2002-03-05
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 10 and 11 Darwin High School students, accompanied by their teachers, Sara Weylen and Jeanine Matheson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a ministerial report on the progress of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, a great success story.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Let’s celebrate success, don’t be miserly, let’s celebrate success.
Everyone would be aware that the Alice Springs Convention Centre has been constructed as part of Lasseters Casino. The convention centre will open for business at the end of March, this month, and will position Alice Springs as a new business tourism destination in its own right. The convention centre will accommodate 1100 delegates theatre style and allow for a banquet of about 800. The development included building an extra 74 hotel rooms and refurbishing the existing 74 at the casino. It has also been a catalyst for the refurbishment of neighbouring Rydges Hotel.
Since the convention centre began taking bookings six months ago, 10 000 delegate reservations have been made with reservations held out as far as 2009. In 2002, 2200 delegates are booked. A federal Bureau of Tourism Research study called Meetings Make Their Mark estimated that a four-day convention with 600 delegates generates $1m expenditure in the local economy. This extends to local small businesses such as florists, coach companies, taxis, restaurants, dry cleaners and printers, and of course, more. The same size convention is also estimated to create or sustain the employment of 12 people directly and six people indirectly.
The convention centre will officially be opened on 25 May. In September, it will host the Australian Tourist Commission’s Dreamtime business trade show. This is a real coup for Central Australia. Although selected Dreamtime participants have toured the Centre in previous years, this is the first time the trade show itself will be held in the Centre. It will be a fantastic opportunity for the Centre to promote itself to a whole range of international business travel wholesalers.
An important point to make about the convention centre is that it will act as a catalyst to the development and growth of Central Australian businesses. The conference and incentives markets not only brings big groups of people in, but they are very exacting in their demands. Conference organisers want an experience that their clients will always remember, and they can be hard task masters in achieving this. Alice Springs has experience with big numbers of people. For example, it deals with the Masters Games every second year with huge success. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that accommodation houses, restaurants and tour operators will now have an extra stimulus to develop product to answer the specialised needs of the conference and incentives market.
The more of these big groups we have in, the more our businesses will develop the capability to respond to their needs creatively and, I think, brilliantly. The more business generated from the convention centre, the more they will be able to reinvest in their businesses and grow them to new and better levels. Already, some operators are being assisted to develop their business to be able to expand their product to cater for very large groups. The tourism industry in the Territory has had some tough times following 11 September and the demise of Ansett. However, the Alice Springs Convention Centre is a very good story that will help shape the growth of tourism in the Centre over the next few years.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the convention centre team at Lasseters Casino who are a highly efficient and effective team and are doing an extremely good job of showing the conventions and incentives markets throughout the world what a good job Alice Springs can do.
May I also say that this side of the House is not trying to claim credit, of any sort, for the initiative of the convention centre to be built. I congratulate, very strongly, the former government and the work they did. All along, this has been a project that has had bipartisan support.
Mr Burke: Absolutely. Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: So from this side of the House, let me put it very firmly on the record, it was a good initiative from the CLP administration and one that we strongly support now and strongly supported at the time.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the closing comments of the Chief Minister, which weren’t part of her script, give us some comfort. Her comments wouldn’t appear so ingenuous in this parliament at this time if one reflected on the Hansard. When one reflects on the Hansard, one would see that there was not bipartisan support for that convention centre at all. There was criticism by the opposition about the amount of money that the government, at the time, put towards subsidising that very important initiative in Alice Springs. That is the truth of it.
It is almost as if, all of a sudden when you become government, some significant emotional event occurs and issues that you criticised in the past all of a sudden become cause for celebration. It is cause for great celebration; it is a celebration of a government that took risks, a government that was prepared to see where the future of Alice Springs lay, where risks were needed in order to grow the tourist market in Alice Springs. That is what we did and, I can say to you it was one of a pair.
I look forward to seeing the initiative of this new government with regards to the Darwin Convention Centre. There is one proposal that is public knowledge, that is from Darwin City Council, and we know there are a number of other proposals because they were being developed whilst we were in government. I look forward to a risk-taking government, a government that sees the future of Darwin the same way as Alice Springs and promotes and encourages a convention centre in this great city.
I would say to you that, with regards to the Alice Springs Convention Centre and its future success, there are enormous challenges ahead - enormous challenges with regards to how we get good transportation links into Alice Springs and, certainly, transportation links that have not been progressed sufficiently, in the opposition’s mind, by this new government by getting greater seat capacity into Alice Springs.
Also, I would say to you that I look forward to seeing just how the Masters Games are coming together because we hear many stories that those games have difficulties in terms of how successful they will be this year. I look forward to seeing what this government is actually doing to promote the Masters Games and further air capacity in Alice Springs in aiding the future of that convention centre.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is always very disappointing when the Opposition Leader stands up and goes into a whinge and whine about what is a good story for the Territory and a great story for Alice Springs. I think it is interesting that the former Chief Minister would try to rewrite history when, certainly, for a considerable time as Opposition Leader, I pushed and prodded the then government to take the steps that were needed to be taken to get a convention centre in Alice Springs - and they had to be pushed and prodded.
Enough of that. This is a good news story. If the former Chief Minister simply wants to rewrite history and then accompany that with whingeing and whining, then people will judge him on that. It is a good news story; it does have great potential in the Centre. The figures are looking great for the bookings over the next decade which, again, augers well for both the convention business and Alice Springs businesses generally. I am not coming in here and saying it was our initiative. This is a good Territory initiative and it is one that is going to work. I hope that it has strong bipartisan support for its continued success.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I wish to address the House this morning on the Northern Territory Police Special Crime Unit. This unit has the overarching role of investigating and combating property crime via dedicated units currently operating within the Darwin and Alice Springs regions. The primary objectives of the Special Crime Unit are: the detection and apprehension of persons committing unlawful entries and home invasions upon homes and businesses; the stealing of motor vehicles and the illegal trade and disposal of stolen property; the recovery of stolen property; and the reduction in the incidence of property crime overall.
In Darwin, the Special Crime Unit consists of eight detectives and four general duty officers operating from Casuarina, Darwin and Palmerston local police offices; while the Alice Springs contingent has four detectives. The commitment of police tasked in this specific crime area is evident by recent arrests and recovery of suspected stolen property. For the month of February 2002 alone, the Darwin region Special Crime Unit has executed four search warrants on premises, recovered property valued in excess of $25 000, and arrested seven persons for over 60 offences.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr STIRLING: By way of example, on 1 February 2002 the Palmerston local police office Special Crime Unit charged one offender with 40 offences relating to unlawful entry and stealing, primarily committed upon Darwin business premises, in which property valued in excess of $95 000 had been stolen. During the same period, Alice Springs-based detectives recovered property valued in excess of $11 500 and charged two offenders with 21 property-related offences.
Regional intelligence officers have been deployed in the Darwin and Alice Springs regions to enhance the collation and dissemination of intelligence on criminal suspects and crime trends, predominantly focussing upon property-related crime. This enables a targeted response by both detectives and uniform patrol members. The introduction of the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, NAFIS, and the implementation of LiveScan fingerprinting within the Northern Territory have provided significant benefit in that crimes, including property crimes, have been cleared up. There was a total of 201 cases where fingerprints were lifted from which 140 offenders were identified in the six month period 1 July to 31 December 2001.
The use of DNA database technology has provided a significant forensic investigation tool in the fight against volume crime. In the last six months of 2001, 70 DNA profiles have been analysed from scenes of crime, with 56 offenders being identified. These examples of the work and role of the Special Crime Unit are significant and form a part of the ongoing, continuous improvement process towards the enforcement and investigation of property crime.
Last week in this Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition called into question the operational effectiveness and morale in the Northern Territory Police Force. So today, as a counter balance to that criticism being levelled by the Leader of the Opposition, I have been pleased to report to the House some recent successes the Northern Territory Police have had, focussing on the Special Crime Unit. As identified today, the Northern Territory police are doing a great job and I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to provide some balance to the criticism of recent times.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if one takes the last point first, the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for police knows exactly what happened in this Chamber last week. What happened in this Chamber last week was primarily the police minister lying in this House about …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is going to suggest I was lying, he needs to do so by way of substantive motion, and I ask him to bring it on.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you cannot accuse someone of lying except by way of substantive motion.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment. I am quite happy to bring on a substantive motion, but we know how the police minister deals with substantive motions of that nature; and that is he does not address the issue at hand, as he did not address the debate in this Chamber last week. To suggest that there were allegations raised about the conduct of police operations in support of the current Police Commissioner, that is something that police themselves will decide and, notwithstanding your press release, I have sent a full transcript of the Hansard out to police and they can judge for themselves the nature of that debate as they are already doing.
With regards to the Special Crime Unit, I applaud that initiative. I say it in the context of it being the type of initiative that needs to be widely promulgated to the general public, and it needs to counter the perceptions that are being given by some senior police officers because I have attended any number of forums where the perception being given to the community is that police are adequately resourced in their current structure. There is no doubt that right throughout the Northern Territory - and it amazes me in a place like Palmerston where I centre my efforts - the perception of rising crime rates is truly alarming. The public needs to understand exactly how police are dealing with it and where special units are put in place - and this seems to me to be similar to Operation Surf that was quite effective in the past and, I might add, criticised by some of the senior echelons of police as not being truly effective.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is a good story. It is something we will support and I wish it well in its success in the future.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his lukewarm support, I would suggest. It is a bit hard for him to come in here this morning and wholeheartedly embrace the efforts of the police. We do have in the Northern Territory a wonderful police force and a wonderful police commissioner in Commissioner White. It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition to come in here this morning and seek, within a matter of days, to rewrite the history book - when he came in here with a motion last week suggesting that morale was shot in the police force. One thing the Northern Territory Police Force has always had is the utmost confidence and trust of the Northern Territory public. Every time that the Leader of the Opposition brings in a motion of that nature, I read it as him trying to undermine the trust and confidence that the public of the Northern Territory have in our police force. I thank him for his support of the Special Crime Unit.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform the House of a meeting I attended on Friday 1 March in Melbourne involving Commonwealth, state and territory community services ministers. We met to progress discussions on a third Commonwealth, State and Territories Disability Agreement, CSTDA, and a range of other policy issues.
The Commonwealth, State and Territory Disability Agreement is a document of both practical and symbolic importance. At the request of Northern Territory and ACT ministers, a third agreement will be referred to as the Commonwealth, State and Territory Disability Agreement to reflect the involvement of the territories rather than the former CSTDA.
The agreement provides a framework that will help guide and strengthen the relationship between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments - and with others - to make a positive difference in the lives of people with a disability. For the first time, at the request of consumers and service providers, the agreement includes a preamble that affirms the partnership between the jurisdictions in the pursuit of a just and inclusive society.
This preamble has been drafted by the National Disability Advisory Council in consultation with advisory councils in each state and territory. It also recognises that both levels of government fulfil complementary roles in the development and delivery of public policy and services, and that both have a pivotal role in promoting the rights, equality of opportunity, citizenship and dignity of people with a disability. The agreement is based on the premise that communities are enriched by the inclusion of people with a disability and that positive assumption about the gifts and capacity of people with a disability are fundamental to their experience of a good life.
Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as parties to this agreement, seek to work cooperatively to build inclusive communities where people with a disability, their families and carers, are valued and are equal participants in all aspects of life. In the pursuit of this vision, both levels of governments recognise that people with a disability have rights equal with other members of the Australian community, and should be enabled to exercise their rights.
At the meeting, in response to calls from the federal Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone, for several things - better accountability and transparency of funding; improved choice; better access and increased participation of people with disabilities in the community - all ministers reaffirmed their commitment to an equitable distribution of resources across jurisdictions, and agreed with the resolution of funding arrangements and equity issues will occur through the multilateral CSTDA negotiations in the coming months.
I would like to take the opportunity to inform the House that I have recently approved the $1.2m allocation of the 2001-02 Disability Services Unmet Needs Funding following consideration of the priority areas and constraints of the available budget. Areas that received funding included: early childhood intervention; post-school options programs; remote area services; respite targeted at families with children 0 to 12 years with special needs; equipment and funding for people with high support needs; and funding for service system reform. I am only too aware that the funding that I have just mentioned does not go anywhere near meeting the needs of those people with a disability in the Northern Territory. However, I am confident that this government is steadily progressing towards creating a more sustainable and robust service network for people with disabilities, their families and their carers.
At the meeting last Friday, ministers also noted progress on three major research projects focussing on unmet need for disability services, management of demand, and the impact of funding made available under the second CSDA. The results of these three projects will be available in late April, early May, and will inform further negotiations at a June meeting of ministers, particularly around the Commonwealth, state and territory financial obligations under the new agreement.
In addition, all states and territories are committed to enhancing access to employment services and improved collaboration and coordination across employment and community access for people with a disability, in particular those with high support needs.
In conclusion, I want to state that this government’s commitment to providing the best possible services for people with disabilities, and their families, is paramount.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we have, yet again, the sorry spectacle of the minister standing up and reading something prepared for her that she has no heart in. It is very sad, when you hear the whingeing and whining that this minister uses to describe her portfolio area. Yes, it is a difficult area, but this business about not enough money that we heard on the radio this morning and the difficulties in the disability sector - the previous government had been working since the International Year of the Disabled in 1981 and before to build a fairly robust disability sector. The difficulty we have with this minister assuming government is that she refused to speak to the sector. They were referred, instead, to the member for Karama, and when they attempted to get in, they were given a standard letter which said, and this is from Minister Aagaard:
Since being appointed to the portfolio of Minister for Health and Community Services, I have received
requests to meet over 500 organisations and individuals - Can’t meet you all, sorry, go and talk to my
personal staff.
20 November 2001.
Unfortunately, some of these organisations that have been seeking meetings before this time - before 20 November last year - still have not got in; still have not got to talk to this minister. So, it is all very well talking about consulting, it is all very well talking about how you are going do more for the sector. You should listen, you should hear what the sector is saying, because this person here is only able to stand up and parrot things that have been written for her. She has no heart and no passion for this portfolio area, and she is completely devoid of emotion about this very important area to the extent that she refuses, pretty much, to speak to them. The sector, I know, is having difficulty in getting through to her, and I suggest that if she’s to be seen as being entirely transparent, open and truthful in this matter, she should speak to them.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it is a mystery to me what the member for Drysdale is talking about given the large number of people I have seen in my office, both non-government and other areas of the portfolio.
In relation to the disability sector, we have had two major forums. Yes, I was very happy to have the assistance of the member for Karama with this; she has considerable experience in the area of disability and was very helpful in the projects. The sector itself has informed us that they are extremely happy with the dealings of this government, and they have been saying to us that they have never been listened to before. So, I am very sorry if the member for Drysdale is not happy with the situation that the sector is actually happy with me. I will continue to work with the Commonwealth and the other states in relation to the agreement, and we will get the best possible agreement for the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House on a matter of national importance and the steps we are taking to address it. I refer to land clearing, and I intend to speak slowly.
In other states, particularly Queensland, this is a matter of great environmental concern. In the past, large tracts of land have been cleared, sometimes with the encouragement of governments. Now we are paying dearly for such practices, we can see, with increasing salinity and erosion problems.
In the Territory, we are fortunate that wholesale land clearing has not occurred. The majority of this clearing was in urban centres, the Litchfield Shire, the Katherine-Daly catchment and the Coomalie Community Government Council areas. This is the result of urban sprawl, development of infrastructure and pressure for the development of agricultural business. The total area of land cleared in the Territory is approximately 4300 km2, or 0.03% of the land of the Northern Territory. This figure has been calculated from records of clearing and interpretation of satellite images.
Since taking government, my department and I have been working on the development of an appropriate policy and guidelines for land clearing. We all understand that the future development of the Territory will involve some clearing. It is, therefore, timely that the Martin government produces guidelines to assist people in undertaking clearing, to minimise as much as possible the impact of such clearing on the environment, which, after all, belongs to all of us and to future generations.
We have now developed these guidelines for land clearing and I am very pleased to launch the guidelines today. These guidelines are for all areas of the Territory, for broadacre development and subdivisions outside of pastoral leases. They reflect best management practices of land clearing in the Territory and will be periodically reassessed in accordance with comments received from community and industry. They are contained within this book.
The land clearing guidelines document is not a dry, technical document. It is simple; it is written to provide information to all stakeholders. It provides examples, photographs, diagrams and advice as to what to do and what not to do with land clearing. I have also asked the department to translate this document into other languages, because a large number of people who work in the agriculture business are from non-English speaking backgrounds.
The next step in this process is the development of a policy on land clearing. A draft policy for the clearing of native vegetation in the Territory is currently being prepared for Cabinet consideration. The draft policy is to be implemented by the Planning Act and it is proposed that there will be a requirement for land clearing to be subject to approval on all tenures. The community will be advised and consulted on the draft document and the issues associated with the policy implementation in the next six months, and we will also have further consultation with the Commonwealth.
It is not only our intention, but it is also our responsibility, to safeguard our environment for future generations. Let’s not forget that our environment is a significant factor in our unique Territory lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I preface my reply by asking the minister to table the guidelines that he just talked about so that we can have a look at them.
Mr Vatskalis: They will be tabled.
Mr BALDWIN: It is pertinent that people understand, right around Australia, that the Northern Territory has only 0.03% of its entire land mass cleared. That includes all of the urban development, Litchfield, of course, places like Alice Springs and, particularly, our farming areas.
It is another pertinent point of interest to have a look at the Douglas-Daly area which comes under a lot of fire. The minister will hear it from time to time when he is talking to particularly his federal counterparts, how they all focus on Douglas-Daly - and the Environment Centre focuses on Douglas-Daly. I would ask the minister to go down to Douglas-Daly and make yourself fully aware of the layout down there because it has been an area that’s been developed in good practice, and no one can deny that. Our departments in the Northern Territory have done a great job in ensuring that the right thing has been done there.
Guidelines and policy development on land clearing, obviously, will be a very contentious issue. It will be one that I will be watching very closely. I know landholders in the Northern Territory are going to be watching it very closely. I hope they get a reasonable chance to be consulted and work through on these guidelines. I hope you do not come up with what your federal counterparts came up with in the federal election: when they were running up into the campaign, they put out a policy document that talked about zero land clearing controls right across Australia. That’s something that we can do without; we are a developing jurisdiction and we have to do it in a practical way so that the areas of the NT that are going to become the focus for production of food in the future can develop in a suitable way.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, land clearing is certainly a very important issue and I welcome the minister’s statement today. I just want to make sure that people do not get carried away with the 0.03%. You could make that 0.003% for Australia and 0.00003% for the whole of the world. The percentage of clearing in my back yard is higher than that, and that’s what is important for where I live and the people where I live. So, you shouldn’t get too carried away with 0.03%; we should be worried about clearing quality, not clearing quantity. Down south they used to say: ‘We have plenty of land, so clear it’. If we go along with that same argument here, we will end with exactly the same place as Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. So, be careful of that kind of argument.
I think guidelines are good but, having seen the amount of accidental clearing caused by bulldozers that happens overnight, I think you need regulations. The regulations have to be fair and reasonable, they have to be practical. In places like Nelson and the Litchfield Shire, a lot of land clearing occurs because of subdivision. Where subdivision of small lots occurs, the government must take the initiative and remove those sensitive areas so they are not at any risk of being cleared accidentally.
I think you have to also move very quickly on areas like Leaning Tree. I noticed recently that there are 35 blocks up for subdivision, which is part of a huge subdivision development of Marrakai. I think these guidelines should be put in place immediately.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, we all know that we need to clear land if we are going to proceed with development of the Territory. However, we do not want to repeat the mistakes that have occurred down south. I have witnessed these examples with my own eyes in the centre of the Western Australian wheat belt, and also down south and, certainly, I am not going to repeat the same mistakes.
I am also resisting any pressure from the Commonwealth for zero clearing. I understand we have to have some clearing, but I also note the member for Nelson’s comments and that’s why we are going out to consult with the community and the Commonwealth as to how we are going to proceed with land clearing in the Territory.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I ask the minister to table …
Mr VATSKALIS: It needs to be tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you should table the document.
Mr VATSKALIS: I table the document, Madam Speaker.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
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 main purpose of this bill is to make amendments to Northern Territory acts and regulations made necessary because of the enactment by the Commonwealth parliament of the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and other associated legislation.
The Commonwealth’s Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and other associated legislation reform national laws governing the provision of various financial products. These products include financial advice services related to shares, debentures, derivatives, managed investment products, certain insurance products, superannuation products, and retirement savings products. The outcome is a new licensing scheme dealing with persons who provide such services. This scheme will commence operation on the 11 March 2002. The relevant provisions are mostly contained in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001. The main relevance of these changes to Northern Territory legislation is that there is a need to ensure that the Northern Territory legislation uses terminology and has cross-references that match the provisions in the Corporations Act 2001. This bill aims to ensure that this occurs.
I will provide two examples of the kind of changes. The first example is that stock exchanges are now, for the purpose of the Corporations Act 2001, covered by the term ‘financial market’. The second is that the insurance agents will now be regulated under the Corporations Act 2001, rather than by the Insurance Agents and Brokers Act 1984, which act has been repealed. The Northern Territory’s consequential amendments will commence operation after commencement of the Commonwealth legislation. In this regard, the Northern Territory is in the same position as all of the states. Consequently, there will be a period of time when there will not be an accurate match between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth laws.
To a great extent, section 15(2) of the Interpretation Act operates so as to limit the possibility of legal problems arising from this mismatch. Nonetheless, the bill will provide that the new provisions are deemed to have operated from the time of commencement of the Commonwealth legislation. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 42) and Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 43): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 is to amend the Penalties Act so that the value of the penalties unit changes from $100 to $110. The Penalties Bill 1998 was introduced into the Northern Territory parliament by the then Chief Minister on 25 November 1998. It was enacted on 16 February 1999, and commenced operation on the 1 April 1999. The former Chief Minister noted a number of policy developments in relation to the legislation. These included: a review of maximum penalties in legislation; a development of a policy in respect of the maximum penalties in the legislation; the conversion of monetary penalties into penalty units; and the regular review of the value of a penalty unit.
I am pleased to advise that all four of these policy developments are still occurring. In particular, we have reached the stage where the penalties in all draft bills being provided to government for consideration are being set, having regard to a policy document developed by the Department of Justice. The process of reviewing and converting old penalties is occurring more slowly. However, the government anticipates that this process will be completed by 2003.
This bill deals with the fourth policy development introduced by the previous government; namely that of regularly reviewing the value of a penalty unit. It is critical for the efficient operation of a penalty unit scheme that the value of the penalty unit be regularly reviewed, and that there be commitment to revise the value of that unit as appropriate.
The Department of Justice has reported to me that the best indicator of the Northern Territory of any changes in the value of money, is the Darwin consumer price index. Over the period since the introduction of the legislation in 1998, the all groups index for Darwin has risen from 122.1 to 133.5. This represents a change of 9%. Based on that advice, the government takes the view that it is appropriate that the value of a penalty unit rise by 10%. When rounded off to the nearest 10, the result is that the value of a penalty unit changes from $100 to $110. It is important to remember that this increase in penalty will only apply to those individuals or organisations who do not comply with the laws of the Northern Territory. It is not a tax; it is a punishment for those who break the law.
The Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 makes two further amendments. The first is to change the name of the act to Penalty Units Act. This is occurring so as to avoid some confusion that may exist as to the respective purposes of the Penalties Act, the Sentencing Act, and the Fines and Penalties Recovery Act 2001. The second change is to amend section 4 so that it is clear that the penalty units may be used to identify what is the maximum fine that may be imposed for breaches that are not offences. Examples of these kinds of breaches include breaches of the disciplinary provisions contained in the Agents Licensing Act, and the Legal Practitioners Act. This amendment is to apply retrospectively to the date of commencement of the Penalties Act 1999.
The Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002 provides for the inclusion in the Interpretation Act of a definition of penalty unit. This amendment is being made for the purposes of making it easier to access the law of the Northern Territory. In many other jurisdictions, penalty units are commonly created under legislation such as the Interpretation Act. Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill, but cannot help but comment on the inescapable irony that it is, in fact, a Labor government that brings in an amendment that does away with the right to silence, a concept held very dearly by many in the legal profession, many of whom are this government’s very strong and outspoken supporters.
I am grateful that I had the opportunity to correspond with the Attorney-General about this matter. I suggested some amendments. We have a minor, but not catastrophic, disagreement in respect of one. I accept his comments in respect of the second, and I note that he has accepted mine in respect of the third amendment. I understand that the amendment will be put in the committee stage. In essence, we do support this amendment.
I am given to understand that the previous government, on the basis of various coronial findings over the last couple of years, was working towards a similar amendment. As I said at the outset, I note the immense irony that a Labor government brings in an amendment such as this. At least the opposition does not need to answer to our critics, and I do understand that there are some in the legal profession who are having a hard time coming to terms with this amendment. They will, no doubt, be outspoken, and I can very happily suggest that they take the matter up with the government. On that basis, we support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the bill, bearing in mind that I might be in the committee chair when that stage is debated.
I have a few queries. One is that the law reform manual referred to matters that were taken into account in Western Australia and had (a), (b) and (c). I am wondering whether (a), (b) and (c) referred to the facts that, can the fact be proved satisfactorily some other way, as the question asked had little bearing on the outcome; and does the question reveal a crime of more serious nature than the present issue? I am wondering whether, perhaps either all of those or some of those should be incorporated into the act, with a guideline as to what should be looked at.
Another question: does the certificate become as guaranteed before or after the evidence is given? What penalties apply to someone who refuses to give evidence if ordered to? Have there been cases where someone has been granted a certificate, but evidence gathered indirectly from what they said has been used to prosecute the person? For example, if the witness mentions a name, do police go and talk to that person? He dobs that witness in. Is that the intention or would a witness be told that could happen before they actually give their evidence?
Another question is: could he have the case of a Clayton’s Certificate? That is, people with little understanding of the law - perhaps Aboriginal people from out bush, people who really had very little idea what their rights were - could they, in fact, actually give evidence and go outside the court and be approached by the police; and give the same evidence, not realising that they could be charged?
Another question is: is that statement only inadmissible if given in court? In other words, if someone says something in court and, as I said before, if they walk outside and they say exactly the same thing, is it still inadmissible or does it become a whole new ball game?
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have to say, from the outset that, despite some lingering reservations, the opposition supports the passage of this bill. The proposed amendment, as the member for Nelson touched upon, came about as a result of a coronial and, eventually, the endorsement from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, albeit not unanimous. Indeed, at least one member of the Coroners Act Amendment Subcommittee, whom I have spoken to at length, has some serious and lingering reservations about the effect this amendment will have on a person’s right to silence.
To really understand the philosophical change which is about to occur – indeed, it has occurred in some of the jurisdictions - you have to have regard to what has occurred over history, and I am not going to go through it in detail. But touching on a couple of points, the courts over many, many decades - indeed, hundreds of years - have upheld the privilege against self-incrimination. Chief Justice Gibbs in Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 Commonwealth Law Reports, speaks of the firmly established rule of the common law since the 17th century that no person can be compelled to incriminate himself. He goes on to say at page 294:
It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that the Crown must prove the guilt of an accused person,
and the protection which the principle affords to the liberty of the individual will be weakened if power exists
to compel a suspected person to confess his guilt. Moreover the existence of such power tends to lead to abuse
and to “the concomitant moral deterioration in methods of obtaining evidence and in the general administration
of justice”.
The Law Reform subcommittee also looked at that particular case and referred to that quote. It very briefly touched upon comments made as far back as 1638 about the importance of this right for silence. They quoted Bradshaw, who was counsel for Willbyrne in the famous 1638 case. He said: ‘Contrary to the laws of God, nature and the Kingdom for any man to be his own accuser ...’. So this very important principle of having the right to not incriminate yourself has a very important historic significance, and you have to have a sense of history to really understand this important issue.
There are safeguards which could have been incorporated into the proposed bill. They include any evidence given by a witness who is compelled to give evidence which may damage his or her position; that evidence could have been given in camera. There is no restriction on the use of such evidence except that it cannot be used, of course, in a criminal or civil court. The police can sit in the body of the court, they can hear what he said, and then they can further their investigations having regard to what has been said by a person who has been compelled to give evidence in the Coroner’s Court. In some of the other jurisdictions, there are some further safeguards which deal with the coroner making an inquiry as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a person to use the rule that he does not wish to incriminate himself and, if there are sufficient grounds that the coroner is satisfied that there is a risk this person may incriminate himself, he can allow this person to continue to exercise the rule against self -incrimination.
Importantly, the balance is, of course, the very important public policy of getting to the truth and we have these two competing interests - the policy of the public interest at finding out the truth versus the interests of an individual and the integrity of the system. In my view, the legislation will need to be reviewed eventually, and the opposition will certainly be keeping a close eye on the operation - the effect that this amendment will have. I suspect however, that it may disadvantage the most vulnerable section of our community: people who are not familiar with the criminal justice system and for whom English is a second language. For some of our traditional indigenous people who come into court and are not able to exercise their right to silence in the coronial matter, their liability may fall to the very periphery of the offence, but they will be cross-examined and expose themselves to agreeing with an assertion put to them by a keen and enthusiastic young lawyer.
There are some amendments, I understand, which are going to be introduced in the committee stage. The member for Stuart has, quite kindly, given me copies of those amendments and appropriate notice. I can indicate that the opposition supports those amendments as well.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the opposition supports the legislation with the amendments, but I thought it appropriate to put on record my lingering reservations about it.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I note the comments by the member for Nelson. I know they are of a technical nature and I am sure the Attorney-General will pick up on those in the committee stage.
As outlined previously by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, this bill seeks to amend the Coroners Act to bring about three major changes. Firstly, repeal and substitution of section 38. In essence, this allows the coroner to compel a witness at a coronial inquest to answer a question where it appears to the coroner to be expedient for the ends of justice for the witness to do so. Because this is a significant change which, to some degree removes the right of refusal to answer a question on the basis of self-incrimination, I will return to this later. The second area of amendment comes about through a new section 44, and this will afford the coroner the power to reverse a decision not to hold an inquest, or to reopen and inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third change relates to a new section 46. These amendments extend the reporting requirements regarding deaths in care or custody. It is noteworthy that all these changes came about as a result of a specific request from the coroner in October 2001. I will now speak in favour of the three main areas that these amendments seek to change.
First, self-incrimination or the right to silence. Currently under NT legislation, there is an unconditional protection against self-incrimination; namely, that a person that shall not be compelled to answer a question that may tend to incriminate the person. Notwithstanding the request made by the NT coroner, why, then, should this parliament join other jurisdictions such as Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT, as well as the Commonwealth in removing what has generally been regarded as a cornerstone of British justice - which has been pointed out by members opposite? In other words, the right to silence or the right not to answer on the basis of self-incrimination: why should we be moving that this be removed in coronial inquests?
Appropriately, this matter was referred to the NT Law Reform Committee for consideration, and I commend their report, Report No 23, to honourable members. Looking at the composition of the NT Law Reform Committee, it is certainly made up of some very august people including Hon Austin Asche QC AC, Mr Max Horton, Ms Maria Ceresa, Dr Phillip Jamieson, Mr Greg Macdonald, Mr Hugh Bradley CSM, Mr John Hughes, Mr Richard Bruxner, Ms Sally Gearin and Mr Peter Boyce.
