team working with the community to develop and implement strategies for a more appropriate, preventable chronic disease strategy in the indigenous population.
Today, just for a minute, I wish to focus on the role of community-based programs in preventing renal disease. While treating renal disease through dialysis may be a medical matter, the issue of who gets renal disease and why they get it is not a medical matter, but a social justice matter. It is a social justice matter because we all know that the underlying cause of renal disease is the living conditions faced by Aboriginal people today: overcrowded housing, a lack of nutritional food in community stores, the imposition of alcohol outlets in previously dry communities, and an education and political system that has continually excluded Aboriginal people in the past. All of these are examples of poor social policies under the guidance of the CLP government, which have contributed to the rise of renal disease in the Northern Territory.
If we want to put a stop to the rise of renal disease in the Northern Territory, we need a new approach. We need the approach to treatment just outlined by the minister and we need policies which emphasise primary prevention activities. I quote from the standard reference work on this subject:
Renal disease is a classic disease of poverty due to overcrowding. Aboriginal people with end-stage renal disease are, generally speaking, usually young, female, and may have other serious complications such as infections, diabetes, poor nutrition and hypertension.
That was by Wendy Hoy in 1996.
- At a more fundamental level, it is clear that renal disease, along with a number of other illnesses affecting Aboriginal people, is an expression of the nexus between poverty, marginalisation and third world living conditions that shamefully prevail amongst Australia’s Aboriginal population.
That was from Wendy Hoy and others in 1995. I repeat: ‘A classic disease of poverty and a nexus between poverty, marginalisation and third world living conditions that shamefully prevail amongst Australia’s Aboriginal population’. That is why it is a social justice matter, not just a medical matter.
Medical interventions through dialysis is, of course, a good thing for individuals concerned but - and this is the important point - it does not affect the living conditions which cause renal disease. In talking about renal disease, it is easy to get carried away by medical jargon and the medical model. The reason for this is that dialysis treatment is complex and uses expensive technology. However, treatment is only one side of the coin. The other side is prevention of renal disease, and here we have a very different story.
Mr Dunham: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Primary prevention is simply a cheap - something that you never put anything into so I would not say: ‘Hear, hear’. We need to remember that the evidence base in regards to the actions needed to prevent renal disease is very strong. It is no mystery why Aboriginal people get this disease at a much higher rate than any other group in the Australian society; although it always remained a mystery to the CLP government.
For example, let us consider what is acknowledged as the important risk factors for renal disease: Type 2 diabetes, scabies, and housing issues. These are all acknowledged as key risk factors for renal problems. Yet, we all know how to eliminate these risk factors. For example, it is well established that Type 2 diabetes can be, in part, reduced by exercise, and nutrition. This is something that certainly was never taken up: addressing the underlying causes of ill-health. I have personally witnessed community-based programs …
A member: No, I have never heard of it. Preventable chronic diseases strategy.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … which tackle – which you never funded. I would not talk about the preventable chronic disease strategy when you were the health minister.
… which tackle some of these risk factors. I know it can be done.
In relation to diabetes and nutrition, the store at Minjilang in my electorate has led the Northern Territory in showing how to improve everyone’s health simply by changing the types of food sold. There is huge potential to extend this approach to other stores, particularly those situated on Aboriginal land. Section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act governs the operations of community stores. A combined approach by the Northern Territory land councils and the Health Department to regulating the food sold in stores would go a long way towards reducing the incidence of Type 2 diabetes in communities. As I understand it, that is something that has been in place in the Central Australian region for some time, although needs to happen, apart from Minjilang, in other communities in the Top End.
In relation to scabies, the Galiwinku community has shown how to mobilise an entire community to keep houses free from scabies. In relation to housing maintenance, the Housing for Health work done in the past at communities in the Katherine West Health Board region and at Ramingining has been brilliant, and has shown us all how this problem can be beaten. In relation to virtually the entire range of risk factors for chronic disease, the outstation movement across the Northern Territory has shown the health benefits which come with returning to a lifestyle involving exercise, bush tucker and uncrowded housing.
In all examples I have mentioned, the health outcomes have been properly measured and are remarkable. The point I am making is that, to tackle the causes of renal disease, we need to emphasise primary prevention measures. We need to emphasise community-based campaigns. Usually, these have little to do with the medical approach. In particular, we need an increased emphasis on environmental health programs. The evidence that measures, such as this work, is very strong indeed. When implemented properly, they actually produce results. We need the measures announced by the minister today in order to treat the individuals who already have renal disease. We need an emphasis on non-medical primary prevention programs, on community-based social programs, if we are to prevent whole communities falling victim to renal disease.
The minister has made strong headway in developing such social programs. Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge certainly not the former government, whose hypocrisy is rife, their lack of commitment legendary. I do want to acknowledge the work and dedication of individuals such as Dr Wendy Hoy, Paul Laughton, Nephrologist Dr Paul Snelling, and all the nurses and Aboriginal Health Workers who have been real heroes trying to assist and work with Aboriginal people to deal with this disease.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement. It sets out a challenge for our government. The minister will continue to rise and meet this challenge.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions tonight.
I have been somewhat disappointed by the two responses from the CLP, particularly that of the member for Port Darwin, who is the opposition spokesperson on Health. This is further evidence that ours is a government of the future; this is a government in which we put things into action, considering all the people of the Northern Territory, not just some of them. This is an absolute commitment, and by Christmas this year, we will be seeing the first satellite service of renal dialysis in the Northern Territory - and what an exciting thing that will be.
I am really hopeful that I am going to be able to go over and see Marcia Gondarra, who is 22, and, as the Deputy Chief Minister told us, has been living in Darwin for 10 years receiving dialysis treatment at the Nightcliff unit. She is so looking forward to going home to Galiwinku. I am really looking forward, together with the Deputy Chief Minister, to going over there and wishing her a very merry Christmas this December.
This is what we are saying to the people of the Northern Territory: we are the people of the future; we are the ones who have the plans, and we are going to be delivering on this.
In the comments from the member for Port Darwin, quite frankly, I could not quite believe the things she was saying. Apart from being patronising, hypocritical and unfactual, I wonder where the member has been? Has she actually lived in the Northern Territory for very long? You do not have to have a health background to know that renal disease has been a dreadful disease in the Northern Territory for a very long period of time. I would acknowledge that there are certain things that the CLP did to establish certain elements of haemodialysis in the Northern Territory. Of course they did, there is no question about that. However, for more than a decade, they needed to be providing different kinds of services - services for people closer to home. People in the Department of Health and Community Services have been lobbying various ministers for a decade on this very issue.
The review of my department strongly identified that renal disease was something that we had to tackle, and that is exactly what this government is doing. It is very sad that the previous government did not find themselves able to look at this issue in a serious way, and provide a plan for years to come in trying to solve this very serious problem in relation to renal disease.
I have to say that perhaps the most amazing thing about the member for Port Darwin’s speech - and there were quite a few amazing things - was that, in fact, instead of being, as she is supposed to be, a member of this Assembly, a member for the Northern Territory, she is encouraging this government to sign the Australian Health Care Agreement. We each are elected to this Chamber to represent the people of the Northern Territory. It appears that the member for Port Darwin would rather put her relationship with the Commonwealth above her relationship with the people of the Northern Territory
I have been working very hard for the people of the Northern Territory to get a better deal for the Australian Health Care Agreement. The Chief Minister is going to a COAG meeting at the end of next week, where all Premiers and Chief Ministers are going to be saying to the Prime Minister: ‘We expect more money for Australians’ health’. I cannot believe that the member for Port Darwin would prefer to support the position of the Commonwealth over the Territory government, when she knows perfectly well that the deal that is being offered to us means a reduction of $16m over five years.
Ms Carter: That is a great deal.
Mrs AAGAARD: This is not a good deal, and I cannot believe that she is recommending cuts to the Northern Territory health budget - an amazing situation. Then she went on about other spurious things, which have nothing whatsoever to do with this statement. It was extraordinarily disappointing, but I guess we have come to expect that from the member for Port Darwin. An extraordinarily incompetent type of speech. I must say, the people of the Northern Territory will be very shocked to believe that anyone who was representing them would be calling on the government to sign an agreement where we are going to get less money. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker!
I would like to discuss the issues that were raised by the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia. He has been intimately involved in his electorate for many years, and I know that he is very dedicated to the people of his electorate. He has seen many people die, and he talked about some very sad situations in relation to his own electorate, and to a personal friend of his. That exactly exemplifies why we, as a government, want to move on this issue. We do not think it is okay that people who are living in remote areas do not receive adequate services for illnesses which have be properly treated.
This is the beginning of a very new system; a system which is one of hope for people in remote areas. I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Central Australia. He has shown great dedication over many years in this area, and I am looking forward to being able to go with him at some point to Kintore, when we are able to start that renal dialysis program there. I also place on the record my thanks to Dr Paul Rivalland, who has also been working extremely hard in this area - a very dedicated person, and one who has been working particularly hard with the people in that area.
The Deputy Chief Minister spoke with real passion and, once again, he acknowledged two people who have died who were members of this House - the late member for Arnhem and the late member for Arafura. It shows that even people who have reached high office, such as those who have been honoured to be elected to this place, can be struck down with such serious illness. It shows that you can come from a very sad background and move up to this kind of a place, and you can still be struck down, even with good education and money as well. It was a very sad situation and one which I know that all members of this House would have felt very sad about, both at the time, and continuing till now.
The Deputy Chief Minister and I met with the elders and members of the council of Galiwinku a few months ago to discuss the forthcoming renal dialysis satellite program at Galiwinku. It was an absolutely joyous meeting. These people have been waiting for probably a decade - and I know that the Deputy Chief Minister has been lobbied for at least a decade - trying to get renal dialysis onto Elcho Island. These people were very excited, and I am really looking forward to being able to go there and be at the opening of that later this year.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for his contribution. He was somewhat more positive than the member for Port Darwin. Perhaps that is because, in fact, he represents quite a big remote community electorate. I thank him for his contribution. He brought up issues in relation to cross-border matters. One of the issues with that, of course, is that, at the moment, there are already people coming across the borders from South Australia and Western Australia. In fact, those people are being treated at the hospital in Alice Springs. We receive cross-border charges under an Australian memorandum of understanding. The issue with this - and one which obviously the member for Port Darwin does not have any idea about - is that, in fact, these services which are going to be provided in communities are totally Northern Territory government funded. They are not part of the Australian Health Care Agreement; there is no relationship with those at all. The Australian Health Care Agreement is only looking at funding for hospitals.
Something which Australian Health ministers have been wanting to do is to look at all of the funding that went into health, including aged care, renal - every single aspect of funding - so that we can then look at the continuum of care. Instead, very sadly, their funding was only looked at in relation to hospital funding.
Member for Macdonnell, it would be excellent if the Commonwealth decided that this was part of primary care and, perhaps, part of the primary care access program. In fact, that is something which I am hoping that I am going to be able to convince the Commonwealth on. I would be happy for you to assist me in lobbying the Commonwealth on that; access to these services is absolutely essential. The member for Macdonnell may also be interested to know that I have already had discussions with the minister for Health in both South Australia and in Western Australia about these satellite services because, of course, renal disease is something which affects most of the larger states, particularly in these remote areas where there are large indigenous populations. I am happy to say that we, the three ministers for health, will be meeting to discuss these issues, because we think there are efficient ways to provide services across the borders in relation to satellite services. I look forward to, in the future, reporting back to the House on that.
The member for Barkly spoke very passionately. He pointed out, quite rightly, that the Tiwi Island haemodialysis unit was, in fact, Commonwealth funded and not Territory government funded. There was some small amount of Territory government funding but, once again, it was mainly Commonwealth funded. He talked about how people in his electorate had been desperately seeking renal services for decades, and about the terror and the sadness of having to move from their communities to Alice Springs and the terrible situation this left people in, in relation to their families, with the disjunction for families and their futures. It is a terrible thing.
I am very pleased that we have already started renal dialysis in Tennant Creek. I met some of those people recently when I was in Tennant Creek, and they are very pleased to be back at home. It is going to be wonderful also, when we open services at Ali Curung and Elliott. I also join with the member for Barkly in saying: it is fabulous that we have reached the milestone of 500 treatments in Tennant Creek. It is pretty good, in just on two years, and we are going to be making that a lot better very soon. I particularly thank the member for Barkly. He also mentioned the wonderful involvement of all the health staff in providing renal services in the Barkly area.
I reflect that there are some tremendous staff in my department, and also in non-government organisations throughout the Territory, who are working, absolutely tirelessly, in this area. It is a very heart-rending area, because many of the patients actually die after a very short period of time. Many die waiting for transplants, some very young, and it is a dreadful thing to have to nurse people who are so sick. We have such wonderful staff, and I place on the record my thanks to them. I also thank the member for Barkly for his support, both of myself, and of the department.
I thank my Cabinet colleagues who were very supportive of the idea of providing renal services for the people of the Northern Territory. Most of them have been in parliament longer than me and have seen, first-hand, the terrible situation that renal disease has left many people in the Northern Territory in. Therefore, it was not that hard to convince them, particularly after we had the review of my department, that it was absolutely essential that we put funding into this area. That is a total commitment of the government.
The member for Millner spoke particularly about his family members, and the services in urban areas, as well as remote areas. I thank him for his support; I really appreciate that, member for Millner. I know that he has family members at the Nightcliff Renal Unit and I wish them very well. The particulars of one particular person was, I believe, your uncle. I hope that, if he is waiting for a transplant, it happens very soon for him, and I wish him and your family very well.
The member for Arafura spoke also with real passion. As the member for a large electorate with many people suffering from renal disease, she speaks with a real passion about people she knows. The member for Arafura has also worked, of course, with the Katherine West Health Board, and has had a lot to do with people suffering from renal disease. I totally agree with her that this whole issue is a social justice matter, not just a medical matter. That is a great slogan for renal disease, in fact, and I thank you for that. I may start using your phrase; thank you very much. I also think her comments regarding a community-based approach were also very helpful.
Madam Speaker, it has been a long debate, and a good debate. It indicates, though, how important this whole area is to the health and wellbeing of all Territorians. Once again, I say this is a total commitment of this government. We see the need, we are moving on the need, and we will deliver.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly adjourn until Tuesday 7 October 2003 at 10 am, or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Matter of Privilege – Apparent Breach of Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Matter of Privilege – Apparent Breach of Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges; namely minister Kon Vatskalis’ apparent breach of section 10 of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act, for his failure to declare his interest in the business of personally providing a Greek translating service, advertised on the Internet at www.Translatorscaf.com.
On a housekeeping matter, it should Translatorscaf.com, not Translators.com.
I speak in support of the motion. By way of procedure for the record, what has occurred is that a complaint formally made, and you, Madam Speaker, being satisfied that a prima facie case of a breach of privilege or contempt has been made out, the matter has been …
Ms Martin: A prima facie case? Absolutely not!
Madam SPEAKER: Rephrase that; I did not. There is not a prima facie case established.
Mr MALEY: Okay. According to the …
Ms Martin: Your allegations! That is all they are.
Mr MALEY: There was an allegation, which has been entertained after particulars sought, and it was warranted that it was of sufficient substance and urgency that the matter was brought on today; the primary reason being that parliament rises today and will not sit until 7 October.
The conduct of politicians is constantly under the spotlight. We have seen the advent of numerous conventions, both federally and through the Westminster system. We are seeing the introduction of codes of conduct in various jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory, we have a legislative framework in the form of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act, which came into force on 1 January 1992. That act details the obligations upon members to declare and note on a register their interests, and the interests are defined in the act. Failure to comply with this act is dealt with in section 10, and I will read that onto the record:
- A wilful contravention of a requirement of this act is a contempt of the Assembly and may be dealt with accordingly.
That means forwarded to the Privileges Committee.
It begs the question: what are the requirements of the act, what are the obligations of members, and how does it flow to the facts under consideration by the House this evening? Section 4 of the act explicitly states that a return is to be submitted to the Clerk, and it sets out a number of time frames within which the return has to be filed with the Clerk. It uses the word ‘return’ and that is defined later in the act, in section 5:
- A return required by this part to be submitted …
And it is a mandatory requirement:
- … shall be in the form approved by the Speaker and shall contain …
At page 3 of the act in section 5 there are a number of criteria from subsections (1)(a) to (g) with subsection (2) detailing precisely what is supposed to be in these returns to ensure that members have complied with the act and are not in breach pursuant to section 10. There are three disjunctive limbs to which I wish to draw members’ attention. First, the name and description of each company, partnership, association or other body in which the member holds or held during the term or period a beneficial interest.
Mr Stirling: Why don’t you speak English? You are supposed to be trying to convince us, not confuse us!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Chief Minister, order!
Mr Stirling: At least I would be able to read it. You goose!
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister! I do not want to send you out before we have even started. Come on, refrain.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, subsection (f)(i) is a bit of a catch-all: in the case of a return, a member, pursuant to section 4(1), which is the obligation to file it:
- where the member receives …
There is an ‘or’ here, that, disjunctive means or, for the member for Nhulunbuy:
- … or is entitled to receive …
Mr Stirling: We are not all lawyers! You are supposed to be trying to convince me.
Mr MALEY: Okay. ‘Or’ means disjunctive:
- … or is entitled to receive a financial benefit …
So he does not have to receive a financial benefit:
- … entitled to receive a financial benefit during any part of the return period …
And then it goes on to say:
- … a statement of the income source of that financial benefit.
Later on in subsection (f)(iii), it talks about particulars of clauses or gifts, etcetera, above the amount or value of $500. It is a broad net, but clearly the broadest portion of that net is contained in subsection (f)(i), talking about a member’s obligation to disclose merely his entitlement to receive - not necessarily he would receive anything, but if there is an entitlement, then he is compelled to put it on the register. If he does not do that, then he runs the risk of falling foul of section 10, which contains the provision, and deeming it a contempt of this Assembly, a very serious matter.
I examined the member for Casuarina’s return this afternoon. I looked carefully at the document, which was recently filed. There are a number of disclosures - one relating to some money that someone gave him. There is one under this particular category. All it says is: ‘HRONOS (partnership with wife, currently inactive)’. There is really no more. There are no other disclosures under that particular category. There are no references to a Greek translating service, to having some sort of advertisement, or business under the auspices of this umbrella: a web site I have translated as Translatorscaf.com.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The caf illusion just reminded me that, in the House on a previous occasion, under Speaker McCarthy, a ruling was made about the wearing of jeans within the House. I would ask you to rule whether the member for Goyder has moleskins or jeans on?
Madam SPEAKER: I hardly think that is a point of order in the middle of the debate. Certainly, I do not find the moleskins offensive. Good try.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, let us systematically go through the evidence in a fair and objective way, and place on the record that it is a serious matter for members of the Territory public to see and, hopefully, for honourable members to take seriously this very serious motion and support it.
On 21 August - that is today - I made an Internet inquiry of a translating service, Translatorscaf.com. There is a home page that comes up. There is a reference, ‘Quick Language, Professional Search’. You can search ‘By Keywords’ or ‘By Name’. If you type in the words, ‘Kon Vatskalis’, another page comes up. There is an interesting picture of a man that I recognise, who is a member of parliament, a minister in this Assembly, Kon Vatskalis, in a blue shirt and a Territory government tie, it looks like. There is a phrase:
- Reliable, always available, high quality translations, timely responce (sic) …
I must note that the word ‘response’ is spelt incorrectly.
Then, if you click on this particular individual, it goes to another page, and that is the page which I tabled during the course of Question Time today. It sets out in detail a remuneration package. It says from Greek to English or English to Greek, we are talking 12 per word and a minimum hourly rate of $US30. Once again, the same picture appears. There is an address in Nightcliff …
Ms Martin: What are you? $250 an hour, are you?
Mr MALEY: I beg your pardon?
Mr Henderson: $250 bucks an hour. What do you charge?
Ms Martin: Is that what you charge?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! Member for Goyder, just ignore those interjections. Members of government, you are going to have your chance to reply in a minute. I hope you are taking this seriously.
Mr MALEY: There is an address, a phone number, a fax number, an e-mail address, ‘KonVatskalis@bigpond.com’, and a bit of background. For those at first flush, it should be reasonable to think that, appearing on a web site is advertising a particular service; being a Greek translator service.
The photograph is of particular note. If you look closely at the photograph - not that I am a forensic expert - it looks to me to be a Northern Territory government tie. At first glance, it looks to be a type of photograph which regularly appears on the minister’s letterhead and on the government web site – in the blue shirt with the coy smile. That is one particular aspect.
Further investigation of the web site – and any person could have made this inquiry at the same time as I did; members of the Northern Territory public could have made the same inquiry – reveals that if you go to one of the particular pages - and I will hold one up here - it says the linguist of the hour was our good friend, the member for Casuarina. According to the paraphernalia on this particular web site, to secure this particular position, that is a paid advertisement.
The only response that the minister has made, in an observation that he put to air with Julia Christensen this afternoon was: ‘Oh, what happens is that every now and then they just pick someone at random and your name just pops up and you get a free advertisement’. So, his response to this paid advertisement which, on the face of it, looks clear, is: ‘I knew nothing about that, it popped up. Someone did tell me about it a few weeks ago but, at the end of the day, it is free and I am not really that interested in it’. That is his only response.
The next reasonable inquiry which the average person could make is: how do you become a person on this particular web site? How do you become this professional linguist? But luckily, there is more. There is a sign-up page. You go to the sign-up page and there is a process you go through to sign up. It looks like – on a literal reading of this information - if you want to become a linguist and provide a service under the umbrella of this particular web site, you have to actively sign up. You have to provide details and, once you have provided all your details and you have read a policy, you click on an icon. It then goes to another category on another web page that says: ‘User registration’. What has happened is that, if you want to be professional linguist you fill out the details to be under this user registration form, and then you specifically click on ‘I agree with this policy’. You click the ‘I agree’ button. This is pretty compelling stuff.
The minister is seriously suggesting: ‘Oh, what has happened is that someone has stolen my Territory government photograph from the Greek Territorian web site, imported my information. They have taken the time to uplift the photograph, insert it, and that is why it is there’. That is his pathetic explanation. Well, quite frankly, the facts do not support that suggestion.
There is more. It seems that the assertions that, ‘Oh look, whilst I was not in politics I dabbled in the translating type field, I earned some remuneration’, blah blah blah blah blah, ‘but I know nothing about this’. Unfortunately for the minister, translatorcaf.com reveals that the actual web site was not launched until 1 August 2002. Therefore, we are talking about nearly a year after he was elected to parliament.
We did not make this up. This was available on the web site when I conducted a search. A person reading this could quite understandably be forgiven for thinking: ‘Oh well, it commenced on 1 August and here is a lovely picture, and you can register, and you accept formally the policies off it, and you become a professional linguist’. The minister’s response to that, as he articulated in a fairly average way to Julia Christensen: ‘Oh well, what happened, there must have been an amalgamation of previous web sites and they draw it together, and I am the victim of what - this is the sixth really unfortunate circumstances and this is my pathetic scenario which is consistent with innocence’, which once again flies in the face completely of what is reasonable and what the reasonable inference which any normal person would be able to draw.
During Question Time, the issue was initially raised and there were some assertions made about the history of the web page. The minister was given an opportunity to try to explain his relationship with this particular Internet provider. Quite frankly, for anyone reading that particular response to that question, it is completely inadequate. He was clearly taken aback, and you could go as far as to say his answers suggest some sort of consciousness of guilt. Some: ‘Oh, I had better think of what I am saying’, so he is just going to back away from it.