Members of the Coroners Act Amendment Subcommittee consisted of Austin Asche, Greg Macdonald, Phillip Jamieson and Mr Jon Tippet QC. I found their report to be invaluable in considering this important issue. To quote from page 1 of the report:
However, is the right to silence as universal as many of us suppose? It is apparent that various parliaments have removed such privilege namely through first, royal commissions; secondly, inquiries by the British parliament into corrupt electoral practices; thirdly, the NT Waste Management and Pollution Control Act; and fourthly, the Evidence Acts of Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and the Commonwealth.
So, there seems to be quite a number of precedents for removal of such privilege. In relation to the evidence acts mentioned above, the underlying rationale is that judges should use their discretion to ascertain whether it is expedient for the ends of justice that such a person be compelled to answer such a question. Hence, we come to coronial inquests in the Northern Territory and the rights of witnesses balanced with the need for relatives of the deceased and the wider community to ascertain the truth surrounding a death. It also has ramifications for sensible recommendations regarding public health and safety.
The public health aspect is of crucial importance, I believe. As legislators in the Northern Territory, we should bear in mind that mortality rates in the category of injury and poisoning are generally far greater in the Northern Territory, compared with the rest of the Australia. That is both for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, male and female. What I am saying is that we do have high death rates through misadventure, through injury and poisoning, and so that makes it even more important for the community to ascertain the public health benefit of finding the truth surrounding a death.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee refers to the investigatory role of a coroner. This is a very important consideration in affording the coroner the power to compel witnesses to answer questions. I will quote from page 7 of the report:
I continue:
Just continuing:
I believe that the submission of Mr Cavanagh makes it plain that the discharge of that duty can be hindered if he is met with a legally sanctioned silence in one area. Such is the argument: coroners have an investigatory role different from a judge. They already have power to gather evidence and it is also argued that the right to silence may be an impediment to the coroner working effectively.
While the amendments seek to remove the right to silence in coronial inquests, they do not seek to compel witnesses to give self-incriminating evidence in such inquests that can be used directly in criminal, civil or disciplinary hearings. The amendments provide for witnesses to be granted certificates at the discretion of the coroner so that the actual evidence given by them cannot be used in civil, criminal or disciplinary hearings against them.
The discretion of the coroner is a pivotal consideration in this matter. In other words, the coroner must consider the benefit of compelling the witness to answer, and the forthcoming information balanced against the granting of a certificate. It is important to note that such certificates do not indemnify such witnesses against further proceedings. However, they do guarantee the actual evidence given by the witness cannot be used against them.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that self-incriminatory matters identified as being valuable to the deliberations of the coroner are often relatively trivial. To quote again from the Law Reform Committee report on page 8:
A scenario that could face the coroner: there could be some people who are indulging in taking drugs, there could be a subsequent death. The people with the deceased may, at present, have the right not to incriminate themselves and give evidence on relatively small matters such as cannabis use. So basically, these reforms, these amendments will allow the coroner to better get to the truth of circumstances surrounding a death.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee supported the amendments related to self-incrimination, relating to the coroner being able to compel witnesses to answer questions where it is expedient for the ends of justice. The committee reported that it considers these to be important amendments to serve the ends of justice, and I heartily agree.
The second area of change relates to opening inquests. Amendments to section 44 streamline the procedure for the coroner to reopen an inquest where there has been a previous inquest, or to open an inquest where there has been no inquest. Currently such procedures must be authorised by the Supreme Court. The amendments proposed also allow for administrative efficiency by the coroner to be able to correct certain errors or omissions within a particular inquest.
Finally, reporting: these amendments oblige the CEO of any agency involved in an inquest into a death in care or custody to report back to the Attorney-General within three months, outlining the agency’s response to any recommendation made by the coroner.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I commend the proposed amendments to the Coroners Act to all members.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Coroners Amendment Bill 2001. I have never had reason to have any dealings with the coroner and so as I researched the important role this office undertakes in our community, the more I became convinced that the amendments foreshadowed were of direct benefit to all of the community.
I do not think that I am alone in my lack of exposure to the coronial process, so I would like to take this opportunity to briefly provide an overview for others like myself. What does the coroner do? In all reportable deaths, the coroner arranges for the death to be registered and provides a document to allow burial or cremation. The coroner investigates every reportable death to find out how it occurred, the circumstances surrounding it, and who contributed to the death. The coroner investigates fires that have public significance. At the end of every investigation, the coroner sets out what facts have been found, what lessons can be learned, and what can be done to prevent that type of event happening again. The coroner informs the community and government of the facts and what is to be learned by public inquest hearing. The completed file may or may not become a public document, and the report may be sent to other Attorneys-General.
When is a coronial process necessary? Well, it is necessary when the death is referred to a coroner if the death occurred unexpectedly from anything other than natural causes; from an injury or in an accident; during or as a result of an anaesthetic; while the deceased is held in an institution, in prison, in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation centre, or by police; when the identify of the deceased is not known. These types of deaths are called ‘reportable deaths’. All reportable deaths must be investigated by the coroner.
An autopsy or post mortem is an examination by a pathologist to determine the cause of death. An autopsy will be conducted if the coroner believes it is needed to determine the cause of death. Sometimes, the coroner is able to find the cause of death from the person’s medical history. In these cases, an autopsy may not be necessary. What does go on at an inquest? An inquest is a court hearing conducted by the coroner. The coroner can summons people to be witnesses, or to bring papers and other evidence. Evidence is given on oath and witnesses can be questioned. The coroner will listen and then make a finding on the death. The coroner must hold an inquest if homicide was suspected, the person was in prison or an institution, or the person’s identity is not known. In other cases, the coroner will decide whether or not an inquest is needed.
It should also be recognised that a coronial inquest is not an attempt to solve a crime. If I may, I would like to give a brief case history of a coronial inquiry that was held last year into a number of deaths that occurred in the course of fighting a large bushfire just north of Sydney. I believe this example will round off peoples’ understanding of the coroner’s role. The coronial inquiry into the Mount Kuring-gai New South Wales tragedy in June last year begun on 16 July 2001. Four National Parks and Wildlife Park staff died in the tragedy and three were seriously injured. On 14 December 2001, the Senior Deputy State Coroner gave her findings relating to the tragedy. The coroner stressed that the role of any inquest is not to apportion blame but to determine the manner and cause of death.. In this case, it was an inquest into the death of four persons.
The coroner’s formal findings as to the cause of death are:
The coroner said that the post mortems performed on the three showed they died of smoke inhalation before they were overcome by those injuries that caused them to be incinerated. The coroner said she thought this was important for families to know. The coroner found that another fire fighter died on 4 August 2000 at St Leonard’s Royal North Shore Hospital in New South Wales from septic thrombosotopania overwhelming sepsis and cardiovascular collapse.
The coroner found that the fire on 8 June, which occurred in dry sclerophyll forest, or vegetation gum trees, in the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park north of Mount Kuring-gai near the F3 Freeway, was caused when fires being ignited by the NPWS personnel became uncontrollable. The coroner made 17 recommendations as the result of the inquest, designed to minimise or eliminate the risk of such a tragedy occurring again. The coroner also commended a number of other firefighters for their bravery under dangerous conditions.
However, sometimes in the Territory, situations have arisen where such a positive outcome in regard to clear-cut recommendations to authorities and findings of full circumstances surrounding great tragedy, has not been possible. I would like to read an extract from the Law Reform Committee Report on Privilege against Self-Incrimination by the Territory Coroner, Mr Cavanagh:
I understand, and I fully endorse, the empowering of the coroner to provide for a certificate to be issued to a witness who is compelled to answer questions in the inquest. I have researched and read many articles on the right to silence and, I believe, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee has mounted a strong case for such action in its Report No 23, Report on Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. In its conclusion, the committee notes:
I am pleased to note that the member for Greatorex is on the public record as calling for such changes as foreshadowed in this debate. The member for Greatorex himself understands the role of the coroner and I place a great weight on the member for Greatorex’s views on coronial matters.
I would like to quote from an article on the NT government web site entitled ‘Lim calls for law change’ dated April 2001:
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You should not refer to a member by his name in the first instance, and I am not the Minister for Central Australia.
Members interjecting
Mr KIELY: I am quoting, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I think he is quoting. There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: I will continue:
Madam Speaker, I would like to close my contribution to this debate with the member for Greatorex’s own words: ‘… but what we can do is take steps to prevent a repeat of the right to silence being used at a coronial hearing to hamper the course of justice’.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the Coroners Amendment Bill 2001. On a number of occasions, I have had reason to be interested in the office of the coroner. It became obvious to me of the importance of the role of the Coroner’s Office. The amendment to this bill will assist the coroner’s investigations into every reportable death. The coroner will soon have a new and valuable tool to assist with investigations into how a death occurred, the circumstances surrounding it, and who contributed to the death.
As the minister for Justice and the Attorney-General outlined in his second reading speech, three major changes have occurred. I support the three changes he outlined in the bill. The first is the ability of the coroner to compel a witness to answer questions at an inquest, subject to certain conditions. The second is to allow the coroner to reverse a decision to not hold an inquest, therefore allowing the coroner’s ability to reopen an inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third, and not least important, is to provide the agencies to whom a copy of the coroner’s recommendation has been supplied, the onus of responding to the coroner’s recommendations in writing. The government believes this will lead to real outcomes and assist in preventing further future tragedies. I am proud to state that this government of the Northern Territory, in its legislation, places specific conditions on a witness being compelled at inquest to answer the question.
In the process of constructing this amendment bill, the NT government ensured that the experience of other jurisdictions were taken into account. They include Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Commonwealth. They also include the sad story of the experience of the South Australian and Queensland jurisdictions. The NT government, when developing this amendment, consulted with the Territory coroner. It concluded that the amendment should allow the coroner the ability to compel the witness to answer a question at an inquest, where it appears to the coroner to be expedient for the end of justice to do so.
It must be noted, as the honourable Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General has stated in his second reading speech, if the coroner orders the witness to answer the question, the witness must be granted a certificate that prevents his or her statements being used in evidence in any other proceedings against the witness. The member for Goyder touched on the balance of policy and public interest. The honourable Minister for Justice and Attorney-General clearly stated in his second reading speech: ‘The object of the coronial inquest is to find the truth about all of the circumstances of a death’. The policy in the public interest is to find the truth.
The matter of privilege against self-incrimination was referred to by the Law Reform Committee which presented a report to the Attorney-General, and recommended that the act be amended to provide that the coroner could compel a witness to answer questions at an inquest, and could issue a certificate which prevented the evidence being used in any civil or criminal proceedings against that witness.
It is noted in this House, the Attorney-General has instructed that the amendments before this House have been implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee report. I will also recognise that the coroner’s request that recommendations 15 and 16 of the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody are forcibly implemented in the legislation. I support this as a recommendation to actually be a requirement for the coroner and the government to be informed, where the recommendations made by the coroner have been considered. I support this bill and ask all members of this House to do so as well.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Very quickly, Madam Speaker, once again, I want to make a point in relation to second reading speeches. A lot of what has been said opposite should have been in the second reading speech when it was delivered to the House. Having said that, I would like to also thank - in my support of the bill - the departmental staff who assisted me with my inquiries. Once again, they were professional and thorough and I thank them for their time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to the debate today. I think it is continuing what I hope to be new tradition in this House, of paying very close and careful attention to legislation. It is heartening to see both the extent of the debate today and the quality of the contributions that were made around the Chamber. I thank you again.
Before I deal with some of the issues that were brought up by individual members, I would like to, very quickly, reiterate why we are considering this legislation today. It has come out of an approach by the coroner, who was very much aware of certain of his inquiries that were held up from a full resolution by the inability to get key evidence from witnesses in some of those inquiries. As the member for Johnston has pointed out, that does translate, in real life, to families who have not managed to get closure on a very traumatic incident in their family. Taking the detail of this bill aside, I have absolute comfort in my conscience about what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to actually give some certainty to families in the case where they have lost a loved one. We also want to give some certainty to investigations that may impinge on the general safety of the Territory public.
It is probably worth reading one part of the Law Reform Committee’s report into Hansard. It offers considerable reassurance to members that we are not passing new law here, and we are certainly not compromising the fundamental principle of the right not to self-incriminate in our inquiries. To read the conclusion of the Law Reform Committee report, they state:
And this is the key part for members:
Elsewhere in the report, the committee also makes it very clear that the coroner’s inquiry is not the same as other courts, or the court inquiries or hearings that might be conducted in the Northern Territory. They state:
If I could move to the individual contributions of members, and perhaps clear up some of the issues that were raised. The member for Nelson asked: will a witness be told that their evidence can or cannot be used by investigators? The coroner would have the discretion to adopt the actual procedures that they address in an inquiry. They may choose to brief the witness or their representative in terms of the operation of these new provisions. There would be, on the certificate itself, the indemnity written there as to what that certificate actually indemnifies that witness from. In other words, the written contents of the inquiry cannot be used elsewhere in themselves.
The people out bush who cannot understand procedures, again it is a matter for the coroner running an inquiry. You would expect that, similar to any other hearing - whether it is within our court system or elsewhere - if there is a clearly going to be the potential for a witness to not understand the provisions of the act as it will be once the amendments are introduced, it is very much beholden on the coroner to ensure that any participant in a hearing is fully able to understand what is going on and to contribute. Again, it is a procedural matter. It is not a matter that we can build into the bill itself.
If people go outside the court and, for example, they are asked questions by the media and they give some admission there, can it be used against them? It can be; it is on the public record and it can very definitely be used.
What if the witness is subsequently approached by the police as a result of the hearing? The police would be bound to warn the witness about the capacity to incriminate themselves before they conducted an interview, and the rights that that person - prior to walking into the coronial inquiry - would resume the moment they step out of that coronial inquiry. They are in the same situation as they were before their participation in the inquiry.
Another issue: at what point is the certificate given? The certificate is given before the evidence is asked of the witness, but after the witness has made a claim for privilege. Under the procedures, the witness must claim privilege and have that claim for privilege tested by the coroner. Once that process is complete, that is when the certificate is issued, but prior to the evidence being given in the inquiry. The certificate then covers all matters that are given under the indemnity of that certificate.
What happens if a witness still refuses to give evidence? Under the new provisions it is expected that witnesses who may incriminate themselves will give evidence once the certificate procedure is explained to them. If they do not give evidence the witness can be dealt with under section 41(3). That is, they can be fined $5000 or imprisoned for six months. So, there is quite a strong penalty if the witness fails to comply with the coroner’s direction to provide that evidence.
Both the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson raised the matter of derivative use of the evidence. In other words, for members, if evidence is given as we have seen in the provisions of this bill, the evidence itself cannot be used in any other hearing. But if someone, including the coroner, becomes aware because of the nature of the evidence that a crime may have been committed, then it is possible for further investigations to track down the evidence needed to, maybe, prove that crime. In other words, the evidence provides clues as to where the police or the coroner himself or herself may wish to go and find further evidence of any guilt.
In New South Wales they have brought in provisions in their act to prevent the derivative use of evidence given under a certificate of indemnity. There are quite major difficulties with that arrangement because it then becomes beholden on either the investigators - it could be someone working with the families - to prove that they actually fought to look for the further evidence from some other motivation other than being aware of what evidence had been given in the coronial inquiry. It potentially taints other evidence that may be put to bear against the potential offender by the issue of whether that evidence was gained following the coronial inquiry evidence. In balance, we are not attracted to the idea of having a derivative use of the evidence included in the bill. We believe it is better that the normal processes of collection of evidence and presenting it to a court hearing should prevail outside the coronial inquiry, rather than being distorted in any way by a provision of non-use. I think that might deal with the issues that were brought forward.
I would like to finish, before we go into the committee stage, by thanking the opposition for their foreshadowed support of the bill and the amendment. I will be more than happy to see you put on Hansard any further concerns you have about the operation of these in practice in coronial inquiries. We will certainly take that on board if there are practical things we can do in terms of the implementation of the amended law. Sure, we are open to suggestions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr TOYNE : Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 6 which is circulated to the members, and I will give some explanation of that amendment. This amendment omits the words ‘committed in the proceedings’ from clause 6 in the amendment bill. You will be aware that the entire section of clause 6 is going to be put as a replacement to section 38 of the current act.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that evidence given by a witness in coronial proceedings under protection of the certificate can be used in evidence to prove an offence or perjury. This amendment ensures that the testimony can be used whether the perjury occurs in the coronial proceedings or other proceedings. What we are saying here is that if a witness deliberately misleads the coronial inquiry or a subsequent hearing, whether it is in a disciplinary process, say for a medical doctor or in criminal or civil proceedings for a person who is accused of an offence, if there is the evidence in the coronial inquiry and the evidence in other hearings that do not match up and indicate that a perjury has occurred, the indemnity offered by certificate is cancelled by the act of the perjury. We do not feel that we should offer protection to a witness who is offering deliberately misleading evidence to one or another of the inquiries they may be involved in, following such serious matter as a killing or a death. That is the purpose of this amendment and I will be quite happy to hear what the opposition’s concerns are about it.
Ms CARNEY: We support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the bills in their current form. Whilst I know a few people who live in Cullen Bay, it is difficult to find anybody who really understood the mechanics of the proposed amendment and the effect it would have, but there was one person who has a vested interest down there. I spoke to that person at length and, really, the proposed amendments achieve a very specific end. It is really based on common sense and, perhaps an oversight in the original act, one which wasn’t foreseen having regard to the types of development at Cullen Bay, Tipperary Waters and the like.
I can indicate that the opposition supports the bills in their current form. There are some amendments which the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General made me aware of. I have looked at those, and I indicate that the opposition also supports those amendments in their current form.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001. If I may, I would like to reiterate what the main purposes of the bills are: to permit by-laws to be made by the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation in respect of the whole of the land that is subject to the Cullen Bay Marina Act and permit by-laws to be made for the health and safety of persons. Additionally, the bill provides that existing by-laws shall be deemed, from the time of the commencement of the new legislation, to have been made under the act as amended, and for the review of penalties, and for those penalties to be expressed in terms of penalty units.
When the Cullen Bay Marina Bill was debated back on 18 November 1992, the then Minister for Transport and Works was critical of the opposition alluding to gaping holes in the legislation. The minister went on to state that he did not believe there were any. He advised the bill had been comprehensively developed, not only in the interests of future purchasers of property in the area but also and, just as importantly, in the interests of the public. He went on to note that it had been stated clearly on many occasions already that the roads, parks and beach would be accessible to the public. ‘That …’, he said, ‘… is laid down in the legislation and one has only to read what happens as a consequence of this bill’. Certainly, the bill relates to those common areas and the management of the marina itself. I will restate that point: the previous Minister for Transport and Works stated that the bill related to those common areas and the management of the marina itself.
The Cullen Bay Management Corporation exists because of the Cullen Bay Marina Act. It has the main function of managing the group title that was created under that act over the Cullen Bay development area. The Cullen Bay development area is all of the land and water generally known as Cullen Bay. It comprises the marina, the shopping centre and the residential areas between Myilly Terrace, the defence base at Larrakeyah, and Kahlin.
Under the Unit Titles Act, similar corporations exist at Tipperary Waters and parts of Bayview. In such developments, all of the owners of land, including owners of land on which there are stand-alone houses, have duties and rights in respect of the common property and the development area as a whole. The relevant management corporation is the entity that formally owns the common property and which makes and enforces the various rules governing the group title.
The bills propose that the by-law making power be extended so that it covers the whole of the development area, not just the part of the development area that happens to be common property. These bills are all about working in partnership with the community.
As the minister has advised, the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation made the proposal for the need to amend the legislation to the previous government. The citizens who reside at Cullen Bay do so because it is their preferred lifestyle. They understand the unique requirements of their community and this is reflected in the need for the Cullen Bay Marina Bill. What has occurred is that, currently, there is some room for doubt whether the by-laws that are formulated and adopted by all of the owners of property in Cullen Bay may apply, because if appears that it may only be currently lawful to make by-laws for common property.
This amendment does represent a balance; it gets right to the heart of communal living on these types of estates. This bill recognises the intent of the initial purchasers of land in Cullen Bay and supports the assumptions made by these people at the time of purchase; that is, that by-laws applied to the whole of the waterways and the development.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the Attorney-General and his staff for the briefing that he gave us on these bills and the previous bill. It was a great learning curve for me, but I hope we were able to put some input back in as much as they gave us. One of the inputs we did have is that we asked about the ramifications of these bills, and they have brought back the amendments so that these changes are not as broad as they possibly could have been, which might have meant that there were some unseen ramifications of the changes.
I would also like to thank them for all the effort they put in to give me these lovely coloured maps of places that I wish had never been developed, I suppose, like Bayview and other places here. But they at least made it much more understandable as to what land and what was being referred to by the bill. The Attorney-General’s staff also gave me some notes about this matter and I have some concerns that these particular paragraphs are not consistent. It said:
I do not know whether members can see that, but the orange boundaries are basically all water outside private lots.
The Cullen Bay Amendment Bill 2001 will permit the by-laws to be made that apply to the whole of the land of the development area; that is Lot 6393, plus the land coloured yellow. The main practical effect of the legislation will be that of applying the current by-laws to the whole of the land within the water area to the marina. That is, the water within the orange boundaries and the water within Lot 6378 - although I think that might be meant to be 6379 - and the water within the various lots whose boundaries extend beyond the water mark.
I have one concern because, originally, these amendments were to basically include the water that was on private lots. The case was put to me that you could, therefore, prohibit people from using a boat as a residence. I wondered why - instead of having to cover the entire area - the orange line which, at the present time, covers all of the water outside people’s blocks, couldn’t have actually been drawn through the blocks? In other words, blocks had two zones, if you want to put it that way, one is the land zone and the other is the water zone. Therefore, the law and the intention for bringing this law in would then only have applied specifically to the water. I thought that was the main reason we were bringing in the by-law originally.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, to advise members that, of course, the work behind this amendment has been going on for quite some time now. There have been discussions with the people in Cullen Bay, the management committee down there. Coming to an agreement has not been easy for the people there; there was certainly some debate, about 18 months ago, as to how the levies were going to be put. It is great to see that the legislation is coming through today. It is going to provide a much easier management system and a fairer distribution of the levies. I support the amendment.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you very much again to members for the contributions. I must say that it has been a lively process on this bill and I think the briefings, as the member for Nelson pointed out, have become a very powerful tool for this House to refine bills. We are serious about making changes to improve laws we bring through here so that everyone gets a chance to contribute. I think this will be very apparent in these sittings that, if an idea for a modification of what we are bringing forward has merit, it will be seriously assessed and introduced into the bill if it is justified to do so.
We do not feel any sense of defensiveness about the process that we are responsible for in this case, and I certainly will continue to welcome all members to make their contributions to this process. The support for this bill, of the opposition and the independent, is welcome,. The only issue that has come up that I could deal with at this stage of the process is that the by-law making capacity of the marina management applies over the whole development area. It is the yellow and the orange area if we colour code it.
Really, we are just extending the ability to make and enforce by-laws over the area that previously there had been doubt on - which is the water area - in response to the types of problems that have been identified by the residents there. Basically, we are trying to stop people using boats as houses; that the berths should be simply for the temporary berthing of visiting boats or the boats belonging to the residents or other people. We are trying to return that back, and that is the intent management has in bringing forward the need for this change. With those comments we will move to committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 24):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dr TOYNE: I wish to move an amendment to this, Mr Chairman. Clause 5 of the Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 would be amended so that it adds to the end of the section 15(1)(f) of the Cullen Bay Marina Act the words ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’. The effect of this change is that the by-law making power in section 15 will, in respect of fees and charges, only apply to such matters that are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, for example, that it would not be possible to have a lawful by-law levying a charge or fee for using a private property located in the Cullen Bay Marina. We are trying to keep the fees and charges out on those private areas under these new arrangements.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the opposition supports the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment, agreed to.
Unit Titles Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 25):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to clause 4 of the Unit Titles Amendment Bill No 2 2001. The amendment would add to the end of section 26ZD(1)(f) of the Unit Titles Act the words ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’.
The effect of this change is that the by-law making power in section 26ZD in respect of a estate developments such as Tipperary Waters and parts of Bayview will, in respect of fees and charges, only apply to such matters that are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, for example, that it would not be possible to have lawful by-law levying a charge or fee for using private property located within an estate development.
Mr MALEY: The opposition supports the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I again want to move an amendment consequential to the amendments to the Cullen Bay Act. We move that clause 5 be amended by adding to the end of section 26ZZA(1)(f) of the Unit Titles Act the words: ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’.
It might be noted that section 26ZZA became operational on the date of commencement of the Unit Titles Amendment Act 2001. That date was 1 March 2002. The effect of this change is that the by-law making power of section 26ZZA in respect of fees and charges of building management developments, only apply to such matters as are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, as per the other amendments proposed, that it does not give the management the right to levy fees and charges over the use of private property within that common property area.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported as amended, agreed to.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Casuarina Senior College students and their teacher, Bill Gammon. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am concerned at the incidence of unparliamentary language and the level of personal abuse that occurred in this House last week. I am not implying that this name-calling is something new to the parliament, because I have looked back at records and notice that other Speakers have made similar comments. However, I am appalled that new members have resorted so readily to this type of debate, and convey the impression that they think this parliament is a bit of a game, and anything goes if you can get away with it. I am equally dismayed that experienced members are setting such a bad example to new members. I would also remind honourable members that to be censured, or to be sent to privileges, is a most serious act of this parliament and sits forever in the Parliamentary Record as a reflection of that member’s actions.
I note as part of the government’s election platform, they promised to raise the level of debate in this House. The comment from one particular member of the opposition, and his call for the need to maintain the dignity of the House, I applaud. There have been many recent interjections and references that, in my opinion, have lowered the level of contributions of this House. So, in the interests of maintaining an appropriate standard of debate and order in the Chamber, I request all members to refrain from the use of such unparliamentary terms; members should refer to Standing Order 64. I appreciate the need for free-flowing and vigorous debate - I have already supported that - but this can be achieved without resorting to personal abuse.
If I determine words are offensive or highly disorderly, I expect all members to withdraw them without question, immediately and without comment. In the interest of the reputation of this House and you, members, I remind all honourable members to refrain in future from personal name-calling and abusive language.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, if I may, I would say that we do take your words seriously and we do take them to heart, bearing in mind, I am well aware, of the commitment we made to parliamentary debate. I put myself at the forefront in terms of the criticism you were making. I give you that assurance that I will be looking to my behaviour and I can assure you that each member on this side of the House will be very mindful of your comments here this afternoon.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I hope that is echoed by the members on the opposition.
Mr Burke: Absolutely!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following motion:
3) members of the public service; and.
4) most importantly, Territorians;
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I simply make the point to you that this will be the first time, I think, in the history of this House - certainly in the 15 years I have been in it - that a censure motion has been gagged. It is the most important issue in terms of the practices of this House, and from the point of view of the seriousness of the issue, it is the most important action that can be taken on the floor of this House. I think it is worthy of putting on the record and, indeed, if possible, your consideration of the issue in terms of the fact that it has been gagged and the historic circumstance that this brings about in this House.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Let’s be very clear, Madam Speaker, about the record. It is misleading the House to say that it was never done under the previous regime. I certainly saw it …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You did, you said it was the first time. The Leader of the Opposition said it was the first time. A censure motion is about the most serious motion that you can bring to the floor of this House. It is a substantive motion and, as such, it requires substantial evidence and information within it to prosecute your case.
We will entertain a censure if it is brought forward with substantial evidence and information across the case, but we are not going to waste the time of this Assembly by way of dealing with insubstantial information in a substantive motion.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Just let me say that in the past it has been convention, when a censure motion has been raised, for the Leader of Government Business. to indicate whether the government will accept the censure or not. In this case the government has said no.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I accept that. I simply make the point that at various times in this House this new government has invited a censure motion to be brought on. They invited the censure motion in the context of the debate when I brought the censure motion on, and they have essentially gagged the opposition in bringing that motion forward. I think is an absolute disgrace. You have the numbers; you have the ability to respond; you state you have any number of ministers who can speak on these things. You talk about an honest, open government and yet you won’t allow the opposition to move a censure motion, when we restrained from moving a censure motion on any number of occasions in the past. I think it is an absolute disgrace, Madam Speaker, and I implore you to take forward the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s comments in your consideration.
Madam SPEAKER: Clerk, my ruling is that it was defeated, that particular motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The advice I have received is that you did move to suspend standing orders and the vote was taken on the voices, and it was defeated. You have, of course, expressed your concern and it is now recorded in Hansard. You could, in fact, seek leave to move that motion tomorrow - give notice of that motion tomorrow - if you so wish.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek further clarification. It seems to me I am now left in a situation whereby I am required to withdraw my comment, which was the initiator of the censure motion. I gather from your comments that I have no option now but to withdraw the comments that I made.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I said that your reference to standing orders was defeated, but your comments on that defeat have been recorded in Hansard, so that is on public record. What I am saying is, you could now seek leave to give notice of that motion if you so desire, but the motion is killed at the moment.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I call division on the ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: What ruling, sorry? On mine or …
Mr BURKE: On the initial ruling that we could not bring the censure motion.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The question was the suspension of standing orders, and that is what was defeated.
Mr BURKE: Yes. Call division on that.
Madam SPEAKER: I have in fact ruled on the voices.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I would like to report to members on the progress of the major changes my government announced to the Territory public sector on 13 November last year. I would like to begin by providing an overview of the rationale and approach taken in deciding the shape and direction of those changes.
In line with my government’s policy priorities, I was keen to sharpen our focus on some key areas; especially on economic development, financial management, job creation, education and training, indigenous affairs, crime prevention, health, and family services. We wanted to aim for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness, but with minimum disruption to the public sector employees working in those agencies. The new arrangements have led to changes in some work units, mostly through amalgamations rather than major reorganisation. This approach was very deliberately chosen in order to allow employees to get on with the job of providing services to Territorians in the best way possible. We wanted to minimise, as far as possible, disruption to employees and to the public.
Making changes to the structure of the public sector is never easy; I do not pretend it was an easy task. The very nature of such changes creates uncertainty for employees at all levels. The decisions took a great deal of discussion and negotiation before implementation. What we sought to do was to find the balance between the need for change to meet our goals in advancing the Territory while, at the same time, making the transition as smooth as possible for public servants - those most affected. I acknowledge the transition to the new agency arrangements involved some difficulty and challenges for the public sector, and I thank our public servants for their understanding and for their effort implementing the new arrangements.
The result of the new arrangements is a reduction in the number of agencies from 35 to 18. It was neither efficient nor cost effective for the Territory to have so many separate government agencies. Only a very small proportion of public sector employees have been required to shift offices. In fact, the biggest difference for many has been a change in agency name, and the fact that they now work in a larger organisation. My government’s aim with these new arrangements was to deliver better coordination of resources and a more targeted effort; achieve efficiencies and deliver the same or improved services to the community throughout the Territory at a lower overall cost; enable a better environment for career and personal development to support the needs of both our employees and the future of our agencies; and to enhance our regional presence through better resourced regional offices.
The changes were in line with the independent review of the Territory’s financial position undertaken by Professor Percy Allan. Professor Allan, among his other recommendations, said the government should consider restructuring the public sector into fewer departments. Interestingly, this view was echoed by delegates at the Economic Development Summit.
I have been absolutely clear about the fact that the changes to the public service have been designed to not only improve the delivery of services in line with the government’s vision for the Territory, but also to achieve a sustainable budget. In a similar vein, there is an ongoing process of evaluating existing programs to ensure they are still relevant and appropriate. However, in achieving the required savings, I reiterate that there will be no forced redundancies in the Territory public sector, and I am very pleased that we have been able to achieve so much in efficiency gains without the need for forced redundancies. However, as has always been the case, CEOs and employees, when they recognise the positions are redundant can negotiate voluntary redundancies, and this continues to occur, and has occurred, for many years.