There is more than a prima facie case on this evidence. There is enough material here …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: There is enough material here …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: We are seeing the Martin Labor government’s true colours here. There have been assertions from the Chief Minister about how the Labor Party intends to govern, how they heralded a new age of accountability. That is all a clear fabrication. It is a classic example of ‘Do what I say but do not do what I do’.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MALEY: This is about you, it is not about this side of the House, this is about you. It seems the only response which the Martin Labor government is capable of is to go on a typical; ‘Let us kill the messenger, let us go on the attack. Let us not deal with the issue, or apply the standards which this government tried to apply and says should be applied to other members in this House’. This is a classic example of two standards. They have been sprung and, if they have any sense of decency, they should be supporting this particular motion.
Members will remember that it was not too long ago where the government demanded that I stand down as a shadow Attorney-General, and it was even suggested that I should leave parliament if I wished to maintain my ticket as a solicitor. We know, and the press knows the truth. We know the truth that the likes of Duncan Kerr and Gareth Evans, whilst in opposition, whilst they were backbenchers, continued to hold their tickets to maintain their professional standing. Your own shadow federal Attorney-General, Duncan Kerr, regularly appears in the High Court.
Backbenchers can do the same and, indeed, they always have and they probably always will. However, not a person who is part of the very body corporate which is government. It breaches convention, it breaches Labor’s own self-stated high codes of conduct and, finally, it clearly breaches …
Mr Henderson: The Greek community is going to love this!
Mr MALEY: I will pick up on that. Ubu, the member for Wanguri’s, only response is that the Greek community is going to love this. That is pathetic – really, really pathetic!
The Privileges Committee has an important role in parliament. A suggestion or a complaint that a contempt of this parliament may have occurred is a serious allegation, one which should be treated seriously.
I have carefully taken honourable members through the evidence that appears on that site. I have carefully, step by step, in a fair and objective way said: ‘This is what people read’.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: You can roll your eyes and carry on but, ultimately, this has been a fair summary of what existed when I conducted the search. It is a fair inference that members of the Territory community would have likely drawn if they were to have read that material.
There is, most certainly, enough material to justify the inquiry. There is certainly enough material to justify having this matter properly considered by a properly constituted Committee of Privileges. There is enough material to send this to the Privileges Committee, to make sure that the minister is given an opportunity to clear the air. I thought that what an accountable government would want is precisely that opportunity; the minister would want that opportunity to clear his name and explain the six or seven, in my view, outrageous hypotheticals that put him in this unfortunate position where the lay person reading it would think that he is advertising a Greek translating service for $US30. He can explain to Territorians why they may have been mistaken when they read that, but he will be given the opportunity to walk through it in a logical way.
The member for Wanguri’s favourite word is ‘hypocrisy’. He goes on about ‘the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy’. The Labor government’s failure to judge their own by their self-imposed standard smacks of hypocrisy. It is an example of complete hypocrisy. Labor’s response, to date, has only been abuse and denial. That is a pathetic response. Members of the public will read this debate. I hope the media is listening carefully to the abuse and diatribe spilling from the government. They are trying to hide the fact that this is a real issue that needs to be properly addressed.
Territory people put their trust in the Martin Labor government. They relied upon all the assertions of open and accountable government, and they were buoyed by some of the very positive things that were said - enough for them to secure government. That trust has been abused. Their conduct here confirms that they have two standards: they make the noises which, at the time suit them but, ultimately, when it comes to making the hard decisions and doing the right thing by Territorians, they refuse.
The member for Casuarina, in my view, has clearly breached the act. That matter must go to the Privileges Committee. However, it is not a matter of finding whether the member for Casuarina has clearly breached the act. It only has to be enough to justify an inquiry; that is all this motion confirms. Whether or not there has been a breach of the act is something determined by an independent and clear thinking Committee of Privileges which will decide that very issue.
For anyone to stand up and try to persuade members of the media, those listening in the gallery, and other members that there is not a valid and reasonable need for an inquiry, is doing themselves and this parliament a disservice and, ultimately, members of the community will judge them for that at the next election.
It even smacks of something more sinister. If you analyse the types of responses falling from the government, under a very fundamental principle upon which this House is based – that all people should be treated equally before the law – there is little doubt that an inquiry is justified, in my view - not that this is relevant to this particular motion. There is little doubt that the minister has breached a section of the act. He has contravened the laws of the Northern Territory, the laws by which all people are bound.
I suspect there will be the usual attack and, in a pathetic way, the minister will seek refuge along party lines. However, there is absolutely no doubt that, if this government is serious about all people being dealt with equally and that justice be allowed to run its course, then the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. This is a serious matter, the most serious matter which this parliament can consider. We have a deemed contempt of the Assembly if there is non-compliance with the act. I have shown, just on this material which is available ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Any person looking at this would be quite entitled to form the conclusion that there has been a breach. Even before they get to that stage, they are quite entitled to form the view that there should be a reasonable and objective inquiry, and the minister should be given an opportunity to clear his name and explain himself to members of the public as to why there has not been a breach of section 10 of the particular act. It is about the minister’s conduct, their own standards, and their non-compliance with the act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to honourable members. It is one of these examples where you would hope that they bring an open and fair mind, and the matter is properly dealt with so that the confidence is maintained in our parliament.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, honourable members, I am guilty! I am guilty because I wanted to maintain my translating skills. I am guilty because I tried to get in touch with other linguistic professionals around the world, because I wanted to be able to keep my skills up to date, because I use my skills. I use my translating skills even today. A few weeks ago I did, and I tell you why and how. As a matter of fact, this is not the only page, member for Goyder. I was also registered with ProZ.com, and Yahoo.com, and the Network of Translators in Yahoo.
There are many people like me who have joined these networks. There are many people who are working professional translators and there are other people who join because they want to be able to draw on the skills of their colleagues to learn difficult terms, modern terms - which I did. The only difference with this one is that, if you really want to get a job and to raise an income from these sites, you have to pay. You have to be a paid member. If you really want to go there and say: ‘I am going to make an income’, you have to be a paid member, and you have to take a risk, because most of these sites are overseas. It is well known that some them do not pay.
Another thing is that this web page was created by Mr Anatoly Zolotkov, and I will read it, who is a Russian immigrant living in Canada since 1996. I know Mr Zolotkov through the translation network. Mr Zolotkov, himself, asked me to register my name on his web site, the same way other people asked me to register my name on other web sites.
In some of them, ProZ.com in particular, there is a system that people put in place some terms because they are difficult and ask for an explanation. You participate by explaining them and, depending on the response you give, you get your name up on the site as the Linguist of the Hour, or as the Linguist of the Month. In this particular case, Translatorscaf.com, if the member had done his job properly and gone to the extras, where it says, ‘Advertisements’, he would have found out that they advertise by paid advertisements of agencies only, not individuals. Individuals go there because they have done something for their fellow linguists. They helped somebody, or provided a glossary, or provided a tool, or they helped out with a translation. So, there is no question about me paying to be the Linguist of the Hour. It was my skills that put me up there, not my dollars.
As a matter of fact, if you want to register as a linguist at this site, you cannot. You have to register as a translator. When you enter the site, they ask you questions and you give all the information, and then they ask you how much you charge. If you put 0.00, it does not accept it; you have to put in a figure. I put $US0.12 a word, when the current rate of Greek translation is $US0.4 per word. I put $US30 per hour, but that applies only to interpreters, and I am not an interpreter. I am a translator, accredited by the national accreditation authority for translators and interpreters in Australia. The question about me being a translator is a valid one. The same thing applies with ProZ.com and with Yahoo.com.
As I said, I am a qualified translator; I qualified in 1986. I have worked for the Health Department, the Minister for Justice, and Work Health in Western Australia and, since 1990, I have been working for the Office of Ethnic Affairs in the Northern Territory. I was working as a translator and, despite the fact that I am not an interpreter, I was asked to attend court cases, doctors, clinics, hospitals, and I did. I did because I felt that I was providing a service to the community. Was I getting paid? Yes, I was. Did I have a partnership with my wife? Yes, on the advise of my accountant I did; that partnership is Vronos Australia. Because I was working, I would have some legal tax breaks, and the partnership provided me with this opportunity; because I got my second telephone line, my fax, my furniture and my computer.
Since I was elected to parliament, I advised the Office of Ethnic Affairs that it was no longer appropriate for me to continue to provide a translator and interpreter service, and I recommended another person in Western Australia. There is no question about me getting any money from the Office of Ethnic Affairs since the election. I challenge the member for Goyder to inquire with the Office of Ethnic Affairs to find out if they have paid me a dollar since …
Mr Dunham: Privileges will inquire. Privileges will have a look.
Mr VATSKALIS: It does not have to go there. Go and ask tomorrow. I will give permission to Ms Janicean Price, the director, to disclose all information to the member for Goyder, because there is nothing to hide; everything is above board. Why would he want to have this thing dragging on when he can find answers to all his questions himself?
Another matter is about the site. As I said to you before, I knew Mr Zolotkov. He asked me to put my name and the photograph in; I gladly did. I get many e-mails that ask me for my photograph. Last week, I received one from Spain from somebody stupid enough to collect politicians’ photographs, who asked for my photograph. I sent it to him. Mr Zolotkov asked me to update my photograph. I had the one with the dark hair here - the dyed hair. Because we knew each other, he thought it was totally inappropriate and he asked me for a new one. I sent him the one that appears on my web page. It appears in many other publications, and appears on many sites on the web.
Mr Dunham: It is pretty recent, though, eh?
Mr VATSKALIS: Actually, the photograph was taken a few months after the election, so that means about 18, 19, 20 months. I do not have a copyright on my photograph. Many people ask me for my photograph. People ask me for my photograph on my web site; other people ask me for material from my web site. A high school in Darwin asked me if they could use my material to provide material for social studies for the children, and I gladly provided this material. I do not have any copyright, and I have no intention of having a copyright.
The member from the other side infers that I did it in wilful contravention of the requirements of the act, which is a contempt of the Assembly. Then he could not justify how I did that, in the case of the return of a member, pursuant to section 4(1), where the member receives or is entitled to receive a financial benefit.
I have advertised for eight years on the web. I have not received one job from the web. All my jobs came from the Office of Ethnic Affairs. The simple reason for that is because I knew them, they knew me, and I could trust that they were going to pay me within 15 days. I could not do that with this interpreter agency. The other thing is, I was not prepared to pay 20% of my income as a commission to those agencies. By the time it arrives here, via exchange, it is reduced by another 20%, finishing up getting rubbish for the work you have done.
The reality is these agencies on these web pages are not dealing with birth certificates, penal code certificates or driving licences; they are talking about 20 or 30 thousand words delivered in three days. If you think I have the time to do that - well, the member for Goyder might be able to because he is in opposition and he declares himself as a part-time politician. He might be able to do it, but I am here from 8 am until 6 pm and I need about eight hours sleep, and I have to have four hours for my family. The last thing I want to do is slave over a computer to do a translation that, in the end, will not pay anything.
I have not received any income. Am I entitled to receive any income? Well, how? To be entitled to receive an income you have to provide a job - you have to get a job. I do not, I did not, and I had not. I am entitled to win the Lotto tomorrow; I might win the Lotto. Therefore, am I to declare next year: ‘I may win the Lotto this year’. We are talking about hypotheticals. Yes, I could accept if the member came here and said: ‘You are working for a company in Scandinavia, in Sydney, and I have information that you are receiving a salary and an income’. But what he came here with was an advertisement from the web. I have a page on the web. A writer asked permission to use my name and material in her book – which she did. I am entitled to ask her for a percentage of her income, because she used my material, but I did not. Do I have to actually register that potential entitlement? There is no entitlement and certainly, there is no income.
I registered my income, the land that I own with my wife, even the partnership which is actually inactive. As a matter of fact, I do not have to register it because now you do not have to pay a fee for registration every year. Through a change to legislation, every year they send you a piece of paper. Like it or not, you get the piece of paper that says: ‘This is the name of your partnership, stick it on the wall’. So, I did. I did everything required by the act – as required by the act.
Nobody, especially the member for Goyder, can come here and make allegations about me receiving an entitlement or …
Mr Henderson: Beneficial interest.
Mr VATSKALIS: … beneficial interest, when he actually admitted publicly that he was paid for legal advice. I have to remind the member for Goyder that a member of the Greek community came here, met my colleague MLA, and said he had a meeting with his lawyer, upstairs, on the 4th floor. He was the lawyer, and I bet you he charged him!
On the other hand, this advertisement on the web - I do not want to embarrass the member of the Greek community, member for Goyder, do not worry - is a free advertisement. It is there, and despite the fact that the member for Goyder wants me sacked, I thank him very much for bringing it to my attention, because it took it me five minutes to wipe them off the web. I did a search and wiped another two sites that had my name, so you cannot find it any more, member for Goyder.
This advertisement is free; these are not. One is from the from the Yellow Pages, member for Goyder, and the other is from the Darwin Community phone book. You pay good money for it, and I bet I know why you pay the good money. However, forget that. We can always say: ‘Well, the member for Goyder has a practice, a company’. Fair enough, he is not working there. However, we go back again to the White Pages, and in the White Pages of Telstra – ‘solicitor’, and in the Darwin Community Book, the same thing appears. You pay money for it. I would expect somebody pays money …
Mr Maley: I have declared them thought, that is the problem. That is the difference.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, the minister has the floor.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, he paid good money, and he made money, good luck to him. He has declared it - fantastic! I have not earned any money. What would you like me to declare? Would you like me to declare zero? I do not have any money. I did not get any money from Translatorscaf.com. I did not get any money from ProZ.com. I did not get any money from Yahoo.com. I did not get any money from the Office of Ethnic Affairs. I have not received any money.
Mr Dunham: Why did you have a schedule of fees?
Mr VATSKALIS: You can ask anything you like. The reality is unless you are doing a job to get money - a payment - what are you going to declare?
I said before that I am proud to be a translator, and I am proud to use my skill to help my community. I have done it before. I helped my community before I became a member of parliament, and I still help my community. One member of the Assembly who sits on the other side said to me: ‘We are so glad you were elected, you got 8000 Greeks off our back’. I have 12 000 electors; the average is 4000. I have 4000 in Casuarina, and 8000 Greeks in Darwin who come to me and ask me to fill in their forms, applications for Housing Commission, and ask me to help them with doctors and lawyers. As a matter of fact, the other day Royal Darwin …
Ms Carter: We all do that.
Mr VATSKALIS: In Greek? Translating from one language to the other? I doubt it very much, member for Port Darwin. But if you can, I would fully support and encourage you. If you have a skill, use it.
I help my community. The other day, a doctor who works for Royal Darwin Hospital, telephoned me in desperation because she was trying to find a Greek translator to attend a patient at the hospital. She could not find one. She rang the Office of Ethnic Affairs and they could not find one. She asked if I would help. I was not very keen; I was going to put it off, and I asked what it was about. Once it was explained to me, I said I would go. It was Mother’s Day. I went to Royal Darwin Hospital, and I had to sit in the Intensive Care ward next to a distraught family whose wife and daughter was lying in a diabetic coma. I had to explain to the family why it happened, how it happened and why their daughter was going to die in two hours. It was traumatic. It was the worst Mother’s Day of my life, but I felt it was my duty to do it because, had I not done it, the people would have been left wondering if something could be done, if it was their fault, what happened, why it happened and when it would ultimately happen.
I say, once again, the member for Goyder has proven nothing. I have not treated the Assembly with contempt. On the contrary, Madam Speaker, I respect this Assembly greatly. I will continue to respect this Assembly because I am a person who had the sad experience of living a big part of my part without the democratic privilege that everyone else in Australia has enjoyed.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the interpretation that the honourable member has referred to in relation to a sick young girl. It has nothing to do with the fact that, as a member of parliament, he may or may not assist people with translations. It has everything to do with the fact that the honourable member has a web site, or had a web site. It is instructive to bear in mind that this web site was discreetly removed this afternoon by the honourable member following the revelation that it had been in place and was being pursued in this House earlier today.
The honourable member can try to put up smokescreens in addition to some of the wonderful things that he has done with his translation abilities - and they are not argued - and other smokescreens such as trying to draw attention to the activities of other members in this House. They have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The starting point for this issue is Labor’s position paper which was released on 19 June 2000. The then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, said in that document under Code of Conduct:
- In a small jurisdiction like the Northern Territory, one of the major ethical dilemmas facing politicians, particularly ministers …
… revolves around conflicts of interest.
That is what this argument is about. These hurdles were not set by the opposition, the CLP; these hurdles were set by the Chief Minister. These hurdles were set and re-affirmed by the Chief Minister when she gained government, by determining that there would be codes of conduct and that these issues were going to be hotly pursued. It was the Chief Minister who introduced the codes of conduct. It was the Chief Minister who told Territorians that ministers would not be allowed to have conflicts of interests.
Mr Henderson: Where is the conflict of interest? Explain it!
Mr REED: We view this to be a conflict of interest. Quite rightly, the matter should be discussed in this House. If, as the honourable Leader of Government Business interjects, that he believes there is not a conflict of interest …
Mr Henderson: You have not prosecuted it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The rightful place to prove that, and go through that in depth, is by making the reference to the Privileges Committee so that the matters can be fully aired, discussed and considered, and that an appropriate and informed position can be put and considered. It can be considered in this debate in the context of the Code of Conduct that the Chief Minister put in place for her ministers. In this case, we are discussing the code of conduct for the Minister for Ethnic Affairs.
One of the complicated factors is that we have now heard contradictory remarks in response to our questions at Question Time, and then comments by the minister on radio this afternoon. For example, in the first incidence this afternoon, the Chief Minister responded by saying: ‘This is an old site that no longer has any status’. Indeed, I should quote from the Hansard where the Chief Minister said: ‘It is from a previous time and the member for Casuarina no longer does translations’.
Well, we were later to find that, in fact, the web site is not from a previous time. We find on further investigation that the web site was registered on 1 August last year. We find that the photograph on the web site of the minister appears to come from the same photo session where the minister had photographs taken for the presentation, both in parliamentary documents and ministerial and government papers where he is referred to and where he is depicted by photograph. If that is not the case, then there is a remarkable coincidence in that the minister is wearing the same shirt, the same smile, and a Northern Territory government-supplied tie.
In terms of those coincidences, all they do is raise further concerns. If we had heard or been provided with some cogent answers and some logical responses to the questions that were asked, this matter might not be being discussed now. However, the fact is, the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been provided have been from have been …
Mr Stirling: You put it on the agenda before you asked the question. You put it on the business paper first, so do not tell lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, order!
Mr REED: I ask the honourable member to withdraw that reference to lies.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw ‘lies’, Madam Speaker, and ask him not to mislead the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr Stirling: He cannot say if there were sensible answers it would not be on the Notice Paper, when they put it on the Notice Paper before they asked the question. Stupid logic!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, we have just seen that demonstration by the Deputy …
Mr Stirling: That demonstrates you have not even thought this out.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: That demonstration of unreasonable behaviour by the Deputy …
Mr Stirling: It is not unreasonable, you have to think before you open your mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I am not going to speak to you again.
Mr REED: … by the Deputy Chief Minister. We saw similar behaviour from him in Question Time today and, indeed, from other members on the government benches. Their attempts to close down Question Time in relation to this matter, further raised concerns in the minds of the opposition and in the minds of the media, and quite rightly so.
If this was an issue that was not of concern, then the enormous responses that we saw earlier today, and the outburst from the Deputy Chief Minister that we have just experienced, would not have been used in an attempt to close down the debate. I draw to the attention of both the Deputy Chief Minister and the Leader of Government Business that there does not have to be any money earned by the minister in relation to this matter.
Mr Stirling: Not like a lawyer.
Mr REED: The fact is – well, you should read the act. I pick up the interjection, that it is in contempt of the Assembly in touting for money. That is what he has done here in that regard, in touting for money without registering the web site and his intent on the Register of Members’ Interests. The Register of Members’ Interests is put in place for that purpose, and the minister has not followed the Chief Minister’s Code of Conduct in fulfilling his obligations to disclose it.
We have heard on one hand, from the Chief Minister that it was an old, out-of-date web site that had no further relevance. We were then told by the minister that that, in fact, was something quite different. We now find that the site was registered at recently as 1 August 2002 and, in addition to that, I have mentioned other matters such as the photograph. The minister has also tried to explain it away by saying that he did not lodge the web site with Translatorscaf.com; that it was done for him.
Are we to believe that someone in Canada finds a web site in the Northern Territory and says: ‘We will do this chap a favour; we will put his web site on our Translatorscaf.com site, just as a good deed. His photograph does not look too good either, so we will update that’. Is the minister going to try to convince us - as he already has – that this chap off in Canada said: ‘Let us look for a photograph for this chap. The one that is on there at the moment is not too good; it looks a bit out-of-date. We will see if we can find something’. Is the minister really trying to convince us that the person who operates this web site then surfed through the web just to find a lovely looking photograph of the minister, and then placed that on the web site. It just does not happen like that. If you look up the web site, the fact is that one has to register one’s own web site on that master site, if I can refer to it as that. It requires a positive action on behalf of the owner of the web site – in this case, the member for Casuarina – to first register his web site on this master site. It is clear that that must have happened.
He has also tried to explain away the Linguist of the Hour. If you go to the web site, you will find that, to become Linguist of the Hour, again you have to take specific action in relation to becoming a Linguist of the Hour. You have to follow a procedure on the web site in order to become a Linguist of the Hour, and then, on the appropriate occasions, your web site is highlighted. I am sorry, the minister has not convinced us that he did not take that action. The minister did not convince us that this well-meaning disciple of the master web site in Canada is so well-meaning that he surfed all through the web and found Mr Vatskalis and said: ‘Whacko! We will put this on. It is a ripper of a site!’ It just cannot happen like that.
A further extension of that is that the member for Casuarina is also trying to explain to Territorians the fact that, not only did this wonderful disciple, the owner of this master web site in Canada, find a new photograph of the minister and have that entered on the site, but he found the minister’s site and registered it himself rather than having the minister do it, and he was also so generous as to put in place on the web site some front quotations by minister Vatskalis. The quotations I quote into Hansard:
- Experience: Translator since 1986. Worked for Federal and State Authorities and organisations. I have also worked …
I:
- I have also worked as a freelance translator for local and interstate translation offices.
This disciple who owns the master site in Canada would not have known those things. This disciple could only have received that information when the ‘Kon Vatskalis, I am the mother language Greek translator’ registered his site on the mother site, so to speak. He could not have been aware of this information. Those quotes can only come from one person, and that one person is the member for Casuarina. It just does not add up. Therefore, from that point of view, the next speaker in the defence of the honourable minister, might cover those contradictory points.
We then come to the schedule of fees. One does not place a schedule of fees on the web site unless one is both intending to attract some business and then be remunerated for that business. It is quite clear that these fees - unless the disciple in Canada was also good enough to determine the value of the work of the honourable member for Casuarina - must have been struck by the member for Casuarina. They were, of course, included in the web site when he first constructed it; they cannot come from any other source. This disciple in Canada has a business of his own to run, and he is not going to get any return from his business and from his web site if he is the disciple who looks after one Mr Vatskalis in Darwin, Northern Territory, who, in all likelihood, he has never heard of before.
We have to hear some much more convincing argument and reasoning from both the member for Casuarina …
Mr Henderson: There is no point because you do not listen.
Mr REED: … and, indeed the Leader of Government Business, or whoever is going to defend him in the next instance, in relation to these circumstances. If there are good reasons, well, let us hear them. However, we have heard nothing today except contradictory remarks, first of all from the Chief Minister, who was then contradicted by the member for Casuarina himself. He in turn contradicted his own former remarks in Question Time when he went on ABC radio this afternoon and again compounded the problems that he has.