The approach in formulating the new agency arrangements was based on very clear criteria: Agency arrangements should be clearly aligned with government directions and priorities; where there were synergies between the functions of agencies, amalgamation should be considered; in general, agencies should be categorised as either a department or a government business; new functions should only be created when there is a clear economic or social objective not currently being met, and any such functions should, where possible, be created by the transfer of existing funding and staff; that the creation of new agencies by amalgamation was the preferred approach because it causes the least disruption to staff and service delivery, while still delivering the outcomes required; existing agencies should not be broken up unless there are clear and logical reasons for that to occur; any new arrangements to facilitate viable agency representation in the regions; and larger agencies were preferred because they provide the capacity to better address the key areas of information technology, employee development and succession planning, and financial expertise necessary for the move to accrual accounting.
In the past, changes to the public service structure have been incremental, ad hoc, focussed around ministers’ personal preferences, and shrouded in secrecy. I was determined that the changes my government made were open and accountable to our employees, unions and the wider community. I took the unprecedented step of making comprehensive information widely available to the public about the changes, which included having our plans posted on the government’s Intranet and Internet sites. As well, a 1800 number was also made available for those wanting to obtain more information. The feedback through the Internet site and the 1800 number was overwhelmingly positive. How the public sector is organised is an important issue for government and the community. I believe that the new arrangements will allow us to provide greater accountability to the Territory community.
To recap briefly on the changes: the Department of the Chief Minister continues its central agency role and oversees a number of important government policy priorities. To this end, we have created the Office of Territory Development, the Office of Indigenous Policy and the Office of Senior Territorians. Also, importantly, the department will continue to support the Minister for Central Australia.
Racing, gaming and licensing functions were transferred to Treasury, given its existing role in gambling policy. The Procurement Review Board has also been located within Treasury as this board administers whole-of-government policy applying to all agencies, and should be separated from purchasing agencies. Superannuation funds management was also relocated to Treasury because of the strong financial management role involved.
A whole-of-government approach to law enforcement and all aspects of the justice system is a rationale for the creation of the Department of Justice, which has brought together elements of the Attorney-General’s Department, Courts Administration, Correctional Services, Public Prosecutions, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and the Office of Consumer Affairs. To promote and oversee the critical functions of crime prevention and safer communities, the NTsafe program and several other programs and projects have been transferred to our new Office of Crime Prevention in the Department of Justice.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development captures the requirement for a coordinated strategy to achieve the Territory’s economic potential. It brings together the functions of mines and energy, primary industries and fisheries, industries and business, and Asian relations and trade, highlighting the government’s focus on economic development and job creation.
To maintain the quality of the Territory’s lifestyle and to encourage cultural development and a greater sense of community, we brought together the functions of housing, local government, arts and museums, libraries, sport and recreation, regional development and funding of essential services to Aboriginal Territorians in remote communities. We have called this agency the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. This department will be crucial to the government’s priority of improving indigenous social outcomes.
This government recognised the need for a coordinated approach to land, transport and infrastructure development and, at the same time, overseeing important environmental and conservation issues. This is reflected in the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment.
The Department of Employment, Education and Training recognises the clear linkages between education and employment, education and training, and training and employment, as well as the functions of work health and safety which apply across all these areas.
The Department of Corporate and Information Services’ principal role is to provide services to the public sector and for this reason the functions of NT Fleet, property management and communications were included in this agency.
My government recognises that any change in public sector arrangements creates uncertainty for employees. We know that there have been some expressions of uncertainty, for instance, over the new arrangements at the Department of Justice, in Courts Administration, and in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment in the Parks and Wildlife Service. We are working with these people to address their concerns; we value them and the service they deliver to our community. For this reason, I have been keen to ensure that the new arrangements are settled quickly to provide stability within the public service, to ensure a smooth and timely transition to the new structure without impacting on service delivery.
To this end, I established a Transition Task Force that included employee representation and the chief executives of the agencies most affected. The task force has been chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of Chief Minister. As an added measure, employee liaison officers were identified and briefed by the Commissioner for Public Employment and union representatives. The liaison officers are the primary point of contact for employees and unions. They have been available to staff, generally, to deal with individual issues, information flow, reorganisation processes, and arranging staff meetings. Any problems which have been identified have been rapidly addressed by these officers. Complementing this, the CPSU circulated an information bulletin to all members and the Commissioner for Public Employment also circulated information.
The changes announced on 13 November have been implemented and the respective chief executives are in place. The Territory Cabinet remains unchanged although some ministers’ portfolios have been adjusted. The task force, set up to ensure a smooth transition and that all agencies have their new structures in place to reflect the announced amalgamations, will continue to meet and address any issues that may arise. The chief executive of my department has an ongoing watching brief to ensure all the changes are firmly bedded down. All ministers are taking an active interest in the agencies relevant to our respective portfolios and at the whole-of-government level. My colleagues will report to the parliament in more detail on the implementation of the public service changes within their portfolio areas over the coming days.
In relation to my own department, there are some initiatives I would particularly like to report on. In announcing the administrative arrangements for the public service, I reaffirmed my government’s commitment to set up the Office of Territory Development within my department. This initiative is complemented by the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador. This is a major initiative for further engaging with business and will drive many medium- and long-term projects important to the future of the Territory. I won’t take up the time of the Assembly today in listing these projects because I will be making a separate report in this place before the end of these sittings on the Office of Territory Development.
I am pleased that we have been able to improve the whole-of-government approach to senior Territorians and, to this end, the Office of Senior Territorians has been transferred to my department. The office will have a pivotal role to play in providing high-level advice on senior policy issues to myself as Minister for Senior Territorians. Operational and service delivery functions will continue to be the responsibility of line agencies; for example, administration of the Seniors Card Program will continue to be carried out by the Department of Health and Community Services. An acting director has been appointed and will work on a number of projects, including a mechanism for whole-of-government coordination, and a proposal for the establishment of an advisory group of seniors to assist with future policy development. The office will undertake broad community consultations to ensure that a wide range of views are put to government on issues affecting senior Territorians.
The new Office of Indigenous Policy being set up in my department is of great importance to my government, and the issues to be dealt with by this unit will be a high priority. The office has been established to provide strategic whole-of-government advice to myself as Chief Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The particular strategic issues I have marked as priorities are: Aboriginal economic development, including jobs and training and addressing barriers to development created by land tenure; developing a strategy to progress the resolution of outstanding Aboriginal land issues; and monitoring of key areas such as health, education, justice and other social outcomes. This initiative will result in a much more strategic and innovative approach to indigenous issues and complements the Aboriginal essential services and indigenous regional framework agreement initiatives in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
Overall, I am very pleased with the implementation of the NTPS agency changes and, generally, with the feedback I have received in relation to those changes. I am confident that the new structures will provide the foundation for my government’s vision of building a better Territory and delivering improved services to Territorians. We have to thank the Territory’s public servants for their cooperative and positive attitude to the changes; we are aware there is still some issues to resolve and we look forward to working with the public service on these matters.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this important statement.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory can be very proud of its professional public service which has provided to Territorians, over a very long period of time since self-government, a wonderful level of expertise in terms of fulfilling the duties of the various departments and agencies. That is best demonstrated by the fact that every agency, from time to time, has had initiatives that have been adopted nationally and, indeed, held up nationally - and on some occasions internationally - as to the innovative approach that they have had in dealing with particular issues. There are so many of them: the Parks and Wildlife Commission in relation to parks management in arid areas and the tropics and their wildlife research programs; the Department of Health in terms of the health programs they have had in service delivery to Aboriginal people; the indigenous health services that were pioneered in the Northern Territory with health workers; and the police force in relation to community police officers - that model was taken up in New Guinea and looked at by other international countries in terms of policing for indigenous peoples.
There are, of course, the many areas in what was formerly the Department of Transport and Works with the construction of roads and bridges and other infrastructure in the tropics with the high rainfall that we experience here. The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, which became so expert in terms of animal welfare and husbandry in the Northern Territory, and the nurturing of a cattle industry to the extent today that we lead the way in the Northern Territory with live cattle exports and, indeed, did a lot in establishing those particular markets.
There are many other examples where the Northern Territory Public Service has led the way and their programs have been adopted at the national level following national recognition and, as I say, adopted, in turn, internationally.
A dreadful thing is happening to the Northern Territory Public Service under this government and that is the loss of much of that expertise. The Chief Minister’s hollow statement today does nothing to give comfort to hardworking Northern Territory public servants who work for, not just the government, but for the Territory. We should bear in mind that many of those public servants will have been listening to this statement today from the Chief Minister, because very high levels of concern and frustration extend right across every agency in the Northern Territory Public Service, as we speak. They are as a direct result of the actions of this government in terms of the withdrawal of resources from hardworking public servants who have to deliver the programs under the auspices of their work.
I have given some examples of this over the course of the past week, where we have people working in different agencies who provide services to remote communities who formerly, before the Labor administration, had a vehicle to travel to Aboriginal communities and other remote parts of the Northern Territory to deliver those services. Now, before they can go and do their work, they have to fill out a form to apply for the use of a vehicle. That vehicle is, in many cases, shared between two or three people delivering different programs. As a consequence of that, for three of the four weeks of each month, people who were formerly out in the field helping Territorians and delivering very important services are now sitting in an office for three-quarters of the time of each month because they cannot get a vehicle.
If the Chief Minister, as she says, is very happy with the progress of major changes to government, can I tell her that public servants are not. It ill behoves her to get up here and say, and I quote from her statement:
I gave another example last week of a remote community that could not get their airstrip maintained; essential maintenance that had been detailed by air transport inspectors, airstrip inspectors. The officers now responsible in the former Department of Transport and Works, had to say: ‘Sorry, there is no money left’. It is officers in agencies such as those officers who are having to take the brunt of the actions of this government, who are having to tell Territorians: ‘Sorry, there is no funding available. Sorry, the government’s current policy is not to pursue that line of operation’, although it had been done formerly over the last decade or two. It is the public servants who have to deliver those stories. It is the public servant who is at his or her workplace, at the forefront of the problem, and having to explain to unfortunate Territorians who are having their services cut. It is not the minister nor the Chief Minister sitting in the comfort of their office who have to bear this impost.
I speak very passionately today on behalf of public servants, because I know the concerns that they have, and I know that they are desperately low in morale and that that morale is decreasing on virtually an hourly basis. It is just extraordinary that the Chief Minister should get up here today and say that everything is hunky-dory; public servants are quite happy with what we are doing and they are all fitting into it very comfortably. There is an exceedingly strong contrast to that, and it comes in the form of an e-mail that is being sent around the public service - has been for the last week or so in circulation - and it is anything except praiseworthy of this government, of this government’s programs and their satisfaction with the way that this government is conducting its management of the public service. The first paragraph reads:
That is a clear demonstration of jobs for the boys …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I ask that if it is an e-mail that the member for Katherine is directly quoting from, he tables that document, please?
Mr REED: I will be seeking to table this with alacrity. Can I say that the honourable minister, in his foolish attempt then to appear concerned to those public servants listening to this parliamentary broadcast, does himself no favours at all. This e-mail has been broadcast far and wide in the public service and I will, with joy, when I am finished with it, seek leave to table it.
It goes on to explain a large number of concerns in relation to non-performers in the public service. It is code, I suppose, for those hardworking public servants - 99% of whom are hardworking public servants - but like any other work place, there are a small percentage, inevitably - given that we are dealing with human beings - of people who do not carry their weight and others have to take on that burden and do their job as well.
The last paragraph of this - I will not go into it in any great detail; I will leave it for honourable members to read and assess for themselves:
Maybe they should …
That’s the government, Madam Speaker:
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr REED: For the Chief Minister to get up here and say everything is going fine, public servants are happy with the change, and not even to be aware of - and this is a fairly momentous occasion in terms of what is being circulated in the public service. It does not happen very often in terms of …
Mr Stirling: A few times over you, Mike.
Mr REED: … the circulation of comments of this kind in relation to a government and the reason for that is that public servants are professional in their approach to work and they are professional enough - to pick up the recent interjections by the honourable minister who is responsible for their well being and should be appreciative of their efforts - because public servants work for the government of the day. However, that should not, and I hope does not, detract from the fact that they should have the ability to express a point of view. From that point of view, I would hope that they continue to do so.
I want to deal with a few specific points in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement, as hollow as it is. At page 2, and I quote:
It worked pretty well for in the order of a decade.
Mr Stirling: You could not control the budget. You could not control expenditure!
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the honourable minister will have an opportunity to participate in this debate, and I hope he does as the responsible minister.
In terms of the ability for line agencies in the former arrangements to be able to relate directly to industry, rather than be shuffled into an enormous bureaucracy such as many of them now are, to lose their identity in terms of the industries which they service is most unfortunate. It is far too early for the Chief Minister to be passing judgment on whether or not her current arrangements are successful. I would suggest, on current assessments, that that should be left until just a little later.
Let’s see how it beds down before the Chief Minister continues to crow from the rooftops as to how successful her new arrangements are, because in a future date, she might find that they’re not quite as effective as she now says.
‘Only a very small proportion of public sector employees have been required to shift offices’. Madam Speaker, that is an extraordinary statement. They mightn’t have been required to shift offices, but I can tell you that a whole lot of them have moved out of their offices; that is, they have said: ‘We have had enough, we are not going to, as professional public servants, be sitting in an office, for three out of four weeks, with the inability to gain access to adequate resources …’, in particular vehicles and other needs that they have to fulfil their duties, ‘… and to not be able to do what we are paid to do’. Many of them have spoken with their feet; they have resigned, they have had enough and they’re on the move. That is a very great concern in terms of the loss of expertise.
I won’t name any particular work areas because I know how vindictive this government is, and it was demonstrated last week by some of the backbenchers on the government in terms of some issues that I raised. We had the chorus, of course: ‘Name them, who are they?’. They only want the name for one reason - so they can hunt them down and chop their heads off as employees of the Northern Territory Public Service.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Those interjections clearly demonstrate the attitude that this government has to hardworking public servants.
The Chief Minister had the temerity to applaud the advice that she received from Professor Percy Allan, and that these were the reasons for the independent review and the restructure of the public service. There are many competent and professional people in the Northern Territory Public Service who the Chief Minister could have got that advice from, and who would have been able to give her advice in relation to how the public service could be structured to best serve Territorians. Territorians, if they’re sick of one thing, is advice from the south, and Percy Allan gave us more of it. I think it will be found to be wanting in the longer term. It is far too early, as I say, for the Chief Minister to be taking credit and saying this is all very successful. To bring up another whiz kid in the form of Professor Percy, and be able to now stand up and say what a wonderful decision and advice that he made - far too early for that; let’s give it a little bit more time.
In terms of no forced redundancies, well, what is the Chief Minister on about? We heard the Minister for Justice last night saying that well, all things were pretty right, in terms of the comments that he made. I have them here somewhere …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Mr REED: … in terms of what was going on and they had to restructure the public service. The Chief Minister and, indeed, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, are on the record as saying there would be no forced redundancies. Yet, we had on the ABC radio last night the minister saying: ‘We have, we think, a leaner, meaner, more efficient public service’. Now, in Question Time today, he tried to squeeze out from under that and he couldn’t have. He was too frightened to have a censure motion on it because he knew that the facts would be disclosed in terms of just what he was saying. He was responding directly to questions in relation to the Auditor-General, which he had raised, as regards payments to those public servants who had received redundancies.
The Chief Minister cannot get away with the fact that she said there would be no forced redundancies and, indeed, that there would be no voluntary redundancies when, on the other hand, the Auditor-General demonstrates to Territorians that these people were pushed. They were - and using, indeed, the words of the minister - they were ‘asked to go’. Now, if they were asked to go, you can put yourself in the position of an employee who is fronted by their CEO - or, indeed, the minister in many cases, and/or the Chief Minister: ‘We’re saying to you that you are going, we are asking you to leave’. Do you think you would have a future in a government that was employing you so?
Who does the employment minister think he is, if he’s going to be so arrogant as to suggest that asking someone to leave is not a forced redundancy? That, of course, gets to the nub of the matter in terms of the amount of money that they have paid for these redundancies. That’s why the Auditor-General pointed it out, because they were forced redundancies. They were just very carefully chosen words in terms of what the government was saying to explain them. Of course, they have tripped each other up because as recently as yesterday, we had one answer from the Minister for Justice, one answer from the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, we have had another answer today from the Chief Minister who has said, on page 3, that they can negotiate voluntary redundancies - and that was after she, on ABC radio, formerly said there would be no voluntary redundancies.
If that is not grounds for a censure, then what is? It is just extraordinary that this government, in six months of government, could develop such extreme levels of arrogance that they are unprepared on the floor of this House to take on a debate, notwithstanding that on two occasions during the course of the six months that they have been in government, they have stooped to the most extraordinary action of a government censuring an opposition. Unheard of, Madam Speaker. If that’s not a government in crisis, in terms of a lack of confidence in itself and an inability to be able to conduct itself on the floor of this House - in terms of being able to portray factually and fairly its policies, and to explain them to Territorians clearly and enunciate them in a way that they can be both accepted and understood, but an inability to do so to the extent that they have to censure the opposition.
Of course, when the censure is called by the opposition on the government which, in effect, is what censure motions were developed for under the Westminster system, this government didn’t have the guts to take it on. This government was so gutless - so gutless - and has become so arrogant in a period of six months that it no longer has the capacity, even after that short period of time in government, to stand up and defend its position. There is no worse condemnation of a government that cannot take on its own position, cannot argue its position on the floor of this House and enable the opposition to fulfil its responsibilities - the Queen’s opposition, so to speak, in our Westminster system - and to convey on behalf of Territorians and, in this case, the Northern Territory Public Service, what we perceive the position to be.
Now, that is something that the government is going to have to live down, and they are going to have to explain that to the people of the Northern Territory and only they, now, can do it. It will be an interesting lesson in future sittings of this parliament, as to how the government conducts itself in future cases where the opposition does call a censure motion, because they have now set the ground rules. They put the noose around their necks and they have demonstrated their levels of extreme arrogance, and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over the traditions of this House, over the traditions of the parliamentary system, and to reject the processes that should be fairly applied in debate on the floor of this House.
I have been in this parliament - I’ve been elected 15 years on the 7th of this month - and I’ve never seen, and I do not recall an action, I must say, of that kind. In terms the inadequacies of this government, I think it is a sad reflection on this House. The Chief Minister has contradicted herself, as I have pointed out, and that in itself is an extraordinary situation.
On page 4, there was an interesting statement by the Chief Minister in her speech, and I quote:
Again, that is not reflected in the e-mail message that I’ve tabled and, can I say, I daresay if it was overwhelmingly positive, that the Chief Minister would have used some statistics in terms of the overall number of responses that were received, and the number of responses that were positive and those that were negative. We are learning - and I use the word collectively in terms of ‘we’, because it’s Territorians as a whole - to read between the lines with this government. It is not what they say in these statements but what they do not say, that one has to be cautious of, because by omission, I suspect that the Chief Minister might by gilding the lily just a touch here in terms of what was overwhelming positive and what wasn’t. There is nothing to substantiate her remarks in that regard and, as I say, the e-mail currently doing the rounds flies directly in the face of her comments.
It would be interesting to compare ministerial statements from the former government, and statements - including this one - that have been made by current ministers; looking at the content and the substantiation and comments that were made within statements that were made formerly, and the lack of that substantiation that exists in statements that we are receiving from the ministers and the Chief Minister of this Labor government. It does nothing to promote the professionalism of the government, or to give one any confidence that they are across their jobs.
Turning to page 7, and I quote from the Chief Minister’s statement: ‘This initiative is completed by the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador’. That is, of course, the introduction of the Office of Territory Development. Here is another point where this - what was going to be - open, honest and accountable government is none of those three things. If it were open and honest, in a major statement such as this from the Chief Minister ‘showing the light ahead, the path that the government’s going to take’ would have gone on to say what the remuneration to the ambassador - that is, Mr Collins – is; would have made that known to Territorians; what his terms of reference are, in relation to the duties that he has to perform. What are the terms of his employment, as the ambassador - is he employed forever, without question; is he employed for a fixed term - six months, 12 months, two years, the term of this parliament? Don’t Territorians deserve to know? That was what the Chief Minister used to espouse in opposition. ‘Territorians …, she used to stand here and say, ‘… have a right to know’. Well, Territorians have a right to know the terms of Mr Collins’ employment as the ambassador. It is not that he has not considered worthy of the position. I think that Mr Collins is a good choice as the Investment Ambassador. I think he will apply himself, as he has to his former tasks both in this parliament and the federal Senate, and as a minister in the former federal parliaments. He will serve the Territory well, because he is committed to serve the Territory well. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Minister, when she makes a statement of this kind, shouldn’t be leaving it to be prised out of her as to what the arrangements are in relation to the appointment of Mr Collins as the Investment Ambassador.
That is yet another example where the substantiation has not been provided; where this government is again demonstrating, after six months, an enormously high level of arrogance in terms of what it said in opposition and what it does in government. ‘Listen not to what we said in opposition, but take note of what we do in government, because they will be completely different’, is the real message that the Chief Minister is sending in this and other statements that she’s making.
I hope the Chief Minister will take the chance tomorrow – maybe there is a member of her staff listening - because she does say at the bottom of page 7 that she will be making a separate report in this place tomorrow on the Office for Territory Development. Out of respect for Territorians, she might advise them what the circumstances are in relation to the appointment of Mr Collins as the Investment Ambassador - and the other matters that I have raised - because, in fairness, they should be placed on the public record. I do not see why the Chief Minister cannot keep up with her commitments that she said made in opposition, now that she’s in government.
On page 9, the Chief Minister says she’s very pleased with the implementation of the NTPS agency changes overall. She’s probably the only one who is, apart from the six ministers who sit with her, and who have designed this process and caused so much disruption amongst public servants, and, of course, reduced their morale to enormously low levels. I was in the public service for 13 years, and I know how hard public servants work. It is a great shame to talk to many of them now who do not go the extra yard anymore. Why bother going in early, or why bother staying back late? Do the work that you have to, and fulfil the requirements of your employment and your duty statement. This government does not appreciate the extra effort that public servants put into the work that they used to do. They have demonstrated by the withdrawal of resources, by the fact that they have pooled motor vehicles and other equipment, and removed the ability for people to fulfil the full expectations of their employment and their responsibilities, that they do not appreciate their efforts.
Once you get a public service that says: ‘We’ll do what has to be done but won’t go that extra yard’, that is a great shame. It is going to take years and years to rebuild it to its former strength and level of operation and efficiency. For the minister to go on public radio yesterday and say that it is a meaner, leaner and more efficient public service - and infer that it formerly wasn’t efficient - doesn’t do him any good at all! For a government minister responsible for the public service to say: ‘They are now more efficient’, inferring that they previously were not efficient, does him no credit at all.
The pooling of resources, the loss of operational identity, the chain of command and the bureaucratic process in these mega-departments – and that’s why they were got rid of in the first place, because the Northern Territory is different to everywhere else. Professor Percy wouldn’t have recognised that; he was just another expert from down south. For the Chief Minister to say: ‘Isn’t it wonderful we applied his thoughts on this matter?’, does her no credit at all, when she overstepped the expertise and experience in the public service, in terms of what could have been done to best meet the needs of Territorians.
This statement is hollow. It is outrageous that the government gagged the censure motion; didn’t have the guts to take it on and discuss the matter on the floor of the House. If that is not a demonstration of extreme arrogance; if that is not a demonstration of a gutless government; if that is not a demonstration of ministers who aren’t across their job, unable to get up and defend themselves and their actions on the floor of the House, well, I cannot recall a better demonstration of all those matters. The government should be condemned for this statement.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, well, he rails the fact that we wouldn’t accept a substantive motion by way of a censure motion this morning.
Mr Reed: Gutless, you are gutless!
Mr STIRLING: He’s just had his opportunity. In many ways, it was in a tone quite commensurate with that that would be used in a censure motion. I am not quite sure where his complaint is from. But his opening remarks go to public servants who cannot get a vehicle to go on field trips; or they have to get permission to use a vehicle; or they have to share a vehicle with five, six, seven, however many other public servants. But he offers no evidence; he doesn’t name an agency; he doesn’t say what type of work these people are engaged in. Because he gets in here and says it, we are expected to take it as absolute truth.
He suggests other cuts, again unsubstantiated, doesn’t even tell us what these cuts and moves and decisions are. ‘You can’t get a vehicle, all these cuts, they are all damaging morale’. We have already seen here, I guess, a growing tactic in relation to the opposition. Last week, it was moves by the Leader of the Opposition to try to undermine the morale of the police force and the work that they do in the community. Now it is the turn of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get in here putting forward totally unsubstantiated claims, in the first place, about public servants not being able to get vehicles. I suggest, if he were serious at all about such a complaint and the lack of service delivery that might result from that type of behaviour, he ought, in all conscience in his role as shadow minister responsible for this area, be talking to the minister and putting it to him. But he won’t because there is simply no substance to these claims at all, and he simply doesn’t care. He simply uses them for short-term political gain.
I look at this e-mail tabled by the Deputy Opposition Leader and I think it is a very sad reflection on the author - a very sad reflection on the author. When you read comments such as: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black, then you are automatically on the promotion track’.
A member: Racist.
Mr STIRLING: I see the member opposite raise his - he should have a look at this because that is the sort of attitude that is portrayed in here: unsubstantiated allegations of racist behaviour by this government and senior management in the public service; allegations that this government promotes people on the basis of race; allegations that this government promotes people on the basis of colour, because they are black. We well know - and my 11 and a bit years in here - the reputation that the member for Katherine has in relation to these sort of attitudes. He has been accused of having had a very red neck in the past, and at different times, when those accusations have been made, he has been very proud to display that red neck as a badge of pride. Promoting material such as this: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black you are automatically on a promotional track’, is entirely in line with attitudes that I have seen expressed and displayed by the member for Katherine in the past.
By tabling this e-mail here today and giving it far greater prominence that it otherwise would have - and far greater prominence that it ever deserved – it is entirely predictable behaviour for the member for Katherine, because he thinks these types of attitudes - he thinks this is representative of the majority of the population out there. Well, happily and thankfully, he is wrong. And his gleeful circulation of this e-mail with attitudes like that, does him no credit at all, as it does no credit to the author of such a document.
Well may he rail about the lack of numbers they have in pursuing and getting a censure up on the floor of the parliament today. When you come down to garbage like that that you want to base your censure on, when you come down to unsubstantiated garbage and wasteless dribble such as this e-mail portrays, and it suits you and your mate here - it suits you to peddle a racist line because that is what CLP Central Council said to you the other day: ‘Fellas, you lost the last election because you didn’t raise the racist flag’. Well here it is: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black then you are automatically on the promotional track’. Good stuff, good stuff. They would love it down at Central Council, might keep your leadership alive for a few months yet. I doubt it; I don’t think anything would.
Enough of that sort of racist garbage.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Given your comments earlier to this House and the undertakings by the Deputy Chief Minister, and also the fact that he knows it should be by substantive motion that you make derogative comments. I would have thought that the degree to which he is calling the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a racist really goes beyond the pale, and I ask you to rule on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, we did say that we would not make personal abusive comments so I think you should withdraw them.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if I referred to the member for Katherine, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a racist I withdraw unreservedly. I simply stand by my remarks I made in relation to this document which I declared, unreservedly, racist. If I did, and I am not sure that I did, but I certainly withdraw any allegation that may be read that I was accusing the member for Katherine himself of racism. Certainly, this e-mail that he gleefully tables does not speak well of him, nor the author.
Employment, Education and Training is a prime example of a new department which achieves the goals outlined by the Chief Minister in her statement. I have thought long and hard about why the former government did not go this way in the creation of this agency, because it brings together the former Northern Territory Department of Education; the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority (NTETA); and Work Health and Electrical Safety from the Department of Industries and Business. I don’t think it requires a great deal of wisdom to see the value in amalgamating employment and training with education. In truth, I think the failure of the previous government to go along these lines underlined their lack of vision about the connections between education and training and employment prospects for Territorians, and the critical link between these and economic development. For example, the Territory has never had an employment strategy. The Territory has not had regular up-to-date labour market analyses to form an employment strategy, or to help set priorities for training across sectors objectively and fairly.
For the years we were in opposition, Labor pressed the then government about the urgent requirement for the Northern Territory to have an employment strategy - to no avail. Now, we will have the organisational capacity to develop this because the links are there. I have asked the department to examine how best to develop an employment strategy which will work for the Territory, one which delivers solutions that work for business, employees and the very diverse communities in the Northern Territory. This way we can view the economic and social capacity of the Northern Territory for all Territorians.
Government’s employment strategy must be underpinned by safe and protective workforce and by safe work places. Connecting Work Health and Electrical Safety to the other employment functions of government strengthens our capacity to ensure this. Work Health and Electrical Safety are now better placed to encourage preventative work practices that contribute to safer Territory work places through increased access to education and training resources. Moreover, they have the clear endorsement of this government to implement appropriate, transparent enforcement of Work Health regulations with the support of the business community. Both Work Health and the Electrical Safety Branch, and the Employment and Training Division, gain from the increased capacity and financial management and business planning offered by the larger department.
Under the previous government, smaller agencies such as NTETA lacked sufficient power and the capacity to argue their case convincingly to Treasury and government on financial and budget issues. One wonders if that was not a convenient ploy for the previous government, that you had so many disempowered, segregated smaller agencies - none of which could convincingly take on the might of Treasury. It may well have suited the former Treasurer to have that disempowerment and segregation across the public sector, because that ensured his powerful position at the pinnacle of government along with the Chief Minister.
It is no wonder, in that context and climate, that it was difficult for employment and training to establish a solid budget base. Responsible government is about responsible financial management, and government needs to be well informed in developing the budget. Agencies need sufficient financial management capacity to ensure that happens. The new Department of Employment, Education and Training ensures this capacity for all the department’s programs, and the new department consolidates the Territory’s position when it is dealing with peak national bodies such as the Australian National Training Authority, Ministerial Council and the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. This enhances our capacity to negotiate the best possible deal for Territorians.
As minister, I have signed off on the new outcome areas to be addressed by DEET. These reflect the synergies and opportunities created by the amalgamation: learners for the future, workforce for the future, indigenous participation, and efficient and effective systems to meet diversity. I report that the amalgamation has been achieved within a very short timeframe, with minimal disruption to schools and other service providers connected with the organisations that have been combined - no redundancies and minimal physical relocations of office staff. The new departmental structure is in place with the main changes being: the creation of an Employment and Training Division; the appointment of a general manager who will finetune the structure of that division; the creation of a Work Health and Electrical Safety Branch; and the appointment of a director who will fine tune its structure.
New reporting arrangements for the various divisions and branches have been determined. These new arrangements have been communicated to all staff via a newsletter and the new departmental web site. They will result in increased professional development opportunities for staff and offer a greater choice of career paths. They create efficiencies through the rationalisation of support service in the areas of finance, human resource and information technology.
It is clear from what I said that this new Department of Employment, Education and Training is well set and it will play a key role in this government’s renewed focus on economic development, job creation, education and training, indigenous affairs, and sound financial management.
I also wish to inform the Assembly of the outcomes of the government’s deliberations concerning the administrative arrangements for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. It was subject to some debate in this Chamber at the last sittings. The Chief Minister identified the need for a review of the best administrative arrangements for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment prior to finalisation of this matter. The review has been conducted and the government has determined that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment will remain a separate, stand-alone agency which retains the core functions and resources of both the Employee Relations section and the Learning Centre, necessary to assist the commissioner in the performance of his or her statutory functions.