This is not a problem of ours. This is not a problem that the member for Casuarina is going to work his way out of by being able to simply trying to pass the blame off onto someone else and cast aspersions on other members of this House. This is something the member for Casuarina has to answer for himself and he has to do it convincingly. If we are to get to the bottom of it, let us refer it to the Privileges Committee. That action in itself is not a binding one, but it does direct this particular issue to an appropriate members’ committee, that can fairly and exhaustively evaluate the information that could be brought forward by the member for Casuarina, and it can then be reported to the House. That is an appropriate course of action to take.
We have heard the opening remarks and the contribution to this motion this evening of the honourable member for Casuarina pleading guilty. Well, what more do you want? If he gets up and pleads guilty to the fact that he did have a web site and he did, indeed, acknowledge the fact that he was asking $US30 an our hour for translation services, then what more do you want? What more do you want in a good reason to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee, which is the right and proper place for it to go.
If the government has nothing to fear, then they will take that action and they will support this motion, and enable it to be fairly assessed in the full light of the facts that the honourable member for Casuarina can bring forward. If indeed it is proven that there is no conflict of interest, then so be it. However, let us do it fairly. Let us do it in keeping with the intentions as expressed by the former Leader of the Opposition and now Chief Minister, and meet her codes of conduct in that she believes - I refer again - particularly ministers should abide by code of ethics that they should not have activities beyond their ministerial and parliamentary duties which are going to attract or require them to apply themselves to a business, that is going to see them accrue an alternative income.
That, of course, extends to the fact that the member for Casuarina might also assure us that, in relation to his activities as a translator - given that the site was registered as recently as 12 months ago - he has not acquired any Northern Territory government agency or department business during that period, or has not been remunerated by a Northern Territory agency or department for services that he may have provided. I am not suggesting that he has, but, again, to present that information to the Privileges Committee would be the most appropriate course of action in this case.
In closing, the core issue here is the Chief Minister’s Code of Conduct that she expects from all members, and particularly, in her words, ministers. It is no good just mouthing words in relation to codes of conduct if the Chief Minister is just going to be using the words and sounding committed to them, without applying them purposefully and with real meaning. Territorians have seen through actions that she has taken in that regard on too many occasion since she has achieved government.
In addition to that, the other underlying issue is the requirement for members to comply with the Register of Members’ Interests. In this case, we do not believe that the member for Casuarina has done that because he has been touting for business, he has a costs schedule in relation to the web site that he had on the Internet. From that point of view, he does have answers to provide, and the most appropriate place for them to be provided is in a Privileges Committee.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion that this matter be referred to Privileges.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when party politics are flying about this House, I am a bit reluctant to speak. However, on the issue before us, I thought I would say a few words. I have spent a fair portion of this afternoon looking at this issue and trying to come up with a non-party political perspective on the matter.
What we have before us is a motion that asks the parliament to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges to determine whether the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has breached section 10 of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act. Let us look at it logically. What is the breach? Was it wilful? Was it serious? Is there a breach of section 10 of the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act? The act states, in Part III, section 10:
- Failure to Comply with the Act
A wilful contravention of a requirement of this act is a contempt of the Assembly and may be dealt with accordingly.
Has the minister contravened the act? Under Part II of the act, Disclosure of Members’ Interests, and then section 5(1), headed Form of Returns, it says:
- A return required by this part to be submitted in a form approved by the Speaker and shall contain …
(f) in the case of a return of a member pursuant to section 4(1) -
- (i) where the member receives or is entitled to receive a financial benefit during
any part of the return period, a statement of the income source of the financial
benefit.
In section 3, Definitions, the definition of ‘financial benefit’ is:
- (a) the remuneration, fee or other pecuniary sum exceeding $500 received by a member
in respect of a contract of service entered into, or paid office, held by him ...
First, has the member received a financial benefit; which means remuneration, fee or other pecuniary sum over $500? The minister has said he has not, and that the only time he translated was for a family whose daughter was dying. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. I believe in this case, there is no need to go to the Privileges Committee.
Second, was the member entitled to receive a financial benefit? There was no proof given tonight that the minister is owed a payment or payments for outstanding work done, and I presume that the word ‘entitled’ means ‘money owing’.
Then there is the issue of the web site. I am unsure whether the web site has wilfully been left there, or whether it was something that the minister forgot about or did not realise was there until it was raised today. I cannot tell from the debate so far today. We have to judge whether the existence of that web site is a serious enough issue to send this matter off to the Privileges Committee. I realise that having the web site may come under section 5(1)(g) which says:
- in the case of return of a member, pursuant to section 4(2) or (3), statement of all income sources that the member has or expects to have in the period commencing on the date of the return until 30 June next following.
I suppose one has to make a judgment. The minister has said he has received no remuneration. That means that the web site, although it may have been there, has not been the cause of the minister receiving money. It still could be the case that the minister, if he knew that that web site was there, should have put down a figure that he may have expected. If he expected nought, then perhaps he should have put nought, and at least told people that, although he had a translation service, he was not expecting to receive any money for it. I believe that is what he should have done.
Mr Baldwin: That is what we are saying.
Mr WOOD: I know the opposition are saying that.
I also had a third matter, which has to be taken into account, which is: is the matter serious? I suppose people are going to judge for themselves whether the matter is serious. This afternoon, I bumped into a previous member of this parliament, who said we have to be careful we do not use the Privileges Committee for minor matters, and it seems it is becoming more and more fashionable in Australia to use privileges for any little thing, whereas in England, there is nearly an encouragement by members to keep being involved in other interests, so that you have a better understanding of some of the issues that come before you. That person said that there are some members of parliament who earn quite a lot of money from other businesses, and they are actually encouraged to stay in those businesses so they have a better understanding of matters that they may come across themselves in parliament.
In other words, are we getting too hung up on minor issues? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? That is where I come from. The minister would have been wise to have removed the web site, if, as he says, he was not earning any income because, technically, he could be in breach of the act. However, I do not see anything necessarily wilful or serious and, therefore, I do not believe it was a major breach.
Madam Speaker, even though I support the government on this matter, I feel that some of this debate has been brought on by the hounding of the member for Goyder over his possible continuation of work as a lawyer. That is why I say this particular debate reeks a little of politics. I have not seen anything in the rules of this place that says he cannot still work as a lawyer. As I said previously, in England, it is encouraged; in Australia, it is frowned on. However, as it is not illegal, then surely it is up to the member to decide for himself, and let the voters decide at the next election, whether they think that was good judgment of that member. They will decide whether it was a wise thing to do, and that is the democratic process.
What is happening tonight is a reaction to what has been aimed at the member for Goyder over the last year or so, and the government probably had to expect a reaction from the opposition. Needless to say, I have not taken any of this into account or let it cloud my judgment. I have carefully looked at the facts and, from what I have heard and seen today, I cannot support this motion.
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I have seen a few beat-ups in the almost 13 years in this Assembly. I do not know that I have ever seen one as absolutely thin straw flimsy as this one here today, because all this was about was a Question Time stunt, essentially designed to get the 30 seconds on TV tonight. They got that - well done - but that is as much as you are going to get, guys, because I listened very closely to what the member for Nelson had to say tonight. Often, when I listen closely to him, I am drawn by the commonsense and logic that he puts into his arguments. The fact is that he spoke to a former member - and I do not know who that former member may have been – and the former member was talking to him terms of devaluing the currency of the seriousness of a move to the Privileges Committee. He listened to that advice and has taken it to heart, and I commend him for it, because it is sound and sensible advice.
I have served on two Privileges Committees in my time in the Assembly. I have to say - prima facie, Madam Speaker, and prima facie, Chief Minister - that both of those cases would have stood up a lot further in an investigation than this one tonight. I will tell you how long the second one took to dismiss. I will tell you; I had not even sat down! I had not even sat down in the chair at the Privileges Committee and Mick Palmer had a form of words to get it out the door. We had to work a couple of minutes extra on that just to get the wording absolutely right. It was a process that took about three minutes. It was 100 times stronger than this case here tonight, and it took three minutes to dismiss it. The former one was against the former member for Wanguri and again, failed in the Privileges Committee. Of course, both those Privileges Committees were controlled by CLP members of the day, and both failed to haul either member to account on cases, I have to say, prima facie, a lot stronger than this one.
I get a bit annoyed with the member for Goyder. He comes in here and he struts his stuff like he thinks he is before the High Court. He looks up to you, Madam Speaker, as if you were the Chief Justice; he throws a few Latin terms in and a bit of legalese, and we are supposed to fall about on the floor in due respect and awe that this man is a lawyer. Well, it does not wash with me. Your job in here, China, is to convince us, not to confuse us. If you want to get up in the debate some time, you have to convince us, not try to show us how smart, educated, or how clever you are because you understand a bit of legal terminology. It does not wash with us.
These two allegations against my colleague are very clear. These are that that he is conducting a business as a translator and that he is conducting this business in breach of legislation governing this parliament. If we accept they are the two baseline allegations, the responses are quite easy. The first one is: the minister is not conducting any business as a translator. From 18 August 2001, when he was elected as the member for Casuarina and a week later, when he became a minister of the Crown, he has not since conducted business as a translator. He has collected no money for any translation. He has, in fact, ceased filling out any of the GST paperwork because he has not earned any money. He has entirely, as he should, devoted his time and responsibilities to his electorate of Casuarina and to his ministerial responsibilities as a minister of the Crown. They are the facts that would seem to put to rest allegation No 1.
If you take that those statements by the member for Casuarina put to rest allegation No 1, there is, logically, no breach of his responsibilities to this place or, in fact, to any legislation that governs his behaviour in this place. That makes, therefore, both allegations null and void, and the reference to the Privileges Committee null and void.
However, we need to take it one step further. The member for Nelson put his finger on this when he said this is all about politics. He said this is all about the member for Goyder getting a bit sensitive because he has been touched up in here and he is having a bit of a crack back. Well, whenever we ran a censure from opposition - and we were serious when we ran our censures because we did not want to devalue the currency - I will tell you what we did do. We made sure the Leader of the Opposition was there, because usually it was the Leader of the Opposition who ran it. We made sure the deputy was there, because the deputy was usually second, and we made sure the shadow minister responsible for the area under review was there. What do they do? How serious are these blokes? A bunch of clowns, they come in here without the member for Blain - God knows where he is – and without the Leader of the Opposition because he is out having dinner down town with his business mates. That is fine; but how serious are you? Because if you are ever going to get up in here you have to have the numbers. It is a bit hard to have the numbers when you come in here with what amounts to a censure motion - same thing - without your leader and your member for Blain.
Let us have a look at what the member for Goyder was alleging, and a little behind the reasons. We know the opposition is having a pretty bad time of it; the Leader of the Opposition is under attack daily. You see it in the paper, you see it on the news, you see this new forum all designed about unseating Denis Burke. Large sections of his party want to walk on him. He has lost it; he has lost the support of almost half of his own parliamentary bench.
The reference in Question Time over the last two weeks shows a distinct lack of any sense of the real issues of the day, and a distinct lack of any strategy. They are not presenting any real alternative to the people of the Territory. The member for Goyder has caused his own side no end of trouble in doing this. He is absent interstate for more days than he sat in this Assembly this year; he is continuing to undertake legal work in direct defiance of the instruction of his own leader; he is known for spreading stories behind his leader’s back, and for being behind most of the constant backbiting that is serving to undermine the Leader of the Opposition.
He has made three separate allegations against ministers in this place. The first was against my colleague, the Minister for Community Development, and he was forced to publicly withdraw all those remarks and apologise, if I recall. And it was only - what? - yesterday or today that the offending press release finally came down off the web site. That is how due and diligent he is in relation to web sites. Got out there and publicly apologised so he did not cop a legal suit over the head but saw fit to leave it on the web site for some 12 to 18 months later. He has made allegations against the Attorney-General and was not supported by any investigation or by any facts in this matter.