Those functions include: the maintenance of consistent and transparent public sector employment practices and procedures across agencies; the fair and efficient operation of mechanisms for individual employee appeals against disciplinary and promotion decisions; the oversight of negotiation settlement and registration of agency enterprise bargaining agreements and any industrial disputes arising between employees and agencies; the development of policy for the future management of Northern Territory Public Service-wide employment issues and initiatives.
The government believes it is imperative that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment not only continue to do what it has been doing, and doing well, but that it should develop its role as the lead agency responsible for service-wide issues such as strategic workforce, capability and succession planning. The inclusion of the key Learning Centre functions of a leadership program development and strategic planning programs within the Office of the Commissioner to work directly with the Employee Relations section, will enhance their role and generate important future capacity to meet the challenges before us. At the same time, some functions which have grown up within the Learning Centre but which are not essentially part of the Commissioner’s statutory role - such as the management and delivery of entry level programs and short courses, and also some corporate support functions, records management, and facilities management - will be transferred to the Department of Corporate and Information Services where they fit logically into the overall functions and responsibilities of that agency.
These changes are consistent with the restructuring and efficiency principles outlined in the government’s changes to administrative arrangements announced in November. The retention of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment as a separate, stand-alone agency will, I believe, be welcomed by Northern Territory public service employees as a whole. It not only retains the office as an independent and separate office with all of the current statutory duties and responsibilities as the statutory employer of Northern Territory public servants, it also enhances the capacity of the commissioner to perform those duties to the best of his or her ability.
Finally, the position of the Commissioner for Public Employment, which fell vacant with the retirement of the former commissioner, David Hawkes in December, will now be advertised and filled in accordance with the provisions of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. I know from personal experience, from submissions and from lengthy discussion with the former Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr David Hawkes, that that model preserving the independence and the integrity of the Office of the Public Service Commissioner as a separate agency, would be strongly welcomed and heartily endorsed by him.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I say at the outset that the opposition acknowledges the government’s prerogative to implement their own policies, and that includes the restructure of the public service. However, this statement does nothing to dispel the opposition’s concerns about how these changes are occurring. The statement itself is no more than a regurgitation of the press releases and statements that were made when these changes were first announced last November. Certainly, if one is looking for any more detail than what is in this particular statement, we are sadly disappointed. Again, it points to the fact that it constantly amazes me how weak the statements are that come from this Chief Minister.
It is important, though, in one respect and in that regard, the statement raises more questions and certainly no answers. For the first time, the Chief Minister has admitted that there have been and will be more job losses. She says - and I quote from her statement - firstly that, in terms of the delivery of services, she says:
She goes on to say:
And I believe this is the first time I have seen this admission other than when she slipped on a Julie Christensen interview:
This is in stark contrast to a litany of assurances given by the Chief Minister to the public service prior to the election and since - including when these changes were first announced. Most importantly, this statement and comments by both the Chief Minister and her ministers reveal that first, the public service is not growing but shrinking; second, job losses were intended despite assurances by the Chief Minister that there would be no job losses; senior public servants were not paid their entitlements but were given enticements to ensure their swift departure, despite assurances given that their jobs were secure.
I would say that on these three issues alone, it is clear that the Chief Minister has misled the parliament, the media, the public service and Territorians by the way this restructure has taken place. On 9 August last year, the member for Fannie Bay signed a pledge to Territory public sector workers stating, and I quote: ‘Under Labor there will be NO job losses from the public sector’. I seek leave to table a photograph of the member for Fannie Bay signing that pledge.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: On achieving government, this Chief Minister and government embarked on a total restructuring of the public service and, when questioned in this parliament about possible job losses, the Chief Minister said - and this is from Parliamentary Record at page 69 of the Questions section of Volume 2 of the Ninth Assembly:
But today, the Chief Minister has finally admitted that there are voluntary redundancies going on as a result of the restructuring. At page 71 of the same section of Parliamentary Record, the Chief Minister said: ‘There are no job losses’. Now, the opposition said at the time that the Chief Minister was not telling the truth and, in this statement today, she has admitted it. At page 73 of the same section of Parliamentary Record, the Chief Minister said:
I say, tell that to the CEOs because, as the Chief Minister’s Minister for Justice revealed yesterday, she was in the very process of asking them to leave. Tell that to the public servants who, as the Deputy Chief Minister revealed yesterday, were the fact that they were getting rid of to create a leaner public service. I take the opportunity to table both of those transcripts.
I say to the Chief Minister, tell that to the Auditor-General, whose report reveals that if it looks like a termination or a sacking and smells like a termination or sacking, and is paid out like a termination or sacking, then it is probably a termination, a forced redundancy. Not only did the Chief Minister say that there would be no job losses - which was totally incorrect - not only did the Chief Minister say there would be no forced redundancies - again she was not telling the truth - not only did the Chief Minister say there would be no voluntary redundancies - the third time she did not tell the truth - but she also said, and again I refer to the same section of Parliamentary Record at page 75:
Now, how does that stack up against the Deputy Chief Minister’s comment to Channel 8 last night where he said:
They would certainly be meaner, I reckon, in the context of being angrier. How does that stack up with reality? Of course, the answer is it does not stack up; it was yet another misleading of this parliament; a deliberate lie to this parliament.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has been here since 1994. If he does not know standing orders, he ought to.
Mr BURKE: I am prepared to put forward a substantive motion on the issue.
Mr STIRLING: But it is not a substantive motion, Madam Speaker, and he cannot infer lying. Withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: It was the context of you saying you said the Leader of Government Business lied and you know you cannot say that. So, just withdraw that and continue.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Let’s put this in context. The Chief Minister was making these statements about no job losses months after she had miraculously discovered the ‘black hole’. Despite whatever effect that was supposed to have on the budget, on the Territory, the Chief Minister was adamant and persistent in that particular lie that the restructuring of the public service would cause no job losses. At the same time, the Chief Minister was misleading this parliament and she was doing the same to the media. On 13 November, the Chief Minister told Julia Christiansen on ABC Drive Time program:
Now, I wonder what those CEOs who are being asked to leave, or those CEOs with whom the government was doing a deal at the time, thought of that particular exchange? It goes on:
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table an extract of the transcript of that particular interview.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then on 27 November in an interview with Fred McCue on the Morning Program on ABC radio, the Chief Minister was pushed to answer whether the public service would be smaller in 12 months time than it was on that day. After twice telling the Chief Minister she was not answering the question, he finally received this answer:
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think he is getting to like that word and he shouldn’t be using it.
Madam SPEAKER: A point of order has been called on that last sentence where you accused the Chief Minister …
Mr BURKE: I withdrew the word ‘lie’, can I use ‘mislead’?
Madam SPEAKER: Mislead, yes.
Mr BURKE: She misled him at the very beginning of her political career, as we all know from the infamous article in the Sunday Territorian. Again, on 27 November and again in an interview with Julie Christiansen on ABC Drive Time, this exchange occurred:
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, you will recall that, at this time, the CLP were raising the spectre of job cuts, job losses in the public service - so much so that, not content with just telling this House there’d be no voluntary redundancies, no job losses …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … the Chief Minister took the extraordinary step …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order! The Opposition Leader has the floor.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to all public servants and I quote from the letter:
Now, let’s see what they said to the unions. On ABC TV news on 13 November, it was reported that the Public Sector Union was not worried about any job losses. The union’s Mark Hathaway appeared, saying:
Take another example. On 13 November, the Chief Minister told ABC Drive Time, and I quote:
The problem with this litany of lies is that they were unnecessary, if only the Chief Minister had the courage of her convictions. Why didn’t she just admit …
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he is again ascribing lying to the Chief Minister and should withdraw that.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. This litany of untruths - why didn’t she just admit that this new government planned to get rid of some senior managers and CEOs? Why didn’t she admit that voluntary redundancies would be offered to those down the line who found themselves redundant as a result of the restructuring? Why didn’t she just admit that, unfortunately, there would be job losses because this Labor government wanted a leaner, meaner public service? I ask the question why because it is a serious question. And the answer is, the Chief Minister will always get away from telling the truth; she will dissemble at every opportunity. She does it because she thinks she can get away with it. As you, yourself reported, Madam Speaker, only a few days ago when you said: ‘Enough of that Mona Lisa smile, we need some action’. Or, as Paul Toohey wrote in The Australian on 26 January this year when he said:
Or, again, quoting Paul Toohey:
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Stop misleading everyone.
Mr BURKE: Stop misleading everyone, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is, as said, endemic in the Chief Minister. Look at her record on the cost of living. For two and a half years, as Leader of the Opposition, she railed against the then government that they were doing nothing about the cost of living - it was a major issue. The Chief Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, said:
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Now, was she misleading when she was Leader of the Opposition, or is she misleading now on Sky News or does she just mislead and dissemble all the time? Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case. Only last week, the Chief Minister welcomed the endorsement of her government’s budget management by credit rating agency, Moody’s. She told this House how good that assessment was and she told everyone else through a media release, but nowhere did she acknowledge what Moody’s said. This government was facing – and I quote from the Moody’s assessment:
What about the other ways this government is treating the public service? They have, down the line, public servants writing their dorothy dixers and writing their speeches, even though the now Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, only a few months ago in July last year, said that this should never be done. I refer him and this government to his speech recorded in Parliamentary Record Volume 29 of the Eighth Assembly at pages 8481 through to 8485. What about the media management meeting of the Chief Minister’s top staff within weeks of taking over? It ordered that all good news stories had to be reported by the departments direct to the Chief Minister’s media unit. He flagged how this government intended to:
What about forcing the public service to send out political propaganda when they issue renewal notices for motor registration? How is it not politicising the public service when this government forces them to insert a flyer stating: ‘This levy is part of the government strategy to address the poor state of the Territory’s budget, and the unsustainable budget deficit inherited from the former government’? The government may believe that, but we dispute it. It is party politics, and it is something public servants should not be ordered to send out.
What about the weekly issue sheet that public servants have to fill in, under this government? They have to record every time an MLA contacts them, what the issue was, and what action was taken. This is not simply complying with the code of conduct under the public service Public Sector Employment and Management Act but rather, so that the weekly list can be passed up the chain of the department and then on to the minister’s office. These intimidatory tactics - politicising the public service, keeping watch on everyone - it is all of those, and it leaves public service, at all levels, living and working constantly under threat.
And what must those public servants now think, losing their jobs, when the staff on the fifth floor has burgeoned? The previous government had nine ministers, and that included the staff in Alice, Tennant and Canberra - a total all up of 72 ministerial staff. The equivalent figure for this government is 80. How many of them are off the books and still being paid out of their department’s budget, rather than the Chief Minister’s budget? This explosion of staff advising ministers goes to the very heart of why the Chief Minister is spreading mistruths about the cuts to ministerial budget. It was the Chief Minister who said - and I emphasise, before the election - that she would save $2m simply by cutting the ministry from nine to seven. Now she claims it is all part of her black hole strategy.
It was the Chief Minister who should have known - or else didn’t want to say to anyone - that cutting the ministry by two has no effect on the ministerial budget, because their salaries are paid out of the Legislative Assembly’s budget. The only way she’d achieve a cut of $2m was to cut the ministerial staff and, instead, she has increased it. She has not cut their budget by 27%, but by a meagre 6.8%, and the figures tell the story, not the Chief Minister - just as she was caught out by the Auditor-General over her spending when she was Leader of the Opposition. She used - this might be a bit of trivia for the day - enough paper at the taxpayers’ expense to cover the white line on the Stuart Highway from Darwin down to Pine Creek. As the Auditor-General has pointed out, of the particular examples that he examined, 50% of that paper was used for party political purposes.
Dr Toyne: They’ve researched this! They must have been on this for weeks!
Mr BURKE: You would be smiling too - a lot of it went directly to your electorate. If you had an ounce of integrity, you’d pay it back.
Dr Burns: Who are you pointing to?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the member for Johnston I am referring to, also the member for Karama sitting behind him, and the member for Sanderson sitting over there – every one of them. If any one of them had an ounce of integrity, they’d be making rumblings in the Labor Party to at least pay back the 50% that the Auditor-General has clearly pointed out was misappropriated from taxpayers. We said she was running the Labor Party campaign out of the Opposition Leader’s office at the expense of the taxpayer and she denied it. As the Auditor-General report shows yet again, she has a strange idea of what the truth is.
What about the exchange with ABC’s Morning Program on the 30 December last year, when she had to explain why she was no longer going to save $50m on government consultancies? The Chief Minister told the interviewer:
Even the interviewer knew she was being fed porkies on that one. The interviewer said:
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be set aside to allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish his comments.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The interviewer was correct, as any perusal of any Hansard budget debate shows that the Chief Minister persisted, because when she’s on a good mistruth, she sticks to it. I’ve not even touched on the policy backflips; the lies about how she voted on the statehood referendum; the blatant discrepancies between the document Access were given to cost and that bought in as part of the mini-budget …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Could you rephrase that, Leader of the Opposition, about the untruths of the statehood?
Mr BURKE: I’ve not even touched on the policy backflips or the mistruths of how she voted on the statehood referendum. The Chief Minister proclaimed, before coming to office, that she would head an open, honest, and accountable government. In the opposition’s opinion, she has achieved none of this. By this very basic flaw in her character, this need to tell a story - this character needs to spin a version, tell mistruths - that she is corrupting this government and its relations with this House, the public service, the media and Territorians. Her action today, both by herself and her government, and every member of this parliament - particularly those younger ones, who all said in their initial speeches to this parliament about how honoured they were to be part of the democratic process - to gag a censure motion under the Westminster system. Considering you, yourselves, have raised two censure motions by government against the opposition in the short time this House has sat since you came into government - one against one member of the opposition - and to not allow a censure motion from the opposition in return, is an absolute disgrace, and it spells the death knell of democracy in the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I condemn the motion.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition feels a bit better now that he has had a half hour whinge about the usual topic of his life these days.
Dr Burns: There is no evidence.
Mr Elferink: The idea is to allow for evidence, you wally. That’s why you bring the motion on. You have no idea how the system works, mate, and you have no idea what sort of an affront, what just happened to these people.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you are talking across the Chamber. Enough! Order! The Attorney-General has the floor, you do not.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, like a ship with no rudder, he could not change his tune when he was not offered the censure motion, and decided to do it anyway, with a few amendments. Well, that’s okay, you have had your shot. It is on Hansard, so you can be satisfied.
I am pleased to report on progress in implementing the agency restructure of my two departments: the Department of Corporate and Information Services and the new Department of Justice. Before moving to the detail of that, I would like to pay tribute to my CEOs, Richard Coates and Sarah Butterworth. It is certainly a pleasure to work with two professionals with the ability and commitment of Richard and Sarah. I would also like to pay tribute to the professionalism of our former CEOs within the two departments for which I have carriage, in accepting and working within the changed structure. To have recognised that the government of the day wanted to bring about those reforms, and to renew their enthusiasm for the work that they’re doing, is a tribute to their commitment to their profession.
To take the Department of Corporate and Information Services firstly, the changes made to the DCIS as part of the agency restructure in November were:
The changes have strengthened DCIS’s role as a central service provider for the NTG agencies; the additional functions of property and light vehicle fleet management complement the existing suite of services that DCIS already delivered to agencies. DCIS has developed a costing model in order to charge DBDs for its services, and it will now be able to extend this to all its customers, at least in notional terms, so that the full cost of line agency outputs is readily available …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! State of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells, we do not have a quorum. We only have eight, ring the bells.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr Elferink: It is called obeying the rules, something that you guys have totally forgotten about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, don’t start!
Mr Elferink: It is up to you guys to keep a quorum, you are the government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you have already been spoken to once about speaking across the Chamber. We have enough now.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The rigour of the DCIS costing model is currently being applied to property management to enable fully justified charges to agencies in future. As a GBD, NT Fleet joins DCIS’s other two GBDs - the Government Printing Office and the Occupation Technical Management Services - in providing services predominantly to NTG agencies.
I am particularly pleased that the telecommunication functions have been transferred into my portfolio. Already, the Communications Unit has worked hard to realise the Northern Territory government’s commitment to support the outback digital networks bids for up to $20.3m funding under the Networking the Nation Program and the National Communications Fund, which will be used to build remote telecommunications services throughout the Northern Territory.
I was sorry to see the departure of NT Libraries and Information Services to Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. It is an area in which I maintain a keen interest, but acknowledge its better strategic fit within the cultural affairs portfolio and the able management of this area by my ministerial colleague.
DCIS has undergone a very smooth transition which was finalised well before Christmas. The agency was particularly fortunate in that the managers of both Properties and Fleet had previously expressed a desire to be part of DCIS due the closer synergies than with their previous agencies. They have readily been integrated into the DCIS planning framework, reporting requirements, and the strong communication practices within the agency. There were no specific savings associated with the changes to DCIS structure but, like all agencies, DCIS has had to achieve budget improvement targets and has developed a comprehensive and inclusive approach, which involves a wide range of work units, in meeting the challenge. DCIS will shortly be embarking on a customer survey to assess the extent to which it is meeting its customers’ needs and to identify areas for improvement. The survey will encompass the new services and will provide a further opportunity for DCIS to present as a cohesive, central service provider.
Before I finish with DCIS, I would like to pay acknowledgement to a particularly exciting area within the DCIS development. That is the development of Wizard Systems for accounts payable and accounts receivable. The introduction of the GST brought many complications in the way payments and revenue are processed. DCIS, since its inception, had a major focus for what it terms working smarter, or otherwise known as process improvement. The Percy Allan report recommended the review of back office systems for efficiency. Through DCIS’ focus towards working smarter, many of these reviews were already well underway, one of which is known to the finance people working in the agency as the Wizard. The Wizard is a term which symbolises the quickness and mastery of delivering the processes to DCIS employees in a more efficient and logical manner using the very latest technology.
The Northern Territory government is at the forefront with this technology, with one of only two sites operating in production world-wide. The technology has enabled the development of more efficient screens for data entry; it provides calculations; real time validations; checks and instructions to operators in the application of their processes. It also automates communication through electronic mail between DCIS regions and client agencies. The Wizard is an interactive product which delivers an efficient and cost-effective processing mechanism that allows provision of a value-added service to our clients. The Wizards have been developed for processes surrounding accounts receivable, accounts payable, fixed assets and purchase order. Accounts receivable and accounts payable Wizards are currently in production to a higher level.
Because of the innovative and newness of this technology, DCIS has risen to the challenge of solving many technology problems and barriers. This has been done through a cross-sharing of ideas and free-flowing communication between the private sector, interstate and overseas, and many skill bases within DCIS. Mostly it has been through a strong determination to arrive at a more efficient process. Many interested international and national users of the system on which our government accounting system, GAS, is based, attended a conference in Adelaide last year and were very interested in this and other innovative developments in the Northern Territory.
I just want to say, in closing on this particular topic, I want to express my gratitude to the DCIS staff and contractors who have carried out the work on the Wizards and wish them every success in the ongoing development of this exciting project. That translates into mountains of paper that was previously processed, which is now going to be done in a very concentrated way through a series of screens for which DCIS staff are being trained in the appropriate areas. I definitely think we are moving very well in that area.
The restructure created the Department of Justice by combining the former Attorney-General’s Department, Office of Public Prosecutions, Public Trustee, Registrar-General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Anti-Discrimination Commission and the Office of Courts Administration. In addition, staff from the Criminal Justice Statistics Group and a number of policy officers from the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services have been brought together in the Department of Justice to form the new Office of Crime Prevention. These staff numbers will be boosted by an addition of five new positions in the year 2002-03. The amalgamation of these agencies into the new Department of Justice created a number of organisational and administrative challenges for its new CEO, Mr Richard Coates.
I am pleased to be able to report on the significant achievements made in progressing the amalgamation of those different agencies and the positive benefits which have started to flow. Rationalisation processes are well underway; they will achieve significant savings in the cost of providing corporate services across the new department, and will share expertise that is needed for the move to accrual accounting. Previously, each of the former agencies was responsible for their own human resources, financial management and information technology needs. Resources were being diverted from their core business needs to maintain a proper level of corporate services. This was unrealistic for the smaller agencies, one of which had only nine employees.
I am also pleased to be able to report that several NT government agencies have approached the new Department of Justice to explore the possibility of expanding the level of legal services it provides. The department is working on options which could lead to more cost-effective legal services for the government.
Already, the benefits of using the skills of staff from different areas which are now encompassed within the new department, are beginning to be seen. For example, a policy officer from the former Attorney-General’s Policy Division, with investigation experience, has conducted inquiries for the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. A prosecutor from DPP has filled a temporary vacancy in the policy area, bringing specific skills and knowledge relevant to the development of the proceeds of crime legislation and other technical expertise in an area of implementation of the three-point plan on drugs. In turn, a legal policy officer was, on short notice, able to fill the position of Sheriff at the Supreme Court when that position became temporarily vacant. Policy officers from the Office of Consumer Affairs, which had been located within the Department of Industries, Business and Resource Development, have been co-located within the department’s Legal Policy Division. They bring practical, valuable commercial experience with them and are now working in an environment where they can rely on the extensive legal experience of the department’s policy lawyers, providing greater depth in commercial and related areas of policy development.
The training of articled law clerks and young lawyers will now be broadened, as they will be able to rotate through a number of different areas in the new department. Through the greater pool of legal expertise, the department is now in a position to re-institute the position of Crown Counsel, who will provide high-level legal advice to government and work on larger legal issues with the Solicitor-General. It is expected that, through the new pool of legal expertise, savings will be made through less reliance on consultants.
Concerns were expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner about the independence of their officers under these new arrangements. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act ensures by statute the independent exercise of the director’s powers and functions, and the Public Sector Employment and Management Act has been amended to ensure that the CEO of the Department of Justice can make delegations to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable the director to continue to make decisions on matters such as the staffing, promotions and other administrative matters like travel and finance. These delegations are being finalised after extensive consultation with the DPP. Late last year, I had discussions with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and invited him to bring proposals to me if he had any continuing concerns about his independence. He has brought nothing forward to me and has certainly indicated that he is happy with the way things are progressing.
I have also continued to address these matters which will strengthen the independence of the Northern Territory judiciary. Provisions of the Magistrates Act as they currently stand - and as they have stood for some years - give the government the power to reduce or vary the conditions of serving magistrates to their detriment. I have requested my department to commence, in the latter part of this year, a review of the Magistrates Act with a view to protecting the terms and conditions of magistrates during their period of office. I look forward to bringing this, and other amendments which may be necessary to further this important purpose, before the House. Overall, the amalgamation has brought together a number of departments involving the justice system, and created a strong agency with staff with wide skills and experience.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to note the significant progress achieved by the new Department of Justice in successfully implementing the amalgamation, and the continuing very good work of the Department of Corporate and Information Services under the new arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to address the statement by the Chief Minister. I begin by addressing a certain document which, according to the members opposite, by this stage should be written in Cantonese for all of their understanding of it. The document I draw members’ attention to is the Labor Good Government policy document.
Dr Burns: Well, he can still join.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am astonished that I already have to start to deal with the interjections from the members opposite. ‘I can still join’, says the member for Johnston. Well, quite frankly, I would not want to join a party which is as treacherous to its own causes as this one is in this Chamber today.
I draw the members’ attention to Good Government, page 8, their document:
And yet, what do we see occurring in this Chamber? We see members opposite glibly coming in here and rattling their names off, saying: ‘Oh, we know which political party this person is a member of’ and ‘Oh, we know what political party that person is a member of’. ‘We know who you are,’ they say, and as a consequence of that, how is the public service supposed to give fearless advice when they talk about members of political parties in this Chamber, like the cowards that they have become?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an astonishing situation that we find ourselves in here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. But I can tell you something: these people come in here and they say that they believe in good government. They went to the election on a policy of good government. This document here is the one that they provided to the people of the Northern Territory and yet, they name individual public servants - they are not even senior public servants; we are talking about middle level public servants and lower - in this Chamber, associating their political persuasions with them.
We have the Minister for Police making public comments about: ‘Well, we know that 70% of the police force votes for the CLP’. Well, that is an extraordinary thing for a minister of the Crown to say - an extraordinary thing. It is an outrageous thing for the minister to say. They are in the process of politicising the public service, despite the fact that they have created a Good Government document which they delivered to the people of the Northern Territory. It was deceptive and it was untrue.
I draw them to the next sentence in this Good Government document:
How many departmental staffers work on the fifth floor? How many departmental staffers are there up there working today? Well, I would have expected an interjection: ‘None. None, Madam Speaker,’ but no! The point is that there are departmental people working on the fifth floor. They are in the process of politicising the public service. The Minister for Police, by even suggesting which way he believes public servants under his control would vote, is politicising the public service. It is an outrage, and it is far beyond the scope of anything that they suggested in this document when they went to the last election.
That document goes onto say:
They have been gutting the public service. We have not yet had laid on the table - promised by the minister during Question Time today - the numbers and the figures of the public service back in August. Now I note that he has to go and get those particular documents.
Mr Stirling: I will go and find out where they are.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you promised them, but you are not prepared to do it - until such time as the Minister for Police has to be prompted into doing it.
I draw members’ attention to page 59 of Budget Paper No 3. If you look at that item, it deals with insurances. Because they came up with a figure of $60m there, and they have to then place into that budget paper a figure that they do not like, what do they do? They leave it blank. It is not a zero entry. Nothing. It is blank; it is just a blank space in a place where there is supposed to be an entry. How is this honest, and how is this accountable to the people of the Northern Territory?
This is the government that was going to provide for the people of the Northern Territory honest, accountable, open government. On the very first instance that they get an opportunity to take a censure motion which they invited, they shut it down before it could even be put to a vote. This parliamentary Chamber has become a disgrace because of the way that this government, which complained bitterly how badly they were treated that it inspired them to put in their Good Government document comments such as:
What is their response? They give us more ministerial statements and they give us ministerial reports. Wonderful stuff. Ministerial reports - they have doubled up on it. And what are they actually doing? They are dropping their dead hand upon this Chamber; a dead hand that they have absolutely no intention of lifting despite the fact that they took this to the people of the Northern Territory and said: ‘This is our policy position’. I can see the members opposite: this irritates them and I am sure it annoys them to hear this sort of stuff. But, frankly, they have to hear it, because I sat here in the Chamber the other night and spoke in relation to the quality of some of the debates that come before this House, and the member for Johnston - I talked about the sanctity of the House and you, yourself, Madam Speaker, addressing the parliament prior to Question Time, talked about the decorum and the sanctity of this House - sat there and nodded, I recall, and agreed with what I was saying or appeared to, at least. Then, why on earth would you come into a place called a parliament and try to crush debate? The very name ‘parliament’ comes from the French to parle: to talk. This is a place of debate and yet, when this mob, this rabble across the other side of the Chamber here, do not want to hear it because it does not suit them, they just stop debate; not even giving a chance for the case to be put.
The Leader of the Opposition was moving a motion. He was in the process of moving a motion and he was shut down. When he sought even a simple right to vote, it was denied by the members opposite and by the Leader of Government Business. This is open, this is honest, this is accountable government?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe that the member is reflecting on your decision that you took, on advice from the Clerk, that there was no opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to call for a division once there was no question before the Chair and once you have ruled. If the member for Macdonnell wants to call your decision and your judgment into argument, then I certainly believe that you need to put him straight.
Mr Elferink: What have you got against voting?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, no. This is an outrage.
Madam SPEAKER: I – excuse me!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I do not care. This Chamber is stopped …
Madam SPEAKER: I am warning you!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, this Chamber is being used and we are being …
Madam SPEAKER: I am warning you! You are speaking out of order. Let me finish.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker – all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, what I am saying to you is that, if your comments were meant to reflect on my decision, then you should withdraw them. If they had some other interpretation, then please explain.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, my interpretation is that that rabble over there, that outrageous rabble who believe in the parliamentary system, who believe in debate, who believe in open and accountable government, have come into this Chamber and they have become much, much worse in the space of six months than they could ever have accused us of in 26 years. Frankly, I do not care what the minister thinks. The fact of the matter is that they are deliberately trying to deny members on this side even the right to vote.
What the hell is the point of having a bloody - sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No, withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that. What is the point of having a parliamentary Chamber …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I am getting a little tired of your overbearing manner. You will …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, we are being …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a moment. We have a point of order.
Mr Elferink: We are being gagged by this lot …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am going to gag you in a minute. I am going to throw you out if you do not stop.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, I believe that he is reflecting on a decision that you made in the Chair in regard to whether the Leader of the Opposition could call for a division on previous debate in this House. You made a ruling and he is reflecting on that ruling.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the member withdrew his remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I apologise and I withdraw those remarks, but I point out to the members opposite that this House is a place of debate, and that privilege, that right, I daresay, is being denied, and it is being denied in their approach to this Chamber. It is they who claim to be the representatives of the people of the Northern Territory. They claim to uphold, held their hand over their heart, and said: ‘We will provide an open and honest accountable system of government’, but they deny the right to debate. They intend to deny every opportunity of the right to vote. They have been miscreant, to say the least, in their approach.
To sit here and gag the censure that they invited, after delivering two censures themselves in this House against members of this side of the House - and I refer to page 328 of the House of Representatives Practice that:
Now, these members opposite have the audacity to suggest that a motion that hasn’t even been spoken to - they have no idea of the substance behind that motion - is fruitless, when they had pushed through, rammed through this House, motions which have been deemed in the House of Representatives to be frivolous. They have given up on this parliamentary process. Their idea of a parliamentary process is not to allow debate, but to sit like a dead weight on the chest of Territorians.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this mob approach the parliamentary process with such glibness - and I notice that they are all laughing and having a wonderful time at the moment, and they are so much enjoying their position - but frankly, I have never seen arrogance in this House equal to what’s happening over there. I know that they are enjoying their newfound power but, where is the quality of their Good Government paper? Would it be that their approach to this parliament is so immature that they actually want to ignore their Good Government paper on no other grounds than they can rub it in the nose of the CLP?
Dr Burns: Well, we are introducing FOI. That’s in there as well.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not going to rise to that particular issue because I am going to follow the rules of this House and not preempt debate.
I draw the attention of those members opposite to their Good Government paper – well, the whole document for a start.
Mr Henderson: At least we have policies.
Mr ELFERINK: Well what’s the use of publishing policies, you fool, if you are not going to stick to them?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is outrageous. It is all right for those clowns to sit over there …
Madam SPEAKER: I have spoken today and I expect you to respect that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not reflecting on you. I withdraw the comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Right. I am not quite sure why you are so angry at the moment. Just get on with the debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am angry with them, and I will tell you why I am angry with them: it is because everything that they promised has been a bald-faced untruth.
Ms Lawrie: Have you looked at the last 26 years?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that’s the interjection I was waiting for: ‘Have you looked at the last 26 years?’ You guys were going to fix it. What you have done is come back and been much worse. You have been much worse in your approach to the governance of the Northern Territory than the CLP ever was. That’s my problem: is that you guys came out with a promise to people of the Territory which was essentially a lie. Madam Speaker, I have not called any member opposite a liar, before they get to their feet.
I remind them, in conclusion, in their Good Government statement:
Do you believe that?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Then, why on earth did you guys support - Madam Speaker, why did those members opposite who agreed with what I just read out, support the gagging of a censure motion?
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Hypocrisy, that’s what it is. And how did you know - Madam Speaker, how did the member for Johnston know, in your case ...