Today, of course, he moves his target to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs and, once again, he is wrong. However, today he takes it all a step further, and really, this is a very disgraceful manipulation of processes of this House because he attempts to land you, as Madam Speaker, right in his grubby, little grab for media glory. The member for Goyder, by choosing the route of the Privileges Committee, probably thinks in his own mind that he is being clever and he gets his 30 seconds of fame on TV. However, he ought to understand that the Privileges process of this Assembly is a very serious matter indeed, and any attempts to use issues need to be well thought through - much better thought through than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition showed that he thought through his little contribution tonight - and with some honest intent. By honest intent, if you were fair dinkum about it, you would have your boss and the member for Blain in here to support you.
Madam Speaker, it is very clear it was all about a little media stunt. We do not intend to allow the member for Goyder to manipulate the proper, time-honoured and serious processes of this House, and we will not be supporting this stunt …
Mr Dunham: You gutless thing.
Mr STIRLING: He could have taken some - I ask for that to be withdrawn, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Drysdale, withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw ‘gutless’, Madam Speaker.
What the member for Goyder should have done - and he could have established that the minister had, indeed, done any translation work since his elevation to the job of representing the electorate of Casuarina and, subsequently, his elevation to the ministry. He could have established that. He could have established through questioning whether the minister had been paid for any translation work in the last two years. He did not. He failed to do so deliberately, because he knew the answers to those questions would have failed to support his allegations, and his drive to get this to the Privileges Committee would have been shot. So he chooses to use the Privileges process as a stunt. I and this side of the House believes for that he stands condemned. He might find it acceptable to skirt the proper and due processes of this Chamber in his own behaviour. He may choose to have contempt for the traditions and processes of this Assembly. He may want to continue to pursue these grubby stunts as the hallmark of his time in politics ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under Standing Order 62, he is attributing unbecoming motives to my colleague, the member for Goyder.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: I will make the point, Madam Speaker, it will stand him in no good stead at all because Territorians are smart enough to see through this sort of rubbish. We will not be entertaining him any further with any further time or effort on this exercise.
He might not know that this Chamber costs over $5000 an hour every time we sit in here. He has burnt up a little tonight; that is the cost and price of democracy. However, it is a bit rich when time is taken up with rubbish like this. He needs to learn. I understand, as a lawyer, he would have learnt about respect for law, magistrates and judges. He would have learnt about respect for the courtroom. It is time he learnt some respect for the Westminster system and for the Assembly, because he fails to demonstrate any knowledge, any respect at all for this Chamber or for these processes. He has failed on both counts miserably tonight. It highlights his immaturity as a politician and his immature approach to the serious business of representing Territorians in this House.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: Gutless! Gutless!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that the ‘gutless’ remark be withdrawn - again.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: I said ‘gutless’, Madam Speaker. I know it has been used …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw it!
Mr DUNHAM: … in parliament before. I am happy that it has now become unparliamentary. I would say ‘cowardice’.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, thank you.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw ‘cowardice’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are out of order with some of your remarks. The motion is that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a matter raised in Question Time today by the Leader of the Opposition. In his question, he referred to a previous question he had asked me in the House on 29 May 2003, relating to the employment of a senior public servant from Western Australia and his involvement in a public service inquiry there.
In response, I stated that I had been advised that the public servant in question had been exonerated by a public service inquiry, and found by the Western Australian DPP to have no case to answer. I want to clarify this matter for the record. The Western Australian DPP had formed the view that, because of the availability and efficacy of an alternative to prosecution and other public interest factors, it was inappropriate for the prosecution to continue, and no charge was heard. An independent and exhaustive inquiry was conducted for the Western Australian Public Service by Mr Robert Lang, a former Commissioner of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. His report explored three possible charges and found that none could be upheld or were sustainable.
I was able to answer this question on 29 May because of the process that led to this public servant being employed in the Territory. The Western Australian Director-General had received a draft of the final report clearing the officer nearly a fortnight prior to 30 May, and had spoken to the Chief Executive Officer of our Department of Health and Community Services well before I answered the Leader of the Opposition’s question in parliament. I believe the information here provided now clarifies this matter.
Last night, the member for Daly raised a couple of questions in relation to racing; both about a bill that sits on the Notice Paper, and bet exchanges. I am sure he would understand, while the Northern Territory government has the Territory racing industry as its absolute No 1 priority, we cannot ignore the fact that we are also an integral part of the Australian racing industry overall. Our legislation is on hold while a number of issues of significant importance to Australian racing are considered at a national level. The Territory government is engaging, and has engaged, in these deliberations in good faith, and part of that good faith in and around the deliberations of the product fee, has been agreeing to hold off on passing this legislation at this stage.
One issue being considered nationally is the introduction of a product fee on bookmakers to ensure they are making an adequate return to the industry. The Territory has agreed, in principle, to a product fee, but there clearly needs to be further discussion about the issue. Racing ministers are due to meet in Sydney in late October, where the matter will be further discussed.
In regard to bet exchanges, the Territory government has clearly stated its position, which is largely at odds with other jurisdictions, but which we believe is the most sensible position; that is, that an outright prohibition of bet exchanges is simply not feasible, and that regulation is a much better option. However, we are also strongly of the view that the primary consideration of all jurisdictions must be to protect the Australian racing industry, and that means protecting the level of returns to racing from all forms of gambling.
At this stage, the Northern Territory government would consider issuing a bet exchange licence on Australian racing if the issuing of such bet exchange licences is otherwise endorsed by Australian racing ministers, or another Australian jurisdiction issues a bet exchange licence, or we can be satisfied, in liaison with the Australian Racing Board, that the issuing of such a bet exchange licence would lead to an equal or better return for the Australian racing industry. However, the Northern Territory government reserves its right to issue bet exchange licences for sports betting and overseas racing. We believe our position on this matter is sensible, and we will continue to work with other states and territories in coming up with workable solutions to such things as the product fee issue and bet exchanges, that have the continued viability of Australian and, most importantly, Territory racing as the No 1 priority.
I recognise a couple of long-term employees this evening. Liz Gammon, the Principal of Anula Primary School, retired from the Department of Employment, Education and Training after more than 27 years continuous service with the department. Liz has impressed the department with her loyalty and commitment as an Assistant Principal and Principal with the department for more than 20 years. At Anula Primary, Liz led the way in ESL practices for students whose origins were from overseas. Liz is also well known for her active participation as a board member for DEET, and her support for the performing arts, not only in schools but in the general community. We wish her well in her retirement.
Helen Dunchue, Principal at Malak Primary School, will retire from the department on 15 August 2003 after more than 29 years of continuous service. Helen has been actively involved in both the Assistant Principals Association of the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory Principals Association. She has worked tirelessly on behalf of colleagues, representing fellow principals as Secretary of the Northern Territory Principals Association for two terms, from 1999 to 2002. Helen was the NTPA representative for the conference in Helsinki, Finland, in 1999. Helen has also demonstrated leadership in the area of Boys in Education, middle years of schooling, information technology and behaviour management. During 2001, Helen was a mentor for indigenous principals in remote schools. We wish her well in her retirement.
Jan Le Brun commenced duty with the public service when she enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy in 1970. She was later discharged after four years. She joined Telecom and worked there for five years before coming to the Territory. Jan has worked with the Northern Territory public sector since February 1979, where she was employed in different administrative positions. Jan worked for many years in the Operations North Branch, where she was responsible for arranging accommodation for teacher housing, head leasing in the Katherine region, and she also looked after the Operations North vehicles, ensuring they were serviced. When the Operations North Branch was disbanded, Jan performed a variety of administrative functions including purchasing. She also worked with the Department of Health in the recruitment section and later returned to the then Department of Education. During her time at Education, Jan worked in the teacher recruitment section, responsible for processing teacher application packages and to following up the applicant’s documentation to ensure that the required teacher recruitment processes and checks were provided. Jan resigned in July 2003 to move to Nerang in Queensland to spend more time with her elderly parents and family, and is leaving after 32 years of employment with the public sector. We wish her all the best in Queensland.
After graduating at Ohio State University in the USA, Don Zoellner’s adventurous spirit took him to Australia. Don joined the Northern Territory Teaching Service in 1974 as a biology teacher at Nightcliff High School. Don’s enthusiasm and dedication were a driving force at Nightcliff. Don’s focus in ensuring continuity in curriculum after Cyclone Tracy proved to be an invaluable asset to the school. Don then moved to Darwin High School in 1975 as a secondary teacher, teaching science and biology. His commitment to the welfare of students is paramount. His depth of empathy and understanding is reflected in the students’ sense of belonging and achievement within a school environment. Don was provisionally promoted to the position of senior teacher in 1976 and regularly acted as the Assistant Principal until he secured this position at Darwin High School.
After many happy years at Darwin High, Don and his family relocated to Alice Springs in 1992 for him to become the Principal of Alice Springs High. Don’s vision and leadership proved inspiring to both colleagues and staff. During this time with NT Department of Employment, Education and Training, Don also held the positions Director of Group Training NT, as well as being elected to be the Chairperson of the Australian Principals Association Professional Development Council. Don’s continuous focus on further developments reflected in these two voluntary positions he held.
After a successful period at Alice Springs High School where Don made many friends, he was promoted to Executive Director, Centralian College. Don has continued in this position until July 2003 when, pending the creation of Charles Darwin University of which Centralian College will be an integral part, he took up the appointment Pro-Vice Chancellor Vocational Education with the NTU. The Department of Employment, Education and Training thanks Don for all his years of service and wishes him all the best in his continuation of what will be Charles Darwin University. I know all members will join with me in wishing Don all the best.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING: He really is a dynamic employee, and he has done a fantastic job with TAFE in the Centralian region with Centralian College - and not just in the Centralian region, but in the north as well. Now, with the amalgamation with Charles Darwin University, we bring to the market a very major public provider in terms of service delivery by bringing Centralian College and NTU together, and Mr Zoellner is just the man to take it forward.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will be about 30 seconds. I am only rising very briefly to point out to the minister for Infrastructure my usual roads issue. Information is just coming through that, on one of his roads in my electorate, there has been a serious motor vehicle accident which has resulted in serious injuries to two people. I certainly hope that there is nothing more serious, like a death, going to occur, as a result of it. I thought the minister for roads, who has been so flippant about these things in the past, and was so dismissive yesterday, would like to know that.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in reply to the Minister for Racing and Gaming regarding the issue I raised the other night about the piece of legislation, the amendment bill that is on the Notice Paper, I thank the minister for his answer. I am disappointed that the minister has lost his zing that he used to support us, when we were in government, as far as these matters are concerned. He failed to answer the fundamental question that I asked last night.
When he introduced this bill, he said that the current restriction that applies to bookmakers offering dividends on totes around Australia other than our own, would prohibit the product that Sportingbet Australia offer and, indeed, that International Allsports currently were offering - a divvy plus product – and, by removing the restrictions, will remove any doubt about the legitimacy of that product. The question I posed is: if those products are still being offered, are they legitimate and do they have legal certainly? That is the question the minister needs to answer because, if they have not, he may find himself in breach of his own act.
I also comment on the issue I raised with the minister for Lands the other night, and in a question last week, regarding the Better Half Club at Mataranka, and the negotiations that are going on for their land, at the behest of the NLC which seems to be directing all of those things. I am still waiting for him to provide an answer to the people of Mataranka now that he knows they have rejected the government’s offer of a 25-year lease down from 50-years. He needs to give them some certainty, particularly now that we know he is going away for three more weeks and that they need to have an answer.
This has been going on too long. As I pointed out, to get to negotiate with the NLC took a year from the time this government was elected to when the department and the government actually got together with the NLC. It has been another year since that time to get this latest offer, which is a much reduced offer at the behest of the NLC. Will the minister please provide this community organisation with some certainty about what they are going to do? He needs to tell the Better Half Club that he will honour the government’s first offer of a 50-year lease, and he needs to tell the NLC that it is not acceptable that they come back, after negotiations, and want to withdraw their first offer, and get the government to offer a term of lease that is half of what was offered in the first place. Now, either the government or the NLC is running the show, and the government needs to clarify it.