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you direct the member to address his comments to the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: That’s a very good idea, I think, perhaps if you speak to me.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Johnston voted to gag a debate - voted to gag a debate. He says he supports this stuff, but he voted to gag a debate. And he says: ‘Oh, yeah but the censure was frivolous’. How did he know that? It didn’t get debated. The motion wasn’t even put; it was shut down. He had no way of knowing what the censure motion would be. There could have been a particularly good reason, an absolutely unassailable reason to censure the Chief Minister, and he had no idea because he was not prepared to listen to the argument, and he is a hypocrite as a result. Each and every one of those new members opposite who is interjecting saying: ‘Ha, ha, ha, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah; it’s all tough for the CLP’, are being hypocrites because they aren’t engaging in the debate process. They have no interest in the good government of the Northern Territory. They do not care about this parliamentary process and they are a disgrace. They are an absolute disgrace to everything that they planned and stood for.
They have fallen like a dead hand across this Chamber. The Minister for Police talks about the idea of responsible government and referred to it in his comments, and then talked about fiscal management. The term ‘responsible government’, for the edification of the Minister for Police, is not managing this responsibly or managing that responsibly; the concept comes from the idea that the government is responsible to the parliament, the sovereign people, who are representatives of democracy.
They are not allowing debate to occur. They have no intention of becoming responsible to this parliament. They have tried their hardest to shut down debate when it doesn’t suit them to hear it, and they are not reflecting, in any way, the processes of responsible government. The fact is that they have shut down a censure motion without listening to the arguments, and that is a disgrace and, as a consequence, all members of that government who voted to shut down that censure motion, are equally disgraceful.
You have betrayed Territorians in terms of abandoning this document and you stand condemned for it. You guys have to go out there and explain to Territorians – Madam Speaker, the members opposite have to go out and explain to Territorians why they have not lived up to their promises. And they have not; they have done a miserable job.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I will try very hard not to be drawn into the provocative comments from the member for Macdonnell, delivered with his usual alacrity - but really, very precious and sanctimonious comments from the member for Macdonnell. I will go through some of his issues.
The censure motion is, as this House knows, the most serious motion that you can bring before the parliament. It allows unhindered debate, allegations to be put, in terms of decisions that have been made by ministers, casting aspersions on whether ministers have told the truth or not, and it does provide for a forum in our system of parliamentary democracy to have an unhindered debate. But, in terms of moving a censure motion - and the opposition had the whole of Question Time to lead into this censure motion - they absolutely did not substantiate any of the allegations that were put in Question Time today. Questions rambled all over the place: there was no theme, structure and, certainly, no evidence to support the substance of a censure motion that the Leader of the Opposition tried to put before the parliament. If we had that censure motion, we would have lowered the bar that would have allowed, at any time, any of those members opposite to come in here and make totally frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against any member of government, and suspend the business of the House for a couple of hours. This is, obviously, the tactics of the new opposition, post their love-in last weekend - or whenever it was - in terms of regrouping …
Dr Burns: Lake Bennett.
Mr HENDERSON: … down at Lake Bennett. Thank you, member for Johnston. We’ve obviously seen what these tactics are going to be, and it is to target people with unsubstantiated allegations. It started off last week - this amazing attack that has withered on the vine and gone nowhere - on my colleague the member for Arnhem, where the member for Goyder came into this House and used parliamentary privilege and accused a minister of intervening in the public service; directing a prison officer to make a decision in regard to Aboriginal prisoners. That’s a very, very solid allegation to make. It raged for three days, but with not one shred of evidence to substantiate that argument.
The Leader of the Opposition, again, came in here today and raised allegations in terms of public servants with their heads being cut off, and morale through the floor; but absolutely no substance to the allegations whatsoever. What the opposition is doing is very much treating this parliament with contempt; the rules of debate in this House with absolute contempt. Their position in this House - a very responsible position in terms of holding the government accountable and holding ministers accountable - and they walk into this House and make totally unfounded allegations based on rumour and innuendo, and then want to have a forum where, essentially, they can basically tell lies about any particular minister and not substantiate it.
Well, they are going to have to do a lot better than that. If they want a censure motion to get up - and I’ve only been in this parliament for two-and-a-half years, but two years of that in opposition. In terms of us bringing a censure motion when we were in opposition, we certainly didn’t do it lightly, we certainly didn’t do it frivolously. I would urge members opposite to go back through the Parliamentary Record and look at one time when we did bring a censure motion where we didn’t have substantial evidence to support it. We have nothing from those members opposite …
Mr Baldwin: Almost every time.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Daly, you can get up in response afterwards and show any occasion where we just waltzed in here with unsubstantiated allegations, and wanted to suspend business before the House.
If we look at what happened here today, as well, the Leader of the Opposition certainly knew what was coming from the Deputy Chief Minister - it will probably be revisited tomorrow. He certainly didn’t want to hear what was coming from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If the pious member for Macdonnell wants to talk about governments and the responsibility of government, some of the issues and decisions that were made in regards to particular staff members whilst the election campaign was actually in full swing, well, they’ll get it with both barrels tomorrow.
The other point that the member for Macdonnell made in regards to politicising public servants: again, absolutely unsubstantiated allegations. For the member for Macdonnell to target public servants who are working on the fifth floor of Parliament House, in the majority of occasions …
Mr Elferink: Page 36 of last week’s Hansard, you wally!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … the majority of cases in very technical areas - I have members of the public service working in my office on the fifth floor in technical areas; they’re not being politicised. The previous government did exactly the same thing. To target those public servants and to suggest that those public servants are allowing themselves to be politicised by some form of osmosis that might be in the rarefied atmosphere up there on the fifth floor, is an absolute insult to those public servants. They would not come and work in a ministerial office in anything other than their capacity as public servants, giving advice to ministers in the areas of which they have responsibility, and in which those public servants have the expertise. Members opposite who were ministers did that for many years.
Again, if he wants to grandstand on issues in terms of our Good Government document, what we will do in being a responsible government - and we will honour each and every one of those commitments in that document - is that we will present financial information, through the budget papers, to the people of the Northern Territory which is true, accurate and correct - not within eight weeks of being tabled before this House, those budget papers being absolutely proven to be an absolute lie to the people of the Northern Territory to the tune of $107m. We certainly will not be doing that; they will forever stand condemned in terms of lying to the people of the Northern Territory, misrepresenting …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member cannot make allegations of that type without a substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to withdraw the comment?
Mr HENDERSON: I will withdraw the word ‘lie’, but I certainly will stand by ‘misrepresenting’ the true nature of the accounts to the people of the Northern Territory. We have moved immediately to introduce fiscal integrity legislation to ensure that that misrepresentation of the most fundamentally important aspect of government - which is the fiscal regime - never occurs again.
Mr Elferink: What fiscal integrity is there in a blank sheet of paper? It is blank; you have not filled in the details.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, can you please resist the temptation to interject constantly?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, the member opposite is making allegations about good budgetary management when he is absolutely incapable of reading Budget Paper No 3, where he has failed to fill in the blanks.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, the member for Wanguri has the floor at the moment.
Mr Elferink: Well then, he should tell the truth.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not like to hear it, and they will forever be judged by it. Everybody in the community knows the absolute misrepresentation and the fraud that were the budget papers that were handed down in this House eight weeks before the election.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Fraud actually has a criminal connotation …
Dr Burns: And a moral one.
Mr DUNHAM: … and it is in one of those allegations, if it is made, about members in this House akin to words like ‘misappropriation’, ‘fraud’, ‘deception’. All of those words were used previously in a censure motion and cannot be used in other than a censure motion, if this minister wants to keep talking like that.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I did not accuse any individual member of the opposition of fraud. What I did say was that the budget papers that were tabled before this parliament - so an object, being the budget papers - were fraudulent and misrepresented the true state of the Northern Territory government finances. I have not accused any individual members opposite of fraud.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice on the point of order. If you do not address the individual, it is okay, is the advice I’ve received. So, the member for Wanguri should continue his speech.
Mr Dunham: You’re a bunch of frauds!
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It’s okay. I can cop it. I can cop it.
We will also be introducing freedom of information legislation into this parliament, which is something the previous government, and governments over many years - in spite of election commitments 1994, 1997 - absolutely failed to do. For the member for Macdonnell to come in here and puff his chest out and carry on in his sanctimonious manner, well, we will be judged at the end of our four-year term in terms of the quality and integrity of this government. I am sure that history will treat us well.
Moving on to supporting the Chief Minister’s statements, I would like to inform the parliament regarding the restructure of my new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. My department was created on 13 November 2001 from four previous departments: Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Industries and Business, and Asian Relations and Trade. Those four departments were abolished, along with the former Office of Resource Development previously located within the Department of Mines and Energy. The former Department of Industries and Business was made up of both industry developments and industry regulatory components - a major task involved in the dissection of that department, with parts going to six agencies under the new arrangements. These involved the transfer of staff and budgets of: industry development functions of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development; Racing and Gaming and related functions to NT Treasury; Work Health to the Department of Employment, Education and Training; Consumer Affairs and related functions to the Department of Justice; tourism development to the NT Tourism Commission, and that has been a great move; and regional development to the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
Staff transfers have been completed and budget dissections agreed after extensive evaluation and negotiation and a fair degree of argy-bargy, I would say, between the agencies and Treasury. Similarly, some eight positions in the corresponding budget, from within the former Office of Resource Development, have been identified for gas development functions and transferred to the new Office of Territory Development within the Department of the Chief Minister. All other staff and budgets of the former four industries departments are now part of the new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development, hereon known as DBIRD.
In working through these dissections, a number of acts involving industry regulation that had remained with my departments under the 13 November 2001 Administrative Arrangements Order, have been identified for better placement with other agencies. It is proposed these will transfer over the next set of amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Order. There is no specific legislation needed, however, to either create the new department or to put the transfer arrangements into effect. With the amalgamation of these four departments, the new department has been structured to ensure its industry client base can readily identify where to access the department for its requirements. This includes a strong regional presence being incorporated into the structure.
The new department is structured in five principal groups being: Minerals and Energy, Primary Industry, Fisheries, Business and Trade Development, and Strategic Services. In addition there are three regional offices in Central Australia, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Fisheries has been separated from primary industry in recognition of the significance of that sector in recreational and commercial fisheries management and development, and in furthering the development of aquaculture. I know that the officers who work in the Fisheries Division are very excited about that move and they are given recognition in their own right, in terms of the agency structure of the absolute importance of developing our fisheries base in the Northern Territory.
This government has announced a further number of initiatives to enhance recreational fishing and the benefits it brings to the Northern Territory. These were outlined in the November mini-budget, including increased funding to AFANT, facilitating improved access agreements with both indigenous land owners and pastoral lease holders, and improved infrastructure and other indigenous programs including establishing community fisheries officers. The stand-alone fisheries group within the department will be able to focus on these initiatives, along with the ongoing work of researching and managing the Territory’s valuable fisheries resource.
Aquaculture is an example of where bringing the resources of government industry agencies together will enhance assisting an emerging industry. Much of government focus to date has been on research and development at the biological and hatchery end, and appropriate technical extension services. The new department will be better positioned to provide assistance in the commercial development aspects of the industry, and to help coordinate strategic requirements across other government agencies. Actually, commercialising that science that has been developed, is now a key focus of the division.
A major task in the department has been the pulling together of the industry development and commercial sections of the four previous industry agencies. The services previously provided by the Department of Industries and Business and the Department of Asian Relations and Trade have been combined, recognising that local, national and international components of commercial development need to interrelate for the growth of our industry sectors. Units pursuing supply and service of oil and gas and mining are being combined with those pursuing defence support, as there are a number of synergies in the work they do and the resultant building of Territory industry capability. Financial assistance arrangements previously operated in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries are being combined with those of the old Department of Industries and Business to again bring some efficiencies in the conduct of similar activities.
The new business and trade development group brings together all these skills and will maintain a commercial focus on outcomes being sought by government and the business sector. Obviously, there will be a close liaison with the new Office of Territory Development, particularly in investment attraction programs, and securing the flow-on benefits to the Territory of major project initiatives such as gas developments pursued by the Office of Territory Development. Within the department a new strategic services group has been established to place more emphasis on targeting the activities of the department and providing advice for portfolio directions. Within this unit the Asian relations component of the previous Department of Asian Relations and Trade will work up strategies for our engagement with Asian countries with a view to being more targeted on achievable outcomes. The unit is reviewing our overseas representation in Asia to ensure best value for money, and that work programs are coordinated back to real industry needs here in the Northern Territory.
This strategic services group will also house the information management and public relations and communications functions of the departments, and continue other strategic departmental initiatives such as the future expansion of the Ord River Scheme into the Northern Territory and the development of the Katherine/Daly basin for agricultural purposes and its coordination across other government agencies.
The policy development and coordination cell of strategic services will continue to provide coordination of the economic summit outcomes and will coordinate the conduct of the Chief Minister’s business round tables and follow up their outcomes. This group will put increased emphasis on industry development policies, including local content and industry capacity building, international trade strategy, economic evaluation across industry sectors and broad industry focus on economic advice to government. Strategic services will also include legislative and legal services, ministerial liaison, and the department’s corporate planning and corporate government’s functions.
The minerals and energy group will continue its prime focus on developing the geological information base of the Northern Territory and the attraction of exploration by the mining sector. The key functions are mining tenure, land access and occupational health and safety, and mining operations will remain within this group both for the mining sector and for petroleum, including offshore exploration and upstream developments. With the creation of the national Ministerial Council on Energy, this group now plays an increasing role in energy policy coordination in the Territory. An interdepartmental committee has been established through my department to ensure a whole-of-government approach to energy policy matters.
The primary industry sector will focus its attention on the continued development of the pastoral, agricultural and horticultural sectors, and the extensive resource protection arrangements necessary to support those industries. Research programs focussed on these industries will continue their prime importance for future developments, and will continue to be coordinated in consultation with relevant industry sectors. The primary industry sector provides considerable scope for growth in coming years and will be a key feature of the work programs. The group will continue to include the quarantine functions of AQIS, including international and interstate barrier protection. The primary industry group contains very extensive experience and skills vital to the protection and development of these industries. The Territory has enjoyed strong growth in its live cattle trade and in expanding horticulture markets, but must be forever vigilant against disease, pests and weed threats.
The three regional offices of the Territory will build on existing operations in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek that will bring a broader industry approach in each. Regional directors will have a very active role in liaising with industry and in coordinating activities with other agencies to ensure relevant growth opportunities are identified and brought to fruition.
In line with the Territory’s budget statement in November last year, particular emphasis will be given by my department’s CEO to the threefold bottom line of producing financial outcomes within annual budgets, maintaining high staff morale and job satisfaction, and improving services. In recognition of this, the financial general services and human resource management functions of the department will report direct to the CEO.
My department will have strong consultation links with industry and other relevant groups in setting its programs and activities. In the minerals and energy, primary industry and fisheries areas, this will build on existing industry relations through advisory bodies and other mechanisms. Many of these have been in place for long periods, with good levels of understanding built up between government and industry. It is more difficult to build structured arrangements with the more commercially competitive industries with a host of varying requirements. However, this will be a foundation of the new department’s operations with close consultation on issues as they arise.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the minister be allowed an extension of time to complete his speech.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
For example, my department is currently organising forums in Darwin and Alice Springs for discussion of the business sector on insurance concerns. These sessions will enable a better understanding of local industry and community insurance concerns to be taken to the Commonwealth government’s national forum. My department has also begun a review of the operation of Territory business centres presently run by the department. The review will be across government and involves a representative from the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This review will enable government to determine the best way to provide business services in the future, and to coordinate the efforts of agencies on which the private sector relies for licensing, regulation and services. This will also build on the government’s election commitments to establish business case managers across government.
In restructuring the department, considerable importance has been placed on involvement of staff and maintaining staff commitment. Three Employee Liaison Officers have been appointed to enable staff to voice concerns and give feedback on issues involved in the restructure. There are many complex issues to be addressed in bringing four departments together, each of which had varying policies, practices, procedures and cultures. Progress is being made in working through these issues to bring consistency to operations, but at the same time ensuring that the specific needs of groups are met. As a simple example, each department have a travel policy with appropriate arrangements and payment rates. In bringing the four departments together, the specific needs of officers such as those travelling at sea in Fisheries, in remote locations, stock inspectors, AQIS staff, field geologists and the like, need to be catered for.
One area my department will focus on is indigenous economic development. This was identified in the Economic Development Summit as an important area for both indigenous people and for the Territory to reach its development potential. In structuring the new department, the temptation to create a special unit to address indigenous economic development has been resisted. Rather, the department will engage indigenous development opportunity through its mainstream industry groups, with each including appropriate programs to fit the industry sector. Last week, I outlined to this Assembly the programs being conducted in mining-related activities. Active programs are being pursued in fisheries, pastoral and horticulture, and in general business developments.
In times of change and budgetary constraints there will, of course, be some concern at the uncertainty created until the process of change is complete. The Chief Minister has repeatedly made it clear that no public servants will be forced into redundancy, despite of the continuing scare campaign being run from members opposite, totally irresponsibly, I might add. The new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is evolving and its new structure will provide new challenges and opportunities. Many staff will see little change in their jobs, particularly in specialist areas, but some will need to adapt to new approaches and for some, change locations.
The new department of DBIRD is well underway in its structuring and refocussing of operations. In the next phase, its corporate planning will be developed in consultation with its clients and stakeholders, leading to new business plans for 2002-03. On a personal note, I would like to thank the staff of DBIRD who have been working through this change for their understanding and their absolute total commitment to it. Many of those staff I have spoken to see a very exciting future in terms of opportunities in bringing all of the economic areas of government together, and really pushing through on initiatives that are going to come through government and also through industry sectors. I look forward to continuing to work with some very good, capable and motivated officers in my new department.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the public servants of the minister’s department as well - thank them for putting up with the pressure that they are currently under with the amalgamations that are going on. I will come back to that, but I want to pick up one point and make it very clear to this House on the point of a censure motion, because the Minister for Industries and Business has raised it and has brought a new element into the discussion, one that the Leader of Government Business presented here this morning. That element is that, before a censure motion will be accepted, those proposing the motion must first substantiate their claims - which is a load of nonsense. In the Westminster system, it is unprecedented - unprecedented.
Mr Stirling: You never did it? You guys never did it? Goodness me!
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection by the Leader of Government Business who should actually know better. He might like to go and seek some advice on this. The fact of the matter is that a censure motion can be brought on at any time. It can even be brought on as an ambush mechanism, without any former knowledge or any prior debate on the subject with regard to a censure motion. So, to bring in this new argument that first we, the opposition, have to substantiate our claim …
Mr Dunham: And need a day’s notice.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, well, that was thrown in as an added bonus - we have to have a day’s notice now. But that’s unprecedented, and we do not have to live with that. But, the fact that you have to substantiate it first is just rubbish - absolute rubbish, never heard of before in the Westminster system.
Whether the government wants to accept the motion is a different story. So there are two issues. First, we don’t have to, neither do they, the government, have to substantiate bringing on a censure motion. You do not have to provide any facts that make it worthwhile to do it; you can bring it on without notice at any time that there is not a question before the Chair. Whether or not they want to bring it on is another issue, and it is a matter of guts. That is a matter of guts as to whether the government - in this instance - wants to stand up, take on a censure motion to substantiate its position, or protect its position, or put its position on a certain subject. That just comes down to a matter of guts - nothing to do with whether or not you can substantiate it.
The Leader of Government Business well knows, because he watched in this House many times, former Leaders of Government Business - Barry Coulter, Mick Palmer - that when censure motions were brought on by the opposition, the Leader of Government Business would stand up and say: ‘Madam Speaker, we accept the censure motion and we ask that it be brought on immediately’, every time that I can remember in my eight years of this House. So, it comes down to whether or not the government, if they are being censured, has the guts to take it on and put their position. Unfortunately, in the case of today, they obviously didn’t.
Mr Stirling: Scared of you, Tim. We were a bit scared of you.
Mr BALDWIN: And you know full well - picking up on the interjection - Leader of Government Business, you know full well how it works. I think you were a bit confused this morning, just like the other night when you didn’t realise that you had to have an absolute majority to bring on setting aside standing orders. Then, the next day, you wheel in the Chief Minister out of her sick bed so that you have an absolute majority when you didn’t need it, because you didn’t set aside standing orders, or move to. You have to get it right. It would be well behoved of the Leader of Government Business to look up his standing orders and get right across them.
Mr Stirling: I guess that’s the difference, then. I guess that’s the difference. I have the ability to learn.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s the difference. So, next time we move a censure, it would be nice to see the government have the guts to take it on and support their position.
In regard to this quite hollow statement, I have a couple of points to make. Earlier today, the minister for industries and business, when my colleague - I think the Member for Katherine, or it might have been the Leader of the Opposition - talked about a high level of concern in the public service - it might have been during Question Time - the minister for industries and business yelled out: ‘Says who? Who says there is concern in the public service?’
A member: Don’t point to the memo, the e-mail.
Mr BALDWIN: I won’t point to the e-mail; I will point to a letter that has been written to the minister for industries and business by some very concerned people in Katherine - and I will tell you who they are because he has the letter - Northern Territory Horticultural Association, Katherine Branch. They have written to the minister with very grave concerns. The first paragraph:
Second paragraph:
That’s who says who, Minister. That’s who says who.
Mr Henderson: I got the letter today. Today, today, and if they want to do business like this ...
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection because this is worth getting on Hansard. He now says: ‘If that’s how they want to do business’. Well, what are you going to do with them, Minister?
Mr Henderson: I will meet with them next week.
Mr BALDWIN: Very good, it is about time. Can you answer the question on their road while you’re seeing them?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, can you direct your comments through the Chair, please?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to put my remarks through you.
So, there is a case of people who are concerned, and it is a very real concern. I am told by others in that department that, on questions of horticultural assistance, that if you actually want - because of the lack of staff down there, because of the lack of funding, it is an ongoing set of logics - some information from an outsourcing officer, a field officer, regarding horticulture, at the moment they can only give it to you - you can only ring into Katherine for horticultural assistance on Wednesday. Because that’s how they are filling the position from Darwin - on a Wednesday. So, if you have, on your property, an outbreak of some disease or another that you need urgent assistance on, what are they supposed to do if it is on a Thursday? What are they supposed to do? They ring in and they say: ‘Oh well, you’ll have to wait until next Wednesday, we’ll have someone down there’. That’s just not good enough. This is an industry, obviously, worth a lot of money to the Northern Territory. It is an industry that provides a lot of jobs in the area and, certainly, a lot of income to the local Katherine businesses. It is just not good enough that the cuts that this government are instigating …
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: And it is going to get worse.
If we are to assume that this is the beginning of what’s going to happen, with a 2.5% cut to these departments’ budgets in this financial year, what’s going to happen next financial year when they’re asking for 5%? That’s the question. This is what public servants are very worried about - not only in Katherine, but all over the place. I had some people come up to me in Darwin just the other day. They’re concerned - and this might sound very, very trivial - that they have had their Internet access cut. Now, okay, maybe we could all say: ‘They don’t Internet’. Some have said they have had their mobile phones taken away. I think it has been raised here in this debate that many have had their access to vehicles taken away, or their easier access to vehicles taken away so that, in fact, they have to put in quite substantial paperwork and book ahead for the use of vehicles. These particular people were field workers. So, how are they going to do their job? How are they going to provide their services - and I hear the Chief Minister say: ‘We’re all about creating more efficient services right across the Northern Territory’. Right across the Northern Territory, yet, what’s happening is that people have to stay at their desks. They do not even have a mobile phone to use; they cannot get on the Internet. It is just getting ridiculous.
It is going to be interesting to see how bad it gets by the end of this calendar year when the departments are looking for 5% of cuts out of all of those doing agencies. That’s the point here. It is all very well to say: ‘We’re going to isolate off education and health and police from these cuts’. But the cuts that are occurring are occurring to the very agencies that give support to business. And they need those extension services to be more efficient, and to provide more in the way of income to the Territory’s economy.
The really sad part about all of this is that the Chief Minister has said it will be up to the CEOs to find the 5% cuts and the 2.5% cuts. It will be up to them to provide the efficiencies out of their departments. And you know exactly what that’s doing. The CEOs will go to their deputy CEOs - and now with these amalgamations they have a number of them, so you have a few CEOs that are peak CEOs, if you like. They will be saying to their deputy CEOs: ‘You find me the 5%’. The poor old deputy CEO has to go along and tap people on the shoulder. Maybe not now with the 2.5% cuts, but when it comes to a 5% cut they are going to have to cut whole programs to find the savings - with people in them. That poor old deputy CEO is the poor fellow, poor person, woman, who is going to have to go along to her or his colleagues and say: ‘I am very sorry about this. Your program has to be cut and your five jobs or whatever it is have to go’. It is a very onerous thing to have to put on to that level of management.
I think it is very sad that it is happening that way, rather than this government having the fortitude to do it at a political level where they go through a process where it is open and transparent, and they take full responsibility for the angst that is just beginning. It has a long, long way to go and, I imagine, by the end of the year, perhaps, we will see a repeat of the concerns that were shown during the processes that the previous CLP government went through. They were straight up and down processes that we took political heat from, and we don’t stand back from them. If you have to cut the costs within the public service, do it politically; do it straight up front. Don’t lay it on your CEOs and deputy CEOs and then step away from them and say: ‘No, find more efficiencies’.
It is going to be very interesting to watch, and I am sure that we will all hear from various public servants, and also members of government. I am sure they’re getting phone calls too, in their electorate offices. I am sure, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you’re getting a few walking into your electorate office with concerns. If you’re not, then perhaps you’d better move your electorate office or something, I do not know. Certainly, we are on this side, and I am sure members on that side are. I am sure people like the minister responsible for the public sector would be hearing these concerns when he knocks around the place.
That’s what I wanted to put on the record. I certainly wanted to put on the record the point about the censure motions and how, all of a sudden, we have members of the government side rewriting the Westminster ethos and the system, and that …
Mr Stirling: You blokes never did it? Short memory.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the Leader of Government Business’ interjection. He misunderstands: there are two elements here. They do not have to take on the censure if they do not want to. But, for us to have to substantiate it is just utter rubbish. That’s what he needs to learn, and I suggest he takes some advice from the Clerk - I did - to clarify that, because I couldn’t remember having to substantiate a censure motion before bringing one on, ever. There is no precedence for it, and it would be a good lesson for him to learn.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak in support of the Chief Minister’s statement on the new arrangements that we have put in place for the public sector. I should begin by recalling that, back in November, at the time the Chief Minister announced the new administrative arrangements, the opposition characterised the changes to my portfolio responsibilities as a demotion.
Well, I think that’s a sad reflection of the disdain the opposition has for social justice, quality of life issues, and the delivery of services to Territorians - particularly those living in remote areas. We know that the CLP has always regarded these issues as second order and not worthy of serious effort. But, can I say that, when the Chief Minister offered me this rank of portfolio responsibilities, I was absolutely delighted. It brings together a range of areas that have long been a focus of my working life, and issues that I am passionate about. So, whilst the opposition might place low priority on local government, housing, sport and recreation, regional development, library services, and developing the quality of life in all our communities, I felt I had been given first prize.
There is one point that I would like to emphasise, particularly to those members opposite. I have often said - and I will continue to say - how proud I am to be the first Aboriginal minister in this place. But, I am not here just for myself, my family, or my countrymen; I am here as a minister for all Territorians, regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. I will be discharging my responsibilities without fear or favour to anyone, and everyone. My focus is on improving the quality of life and the delivery of services to all Territorians, and the humbug from those opposite will not divert me from that course.
Since taking responsibility for what I will refer to broadly as the community development portfolio, I have been struck by the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff who have been brought together within the new department. It has been both a challenging and exciting time for all of us, as we adjust to the new structural arrangements and, as the Chief Minister has pointed out, making changes is never easy. However, I believe that my department has coped well with the transition, and that we are already seeing significant benefits in terms of greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services. I would like to run through a number of those most important changes. Clearly, structural issues were critical in the initial stages, and the new structure for the department was outlined to start on 4 December 2001, and all associated staff moves were completed by 17 December. Office moves were kept to a minimum and, ultimately, only 30 or so staff were involved.
The new structure includes a Regional Services Division with responsibility for service delivery to the public for housing, local government and regional development, and for sport and recreation field services. This division will provide greater focus on regional and community needs; the quarry of service delivery to the public; and on training for frontline staff. Some streamlining of support service areas will continue over the next 12 months as vacancies occur through natural attrition. An immediate imperative that was required of the new department was to implement savings initiatives. The majority of the savings achieved this financial year have been made by implementing short-term measures to cut expenditure, while having minimal impact on services to the public. Examples of such measures include: prioritising travel; freezing replacement of furniture and fittings; reducing public relations advertising and document production expenditure; and restricting recruitment to service delivery and other essential functions.
Examples of ongoing efficiencies made include: the transferring of housing maintenance management back to my department from the Department of Transport and Works and introducing a new approach that provides improved service at less cost; reducing the number of motor vehicles and introducing more efficient fleet management; achieving efficiencies in telephone equipment and usage; and streamlining support services and achieving economies of scale. In addition to these immediate savings, ongoing savings and efficiencies have been identified, which will require further lead times for planning and implementation. In the meantime, I can highlight a couple of examples that come from the housing area.
Replacement of the current mainframe-based housing information systems with a modern purpose-designed integrated system to provide better support for services to the public and better management information at a significantly reduced cost. This project has commenced and is expected to save $0.5m per annum within three years. Additional savings are planned by using this opportunity to streamline housing services systems and procedures; the introduction of a strategic approach to housing stock, planning and management; together with the development of enhanced asset management policies and procedures. With better planning and management, savings of approximately $1m per annum is expected within three years.
Of course, the nature of changes in the workplace always impact upon the staff. They can have an unsettling impact and they can diminish staff morale. However, I am pleased to report that the day-to-day work of the large majority of staff in my department has been unaffected by the changes over the past few months. These staff are performing their duties as usual. For some staff whose duties have been affected by the restructure or the savings measures, the changes have had some initial unsettling effect. However, a number of staff in different areas of the department have shown initiative in identifying areas where efficiencies can be achieved by doing things differently. Generally, staff have shown a keenness to make the new arrangements work effectively and, where new priorities have been set, to strive to make them a reality. What this commitment by staff means overall, is that we are achieving efficiencies as well as improving service delivery in a number of areas.
Improved services to regional areas and remote communities are expected from the more integrated approach being implemented through the new Regional Services Division. The transfer to this department of responsibility for essential services in remote areas, including the power, water and sewerage, will enable greater coordination with housing construction, and is expected to facilitate the negotiation of coordinated planning and delivery of housing and infrastructure administered by ATSIC. Greater coordination in this area is also expected to lead to more sustainable training programs and ongoing employment for remote residents. The development of regional agreements, especially in remote areas, has the potential to increase local decision making, develop community capacity, and result in greater employment in remote and regional areas. Improved service delivery arrangements and housing will see property management officers based in each area Housing Office. Also, the levels of frontline staff will be boosted, together with the provision of nationally accredited training, to provide better housing services to the public.
As the Chief Minister has said, the focus of my department is to improve and maintain the quality of the Territory’s lifestyle, and to encourage cultural development and a greater sense of community. This new department brings together quite a diverse range of functions and services, from public housing to the arts, and a significant challenge is to establish a common core identity across the department, while retaining the distinct service stream identities. The core objective which is common to the range of services provided by the Department of Housing and Infrastructure to arts, museums and library services; sport and recreation; local government; regional development and regional agreements, is the objective of community development and capacity building.