They need to clarify it in terms of the Better Half Club rejecting their latest offer, and provide some certainty to these community organisations which do no more than work hard to raise money to provide a community benefit. It is incumbent on him, prior to leaving the Northern Territory, to ensure that they know where they stand.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Mr Alf Chittock, who was born in Adelaide on 31 August 1913.
In 1934, Alf Chittock joined the Hindmarsh Branch of the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide. From that time, he became a very active and committed contributor to the party. In 1940, he joined the Woodville Branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. During the same period, or very soon afterwards, he was elected as the AEU representative on the State Labour Council. During this period, Alf played a very active role in respect of policy development and was an aggressive and committed contributor to the South Australian ALP Branch Conferences on many occasions.
Soon after, Alf joined the Australian Armed Forces and saw active duty here in the Northern Territory. He was discharged in 1948. In 1949, he returned to the Northern Territory. Soon after his return to Tennant Creek, Alf took over the butcher shop and later opened a second butcher shop. Alf was one of the first people in the Northern Territory to develop an abattoir at Tennant Creek, and would often go out to Banka Banka and Alexandria Stations for his supplies. He sold that business and semi-retired, taking over the Peko and Warrego Stores.
Alf Chittock was elected the first Mayor of Tennant Creek in 1978, a position in which he served until 1988. During this period, Alf played an active role in the affairs of the community, and played a key role in developing Purkiss Reserve and the Tennant Creek Bowling Club. He was a foundation member of the Tennant Creek Lions Club, the Tennant Creek Sporting Club, and the Tennant Creek Memorial Club. He was President of the Tennant Creek Memorial Club for two years. To this day, Alf regularly visits the club and conducts a raffle every week without fail, the proceeds of which go to the Senior Citizens of Tennant Creek, Alf being the Treasurer of that organisation. He is also President of the Tennant Creek Branch of the Australian Red Cross, President of the Australia Day Committee in Tennant Creek, and was bestowed with the award of Life Member of the Order of Australia. He was a recipient of the Australia Medal.
Alf Chittock has had 69 years of continuous membership of unions and the Australian Labor Party. In May 2003, Alf Chittock was awarded Life Membership of the Australian Labor Party. On behalf of the Tennant Creek community, Alf, and to your good wife, Emmy, we thank you very much for your contribution to our community. I am sure that members on both sides of the House will applaud your contribution to our community in particular and to the Northern Territory in general.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM: I also wish to speak tonight about a young gentleman, Daniel Bourchier. Daniel has just returned from a student exchange in Canada. At the Croc Festival a couple of weeks ago, Daniel and I were having a discussion, and I asked him if he would be prepared to put something in writing about his experience overseas. I would like to read that, if I may.
- What could make you want to turn your life upside down, leave the comfort of your family and travel overseas on an exchange? The answer is quite simple: opportunities don’t come very often, and when one does come along, you want to grasp it and take complete advantage of it. I am almost 18 and have just returned home from a youth exchange in Canada. I have to admit that it was one of the most amazing years of my life. I had some of the most amazing experiences while away. One of these was when I stepped off a plane in Grand Prairie, North Alberta.
No feeling can match the way you feel when you step into the airport and look around for that family that I was going to become part of and spend the next 10 months with. It was kind of different for me because, as it turned out, my host family were running late, and so I waited for 10 minutes for them to come. This may not seem like long, but when you have all these emotions going through you, it seems like an eternity. All fears are extinguished when they do appear and willingly invite you to become part of their life.
Over the next 10 months, I experienced everything from gridiron …
Daniel describes this as a Canadian version of footy:
- … bitter cold, peaking at –50o, to a typical Canadian prom. All the while, I was making not only friends from my town, Valley View, but I was making lasting friendships with many other exchange students from all parts of the world. Being that I live in the outback of Australia, I had never seen snow, much less skied and made snowmen. I visited both Jasper and Banff, two world-renowned national parks with equally renowned skiing opportunities.
I believe that going on an international exchange is a great learning avenue and is full of great opportunities. Regardless of where you choose to go, you will be seeing other parts of the world, you will make lifelong friends, your perspective of life will broaden, and you will be able to understand why things happen around the world, and have tolerance and understanding of other cultures. I believe to go on an exchange, you have to have an open mind, and have to be willing to give different things a try, and you will have an absolute blast, and it will be for you, just like it was for me, an absolutely amazing year.
Of course, it is not all peachy, and you are bound to face some unexpected turns, but such is life. If you were to say no, I don’t want to go on an exchange because something could go wrong, I would say you are missing a great opportunity and it is a decision that you will surely regret. When asked recently if it was something that I would do again, I explained that I would jump at the opportunity. But having now come home, I have friends scattered around the world, so the next time I travel I will be able to visit friends everywhere. I have now come back from cloud nine and am settling back into life in Australia, which is okay, because I am now planning my trip to visit my host family and friends in a year or two.
Since coming home, I have developed a newfound optimism and now feel inspired to do something for my community. It is with this idea that I have decided to start organising a huge and spectacular event for next year to correspond with our annual Desert Harmony. I plan to try and get a few renowned Australian bands to Tennant Creek, and try and spread the word about what opportunities await, as well as the important message that alcohol and drugs usage is not necessary. It would be similar to the BassintheGrass events held earlier this year in both Alice Springs in Darwin, but it would be on a smaller scale. The only problem that I am facing is finding adequate funding for such an event. Thanks for taking the time to read of my adventures and ideas.
Daniel, I thank you for your letter. I know that you will work very hard in trying to get an event next year which will benefit all the youth in Tennant Creek. I trust you will be able to play a very active role in the community in Tennant Creek for many years to come. Daniel, again, thank you very much, and I know that I will provide as much assistance as I can in getting money for a youth concert in Tennant Creek next year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to join the member for Barkly in congratulating both Alf Chittock and Emmy. I have known this couple for many years. In the days when I was working as Occupational Health and Safety Medical Officer for Peko Mines, I was based at Warrego. That is where I met Emmy. I met Alf as the Mayor of Tennant Creek when, in my capacity as the Deputy Mayor of Alice Springs, we used to have good conversations about local government. I wish both Alf and Emmy well in their long years in connection with Tennant Creek. It is good to hear that he has been awarded Life Membership of the Labor Party, which he supports, for very many long years of service. I congratulate the member for Barkly for raising this tonight.
However, what I stood up for tonight, is to comment about the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Over the last few days of the sittings, I have raised several issues pertaining to Alice Springs in adjournments, and at other times with him. This man must just simply be absolutely inept. We talked about lack of land in Alice Springs and what he is going to do about it; land in Alice Springs is actually locked up without any definite date of land release at Larapinta Stage 4. I spoke last night, and I gave the minister names and phone numbers of developments south of Heavitree Gap in Alice Springs, with a total of some 420 allotments. Having received Development Consent Authority advice to go ahead, it is being held up because the minister refuses to meet with the developers. They have tried, and their efforts have been in vain. They have rung his office trying to get an appointment. The people were prepared to fly up to Darwin on Monday so that they could meet with the minister on Tuesday. That opportunity was lost. This week, they tried again – once again, the opportunity was lost.
Now we hear that the minister is going to Greece for the next three weeks, so this project is going to be held up for at least another three weeks before they can even access the minister. They then tried the Chief Minister. She made a promise that, if her ministers were not available, she would make herself available. There you go; they have missed out again. Even with the two ministers, they cannot get to see this government. Therefore, a development which will significantly release land in Alice Springs once more is going to be deferred for a further three weeks. And I bet you the first day the minister comes back is not going to be the day he is going to go back to work.
Where do we go from there? A minister who is so very inept – no wonder he got into trouble today. I will bet that he is probably in with the Chief Minister now getting strips torn off him for the way he put the government into such an embarrassing position. I was listening to his interview with Julia Christensen this afternoon. He said that he first came to know abut the web site and his presence on the web site several weeks ago – several weeks ago - and he did nothing about it until this afternoon. You have to wonder why he did that; why there was such a long delay between the time he first noticed it and the time he took it off - if he had nothing to do with it. I just wonder.
While the motion was moved along party lines - obviously there is not going to be much of a chance for the 10 of us on this side to make any difference in voting - I thought we made our point.
Another matter that has come to my attention relates again to the very same minister who has continued to demonstrate his ineptitude. This is in relation to a couple of houses in Taylor Street in the Larapinta area. Since November last year, the residents of one of the houses there has had great difficulties when the empty block next door came under development. The property in question is an established home with a family living in it. Suddenly, next door a block of land that is slightly elevated showed signs of being developed. The house that was being built, and is now pretty well completed, was not built consistent with the plans. The building is probably some three or four metres higher than it should have been. But what has troubled the owner of the established home is that the walls of this home is built with ZINCALUME and, as a result, sunlight reflects off the building to such a degree that it shines into the backyard and the house of the established home next door.
The people in the established home have been making entreaties to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and sought an audience with the minister. After several months and a lot of pressure from the shadow minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, the minister saw the people, but then did very little apart from saying: ‘Yes, we will provide you with mediation and you can work through with the mediator’. So far, they have had several meetings with the mediator and nothing has come of it. The poor residents of this home are at their wits end as to what to do. It appears that they have already spent something like $30 000 or $40 000 in legal fees to try to get this issue addressed, but they are not getting very far at all.
They also went to their local town council in Alice Springs to ask for their assistance. Here is a letter that was written and signed by the Mayor of Alice Springs Town Council on 11 August 2003. The letter was addressed to Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA, Minister for Lands and Planning.
Dear Minister
Re: Reflective Building Materials.
- At the council meeting of 28 July 2003, concern was raised regarding the use of inappropriate building material on a new house that is having a serious adverse effect on a neighbour. The new house has a reflective external wall cladding that reflects light directly into the neighbour’s outdoor and internal living areas. Council believes that there should be appropriate controls in either the planning legislation or the building legislation to prevent the use of reflective material that will have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
- Council would appreciate if you could amend the appropriate legislation to ensure that reflective material is not used as an external cladding on residential housing.
- I appreciate your consideration on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Fran Kilgariff
Mayor
This matter has gone as far as the local council bringing the minister’s attention to it. For some 10 months or so, the people in the residence have suffered great hardship; it is causing a lot of distress for the whole family. One of the children, as a result of the glare, was so bedazzled she actually walked through a pane of glass that was part of the back door that opens from the lounge room into the backyard, and suffered a very severe cut to her face that requires plastic surgery. That is how bad it is. I have been to that house, I have checked it out and, indeed, the glare is very, very significant, in the summer months more so than the winter months.
This minister has allowed this problem to go on and on and on, and has not done anything about it, apart from providing mediation, when he has the ability to fix it once and for all. The minister has the authority and the ability to sort out the land release in Larapinta and he has done very little about it. The minister has the ability and the authority to deal with the land release south of Heavitree Gap at the Emily Hills area, and he has done nothing about it. Now he goes on a three-week government-funded sojourn - I would call it - in Greece. I hope he has a good time over there, and when he comes back that he gets on with his work and makes sure that Territorians are not suffering as a result of his ineptitude and his long, government-paid time in Greece.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am going to talk tonight about being able to ask the Minister for Health and Community Services questions about her portfolio. As we know, several months ago we went through the estimates process, where the opposition has an opportunity to quiz the government on the budget and the plans for the year to come, and what they have done in the previous year.
After the estimates process, in which I was quizzing the minister on the area of Health and Community Services, I found that I had a number of important questions that had not been asked. I wrote to the minister, and I am going to read some of that letter:
- Dear Minister,
As you know, I was unable to ask many of the questions I had prepared due to the limited time made available to me for the scrutiny of the Department of Health and Community Services’ budget during this week’s estimates process.
Like you, I consider this area of the government’s budget very important and so, on behalf of Territorians, I submit a number of the questions I was unable to ask.
I am sure you will notice many of these questions are the same as were asked last year and for which you provided the information during the estimates process then.
I am hopeful that in preparing for this week’s activity, your staff will already have compiled much of the information I now request.