I want to conclude by emphasising that one of the significant strengths of my department is the quality of the people; its human capacity, its human capital. For years, there have been many dedicated and committed people within my department, as well as in other areas of the public sector, who have laboured under a disinterested and disengaged government - a CLP government. Innovative and creative ideas and thinking were stifled, and the drive to develop better public policy was consistently blocked. What I’ve observed within my department over the last few months is that staff, at all levels, have become liberated, encouraged, by the openness of our administration, and encouraged by our willingness to listen to their ideas.
Recently, I had a residential workshop with my ministerial staff and senior officers from my department, at which we discussed a range of important policy issues. I also emphasised to my departmental officers, that I see them as integral to a successful partnership. What staggered me here, is that it soon became clear that they probably have never been treated like this. They have never been recognised by government ministers as having a key role to play. For 26 years, it had been ‘do as you told and keep your ideas to yourselves’. What a waste!
However, this Martin government is different. This government is about recognising the talents and professionalism of our public servants. We want them to be challenging us with new initiatives and new ideas. We are about building partnerships and engagement, and what I look forward to over the coming months and years, is working with a reinvigorated public sector that sees itself as a respected and valued partner in providing good government and service delivery to all Territorians.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place my comments on the record with regards to the Chief Minister’s statement on new public sector agency arrangements.
It is the prerogative of a government to re-order, to restructure, and no problem at all with that. In fact, any new management coming into a workplace, it is almost expected that that is what would occur. Personally, when I looked at the restructure - as one in opposition you are inclined to seek the other side of the equation and that is the job, by the way, that is what our job is on this side. That is what this whole parliament is about - both sides of the equation being reflected upon and coming, hopefully, to a new place. I was inclined, on first glance, to find the obvious fault. But, I would have to say, personally, that the restructure made sense. I do not have a problem with the nature of the restructure.
However, the comments that have been endeavoured to be raised on this side have been the implementation of the restructure and aspects of that. It is no way intended to be interpreted - as it so easily is in comments from the other side - is that it is a denigration of the public service. Far from it. We have dealings with the public service, and hold those members of the public service in high esteem. Just as a management team would come into a new workplace and impose a new structure upon the management, I don’t think the position here has been any comment against the right to restructure; it is the implementation of that structure. There is always going to be some groaning. There is always going to be some hurt. There are always going to be some problems.
But, I would have to say that this parliament is to reflect on the other side of the equation, and there are none so blind as will not see. When we have an opportunity here to raise one aspect of this restructure that is echoing around the community - granted those who are so blind that they cannot see, they will not see, they are only hearing that which would come to them which would be favourable to the ear. Granted, a point was even raised to Madam Acting Deputy Speaker: ‘Has anyone mentioned it to you in your electorate office?’ ‘No.’
Well, I will tell you what: things have changed. We have people on that side of the House who once were on this side of the House. I was once on that side of the House, now I am on this side of the House. I am seeing for myself the other side of the equation. There will be people who will come to me now that I am in opposition and speak to me about things that they have not been able to say comfortably to members on the other side. I am sure if you could reflect - if you are on that side of the House; or once on this side - that was the case not so long ago. You are getting information; people are commenting to you. They are speaking privately to you; they are asking you not to phone them at work but they are wanting to give you messages. That is the same thing that happened when you were in opposition, I understand. Nothing has really changed.
The previous speaker referred to liberty; how the public service now has this great sense of liberty and freedom. Well, once again, if we reflect on the nature of the way things do work, of course they are all seeking to please their new management, let’s say. But that sense of liberty, I even heard that reflected in the media a couple of days after the event. I am sure you can understand that I did not share the euphoria. However, change is not a bad thing. I took the opportunity to stand back and say: ‘Well, this is really about the Northern Territory’. There was, generally, a feeling of: ‘I wonder what is going to occur from this?’ There was sense of excitement of historic change. Well, I can tell you from what I heard that that sound of liberty and that joy faded very quickly. It faded for me, personally, when I had sympathy for the expressions that were uttered from this side when I first entered this Chamber. I had sympathy; I heard; I understood what was being said and the frustration that was contained on this side of the House. I would have thought that some of those sensitivities would have been translated to that side of the House. That is what I have found: the greatest sadness is to see the very things that were despised and ridiculed and grieved the hearts of those so much when they got to this side of the House - I find it the height of hypocrisy - to be able to perform in a way which is in excess of the things that were once so offensive. I say that quite candidly because the last time I spoke in the House, on Tuesday, I had never been so angry, because I was seeing exactly that in operation.
I am not going to go into details. I heard members interjecting on the government side saying: ‘Where’s your evidence, where’s your evidence of the disquiet?’ Well, where is the real evidence of the great applause in the public sector? Exactly the same; it is anecdotal. We have a 1800 number, we have an e-mail, but we do not have the evidence, we just have the comment. We just have anecdotal references on both sides of the equation. We had the opportunity to raise something of substance, but it was blocked. I think that was the height of dishonour to allow that to occur.
A member: There was no substance.
Mr Elferink: You didn’t know that. That’s the point.
Mr MILLS: There is no substance in that interjection, I would have to say - no substance whatsoever. No sense of respect or understanding what this Chamber is meant to be. Two sides of an equation: you listen to the other side of the equation and do the honourable thing and at least invite it and set it, and let those that sit outside this Chamber - because this is their Chamber - assess the weight of the issue, not by the weight of your numbers, the number of seats you happen to currently occupy.
There is a well known fairy story, The Emperor’s New Clothes. I would have to say what I reflected in hearing these comments: that there was once an emperor who had such a high regard for the appearance of himself that he was tempted to take on the employ of a couple of visitors who were able to sell the concept of the most dazzling and spectacular array that you could ever imagine. The weight and the strength of the emperor was so prevailing that all those around the emperor conformed to the view that this fantastic material was actually invisible, but they could not see that because the emperor wished it not to be the case. So, nobody who was in the close surrounds of the emperor accepted or acknowledged the fact that they neither could see what they could see.
I just want to warn members opposite that we need to get outside the equation a little and reflect on this in a higher way - that we are endeavouring to bring another side of the equation. I do not want to be locked into the same situation again and again. I am going to be here for a long time and I do not want to see a repeat of the same type of silly rhetoric that is going on about casting our minds back: ‘Yes, but when you were in government’. ‘Yes, but now you are in government’. Let’s look together how we can work forward on this.
There is an acknowledgement on this side that there is change and change is not always easily accommodated. But, let us at least put on the table and let those outside the Chamber - because this is their Chamber - to be able to reflect on the issues of importance that we would dare bring into this place.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Chief Minister’s statement on the restructure of the public sector and I have to agree with the member for Blain. The government has the prerogative and the right to restructure its public service and, like the member for Blain, I was on both sides. I was a public servant before, I am not one today. While I was a public servant, I did not like the CLP, I did not agree with the philosophy, but I worked there and I provided the best advice I could and the expertise they demanded from me.
I wrote Legislative Assembly briefs for a number of then ministers, now members of the opposition. I provided advice, I warned ministers. I did not ring my colleagues in the Labor Party to tell them how they could find something wrong with the then ministers and their portfolios. Instead, I advised the ministers because I was a public servant - I was a professional public servant.
On the other hand, as a public servant I was subjected to several reviews. Do I have to remind you of the Cresap review in the Health Department in 1989 or Planning for Growth? Once again, we copped it and we didn’t complain - at least not very loudly. In any case, even if we complained, nobody was prepared to listen.
With regards to the restructuring of the public service, the agencies that I am responsible for were a significant part of the overall restructuring that occurred in November 2001. In my view, the result of this restructuring has led to an increase in the efficiency of our operations. As the Chief Minister has said, the aim of the government was to streamline and make more efficient the operations of government. Not only is it a worthy goal, but an essential one. I believe the proliferation of agencies, evident in the latter years of the CLP’s regime, was undermining efficiency and effectiveness, and I believe that the number of agencies was making the task of administration more difficult than it should have been.
Nowhere is that more evident than in my own portfolios. As members would be aware, the agencies of Land, Planning and the Environment, Transport and Infrastructure were effectively merged by the restructuring. The Parks and Wildlife Commission were also merged at this time. The Power and Water Authority and the Ports Corporation were added to my portfolios because of the natural synergies between these corporations and the portfolios I hold responsibility for. The merging of two departments that have historically close links has made a lot of sense.
Prior to this merge, agencies linked to transport and infrastructure were required to meet regularly and frequently with agencies attached to Lands, Planning and Environment, and in some cases, with the health department. I had many meetings with Lands, Planning and Environment, many meetings with Transport and Works, all three together for many days and, quite often, we couldn’t reach an agreement because each department had its own agenda or was going its own way. Prior to this merger, agencies linked to transport infrastructure were required to meet regularly and frequently with other agencies. They did so to progress and move forward development and the use of land. This involved time consuming interdepartmental meetings, and always involved the potential of one agency or other not to be operating within the same agenda or time constraints. Now, the entire development process, from the identification of land, the evaluation of services, the feasibility environmentally and the approvals through the Consent Authority, are all contained within the one department.
Not only does this make more efficient operations, it makes for more effective communication; it ensures that all the government’s relevant authorities and agencies are working on the one track. It saves time and, ultimately, money. It also allows us to progress matters more sensibly and in a more timely fashion. It is already evident to me that this is making for better outcomes.
Let me provide some information as to where this agency restructuring currently is. The Executive Management Group has been established and has worked on how the three former agencies can be brought together to better deliver government services. A Management Board has also been formed. An Office of the Environment and Heritage has been established; the office has direct reporting responsibilities to me, the Minister for the Environment, to ensure independence. The responsibilities and processes of the new office are under review to look at ways of improving the level and independence of environmental and advisory services.
Let me pause at this point and make that process clear to the members. This government takes seriously its environmental obligation; we recognise that the balance between sustainable development and our environment has to be struck carefully and in a way which retains our lifestyle and our future growth. By providing this office with greater independence and the ability to report directly to me as minister, gives it a place in the bureaucracy which allows our environmental policies to be effective.
In furthering the government’s agenda, members of the Management Board participated with some staff representatives in a department strategic planning two-day forum facilitated by Doug Stace. A draft document has been produced outlining the department’s strategic intent, its core objectives, the goals, critical performance issues, core values and service delivery areas for the next three years. A workshop was held with ministerial staff, senior staff from my departments, identifying short, medium and long term goals and activities for all of my portfolios.
This is the first time in the memory of many senior public servants where the minister, his staff and the senior members of his department have worked together to develop a working plan for a department in this way. It was an open, honest meeting with the government’s agenda and pre-election statements forming the core of the business conducted. It produced a working plan for the next 12 months and an outline for the term of office that will ensure my office and the department are running on the same tracks.. It guides the operation of all our works.
In addition, I have commenced visits to all offices or workplaces where departmental staff are working and located, and during this year, I intend to drive all the way from Darwin down to Uluru, stopping on the way and meeting all my staff - not the people who work for me, but the people who work together.
Staff from various divisions of the departments had been involved in office relocation to amalgamate fragmented services. The new department will have a staff level of about 1300, approximately 10% of the public sector. As a part of the transition process, Employee Liaison Officers have been identified in each agency. Ideas and suggestions would be collected by the department’s representatives.
A Window into the Organisation forum has been established, where the Chief Executive Officer regularly meets with staff members across the organisation, to discuss issues and share ideas. The CEO has met and talked with many groups in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine; he has also visited Tennant Creek.
A Cabinet submission will be prepared requesting the amendment to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and abolition of the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act. All Territorians are rightly proud of the work of our Parks and Wildlife staff. I am particularly proud of their efforts. This amalgamation of departments will ensure that the conservation arm of our government has a very important and close say in the workings of the development arm of the government. Their agenda goes from being the agenda for the commission separated from other departments, to being the agenda of this new major department. New delegations under the various acts administered by the department will have to be prepared to reflect these change.
Like every department, my departments have budget bottom lines that need to be achieved. This has been necessary because of the budget situation inherited from the CLP regime. The budget was detailed in a mini-budget statement by the Chief Minister. The achievement of those goals is possible because of the efficiencies gained from the merger of the departments. In effect, through the amalgamation we have achieved more efficient and effective decision-making processes based on development of effective systems within our agencies, rather than across a number of departments - efficiencies that provide a greater scope to achieve the government’s final outcomes; and a coordinated approach through the development of an effective working relationship between the minister, my office, and the agencies that will deliver the government’s election commitment and policies.
I am very proud of the people I work with in the departments of my ministry. They are professional public servants who have a professional and a personal commitment to the future of our Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to concur with the words of the member for Blain earlier; I think that they were very wise words. The only thing I might disagree with him on: this is not bipartisan, but sometimes it is tripartisan - there are three sides to the story, occasionally, to come out of parliament now.
I cannot talk about the whole of the restructuring of government because I basically do not have the ability to gain enough information to speak on that fairly broad subject. However, I do have some concerns about Parks and Wildlife, and I have mentioned this to the Chief Minister in a meeting we had earlier this year.
I come from the same philosophy that the member for Blain has spoken about. I see it as my job to raise issues here, regardless of whether the government agrees or doesn’t agree. In this case, I feel I need to raise issues about Parks and Wildlife.
There are a lot of people in Parks and Wildlife who, I think, are extremely dedicated. They have not got into this job because it is the public service; they have got into that job because they love their job. Whether it is looking at mimosa control or whether they are studying frill-necked lizards in one of the national parks, or whatever, those people love their job and that’s their career, it is their vocation in life. When those people come to me, I know they’re not coming to me because they are political; they are coming to me because they are deeply concerned that what they have put all their time and effort into in life, they see as being threatened. I am one of those who’s had the phone calls, maybe because I am on this side of the House, or maybe because I am the one in the middle. The impression I have - and I have had some phone calls today - is that morale is extremely low in the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Now, for sure, that is probably a very broad statement, and you will probably find there are people in Parks and Wildlife who, perhaps, are not worried at all. But I am getting these from people who - I just mentioned before - are the ones who feel that, basically, this is their life; they want to work for Parks and Wildlife. They are coming to me and saying that morale is low.
I could give you a few examples of why they are finding that at the moment. They tell me a few years ago, Col Fuller was the gentlemen who the government employed, I suppose, to make some rather nasty cuts to a lot of departments. They say that when he got to what was the Conservation Commission or Parks and Wildlife, he took every ounce of fat out of that department. The cuts that have occurred today are starting to get to the bone. The meat’s gone, just about, and they are now getting into the bone. I can give you a few examples of where people feel that it has just gone so far, it is now starting to hurt.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ah Kit: What about Shane Stone? ‘We know who you are. We know who rings up talk back, we know who they are’. Shane Stone said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Ah Kit: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD: I am just talking specific programs. Some of these have not come from the department. I know there are Friends of the Botanical Gardens, for instance, who had a program to put in a cycad garden - I think it was a world cycad garden - they’d actually had a nursery set up which was producing the cycads all ready to go, and then that particular landscape service was cut. Of course, they don’t know what to do with their cycads now because, basically, if they keep them any longer, they are just going to outgrow their pots and that will be the end of them. That is only a little aspect.
I have heard that the feral dove program in Alice Springs has been cut, or has gone. Of course, the problem with a program like that, if you cut it, the feral doves population starts to grow again and you’re back to square one. That’s some of the problems people have.
I have heard that positions have been reduced and not filled anymore. There just simply is not the money to fill those positions and, of course, what can happen is that if you do not have enough people working there, you can get things like plans and management not being completed.
Mr Baldwin: What about the Commission Board. Where are they going to go?
Mr WOOD: I will get to the Commission Board. There are matters like making sure we can do firebreaks around our parks, reduce feral animal control and mimosa control. Mimosa and feral animals again, like the feral dove: if you reduce your work on those areas, then they’ll catch up with you later, because they’ll just be back on the increase.
There are a couple of other issues. I gather ranger training, and the junior ranger training has been cut. Little things, but I think they’re very important things. I hate to see things like – well, I hate to see any ranger training, but especially the junior ranger training being cut, because taking the Parks and Wildlife side out of it, I think it is important that government supports projects which encourage youth to get into this area. If you want to look at the bigger program, it keeps kids off the street, they learn about a lot of environmental issues. I think it is important for the youth of today to be involved in those things.
I have heard - I know there is a mention about the liaison officers here. Just a couple of comments. One, I heard the liaison officer had resigned a couple of months ago from the Goyder Building, I think it was, and I am not sure if that’s been replaced. And I had another comment from someone else, that they knew there were liaison officers, but they felt very uncomfortable to go there because they thought if they said something it would get back to them. They weren’t really interested in the political side, that is one of the things they are saying to me. ‘Look, we didn’t want to get involved, we like our job, we want to get on with our job, but we are just a bit worried that if we say something, perhaps it will come back to us, and we will be in trouble’.
The minister mentioned a fact which I think is a good change. He talked about how we now have an Office of Environment and Heritage, and I congratulate the government on doing that. He said that that will have a direct access to himself as the minister, and I think that’s a positive approach. I do believe that we still should be looking at having one department of environment which includes Parks and Wildlife, and includes the environment section of Mines and Energy, and the environment section of Primary Industry. I think the minister is actually looking at that. And perhaps look at the Queensland model, they do have a department of environment and it does cover all those areas.
The other area, which was just mentioned by the member for Daly, was the future of the commission. I know there have been rumours around that the commission will go, and that will require a change in the act, but I would certainly ask the government to be fairly cautious before it does that. My feeling is that the commission does create that little bit of an independent forum for Parks and Wildlife, and it allows it to be at least a little at arms length away from the government, where you are getting independent advice. I am not sure what the advantages of getting rid of the commission are, but I think that before the government decides to get rid of it, perhaps we need to get some papers out on it and look at the pros and cons, so we can have some debate out there in the public as to whether that is a good idea. I feel that the commission does play a good role in the area of Parks and Wildlife, in seeing the people who are on it - there are Aboriginal people on it, and there are some scientific people on it, as well as a number of public servants, and I think there is a member from the tourist industry on it.
You have to remember, Parks and Wildlife is not just about environment: as well, it has an income. It has an income from tourists, straight away, so we have to be careful what we do with Parks and Wildlife. It could affect the economy, if we cut it too much. Are we going to have places closing down at 3 pm or 4 pm because we cannot afford to put people on to staff those areas? Just off the top of my head, I think Windows on the Wetlands goes from 7 am to about 7 pm. I think the reason it does that is so it can pick up the early tourists going out to Kakadu and probably can pick up a few on the way home. So, we’d hate to see cuts occur in those places.
With Parks and Wildlife, I ask the government to be careful, as the member for Blain said. Certainly sometimes - and I probably got the same thing sometimes in the council - you hear the good things. In my view, in my position, people feel safe; they can give me a ring and say the things they really feel. I genuinely believe they are not political; what they are trying to do is tell me that these things are happening to the detriment of the department. They want their department to be a good department, and they want their job to be a good job, and they’re fiercely loyal to their job. So, when people come to me who I know are like that, I believe them, because I don’t believe they would come to me if there wasn’t a genuine need to come to me.
I feel my job today is to pass that information to the government. Perhaps, sometimes, the government has to look past its people at the top so that you have maybe, sometimes, the bad stuff sieved out, before it gets to the minister. Maybe, sometimes, the ministers have to go out and - well, I know it is difficult because you have big departments - actually have lunch with a few of these people. Sit down and say: ‘Look, I am going to have dinner at the local tavern, and I will take a few people out’. I know it is very hard when you are busy, but I used to try and take - again much smaller, the Litchfield Shire Council - try and take the staff out for lunch occasionally, just so I met them, so I understood what they were. You did not take the top people out, you just took the staff out.
I do have a couple of other matters that I would like to raise as well, and these are just general issues. I know the departments have been made much bigger, and I again agree with the member for Blain. I felt this was a good thing to do, to amalgamate, and if you look at the Territory in the perspective of having only 200 000 people, you’d say: ‘Well, why do we need so many ministers?’ But, on the other side of the coin, we are a huge land mass and that, in itself, has to be balanced against a small population. We have issues like large distances of travel; it is much harder for some of those people out there to be contacted. We still have all the departments that a lot of other states have, so we have to deal with those issues.
One of the things that does come back to me at times is access to ministers. Now, it is hard to say. I just mentioned to the member for Wulagi today that a gentleman had come to see me about not being able to gain access to the minister. There may be other reasons for that, but I have heard people say they sometimes have difficulty having access. Whether we have given so much workload - the member for Wulagi …
Mr Henderson: Wanguri.
Mr WOOD: Wanguri, sorry. I just put the wrong suburb, it starts with the same letter and ends with the same letter, I think.
I take may hat off to him in some ways; that’s a huge portfolio. There’s a massive amount of stuff in there; also, the member for Casuarina. That’s a big workload on people. I would be more worried that ministers might burn out, because you really want ministers to be on top of it all the time. Whether the government would give some consideration to even having a junior minister who took on some of the lesser ministerial areas? I put forward that as a suggestion, perhaps to take some of the workload off people. It is all very well to restructure but, if you just put huge loads on ministers, I am not sure you’re going to get the best out of them.
One other thing, there has been a question about public servants being required to write questions for ministers. I have no problem with public servants writing briefings to questions - I had two public servants speak to me and say they have been told to write questions. I find it a bit strange; maybe people might dispute that. What I would say is surely - because I know when the government gets up and basically gives dorothy dix questions - if you can’t write dorothy dix questions, I reckon you are having a hard time. I have had two people who have said to me that they have been asked to write questions so, I am passing that on. People may agree or disagree, but it is perhaps worth looking at.
All in all, I again support the member for Blain. I think that it is the right of the government to bring in changes, and I supported a lot of those changes. I felt there should be a look at the amount of waste that sometimes occurs in the public service, because I think sometimes there is stuff that you will hear people say: ‘Oh, such and such’. I heard a case the other day - I am just trying to think - where someone did something, and you say: ‘Well, that was just a waste of money’. Perhaps we have to look at things, not so much about real projects that you get involved in, in Parks and Wildlife, but how many times have we sent people off to some sort of conference down south? You have to ask: does anyone evaluate whether that conference was worth going to?
I used to travel; I used to go to meetings sometimes, and you have to ask: was it worth it? I would be a millionaire if I got $1 for every word that was spoken at every meeting that did not achieve anything. But, if I got a dollar for every meeting I went to where we did achieve something, I would still be pretty poor. I think sometimes we have to evaluate whether some of these courses – there is always training, there is upgrading of people - you have to wonder whether that is something that could, perhaps, be cut back a little; whether it is of great value. Instead, put something back into Parks and Wildlife where you have projects that really cannot stop, because there, you are dealing with either living animals or plants, and you just cannot stop. Those projects need to be ongoing, otherwise they are basically destroyed. You also have to realise that some of those scientists and those people who have put their life energy into those projects, if they are cut, their morale naturally goes. They have to ask: ‘Why am I here still?’ They’re qualified people who really want to do this work for the Territory and, if you cut it, that’s the end of their morale. Sometimes they go somewhere else and we lose them - the whole of Territory - they’ll go to another place.
What I ask is that the government take on those matters I’ve raised. I’ve raised them with a genuine concern for the people in Parks and Wildlife. I do not put them out as a desk-bashing criticism. I do put it firmly to the government to at least take those things into account.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I think it is important to look to the words of this statement, to look for the future directions of this government, because they have been very, very difficult to find out of any of the statements thus far. I think the Chief Minister gave it away at the bottom of page 2, where she says:
That’s where we are. If you look at the matter of forced redundancies, unforced redundancies, reductions in the public service, turnover, attrition, all of those issues - if you look to them, you will see that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
If you go to the various documents that were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, you will see, on a number of occasions - and I will just quote from one because they are available to all the members. This was in an interview, 8DDD, 13 November last year, where a reporter asked the question:
So, there’s 14 400 public servants now; after four years, how many would you like to see that reduced by,
whether this is by natural attrition?
This is the Chief Minister speaking:
Chief Minister:
Well Julia, I say again there’s a 10% turnover over time, and I’m saying to my CEOs: ‘You will manage
that process and you will make savings’. There is a problem with this, and that is that some of the high turnover areas are areas where people do not like to work. They do not like to work there because they are hard jobs; often they are thankless jobs; sometimes they are jobs where people are keen to use it as a stepping stone to get somewhere else. Every minister on the other side must know areas where that occurs. If you want to target these areas as where you are going to reduce the public service, you have a pretty big problem. Do an analysis of your high turnover areas; do an analysis of why people leave areas like, for instance, child protection. It is a very difficult job and the people who are there, often for their own security of mind and other factors, will leave the job because it is so difficult and the burn-out rate can be so high. So, I would caution the government about this idea of: ‘Don’t worry about redundancies, it will all work out because people leave anyway, 10% of them, and we’ll just pinch those jobs’.
I was a bureaucrat in the Northern Territory Public Service for a long time, as a person called a compulsory transferee - which means that we came from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Public Service, whether we liked it or not. It was a breath of fresh air; we realised things could happen quickly, we realised there were abbreviated reporting lines, we could get words into the minister’s office pretty quick. We changed things really quickly. I was a regional director in Katherine and, as such, I was responsible for the several departments that were represented there. One was the Department of Lands, and they came once a week, for a day or so, and we argued long and hard that Lands should be represented in Katherine. Lo and behold, it eventually happened. What was one day a week, turned to full-time staff of something like 18 people, because what happens is, you can produce savings like this. You can produce them, you can reduce your public service. You could get rid of local government tomorrow and make enormous savings. However, you have to ask yourself: is that in the best interest of the people …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, the reason I go to local government is because there was a time when we didn’t have local governments in many of these places. It comes at a cost, but we would say that the cost derives a benefit to the people who are there. So, we think that the Chief Minister is being a bit specious saying: ‘No forced redundancies, no unforced redundancies’, which we know to be a porky. We can also go to the fact that this idea that people will leave and we just do not replace them, will mean that there will be some crisis areas. I am reluctant to talk about them, because there is an element of witch-hunting and vindictiveness among those opposite. It is one of those things that I think is a shame, because it means that the public servants who are speaking to me are quite right to be concerned about their jobs - and they are speaking to all of us on this side. I would be very surprised if they are not speaking to those on the other side. I would be really surprised if they do not have friends who do not vote our way, who are coming to them and saying: ‘Look, there is a morale problem. There is a crisis of confidence in the new government; they are not cutting the right areas. It is a death by a thousand cuts, as they are just taking the little itty bits and pieces without looking at entire program areas. The Chief Minister does not have our confidence because of the way she has handled this issue and, in any event, we do not believe her public utterances’. I guess the reason they are saying that is that they hear the same things we hear on the radio, where the Chief Minister backflips from position to position.
Of course, that is something that we could have been a little more clear about had we been given the opportunity for a censure this afternoon. Because, as one of the four members on this side who have been censured, I think it is a little bit cowardly for the government to use its numbers to gag a debate at this time. I have been associated with this parliament for a while. I have been the subject of censure motions when I was a minister, and often they are an ambush. Often they come out of the blue. Often, I would say, they are specious and, certainly in some cases, I was censured for things that this current government is doing. So, what they found offensive in my actions, they are continuing to do.
I think it is hypocritical to the extreme. It is, certainly, lacking in any courage. It is an indicator of a lack of confidence in your own ability, and it is, certainly, one of those things where their arrogance in this matter will be manifestly obvious to everybody who looks at a debate of this type, where they will see that these are issues that should have been brought to the public eye. They are issues that the Chief Minister ably demonstrated that there had been a series of statements that were put to the media that were later proved to be untrue. Now, in other places that is called a lie, Madam Speaker. And we believe that that word still applies. I know I am prohibited from using it but, when a Chief Minister says things that are later proved to be untrue, I think it is something that we should discuss in this House. Because if she continues to do it, the word ‘lie’ will be used by others outside this House and she will get a title as a person who lies a lot. So, whether we use it in this House or not, it goes to the credibility of the Chief Minister. And I think to, in a …
Ms Martin: Why don’t you be accurate? Your mob have been calling me a liar for seven years; why just say three years? Hey, let’s just do it.
Mr DUNHAM: My mob have been calling you a liar for seven years? Well, I guess she is a born liar, Madam Speaker. So, if I was to use the label …
Mr STIRLING: That is a point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr DUNHAM: I am picking up on an interjection. She asked whether I called her a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: I know, but you still cannot make references like that …
Mr DUNHAM: The interjection was whether I will call her a liar for a period of three years and I do not agree with that. I would call her a liar for much longer than that …
Madam SPEAKER: And the Chief Minister should know much better than that, but I would ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: And Chief Minister, do not make those comments across the floor.
Mr DUNHAM: I guess she was merely using the wrong terminology.
It is interesting because the Chief Minister has just been on radio - and I have the transcript here - and it makes beautiful reading. With 10 minutes I am sure I could read most of it into the Parliamentary Record given that those opposite do not interject too much. We have a situation where a reporter has put a series of questions to the Chief Minister - only a matter of some minutes, an hour or so ago - and the questions relate to pretty much the sort of stuff we have talked about here in the censure motion. And that is that:
So the reporter puts that question, and it is glossed over by the Chief Minister who is getting quite good at being able to jump from side to side of an argument, and the media are getting quite used to it. She puts the same case pretty much to the reporter saying: ‘Well, so Toyney’s done it. So what? I do it all the time’. And her answer is, the now, Chief Minister:
And later on the reporter goes on to say:
And she says:
So we do not have to use the word ‘lie’ in this parliament anymore. We can say the Chief Minister’s been using the wrong words again. Because she’s used a lot of the wrong words recently; she’s been saying ‘yes’ when she means ‘no’. She has been saying that ‘this is an absolute guarantee’ when that is not the case. Some of the wrong words she has been using go to the fact that we could have laid all this out to the people today in the censure motion. She has found a new word ‘prosecuted’. ‘They haven’t prosecuted a case, there was simply an abuse of parliament’. Later on she tells the reporter, ‘But it wasn’t the issue they were trying to prosecute, Julia’. Well, we don’t know what they were trying to prosecute.
The word I think she means is ‘prostitute’. I think some of the processes here are in danger of being prostituted by somebody who doesn’t use the right words. It is going to make a mockery of this parliament if it is prostituted in this way, because the issues of a censure motion are well known to the Chief Minister. She has participated in them, she has been in this House when people have been censured on specious and frivolous grounds, and she has seen it. She knows exactly what its purpose is. She has seen the sorry spectacle of the opposition being on the receiving end of the censure motion on two occasions in the short time that she has been the Chief Minister. So, she should know what it is about.
We have proof absolute that this censure motion had grounds. That proof was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We now have an issue of competence. The issue of competence is not just in the Chief Minister; the issue of competence is in her Attorney-General because she has said, outside of this place, that he used the wrong words. Now, if he is going to go around using the wrong words about such a serious issue, and if we are in this parliament using the wrong words about important matters that have appeared in the Auditor-General’s report, I think that we might have to change our terminology to make that a simile for lying. Because, I think that it is pretty hard for the Chief Minister to escape this issue. She is going to be pursued not just by us; she is going to be pursued by the media; she is going to be pursued by possibly audit-type inquiries about it. Certainly, the CEOs who were terminated, asked to leave - and all those others words that have described their disappearance from the public service - are not going to be too friendly towards her.
The dismissive way she talks about the Auditor-General who, in his report of February 2002 at page 32 says, and I will read it for the benefit of Hansard:
… that the termination payments were calculated on the basis of an employer termination under the
government’s contractual arrangements, allowing them, based on their pre-contract employment history,
to receive up to 48 weeks of notional salary in addition to five weeks payment in lieu of notice. If these
employees had resigned, they would not have been entitled to these payments.
I think that is a pretty serious thing for the Auditor-General to be saying. When the Chief Minister, mere minutes ago, went on to the radio and said: ‘Oh, I don’t have any disagreements with the Auditor-General’, I think she has either not read the report; she is doing her old trick of just winging it and making up stuff as she goes; or maybe she is using the wrong words.
In any event, I think that this has to be taken further. It should be taken further by way of a censure motion. You should caucus tonight and think about censure motions. You should talk about whether you need advance notice. You should talk about the stupid notion that somehow we have to demonstrate that we have a censure motion.
So what do we do? We run a censure motion and then you say: ‘Yes, that’s a censure motion’, and we run the basis of it. It is a facile notion and it is a notion that is being put by somebody who has taken great comfort in the strength of their numbers and good on them; they have the numbers in this House. But they do not have the moral authority coming from those numbers to prostitute some of the issues in this parliament - some of the issues that have come from a democratic heritage that stretches back for centuries.
I would ask them to caucus on this tonight and to think about the sorry history of this particular issue today. I would ask them to, possibly, ask some of the backbenchers and others what they think about morale and the issues in the public service. If the answer is that things are going swimmingly, you really have a big problem with hearing what the people are saying out there because, independents are hearing it, we are all hearing it. There are many members who you could talk to who have close friends who have relatives or are public servants - ask them. And if you are getting a universal thumbs up about the wonderful things you are doing, particularly given that the big tsunami still has to come, and the tsunami is: ‘You have 10% wastage in there and we want you to burn all those jobs. Wherever somebody goes, shut the door and wall it up behind them because we need to harvest that money’.
If you’re really, really stupid and brutal about it, there are lots of ways you can do it. Like I said, all you have to do is trade off some of things that we put in place knowing they cost money. We put things in place to provide the quality of life that we have here, and we put things into place to provide services for people, particularly in remote areas - and they cost money, so withdraw them. Do what Percy tells you: have megadepartments, centralise everything, have CEOs totally responsible - and the pain is in the bush. The pain is in the small communities; the pain is in the specific programs that lose their identity in this amorphous blob that becomes the super-departments. What happens is the articulate will float to the top and get their area serviced and the remote, the inarticulate traditional people sometimes, will not be heard because the reporting lines are just so big and complex.
I ask the Chief Minister to go to her reporting service and pull this record off the machine and to either let us know what’s going to happen to the Attorney-General now that he’s lost her confidence in speaking out about an issue in a way that he used ‘the wrong words’, and whether it is a matter that warrants the attention of this parliament. It has certainly come to the attention of the Auditor-General, it has come to the attention of the parliament, and it has now come to the attention of the media, the people out there. All of those have a feeling that the wrong words have been used to them. There is a feeling of betrayal about this issue, and there is a smell that is not going to go away because we know this is step one.
We’ve read Percy Allan’s report, too, and we know what he’s saying. We’ve read this stuff about ‘the changes are to achieve a sustainable budget’. To achieve a sustainable budget from public service changes, you have to get some money. You get some money by spending less, and you spend less because you pay fewer people, and you pay fewer people because you have not filled jobs or you have given them the flick or sacked them or terminated - whatever you want to use. What we want to know are the figures promised by your Leader of Government Business. They still have not hit the deck here. Now, as a minister I knew - oh, they going to hit the deck, are they? - once a month we got figures for the whole public service, every instrumentality. It was listed, the trends were extrapolated both backward and forward looking. There was a capacity to monitor growth and there was a capacity to monitor some of the departments that use high levels of casuals, job-sharing, part-time and all of those complex issues that relate to how you measure the size of your public service. We would like to see the same figures.
The question that was asked this morning that wasn’t answered by the Treasurer was: how much were they in August when you assumed power, how much are they now, and -I think we could say - how much do you reckon Percy thinks you should cut it back? Hathaway’s talking about - one of your mates in the union that you were so cosy with - the fact that you’re talking over certainly hundreds, several hundreds and probably in the thousands.
So these are things that we need to hear, and I am very pleased that the Chief Minister has graced us with her presence in the closure of this debate because, on issues of economic importance, she did a bolt and we all stood up and spoke. She had this bloke stand up and dump on all of us over here individually; this bloke said he wasn’t going to speak at all until I had spoken. It is good that she has mustered a bit of fortitude in them to at least stand on their hind legs, and it is good she has turned up to complete this debate. Now, when she does, tell us about the confidence in the Attorney-General; tell us what the numbers are; tell us what this wastage attrition rate thing means; give us an assurance that nobody is going to be offered redundancies because we know that is using ‘the wrong language’; and tell us any other things she should clear up before this record turns into an epitaph for this Chief Minister.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I had earlier decided not to speak, but I thought I should add some words from the Central Australian perspective. When I read the Chief Minister’s statement, it just bore out what I had always thought of her when she was the member for Fannie Bay, later the Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Martin: I still am the member for Fannie Bay, Richard.
Dr LIM: When you were only the member for Fannie Bay and then later as the Leader of the Opposition. I always thought that she had a good media profile, speaks well, presents well, reasonably good looking on television, and sounds pretty good on radio also. But she never had substance, and today’s statement bore that out: that there was no substance in the material that she presented, and it is no wonder her health minister is likewise. I mean, the one example is the other. I suppose her restructure of the public service was intended to save money, but at what cost?
The loss of corporate memory to the Northern Territory has been immense. The people who have left, the Chief Executive Officers who have left the Territory have cost this community a great loss in corporate memory. It is going to take a long while for her southern cronies to start to catch up and understand the idiosyncrasies of the Northern Territory. Now, we talk about no forced redundancies. I have had several CEOs say to me - the ones who have left - that if you were to be placed at a desk and spend the next few months doing very little but special projects that are handed to you when the acting CEO so chooses, it is really a death warrant for the CEO. Why should they sit there for the rest of their time looking at a dead-end job, having a brain-dead existence? That’s the question: why would these people, highly skilled, with a lot to contribute, with all the knowledge of the Northern Territory, be put into a brain-dead job? And the answer is: why would they want to do it?
Of course, if the offer of 52 weeks’ of salary is there, why would they be so stupid not to take that and run? Now, is that forced redundancy? Well, in a way I believe it is. You cannot say that they voluntarily walked out. Technically, you’re right, but the core issue is that they were put into a corner, told to look at a blank wall for the next 52 weeks. Of course, they would resign. Of course, they would take their redundancies and get on with their lives. They would have closure with one and start again. There’s no other way to look at this issue of redundancy than this cynical exercise that’s been done by the Chief Minister.
She’s concerned about saving money for the Northern Territory. You know, I was very surprised when I heard the way she went about looking at food prices in the Northern Territory, and what she did there. You will recall that, late in January, she decided that she would bring the Northern Territory Treasury Food Price Review to twice a year, saying that the ABS does its own reviews and, therefore, will be sufficient. The question is: the ABS does not do food price reviews in any other cities than capital cities which means in the Northern Territory, only Darwin gets that food price survey, the rest of the Territory does not.
An article in the Centralian Advocate of 22 January, front page headline says: ‘Soaring Food Costs Hit Alice Springs Families’. If the Chief Minister was real about looking after the whole of the Territory, then she’ll be looking very closely at what she can do to assist Central Australians. Instead, we are looking at high food prices and a Chief Minister who does not give a damn about what’s happening in Central Australia. That’s surely not the way to go. You will recall a statement that she made back in 1998, 1999, on 20 April when she was interviewed by Fred McCue, and she said:
As the Chief Minister, she doesn’t really care. Now that is the sort of attitude that I believe this Chief Minister has. She is concentrating on Darwin, and ignoring the rest of the Territory. It is important that, if the Chief Minister wants to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to be fully inclusive, to ensure that those of us living out of Darwin do get some share of her concerns.
She has not even talked to the Minister for Sport and Recreation about the Masters Games in Alice Springs. Less than six months to go to the Masters Games, and the organisations have not been adequately supported. The organising committee of the Masters Games is not getting the support from the minister and the government as it has had in past years from the CLP government. Fortunately for us, I understand that the accommodation houses are reasonably well booked for the Masters Games, but all this extra work, at the expense of all the volunteer organisations, the organising committee that is supposed to be set up through the Department of Sport and Recreation, have been very, very severely decimated by the restructuring, and they have very few staff to do the work.
Another issue that the Chief Minister has ignored in Central Australia is the lack of land. We have talked about the shortage of residential land in Central Australia. For the last six months we have been arguing that the government must put in some real measures to free up residential land in Central Australia. What has she done? Absolutely nothing. All we have heard is that her government is negotiating with the Central Land Council and Arrernte people for some Larrapinta stage 4 land. Now, that is going to take a long while. The real estate industry in Alice Springs was quoted not so long ago, saying that there is a dearth of land. I quote from an article, again, showing to you the headlines: ‘Alice Running out of Housing Land’, in the Centralian Advocate of 8 January this year. In the first couple of paragraphs it says:
That’s an indictment. That’s an industry saying that this Chief Minister, this government, is not doing anything about it. Central Australia desperately needs a government that will look south of the Berrimah Line to ensure that things get underway. To say that this government does nothing, says nothing … The article that was in The Weekend Australian a few weeks ago says it all for us when it says that, when the Chief Minister is interviewed, she says lots of words, lots of platitudes but when it comes down to the crunch, she has said nothing. Well, this statement has said nothing that encourages me to believe that this government will look after the Northern Territory, especially Central Australia.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all members for their contributions, in varying degrees. I have struggled to understand what the previous speaker was actually talking about. It is very interesting to hear the member for Greatorex and the member for Drysdale really, fundamentally, be so offensive. I mean, to have other members in this House want to discuss my personal attributes, I find quite extraordinary. I think those two members, particularly, should look at how they treat members of this House and that, because the Chief Minister happens to be female, I do not want members of this House discussing my personal attributes about whether they think I am good looking or not. It is not part of the deal of being a politician. And it is certainly not something that I want the member for Greatorex to give me his opinion on. So, I would appreciate the member for Greatorex …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is very offensive Richard. I would appreciate the member for Greatorex, if he wants to speak to a statement - that was a substantial statement about a restructure of the public sector, that I announced on 13 November last year - then he should do this House the graciousness to actually speak about it, and not to spend his time making fatuous and irrelevant comments. The same with his mate, the member for Drysdale.
This statement today is about the restructure of the public sector. It is an important move for the Territory and it was done very well. The actual restructure was put in place - these changes - and we calculated less than about 200 public servants - between 100 and 200 public servants - would actually have to move their chairs. But most of the impact would have been in terms of the name of the agency you are working for - that name would have changed. I think that this restructure was done very thoughtfully, and it has been done very logically. Our public servants were well informed through the Intranet, through the Internet, through letters to them to explain what was happening. If we compare it to the kind of processes of Planning for Growth, which caused massive disruption; or the 1000 jobs that were targeted in the early 1990s through the expenditure review committee; then any words from the CLP trying to compare this process from this Labor government with how they have previously treated the public sector, is really a sham.
This has been - and I am not standing here saying there are not some areas in our public sector where people do feel disconcerted about the changes. Change, in itself, is often disconcerting and it has to be handled properly. Because we recognise that, we put in place a Transition Task Force, we did involve the unions in it very closely, and we have Employee Liaison Officers in all areas. I am sorry to hear some members of the House say that we have public servants who feel reluctant to talk to those Employee Liaison Officers. I would certainly encourage public servants to do so, because we want to hear back about whether they are affected in terms of how they can do their job through this restructure, and we want to hear back the warts and all from every employee.
We have put in place the mechanisms. We are talking to public servants - not just talking to our CEOs, we are talking to public servants - right through from, ECO5 down to AO1. We are talking to them all, and we want to be able to give them the confidence of what this exercise was about, what this restructure was about - and a restructure that has happened in other parts of Australia - and recognise that you simply cannot have so great a number of agencies in a jurisdiction like ours; that this restructure has within it enormous opportunities for our public servants to enhance their careers - much greater opportunities. It really is an opportunity for this new government to get the public service to focus on what we believe is the real mission of our public service - and that’s service delivery to Territorians. This restructure enables us to do that.
To listen to members of the opposition simply say this is about targeting job numbers, it is absolutely absurd. At the same time, we are increasing those who do deliver our services: the police, the teachers, the nurses. How we are building an Office of Territory Development, how we are building an Office of Indigenous Policy. In fact, we are focussing on that critical aspect of government which is service delivery. To simply have this debate skewed for the purposes of the opposition to talk about: ‘Oh, it’s just about a jobs numbers exercise’, is patently absurd, because we have been consistent all along. That is not what it is about. There are savings to be made, and we have been very up-front about this. We had Percy Allan return to the Territory in mid-November to hold workshops for CEO level, for senior management level, to talk about how savings can be made in the backroom engineering areas. These are real, these have been put in place in other jurisdictions and they have made savings.
I have not pretended all along that we do not have an attrition rate of 10% over a year, that is a fact of Territory life. But, what we want is enhanced service delivery. So, if you look at, simply, the kind of arguments being put by the opposition that, when someone leaves a job we are not going to fill it. How on earth does that fulfil the criteria of better service delivery? No, it doesn’t. Take a look in the newspapers on the weekend, the national ones. Take a look in the NT News. Every week there are jobs advertised; a full page every week. We are building our public service; we are building our public sector, and the arguments that we have heard here this afternoon are simply ridiculous.
One of the purposes behind this restructure, in having less agencies, is that we fundamentally believe, as a new government that, in many areas, it takes whole-of-government to deliver the outcomes. If you look at areas like education and crime prevention, it takes whole-of-government. In many areas, it takes a whole-of-government energy and synergy to be able to achieve those outcomes. This restructure, with less agencies, means we can do that.
In the economic area, in DBIRD - as we now, in a friendly way, call it – we have brought together the economic drivers of the Territory. These will have synergies and better outcomes, because it is a coordinated approach. We are not going to have the approach where primary industries used to run off overseas and then DART would run off overseas, and nobody would be talking to each other. This is about talking; this is about getting better bang for our buck. In the important area of employment, education and training, about bringing together those absolutely critical areas to make sure that we are working together - that education is working in with training, is working to job creation. Again, there is a logic to what we are doing.
This is not an exercise about: ‘Can we reduce numbers in the public sector?’ It is not. It is about better service delivery. It is about getting better outcomes, better results for Territorians, and for service delivery. I made it very clear, on 13 November, this is not about forced redundancies - it is not – and there is no program of voluntary redundancies. If you want to look at the figures, let’s look at this government compared with the previous government. From January last year to August, there were 152 voluntary redundancies under the previous government. Under our government, from August to January this year, there were 39. Now, let’s do a comparison. There is no program of voluntary redundancies but, of course, in the public sector our size, there are voluntary redundancies. We recognise that, because 152 happened under the previous administration in six months – no, seven months. Our comparison at 39 …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting, speaker after speaker said: ‘Well the Chief Minister, she just …
Mr Wood: Can you table that document?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, certainly, we are going to table it; it was when there was nothing before the House. But I can table it now for all members of the opposition who are interested. I am very pleased that the member for Nelson is interested.
I listened to member after member here talk about: ‘There was nothing in this statement, what is the Chief Minister going to do?’. I know I am not to draw attention to where they are, but there is not a one here; not a one here to listen to this. After being challenged: ‘Come in here and wind up this debate’; not a one here.
Dr Burns: Not even one to raise a point of order about it.
Ms MARTIN: And not even one to make a point of order. Let me put on the record, there is no one in our public sector who has a job; who wants to have that job; who hasn’t got it. So, all this rubbish we are hearing - no one has lost their job. Nobody who wants that job, has lost it.
We have the rubbish being spoken in here this afternoon, the attempt to twist words and somehow pretend, if you twist the words hard enough, you must be getting to some other meaning. Well, let me make it very clear: I might be a simple and straightforward person but, when I say things I mean them. So, when I say no forced redundancies, no program of voluntary redundancies, that’s what it is about. When I say that the four CEOs identified in the Auditor-General’s report, were those who chose to have voluntary redundancies, that is the absolute truth. That is the absolute truth, so, let’s just get this straight.
It is interesting, for a government that used to try and attempt to throw the Auditor-General’s report down late at night and never talk about it later. They’ve suddenly had a turning on the road to Damascus, and are now saying that the Auditor-General is - which is fine, but it is interesting, things turn quite quickly. I have no problems with what the Auditor-General said. There is no one who has left under the Labor government, who hasn’t been paid out according to their contract - we are absolutely certain of that - and within the same kind of framework and protocols as established by our predecessors.
I would like to get to this area of low morale. Speaker after speaker just threw: ‘There is low morale; there is frustration and concern; public servants aren’t happy.’ Yet, except for - and I do accept that in the Parks and Wildlife service we do have an area that we really need to address, because I know that there are members in that area who do not feel as though the integrity of the service under these new arrangements is being addressed. I can say to those who work in Parks and Wildlife: you are valued by this government and any changes do not devalue the job you do, the expertise you have, and the importance you have to us. So, I take that on board. That is an issue we have to address, and maybe it is one we have to articulate more clearly to the service.
We had speaker after speaker simply say: ‘There is low morale’; but no evidence. They simply said: ‘There is frustration’; but no evidence. ‘There is concern and we have had phone calls’. Well, what did the phone calls say? What areas were they from? You do not have to identify the person. What did they say when they rang? Did they give evidence of this low morale? Did they say what areas it is from? Did they say that the ability to deliver services for the Territory was being diminished or damaged? Not a one; we just heard the rhetoric. We heard the opposition rhetoric of: ‘If there’s been a good initiative from government, we are going to whinge and whine and carp about it’. That’s all we got.
I find that this was an important debate this afternoon. There were some contributions from the opposition, and I thank my ministers for their full support, because we now have a much clearer outline, in public, of what this restructure is about, and what has been happening with various departments with the kind of energies and commitments and the strategies that are being put in place. I think that Territorians should feel very heartened about that. What I am hearing back from our public service - and I am not pretending it is all 100% - but I am hearing back: ‘This is great. We have a new energy; we have a government that is listening to us; and we have better career opportunities now’. That is what I am hearing back. And so, if we really genuinely have from the opposition, public servants who are suffering from low morale, well, I say it is important for the opposition to come in here and articulate where those areas are. Don’t be specific, give us a general idea, because we want to address it. That’s what the Employee Liaison Officers are there for; that’s what the Transition Task Force is there for. That’s what we want to hear and address.
I think we have seen a new energy in our public sector. I think that we have a government that values the corporate knowledge, that values the expertise; that is saying to public servants: ‘We want to hear your ideas. You’ve been sat on for years; you weren’t able to of disagree with the policy, because you were in fear, you were trying to second-guess ministers. Well, that’s over and we want to see your career prospects enhanced’. I know when I spoke to Julia Christiansen - and the member for Drysdale quoted this - that I said I would love to see public servants getting up and going to work with a spring in their step. Well I do, and I do not apologise. I certainly do not apologise.
This has been an important statement to this House; it has been an important initiative from this government. I want to thank all those involved in the planning for the restructure, because I think that, overall, it has been done with more sensitivity and more information shared with those who it is going to affect than we have ever seen before, in any restructure from this Country Liberal Party. So, my thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it gives me enormous pleasure to table a document entitled Northern Territory Public Sector Numbers and Redundancies. The source is the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. It details the questions raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Katherine, this morning. I am very happy to lay that on the Table.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, tourism is a vital part of the Territory economy, and of our society. Tourism is the second-largest sector of our economy and, after mining and resources, directly contributes more than 8000 jobs and more than $900m to the Territory economy. Taking into account indirect spending and employment, the tourist industry supports over 11 000 Territory jobs and injects over $1.5bn into our economy per annum.
The Northern Territory is blessed with natural attractions and an ancient culture that provides visitors from around the world with a unique experience. Our greatest advantages in the highly competitive tourism marketplace are our pristine natural environments, our natural icon attractions including national parks and, most importantly, our people - particularly our indigenous people and the wealth of history and culture they have to share with national and international visitors.
The challenge for government and the Northern Territory tourism industry is to work together to build on these competitive advantages, our environments and our people, to provide tourism experiences that will attract new visitors, encourage them to stay longer, and keep them coming back, and to do so on a sustainable manner whereby our natural environment is respected and preserved, and all Territorians share in the economic benefits that increased tourist numbers will bring.
It has been a tough time for the Territory’s tourism industry over the past six months. The events of 11 September, the collapse of Ansett and the downturn in the global aviation industry have impacted adversely on tourist numbers, particularly international visitors from the US and Asia. The immediate impact of these events was dramatic, with falling tourist numbers affecting the industry internationally. As a competitor in a global market, the Northern Territory was seriously affected. Whilst recent international arrival figures are showing some tentative positive signs of bouncing back, particularly in the Northern Territory’s key markets in Europe, it will take some time to rebuild international traveller confidence to the level it was before the tragic events of last September.
To recap on the strategy adopted by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission post 11 September, the challenge in this difficult climate was to understand the changed international market, particularly the decline in airline numbers, and to identify and best target marketing spending to areas where people were still willing to travel, particularly the domestic air and drive markets. The Tourist Commission engaged Roy Morgan Research to undertake a series of telephone interviews with Australians to assess the impact of the Ansett collapse and the US terrorist attacks, and subsequent war against terrorism, on Australians’ travel intentions. The research proved what we have always known: Australians are resilient. Over the next 12 months, our intentions to holiday remain strong, and we still have a slight preference for air travel.
A result of our research with Roy Morgan was an intra-Territory advertising campaign. Conducted jointly with the Tourist Commission and the four regional tourist associations, the campaign’s intention was to encourage local Territorians to holiday at home.
Australia wide, the Territory Tourist Commission conducted a November national recovery campaign with the message that the NT is ‘open for business’. The campaign addressed key issues of accessibility, affordability and availability. The full-page colour advertisements were published in a variety of press in key domestic markets. The campaign was value-added by the promotion of all participating partners’ packages on a series of on-line travel sites. The response from the press advertising was excellent, resulting in a high number of inquiries to the commission’s holiday centre regarding the Northern Territory drive market options. However, the best results were realised from the on-line strategy which initiated a number of bookings that I have been advised today, in the period October to January, of 4426 inquiries which initiated significant numbers of bookings direct with participating partners.
In addition, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and Territory Discoveries have embarked on an integrated tactical campaign to deliver immediate results to the NT industry, which commenced on 24 February. This four-week campaign of press, TV and Internet advertising advertises travel until 30 June, prior to the Territory’s traditional domestic peak season. A direct mail piece sent through the NT Holiday Centre to identify ‘hot prospects’, will also be used to encourage conversion. Again, that direct mail has gone to over 12 000 individuals and organisations.
National Marketing have dubbed March 2002 NT Month. A month of activities will showcase the Territory to both national trade and consumers. Activities include the Territory Muster which has been branded ‘Outback comes to the city’ as part of the 2002 Year of the Outback. This series of consumer shows involves 41 NT operators and all four regional tourist associations, and will travel to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Other activities planned for NT Month are features in Trave Trade and Travel Week publications, travel agency window displays, incentive drives for sales staff, and cooperative marketing and promotional activities with large industry partners such as Qantas Holidays, Great Southern Rail and Voyagers Hotels and Resorts. The effectiveness of these campaigns will be tracked through the NT Holiday Centre and the NT Travel Monitor, and will be used to track trends in interstate travel to the Territory.
Internationally, the Northern Territory is currently in the middle of its biggest single campaign, working with the South Australian Tourist Commission, Qantas and Bridge the World on a major UK-based campaign entitled ‘Discover the Other Oz’. This $750 000 campaign aims to bring visitors from the UK into South Australia and the Northern Territory and self-drive the Explorer Highway. It includes massive press, radio, billboards - on major roads in every tube station in London - and on-line advertising. This is a clear example on the Northern Territory working cooperatively with industry and operators to maximise the return on our marketing investments in our high yielding markets.
A key focus of both the domestic and international campaigns are the drive market. The self-drive market has been just as resilient, and has equal potential for growth as the unstructured backpacker market. Initial evidence from interstate and in the Northern Territory indicates that self-drive destinations enjoyed a good Christmas period. Given the current air capacity situation and the propensity for Australians to take domestic holidays, the commission will target the self-drive market for increased activity in 2002. An indication of the strength of this drive market is the fact that 40%, or 1922, of brochures issued to date, as a result of consumer inquiries to the Holiday Centre, have been about the drive market.
In January 2002, Territory Discoveries released its first dedicated self-drive program which was distributed nationally through retail travel agencies. I table a copy of that package for honourable members. This program is in conjunction with the current four-week television, press, and direct mail campaign underway in the major markets of Sydney and regional NSW including Canberra, Melbourne and regional Victoria, plus south-east Queensland.
Madam Speaker, 2002 as all members would know, is the Year of the Outback and the Northern Territory will be supporting and participating in a range of activities to celebrate this occasion, including the Desert Knowledge Conference and ‘Songlines from Alice’. The Northern Territory has an advantage in this year, as we dominate consumer recognition as the outback - the real outback. Research conducted for the NT Tourism Commission by Roy Morgan Research in December 2000 showed that the NT was the most associated state or territory with the terms ‘unique’, ‘natural’ and ‘remote’. Research undertaken by other state tourism authorities has also shown the NT as the clear leader in being associated with the outback. This has been reinforced by the NT Tourism Commission changing its logo to ‘Australia’s Outback – Northern Territory’.
The commission is capitalising on the Northern Territory’s identity as Australia’s real outback during the Year of the Outback, both domestically and internationally. Working with the Australian Tourism Commission, the international exposure is primarily through the Visiting Journalists Program, (VJP), which provides media and public relations activity in our target markets; for example, the UK and Europe. Again, in the last six months we have had a large number of journalists come through the Northern Territory. For example, 17 September, a journalist called Jennifer Guerrini-Maraldi, Country Life - this is a weekly UK glossy targeted at affluent readers living, or with a second residence in rural areas. This will produce an outback special for Country Life in the United Kingdom, which will feature Darwin and Crab Claw Island. Another example; a national TV station in Germany visiting most regions in the Northern Territory to produce travel documentary entitled ‘Voyages Voyages’, aired to 1.2 million viewers throughout Germany and Australia. There are a large number of these visiting journalists who come through, and my department works with them to give them a great experience of the Northern Territory, which ultimately is reflected in their articles and media back in their home countries.
All domestic advertising now refers to the Northern Territory as ‘Australia’s Outback’ and advertising texts encourages a sense of urgency in Australians’ travel plans so that they plan their holiday during the Year of the Outback to the real outback, the Northern Territory. Additional Australian marketing initiatives are a national partners cooperative advertising campaign, an NT operators cooperative advertising campaign, and an unstructured market campaign. The unstructured market - basically backpackers - traditionally comprises 29% of international visitors to the Territory. The backpacker market has proven to be reasonably resistant to the fears that have impacted the general international market.
I have outlined what we have been doing to respond to the events of September last year and our current marketing activities. I wish now to outline the government’s plans for the immediate future.
The Tourism Working Group established during the Economic Development Summit confirmed that the keys to recovery and sustainable long-term growth are an increased aviation capacity, infrastructure developments and product diversity. I wish to again place on record my thanks to the members of that working group who worked on well after the summit had finished to provide the government with a range of sensible suggestions on how to grow the industry in the Northern Territory. A lot of work went into developing the Tourism Development Master Plan under the previous government, and it contains a range of useful suggestions for taking the industry forward. I was disappointed to find, however, that no implementation strategy had been developed to accompany the plan, which remained something of a wish list without any real ownership.
A priority task for the Tourist Commission now is to develop a realistic, fully-funded implementation plan, in consultation with the tourism industry, to deliver real outcomes. As part of the recent public sector restructure, the government has returned the responsibility for tourism infrastructure development to the Tourist Commission. Therefore, the people who know what the industry wants will be working directly with industry to prioritise their requirements for improved infrastructure and work out the best way to deliver it. A Destination Development Unit has now been established within the commission to facilitate infrastructure development opportunities with potential investors.
The Tourism Drives program management committee has also been reconstituted directly as a result of a meeting that I had with CATIA, who were concerned that it had been disbanded or abandoned by the previous government. It has been reconstituted, and it met recently to advance the Tourism Drives strategies and to build on the drive marketing campaign. The committee comprises representatives from relevant agencies and ensures a whole-of-government approach to implementation.
As the participants at the Economic Development Summit clearly identified, the future economic developments of the Northern Territory, including the tourist industry, must involve the full participation of indigenous Territorians. One of the major reasons international tourists visit the Northern Territory is to experience Aboriginal culture and to understand the history of this ancient land. We will work closely with Aboriginal people to improve opportunities for increased participation in the tourist industry, and to improve the experience of visitors to the Territory to understand and experience Aboriginal culture. I know of a number of products currently available and under development including fishing tours - they’re an exciting potential growth area.
There is enormous potential for Aboriginal tourism internationally. Cultural tourism will provide a direct benefit to our Aboriginal community, as well as the Territory as a whole. World-wide, the demand for authentic cultural tourism experience is increasing. 28% of interstate and international holiday visitors in 2000-01 indicated a motivating factor in their decision to visit the Northern Territory was the desire to experience real Aboriginal culture. The Territory is best positioned to fulfil the indigenous culture desires of visitors to Australia. The International Visitor Survey conducted by the Bureau of Tourism Reseach shows that over half of all international visitors to the Territory had experienced Aboriginal art, culture or cultural displays, and one-third had visited an Aboriginal community or site. These proportions were much higher than in any other state or Territory.
In terms of the domestic market, around half of all Australians who travelled interstate and experienced Aboriginal art or culture, cultural displays or visited an Aboriginal community or site, did so in the Northern Territory. Supporting and facilitating growth in this area, with the full involvement of Aboriginal people, is a priority for the Labor government.
Business tourism is another exciting growth area for the Territory. The new Alice Springs Convention Centre, due to open next month, will stimulate the local economy with forward bookings, equating to over 20 000 delegates, already being received for the period between its opening and Christmas this year. The NT Tourism Commission, through the NT Convention Bureau, has successfully bid to host ‘Dreamtime’, Australia’s annual incentive travel event, in Central Australia in September this year. ‘Dreamtime’ allows industry direct access to over 100 of the world’s top incentive buyers, and will involve a two-day trade show at the new Alice Springs Convention Centre, as well as a familiarisation program for the international buyers that will include Uluru.
‘Dreamtime’ is a perfect opportunity to expose both the Alice Springs community and industry to what this sector of the travel industry is all about, and what high standards of service delivery are demanded by incentive groups. ‘Dreamtime’ 2002 in Alice Springs will accelerate the development of business tourism as an increasingly significant part of the Territory’s tourism mix.
2002 is the International Year of Ecotourism. The International Year of Ecotourism program plans to assist Australia consolidate its position as a world leader in terms of sustainable practices, accreditation, product development, research and training. With the Territory’s unique natural assets, ecotourism is inherent in all of the Territory Tourist Commission’s marketing strategies. The commission’s wholesale arm, Territory Discoveries, is capitalising on the International Year of Ecotourism through the launch of its latest program, a 26 page Nature and Cultural Experiences brochure. The brochure is available nationally through 43 Australian Geographic retail stores as well as travel agencies. I can commend this brochure to honourable members. I do not have a copy with me, but I will bring some in tomorrow. It really is a fantastic effort. The Territory Discoveries product launch is backed up by a public relations strategy through the Visiting Journalists Program.