I will read some of the questions that I asked. The first are from the area known as Acute Services:
- Last year, $500 000 worth of extra staff for the RDH Emergency Department was promised in the minister’s budget speech. Were these new positions created? What were they?
For 2001-02, break down on a monthly basis and detail the waiting lists for elective surgery in all five Territory hospitals.
What was the total number and cost of bed days purchased from Darwin Private Hospital in 2002-03?
How many times were double shifts worked by Registered Nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital? Please provide the information for the year 2002-03 broken down into months.
Another area that I asked questions about was Community Health Services. Here are some examples:
- Last year, in a document called Building our Communities on page 16, the government committed to support the introduction of Indigenous Health Care Manuals. Did this occur?
Last year, in the same publication, the government committed to develop and implement mandatory and standardised child health monitoring programs in every remote community. If this has happened, could you advise who is doing it, how much does it cost, which communities have it, and what have been some of the early findings?
The Bansemer Report, on page 90, heralds a review of non-government organisation funding. Is that review under way and, if so, when will it be completed? Will the report be made public?
Another area is called Non-Output Specific. Here are a couple of examples of the questions that I put to the minister:
- Given the concerns held about the excessive use of prescription drugs such as oral morphine, what is the current status of the Pain Clinic at Royal Darwin Hospital? Where do people wanting to get off drugs like oral morphine now go?
The new Aggression Policy was to be evaluated every six months. At least two evaluation periods have now passed. What were the findings of the evaluation of the Aggression Policy, which was introduced in February 2002?
What percentage of nursing staff were on sick leave for each of the public hospitals in the Northern Territory for the year 2002-03? Please provide this information in a table broken down into months.
They are just some of the questions. I concluded the letter with:
- I would be happy to wait until the end of this financial year for these answers so that I can get a full 12-month picture of the data.
Minister, I would like to thank you and your staff in anticipation of receiving answers to these questions. If you or any of your staff would like to discuss any matters arise, please do not hesitate to contact me.
- Dear Ms Carter
I refer to your letter dated 27 June 2003, regarding further estimates questions relating to the budget of the Department of Health and Community Services. I was somewhat dismayed to read that you had insufficient time to ask all your questions, when you had four-and-a-half hours in which to ask questions, and you were the main questioner of the portfolio. How the time was spent was entirely up to you.
Dr Lim: What an arrogant response!
Ms CARTER: That is true, member for Greatorex.
- I was also amazed that you say you had further questions relating to acute services, community health, public health services, family and children’s services, and yet a simple look at the Hansard had you saying: ‘No further questions’ and the output areas were then closed. Perhaps you would like to check the records to refresh your memory. Clearly, these are questions after the program. In relation to the other questions, these matters would require several officers some weeks to prepare, as some of the material is not readily available.
The minister concludes very graciously with:
However, to assist you, I have asked my CEO, Mr Robert Griew, to provide you with a briefing to follow up on some of your queries. He is available at the following times …
Blah, blah, blah, blah:
- … one hour for each of the offered time periods, and can be contacted through my office.
I will explore a couple of the points the minister raised in her letter to me. First of all, she put it to me that I got all of four-and-a-half hours. I will concede I certainly got and, much to the member for Nelson’s dismay, took most of that time. I know he had a number of questions he wanted to ask, but we ran out of time. My point has always been that we do not get enough time in the estimates process to scrutinise the budget as we should be able to. Under the CLP, when we were in government, ministers were scrutinised by the opposition for as long as the opposition wanted to. They could ask as many questions as they wanted to and, sometimes I believe, that went for eight, 10 and, I believe at one point, even 12 hours - whatever it took. However, we are given four-and-a-half hours, and we are meant to be pretty grateful about that. Well, I am not.
Another comment in the minister’s response to me was this one about how, according to her, that in the Hansard I had said no further questions, ergo, there were no more questions to ask. The reality is, of course, when you only have four-and-a-half hours, and you get in there, you do not know exactly how long it is going to take the minister to filibuster through her answers. Therefore, you do not know exactly how much time you are going to have available for your questions. You go in with a certain number of questions. I can assure the Assembly that I culled my questions way back. I remember when I was preparing for estimates, I had approximately 150 questions to ask. I do not think I got anywhere near that; I might have been lucky to have asked 40. I culled my questions back to what I felt were the absolute essentials, and I went into that estimates process with those questions. However, as the process went along, I was watching the clock the whole time, and I was having to make judgments as to where I have to close off my questioning in a certain category in order to get on to the categories further along in the program. Because if I was to ask all my questions in the first couple of categories, the end result would have been the bell would have tolled, and I would have been out of time and unable to get on to the final category where, I might add, I had a number of very important questions which had to be asked.
It meant that, at the end of the process in these very important health service areas, I had important questions that still needed asking, and I did not consider it unreasonable to put it to the minister to answer those questions. Instead, she came back with this letter which, at best, can only be described as churlish and, at worst, arrogant. This is an arrogant response to my request for information. It is a right that I have as a shadow minister for Health to ask these questions, and the minister should be answering them. Why should she be answering them? Because she is a member of the open and accountable Martin Labor government; the government that Territorians voted into power because of the promise that they would be open and accountable.
Therefore, if we slip to the dictionary – it is the Macquarie - and we have a look at this really interesting word that gets bandied around wherever you see a Labor government in power: ‘accountable’. What does it mean? Well, accountable is all about: ‘liable to be called to account, responsible’. What does ‘account’ mean? ‘Account’ is: ‘an explanatory statement of conduct’. Accountability - we certainly are not getting it from the Minister for Health and Community Services, that is for sure.
I can ensure the House that I am going to meet with the CEO. I am going to take up this gracious and generous offer of one hour with the CEO. I am obviously going to have to take my 27 questions and make choices about which ones I need to pursue with the CEO. Then, of course, the remaining are going to be submitted as Questions on Notice, which I can do - and which I will do. It is a shame that we are forced into this activity when all I had asked was, quite reasonably, for the minister to be generous, open and accountable. However, but she is not - at best, churlish, at worst, arrogant.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to start in response to the sanctimonious claptrap from the member for Port Darwin. You talk about accountability. The accountability is on each and every member of parliament to at least be here in this parliament when parliament is sitting. The shadow Health minister disappeared last week, missed Question Time for half a day - abrogating her responsibilities, not only as shadow Health minister but also member for Port Darwin - to attend some important meeting with the federal Health Minister, Kay Patterson. Well, for the Hansard record …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister know full well that he should not be reflecting on the presence of any member in this Chamber, whenever, and he should withdraw that.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in regards to the presence or otherwise of the member is in the current debate, but it is public record that …
Dr LIM: It is irrelevant; you do not reflect on a member.
Mr HENDERSON: The Leader of the Opposition is on the public record explaining why the shadow Health minister and the member for Goyder were absent from parliament last week.
Dr LIM: The minister should not be reflecting on any member’s presence or otherwise, at any time.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It obviously shows I have hit a raw nerve.
I would like to point out the airline schedules. We have these things called the red-eye specials where, if you are really keen and you have to get to the eastern seaboard for business on a Friday morning, you can go on a Thursday night. However, the members for Port Darwin and Goyder were too lazy to do that. So, as far as accountability, the member for Port Darwin needs to have a bit of a look in the mirror before she starts throwing stones at the Health minister. However, I digress.
We are all aware of the important role the Defence personnel play in our community. Defence personnel and their families also play a role in supporting each other. On Saturday, 9 August, I was proud to be invited to acknowledge and reward those in the Defence community who have given up their valuable time and work to enhance the quality of the Defence lifestyle, and to those who lend a helping hand. Earlier this year, the Defence community was invited to nominate those special people who volunteer - be it in a sports, family and child support programs, playgroups, arts and crafts, dinners and other Defence functions. The winner was selected on the number of nominations, and this year there were over 151 nominations, which resulted in 64 people being individually recognised.
I had the pleasure to present 10 of those awards and, again, congratulate all of the nominees and all of the award winners. I table a list of all of those award winners, which will save some of the time in debate tonight.
All volunteers are vital to any community, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Boyd McMahon as the recipient of the Defence Volunteer of the Year Award. Boyd received the highest number of nominations and not surprisingly so. Boyd was recognised for the valuable time and dedication he puts into the Larrakeyah Judo Club, training both children and adults, some of whom compete at a national level. On top of instruction and training, Boyd also helps out with numerous club functions and gives up a lot of his own personal time to achieve the judo club goals. His professionalism, patience and good humour and, more importantly, his ability to impart his knowledge of the sport make him a much-loved and admired teacher. A quote from one of his younger nominees:
- Boyd has been teaching judo for lots of years and not getting paid, and now he helps at tournaments.
- His attitude to youth development is inspirational, and he is truly deserving of this honour.
In an extract from the judo club’s web site, I quote:
- In January 2001, Dan Boyd McMahon returned to Darwin from Perth, Western Australia and became the club’s 5th coach. Originally from Brisbane, Boyd had previously been the Northern Territory coach and was also the inaugural coach for the NT Institute of Sport. In May 2002, Boyd obtained his 3rd Dan black belt. He was the club coach until standing aside at the AGM in May 2003 due to impending first time parenthood. He remains a club member, occasional visitor, and a vocal supporter at local competitions.
Congratulations again to all award winners and nominees and congratulations to the Defence support organisation for initiating these awards. It really was a good function, to see all those families out there recognising the support that is part of their community, and was really great to attend.
It gives me pleasure to talk about a great event that happened recently at one of the schools in my electorate. As part of St Andrew Lutheran Primary’s 20th Anniversary, they received government funding towards and artist in school program. John Hazeldene took up position as Artist in Residence at the school to create a student sculpture. He began his work in April. The project ran for 10 weeks and involved the students and John Hazeldene in the design, plan and construction of a wall sculpture that included images of the children on galvanised sheet steel. Each image was cut out and individually painted before being attached to external walls around the school. Work from every year has been included on each wall, including some great work from the Transition class.
St Andrew’s provided the artist with a studio and the students could get to know the artist and how he worked. John Hazeldene also invited parents for a special information evening so they could learn first-hand about the work their children were doing on the project. Teachers and clerical staff also took part and, in the end, the installation of in excess of 100 steel images took a further three weeks to complete.
I went to the unveiling of the art and I must say it looks magnificent. It really adds great character to the school and will be a great reminder to the school for years to come. I believe in a school reunion in about 20 years time, those adults will have fun looking back trying to identify themselves as children at the school. I congratulate St Andrew’s on getting this project off the ground and letting the children express themselves, which positively adds to the school and the children’s pride. I also thank John Hazeldene for developing the concept, and helping the students bring it to completion. Well done to everybody.
I would like to provide a testimonial report on a long-serving member of my department who, sadly, passed away on 16 June 2003. Mr Harry Harmer was a long-serving and valuable member of the former Department of Mines and Energy, now DBIRD. Harry possessed a vast knowledge of the legislation, prospectors, explorers, miners, entrepreneurs, rogues, and wheelers and dealers in the mining industry. He was well recognised, appreciated and highly respected throughout his public service career as the font of knowledge, the walking encyclopedia, on both the repealed Mining Act 1939 and the current Mining Act.
His long-term memory was faultless, and no one could put anything over him. Harry had a very good rapport with all clients, even the rogues, for they respected his knowledge and interpretation of the legislation. Harry was, throughout his time at Mines and Energy the guru Clerk of the Mining Wardens Court. Fierce competition for ground with a number of famous or infamous boundary disputes featured in Harry’s court life. On a few occasions, Harry represented the department before the Supreme Court. He gained the respect of the magistrates, and often would be called upon to assist the Warden with advice on the application of the Mining Act.
Harry was a Vietnam Veteran and, in some ways, this had a profound effect on his outlook on life. Furthermore, Cyclone Tracy blew away his family home, and caused another personal tragic period in his life. Regardless, he maintained a positive outlook to life and a great sense of humour. Harry made a huge contribution to the department, the Warden’s Court and to the mining industry. On behalf of the government, I send my sympathy to his family, friends and colleagues.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016