I have also met twice with the federal Minister for Tourism, Joe Hockey, and I’ve been encouraged by both his understanding and his enthusiasm for the tourism portfolio, and his particular interest in expanding opportunities for cultural tourism and ecotourism in Australia. I have invited Minister Hockey to visit the Northern Territory and he has accepted. I will be working with the Regional Tourism Associations to develop options for Minister Hockey’s itinerary which showcase the wonders that the Territory has to offer, and I look forward to working cooperatively with him over the forthcoming years to develop these opportunities.
I have spoken a number of times in the House on the Northern Territory government’s aviation strategy. Access is, and always has been, the single most critical issue. In 2000-01, 66% of interstate and international visitors entered the Territory by air and these visitors injected around $566.8m into the Territory’s economy. As such, the importance of reliable air capacity in the Territory cannot be overstated. The Territory needs certainty in terms of airline schedules, coupled with reasonable ticket prices. Those were the underlying reasons for the government initiating its agreement with Virgin Blue last August.
The announcement last week of the withdrawal of the Tesna consortium bid for Ansett was a major disappointment to the Territory government and, particularly, to the ex-Ansett workers who now have little or no prospect of regaining their jobs. The decision emphasises, once again, how volatile the aviation market remains. However, the decision at least provides some certainty to Qantas and Virgin Blue to finalise their route plans for this year, particularly to Central Australia.
The government’s aviation committee is working closely with the private sector, particularly Northern Territory Airports Pty Ltd, to build the business case to attract sustainable increased airline capacity to the Northern Territory. We intend to leverage the expertise available within the private sector, to encourage new routes that meet the demands of tourists and needs of the tourist industry. Qantas has done a great job of rebuilding capacity into the Northern Territory after the events of last year.
Domestic scheduled capacity to Darwin was actually 9% higher in February this year than February last year, whilst capacity into Alice Springs and Ayers Rock exceeds last year’s equivalent demand at this point. Continued effort is required to build further capacity to grow the market and take advantage of emerging opportunities, including the opening of the convention centre.
Virgin Blue services to Darwin have loaded well in the first months of service. Virgin Blue has also committed to looking closely at possible services to Alice Springs. Virgin Blue see opportunities on some of the key interstate routes into Alice Springs, and we are working closely with Virgin Blue to encourage them to include Central Australia in their expanded schedules. We are also in ongoing discussions with Qantas management to expand their capacity into both Alice Springs and Ayers Rock.
International air capacity is a critical issue. Overall, international capacity into Darwin was significantly lower in February 2002 than the previous February, with the number of carriers reduced from seven to four. Singapore Airlines has withdrawn direct flights to Darwin. Malaysia Airlines has felt the pressure of global changes in aviation, withdrawing many of its international routes including the KL-Darwin route. This withdrawal means an important link to the NT’s key source markets in Europe has been lost. On a positive note, however, Royal Brunei flights now terminate in Darwin, which has provided some much-needed additional international capacity into Darwin.
A key role of the NT Aviation Committee is to provide the business case for both domestic and international carriers to include the Northern Territory in their schedules. Qantas’ new international carrier, Australian Airlines, will be operating out of Cairns from September this year servicing existing Asian, as well as emerging, markets. Australian Airlines management has indicated that Darwin is being considered as part of this operation. I have been in contact with Australian Airlines CEO, Denis Adams, and will be meeting with him shortly to encourage Darwin’s inclusion in Australian Airlines operations.
Australia’s advantage in the international tourism market is that it is seen as a safe destination. We need to leverage this reputation and promote the Territory as a place that can be experienced in safety and comfort. The continued growth of the Northern Territory tourism industry is a priority for the Martin Labor government. The international events of last September, and the collapse of Ansett, were a major blow to our industry which, as a participant in a competitive international market, we cannot hide from.
However, in recent weeks, I’ve met with tourism industry representatives in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Gove, and I’ve been encouraged by the enthusiasm and optimism of operators. I will also be meeting with regional operators in Tennant Creek shortly. We have a great product in the Northern Territory, and talented people ready to provide memorable experiences for our visitors. All of the industry representatives I have spoken to have agreed that tourists to the Northern Territory want to see our stunning environment, but they also want to meet Aboriginal people and understand indigenous culture. We are committed to working with Aboriginal people to expand opportunities for cultural tourism and for ecotourism, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation, so that all Territorians can share in the benefits of a growing tourism industry.
Finally, I wish to thank the staff of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, led by Acting CEO John Fitzgerald, for their work over the difficult last few months, and I look forward to working with the Tourist Commission, the tourist operators in the Northern Territory, and their representatives in the regional tourist associations, to further grow our tourist industry in a sustainable manner which will benefit all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, but I cannot help but wonder whether the minister would have bothered making a statement at all, had it not been for the motion the opposition attempted to put last week. To refresh his memory, that was that this government be condemned for failing to provide adequate support to the Northern Territory tourism industry, reducing the promotional effort of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, both in Australia and internationally, and for failing to secure Virgin Blue services to Alice Springs and Yulara.
We have heard very little from this minister in relation to tourism over recent times. It is curious - is it not? - that, only days after the opposition attempts to move its motion to condemn this government’s blundering approach and inaction, the minister obviously has someone who knows a little more about tourism than he does, to write a statement for him to read. Nevertheless, the opposition is grateful to him for providing a statement. We would have thought that, given the circumstances in which the Northern Territory now finds itself, that the minister - or those around him - would have seen fit to provide a statement with vision and action, rather than what appears to be a paragraph by paragraph response to the opposition statement last week. Something along the lines of a comprehensive plan of action would have been wonderful to hear and, like the statement that preceded it, actually says very little, in a few thousand words. So, it is a disappointing statement. However, the minister is generally regarded as a disappointment, so I suppose it is not all that surprising that his statement is similarly disappointing. Nevertheless, some matters require a response from me; some matters I will repeat from last week.
The minister admits, fairly early on in his statement, that the tourism industry is a highly competitive industry. It begs the question: why is it that the Treasurer announced cuts to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission in the November mini-budget? There was a cut of $241 000, plus the $2m deal with Virgin Blue, that equates to $2.41m. To further refresh the minister’s memory, there was a cut, in particular, of $191 000 from the market research focus budget. There was a cut to the research budget of $11 000, and the market focus budget of $191 000. The domestic tourism market, we know, must be stimulated by government to promote tourism to the Territory, but there was a cut of $67 000 to the commission’s destination image market budget. To make matters worse, this government also cut, by $59 000, Territory Discoveries, which develops tourism products for sale to consumers in the domestic market.
The minister admits that the industry is a very competitive one - a highly competitive one, in his words - but his government has slashed the NTTC’s budget as part of a plan to pay for the outrageous Labor promises during the election campaign. It is no wonder that people in the industry simply do not take him seriously. The minister said in the statement that, after the events of 11 September, the NTTC engaged Roy Morgan Research to assess the effects of those tragic events, as well as the Ansett collapse. The research showed, and I quote the minister in his statement: ‘We had a high preference for air travel’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is against that backdrop that, both before and during this government’s negotiations with Virgin Blue last year, Territorians were told, all along, that an alternative airline was going to come to the Territory. The minister constantly forgets that half of them are in the south, and we were short changed because the government failed to secure the commitment for Alice Springs and Yulara.
Government failed to achieve a full and satisfactory outcome for all Territorians by agreeing to one flight a day from Virgin Blue to the Top End, and no services to the Centre. What this shows is that, even though the minister’s advice is that there is ‘a high preference for air travel’, he forgets - he completely forgets - in the course of his negotiations with Virgin Blue, that one of the priorities was to get another airline into Central Australia. Five months later, of course, still nothing. We suggest that the minister might like to reassess, in future, obtaining advice from Roy Morgan Research, on the basis that he doesn’t accept the advice he receives.
Elsewhere in his statement, the minister detailed a number of advertising campaigns, some of which included a number of high inquiries to the commission’s Holiday Centre. It is very pleasing to hear the minister refer to the Holiday Centre, because it might just mean that he sees some benefit in the Holiday Centre, and no doubt those employed there are looking to him to confirm tonight that the Holiday Centre won’t be closed or it won’t be cut back. If that is not the case, I call on him in his closing remarks to put on the record …
Mr Henderson: Who said it would be? And when did you stop beating your wife, that’s the next one?
Ms CARNEY: … that the Holiday Centre will not be cut or relocated, thereby taking jobs away from local and loyal employees.
Unfortunately, a slight deafness prevents me from picking up the interjections, but I must say, I see the minister chuckling away, he needs to know …
Mr Henderson: Who said it is being cut or closed? Not me. Running vicious rumours again.
Ms CARNEY: … that people in the Holiday Centre are, indeed, concerned for the future. There is a whisper going around that the Holiday Centre that they will be relocated. Since the minister finds that rumour so hysterically funny, it would be delightful for him to confirm on the record tonight that nothing will happen, and I will very happily advise the employees accordingly.
The minister seems to take great pride in the advertising campaign launched as recently as 24 February which, by his own admission, only runs for four weeks. Last week, it’s curious, he said that the campaign would run for three weeks. Later in the day he said four weeks. Now we know it is four weeks, so at least, now having been briefed properly, the minister knows that it is four weeks and the public will know accordingly.
The opposition welcomes that campaign but, like so many in the industry, cannot help but wonder whether it is enough. $500 000 is a lot of money to spend, but for four weeks worth, we question: would it not have been wiser for the government to inject more money so that we could stimulate the Territory tourism economy, which, as everyone in this House knows, is the second largest revenue earner for the Northern Territory?
There is also a reference in the minister’s statement to NT Month, which is a month of activities that showcases the Territory, both domestically and internationally, as I understand it. The minister reveals, however, that he doesn’t completely have his head around his portfolio, because these kinds of initiatives, these consumer trade shows, (a) have been around for years and, (b) have little, if anything, to do with government, because they are in fact driven by industry, with assistance from the regional tourist associations. So, this government, in its typical fashion, by this statement, seeks to gain, or claim credibility for these sorts of initiatives, but they shouldn’t because they have been happening for years anyway. Well, it typifies this statement, because, generally, it is a bunch of nothingness and a bunch of meaningless statements. What the tourism industry needs now is some action, some decisiveness, something new, a bit of injection of enthusiasm, at the very least, from government. But I digress.
The minister’s statement also referred to some other activities that, again, are not propelled by government. They are the features in publications such as Travel Trade, Travel Week and so on. Government again, I suggest, is trying to use these sorts of examples to suggest that it is actually doing something. Well, it won’t work, because I know, and the industry knows, that these things have nothing to do with government. It is a fairly desperate government that needs to fill a lengthy ministerial statement with a whole lot of things that really have nothing to do with government. But again, I digress.
I do say, however, that the industry is screaming for action, and the motion the opposition attempted to put last week is still a valid one in the sense that this statement hasn’t sought to cure the government’s deficiencies, nor does it seek to placate or put at ease those involved in the tourism industry.
Last week, you may recall that I spoke in this House about the international situation, and I drew attention to the government’s lethargy in that area. The minister says that the Northern Territory Tourist Commission is working on a major UK-based campaign. Of course, we welcome the efforts announced this afternoon in Question Time, especially in relation to the Discover the Other Oz; that is a good campaign.
However, what the minister does not say is why he goes around, as he did in Katherine a few weeks ago, saying on the one hand that he has increased tourism promotions, and then saying only moments later, that it has been cut back in the United States and Japan. The minister admits that Australia is seen as a safe destination so, it is clear that there is an opportunity for the NTTC to embark on heavy promotion in those countries, if it has the resources. Unfortunately, under this Labor government, those resources have been severely cut. They were cut within a couple of months of this government coming to office. What little money the NTTC has to spend, it must be very targeted and very specific. The opportunity has gone; it is unable to properly embark on promotional campaigns in a number of other countries.
The minister also referred to the focus of both the domestic and international campaigns being the drive market. However, it really is astonishing that the minister says, and I quote from his statement:
I ask: who on earth wrote this statement? Of course, there was a good drive period over Christmas because the flights were significantly reduced. Go to almost any jurisdiction and you’ll find that the drive market was stimulated like it has never been stimulated before. I speak from first-hand experience as well, because, having driven halfway around the country over Christmas, I saw my fellow Territorians and fellow Australians all out on the roads.
The statement is really embarrassing in its content. It looks like - to use an analogy - it was written by a first-year law student. It is sloppy; as I said before, it is a bunch of nothingness. I suggest the minister and his staffers, whoever they are - those unknown people, not known by those in the tourism industry - should have spent their time producing results, rather than this hollow vacuum statement. But, as I said only a few days ago when speaking about tourism, it gets worse. Having referred to the importance of the self drive-market, the minister’s statement then boasts:
The question is, how on earth does this minister reconcile that, with his Treasurer slashing the funding of Territory Discoveries by $59 000 in the new budget? If this Tourism Minister sees an important role for Territory Discoveries - and by this statement, anyone reading it would assume that he does - how on earth can he look members of the tourism industry in the eye when he is very much a part of this government that cut funding to Territory Discoveries only after a couple of months in office? No doubt, the minister will do his best to explain that in his closing remarks.
The statement then goes on to mention that this year is the Year of the Outback. Again, the minister seeks to place, as I understood his statements, some importance on that. To that extent, the comments are pleasing. I note, though, that he also referred to the fact that the commission is working on international exposure through, and I quote from the statement: ‘… Visiting Journalists Program which provides media and public relations activity in our target markets’. Again, this is an extraordinary thing for the minister to have said, in light of other developments affecting tourism in the Northern Territory. Of course, I speak, in particular, to the government recently relinquishing, without so much as a fight the Australian Outback Safari. The loss of the Outback Safari could not come at a worse time for the Territory tourism industry. This event was worth about $4m a year to the Territory economy and gave the Territory enormous exposure, both internationally and Australia-wide. The fact of the matter is, journalists from around the world …
Mr Henderson: It is not what CATIA said. They said it brought nothing to Alice Springs.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you wouldn’t know, you have never been there.
Journalists from around the world arrived in Central Australia and then took off to a number of remote locations - not the sort of locations that regularly appear on our screens let alone on the screens of those internationally. But a flock of international journalists arrived and they tracked the Outback Safari from Central Australia all the way to the Top End. Now, arguably you cannot buy the type of international publicity that those journalists provided to the Northern Territory. This government saw fit not to support that valuable initiative, and it loses a number of international journalists. Yet, this minister says how wonderful it is that we have some international journalists coming with what he describes as the Visiting Journalists Program.
Well, the opposition suggests that the minister try to get his head around his portfolio to the extent that he can work out with his left hand what the right hand is doing. Certainly, both hands at this point appear to be on the Territory’s cash registers. It would be very useful if he could get his stories straight as to why it is that he supports the Visiting Journalists Program when, at the same time, he actively gets in the way and prevents a number of international journalists coming to the Northern Territory and doing us all a favour. The government should have tried much harder to retain the Australian Outback Safari, but it didn’t. That sums up this government’s lack of imagination to do anything meaningful to stimulate tourism and business sectors. While this government continues with its lethargic approach, the Territory economy and, indeed, the tourism industry will continue to go backwards.
Given the importance and the potential of the Year of the Outback to the Territory economy, perhaps the minister will use this opportunity, in his closing remarks, to reveal what funding, if any, his government will put into the Year of the Outback. It is no good, on the one hand celebrating the virtues of such a wonderful event and then not putting your money where your mouth is by supporting it. So, I call on the minister tonight to enlighten us. I note from a media report this morning, that the Alice Springs Town Council was kicking in $100 000. It would be very embarrassing if this Labor government didn’t, or fell short of this $100 000 figure. I say very sincerely that we in the opposition and, as the minister would presumably suspect, many of the tourism industry would want his government to put funds into this very important event. If he’s unable to provide details of how much money his government is going to contribute then, perhaps, he would be good enough to let us know why it is that he’s unable to enlighten us this evening.
Half way through the statement, the minister - actually the author of that statement, I should say - actually made me think that there was going to be a revelation: something revealed other than just platitudes. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the case. Half way through, the minister referred to the Economic Development Summit and made reference to a working group and said: ‘… the working group worked on well after the summit had finished to provide government with a range of sensible suggestions on how to grow the industry in the Northern Territory’. I ask the minister: is he sure about that? Because, I understand that a number of the RTAs were quite dissatisfied with the recommendations that came directly out of the Economic Development Summit, and that many of the RTAs have not even finished their responses. So, why on earth the minister has said that the outcomes of the Economic Development Summit had finished, I do not know. I am very certain that that statement will come as a surprise to some of the members, if not the hierarchy of some of the Territory’s four RTAs. The bottom line is that the minister is saying that he has an outcome from the Economic Development Summit as far as tourism is concerned. My information is that that is not the case.
The minister referred to the establishment of what he has called the Destination Development Unit in the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. What the minister does not say - and, of course, this again typifies the approach of this government - don’t look for what is said but look for what is not said. What the minister does not say is whether that unit has received any funding. In fact, he completely glosses over the fact that the destination budget of the NTTC was cut in the mini-budget by $67 000. Again, we would ask for clarification about those issues. If the minister is hell-bent on saying something, then we ask that he say it properly and that he back it up with information or, at least go through the motions of trying to explain or reconcile why he, as the Tourism Minister, is trying to do something and yet at the same time, his Treasurer seems to be going off in another direction. However, as they constantly remind us, they are all part of the same team. Anyway, Minister, the opposition awaits your comments.
One interesting part of the statement - and I am very happy to commend the government for it - is its statement about indigenous tourism. The government says that it will improve opportunities and increase participation in the tourism industry. This declaration is welcomed by the opposition. The opposition, when in government, did foster this approach. I am sure the minister is aware of the very real challenges that exist in, not only creating and developing, but ensuring that indigenous tourism becomes sustainable. My understanding is that there are countless examples, for some reason or another, of various indigenous tourism operations or operators not being sustainable in the long term. Nevertheless, we welcome the assertion that the government is committed to that area.
The statement really does look backwards and not forwards. The minister referred to the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the NTTC’s successful bid to host the Dreamtime, which will draw the world’s top incentive buyers for a two-day trade show in Alice Springs. These are not the initiatives of this government. Government, we say again, must provide resources, the ideas and expertise so that it can lead the industry. The government has very starkly demonstrated that it consistently falls well short of doing those things, to date. For my own part, having developed very good relationships with a number of people in the tourism industry over a relatively short space of time, I do hope that the government does get its act together.
Some things become political, but when we are aware that people’s livelihoods are at stake, politics really does fly out the door. So again, I very sincerely hope that the government and, in particular, this minister, does what he can to come up with some ideas, rather than going on and on in a 22-page statement that really, with the greatest of respect, just amounts to a load of rubbish. It really would be good for all us.
However, another welcomed statement was regarding ecotourism. The minister noted in his statement that ecotourism was inherent in the NTTC’s marketing strategies. Again, nothing new, but we welcome it.
In terms of aviation, we see, again, more expressions of hopes that Virgin Blue is getting to Central Australia, or at least the problems in the south will be resolved. We, like those in the industry, await the results in that regard. We call for action and not just platitudes. The minister also said - and I noted this with interest - that he had been in contact with Australian Airlines, but he does not say when that contact first began. I am not suggesting for a moment that he is obliged to do so but, in light of the fact that it was raised last week by the member for Katherine and myself, about when the minister was going to make some progress with Australian Airlines, I would have thought that the minister might provide a bit more detail to avoid the conclusion that some people might draw that the minister has only, in fact, made representations in very recent times. I, on behalf of the opposition, urge the minister to meet with the CEO, as he has foreshadowed, as soon as possible and to report to parliament at the next sittings of the outcomes of those discussions.
I note, with interest again, something unsaid by the minister. He did not touch upon or make a reference, in any way, to the Masters Games. That might be because it is the first time in the history of the games that the games are, in fact, in trouble. It raises the questions: what has the minister done; what involvement has he had; is he concerned, as many other people are? There is an array of issues that government needs to address, one of which is to do something to assist the organisers and volunteers who, I am told by people in Alice Springs, have been left to fend for themselves. You may be aware of this, Madam Speaker. I am also told this afternoon by one of my colleagues that there is a Master Games hotline - a fact which I knew - and that this hotline has been withdrawn. What that means is that organisers and volunteers do not have a particular aid to assist them with their tasks and this, of course, makes things extremely difficult for those people interstate to find out information about the Masters Games. This might be why it is that registration for the Masters Games is extraordinarily low.
In conclusion, the statement has, at best, attempted to address some of the issues raised by my colleagues and I last week, arising from the motion that we attempted to put. That was a detailed motion made by me as to the ongoing inadequacies of the government; of this minister. It is very curious, indeed, that only a few days later he comes in with a statement - presumably prepared by someone else who knows something about the industry - from which he simply reads. The coincidence is incredible, in that it just goes so close to a paragraph by paragraph answering of the matters I raised in the motion. For me, that illustrates very clearly that the minister, on his feet, was unable to properly address matters raised in the motion last week. The logical extension of that is that this is a minister who does not have his head around the portfolio.
I might say that that might not be entirely the minister’s fault, since his esteemed leader and his government are hell-bent on maintaining government with only seven ministers. The opposition said right from the beginning that this was a mistake, and there is no better example than the Minister for Tourism - and for almost everything else - when a motion is put by the opposition in this House, that he gets to his feet and is unable to adequately address the matters that we raised, and then some days later comes back in with a statement. You may recall that the minister’s response in Question Time last Wednesday was nothing short of abysmal, as well.
Again, the statement is almost meaningless. It certainly does nothing to convince me that the minister is across his portfolio, or that this government is committed to the tourism industry. Although I am not convinced, the more important issue is whether those in the industry are convinced. I can assure the minister that they would not be, after this dreadful tourism statement that he has provided tonight.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker. it is with absolute delight that I stand here tonight to commend the Minister for Tourism on his statement. I have to say I am still somewhat bemused by the ill-informed comments of the shadow spokesperson for tourism from Central Australia. The minister has provided the House this evening with a comprehensive statement showing quite clearly that this government is committed to funding and promoting tourism in the Territory.
The member opposite seems to be as thick as the wad of money that this government is pumping into tourism. I will deal with it in as simple language as possible. We are pumping into tourism …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have a quorum. You count me as well. It is all right. There is no point of order. Continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: The minister has quite clearly stated, both in sittings last week and again today, that the government is pumping about $1.2m into marketing the Territory in this shoulder season leading into the peak season. Specifically, in excess of $1.2m is going into a tourism marketing campaign down the eastern seaboard of Australia, and in the United Kingdom. The drive market strategy, the four-week advertising campaign called Territory Discoveries across the major markets of Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, regional Victoria and New South Wales, and south-east Queensland in this forthcoming shoulder season prior to the dry peak season, is a commendable strategy that our Tourism Minister is supporting in its endeavours to bring much needed visitors to the Territory.
This is a coordinated cross-government approach because our Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Lands and Planning, and Environment is also looking at approaching the Territory’s highways, which will serve us in good stead in the future in terms of improving the drive market.
The international strategy, which deals with the exciting initiative of some $750 000 in the Discover the Other Oz campaign in the United Kingdom, is targeting backpackers. We are working with the Australian Tourism Commission, Qantas and Bridge the World in targeting these backpackers. We’re working hard to ensure that the Territory is featuring prominently in this advertising campaign.
This government has also given its full support to the establishment and completion of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Indeed, we have moved a step further than that; we are showcasing the Alice Springs Convention Centre with parliament being held there next year. Further, again today we hear action from this government - we are fast-tracking an assessment of the Darwin City Council’s proposal for a convention centre, and the answer on that fast-tracking will be available within weeks.
Again tonight, we hear that the Development Consent Authority decision to knock back a resort on the Hotel Darwin site has been overturned. There will be a much needed resort in Darwin. Again, this government is working with business and assisting developers to create the types of venues that will attract tourists to Darwin. We know that the Territory has a tremendous natural beauty. We know, and it is evident in the minister’s statement, that we have a rich cultural heritage and beauty that this government is well placed to expand upon and deliver to tourists coming to the Territory.
The minister has gone to great lengths to try and explain to the opposition - and it keeps falling on deaf ears, I appreciate that - that it was this government that delivered a second airline into the Territory in Virgin Blue, and that negotiations are continuing in terms of delivering services by Virgin Blue to Alice Springs. Further, this government has worked with Qantas to deliver a 1000 increased capacity into the Territory, and it is this government that is negotiating with Australian Airlines for a Darwin to Singapore connection. All the actions of the minister that the shadow spokesperson says doesn’t have his head around the portfolio - quite a curious statement, that one.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission has a very supportive, aware minister. Aware, particularly, of their needs to operate in a very competitive marketplace. The Territory Discoveries domestic market campaign along the eastern seaboard really aims to maximise visitation to the Territory, and take advantage of the increase in airline seats available, that have been delivered through a very positive working relationship between our minister and the major airlines, Qantas and, now, Virgin Blue.
Territory Discoveries is also developing air and land lead-in packages of three nights accommodation, and with Holiday Centres - those same Holiday Centres that the shadow spokesperson seems to think are going to evaporate - consultants will be using their expertise to extend the length of stay of visitors. And for the first time Territory Discoveries is also entering the New Zealand marketplace.
In this Year of the Outback, the Tourist Commission has changed its logo to ‘Australia’s Outback - Northern Territory’. Our minister has been hands on in working with his Tourist Commission in supporting initiatives. I repeat: we have a natural beauty in the Northern Territory that attracts visitors. Our outback is spectacular, with Kakadu and Uluru internationally admired designations. These current marketing campaigns that the government - I repeat the government - is funding, showcase our natural beauty.
The impressions of other Territorians that have come through surveys, teach our tourism experts that Australians find the overall lifestyle in the Territory to be attractive, and that we have a wonderful green environment. It is really the result of surveys that finetune our marketing expertise in the tourism sector.
I have to say the shadow spokesperson’s comments, I found, were incredibly ill-informed. I recommend that the shadow spokesperson seek a briefing from the minister to become informed. She describes things such as a ‘bunch of nothingness’. I have to say I found her comments to be completely a nothingness.
We have, since being in government, delivered Virgin Blue into the Territory, in a time when it was crucial. We’ve encouraged the Alice Springs Convention Centre, supporting it by showcasing it with parliamentary sittings next year. We’re fast-tracking an assessment of the proposed Darwin Convention Centre and we are providing an environment in the Territory, importantly, where developers see real opportunity to moving ahead with exciting proposals such as resort developments.
All of this is a result of hard work of our ministers and Chief Minister. We’re not taking a hands off approach. We’re very much hands on. Madam Speaker, I commend our Tourism Minister for his efforts, and I look forward to hearing more exciting initiatives.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was going to start off by saying: ‘I’m excited’; maybe not because of what’s in this piece of paper here, but because I think perhaps we are missing an opportunity in the Litchfield Shire that I think people haven’t realised.
I suppose one of the problems with trying to promote Litchfield Shire is it is never called that. If you come out of Darwin you see this great monolith made of concrete with ‘Outer Darwin’ on them and if you come across them …Mr Kiely: Another CLP initiative.Mr WOOD: It is a worry, isn’t it? If you come across from the Adelaide River floodplains, right out in this beautiful pristine floodplain, there is a great concrete monolith again with ‘Outer Darwin’ on it. They are on the Manton Dam side of Litchfield Shire, and you will find them also out on the Cox Peninsula Road going out towards Dundee Beach.Sadly, ‘Outer Darwin’, for most people in the rural area, gave one the impression that they were literally out of Darwin and discarded people. So, perhaps maybe one of the new minister’s first challenges is to put up some signs on the boundaries of Litchfield Shire saying ‘This is the Litchfield Shire tourism region’. That would please a lot of people and it would also highlight that we do have an area which is a municipality called the Litchfield Shire.The reason I say Litchfield Shire is one of the best kept secrets, is that I think we have not yet realised that there is a great tourist potential in that region. It is just the perfect area for the one-day tourist market. In this book that the minister has handed out today - you won’t find it under Litchfield, sadly, but you’ll find it under ‘Outer Darwin’ - you’ll find mention of a few places: Palmerston and Marlow Lagoon, I am not sure if the Mayor Annette Burke doesn’t …Dr Burns: Don’t visit the toilets.Mr WOOD: Well, thank you for that comment from the member for Johnston. I am sure Palmerston and Marlow Lagoon do not exactly want to be regarded as ‘Outer Darwin’. You have the Darwin Crocodile Farm, Howard Springs Nature Park, Jenny’s Orchid Garden, Barramundi Fishing Park, Wishart Siding - although sadly that just refers to a place where you can get tourist information. I should note that, sadly again, the tourist bureau, when it put up the information maps, there is not one mention that Litchfield Shire even exists. You can go to those maps, there is nothing about Litchfield Shire, so it is a little bit sad. Reidy’s Fishing Lures, a great place, Noonamah and Manton Dam recreation area, Berry Springs Nature Park, the Territory Wildlife Park - one of the greatest places in the Territory - Majestic Orchid Farm, the Litchfield Pub Rodeo, the Southport Exotic Fruit Farm, Tumbling Waters Tourist and Van Park - they’re all great places, but I do not know whether people realise what else is out there.
These are the places, probably, that you do not see very often – McMinns Lagoon, wonderful place. People go all the way out to Kakadu to look at birds. If you go to McMinns Lagoon it has water in it all year, it has ducks and geese and all sorts of things, and it has a lovely little picnic area there. It is only just over half an hour out of Darwin. Girraween Lagoon - it is on private land; hopefully one day it will become public land as the Girraween Estate is developed - beautiful place, deep water. People actually boat on that, it is so big. It also has a little bit of recent history. It was were parts of Crocodile Dundee was filmed. The bit where Charlie the buffalo happened to sit on his haunches after Crocodile Dundee stuck his finger in his head, was filmed just there. Where there was a crocodile attack was also filmed there, so it has a little bit of history that way. Benjamin Lagoon, out a bit further, beautiful area - always full of water, always has plenty of wildlife.
The Howard Springs Shooting Reserve – well, shooting is only held there for a very limited time of the year. If anyone’s walked through there it is a magnificent area. All right, you do not want to go there in the evening when the mosquitoes will carry you away, but it has rainforests, mangroves, open woodland and it is one of those places that very few people know about.
The Gunn Point beaches, of course, most locals know about them, but they certainly aren’t really one of the major tourist attractions. Where do you find beaches in the Darwin area? This is one of the few places. Black Jungle, not really accessible to the tourist, but a great area. Howard River itself – if anyone’s been along the Girraween Road, especially the dirt section of Girraween Road, the Howard River is absolutely beautiful. It has large areas of rainforest on both sides of it. Again, probably the only people who know about it are the locals.
There is a new subdivision south of Humpty Doo called the Goodwood subdivision, and there are two areas that are the headwaters of the Howard River. They have huge magnetic anthills, bigger than you see just about anywhere else. There are also quite a number at Lambells Lagoon, in an area of land that, when the residents got together, asked the government to remove that land from the horticultural subdivision, otherwise those magnetic anthills today would be probably mangoes.
There is also the new Shoal Bay Conservation Park which, hopefully, in later Question Times I might be asking where exactly is it. The mangroves of the harbour - I still think we have lots of work to do on promoting the attractions of the harbour, from traditional food gathering and publicising the biodiversity of the harbour. When you realise that there are 444 species of fish that have been identified in Darwin Harbour, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are places like the Churcher wetlands - who would know where that is? It is in the rural area, it is a beautiful area to walk, it is an area that’s practically pristine. It is actually a branch of the Howard River and, of course, the locals all know it. It is quite a big area, and it has been taken out of the subdivisions and it has been protected.
On top of that, you have great areas of World War II history. You have the Sattler, the Strauss, the Livingstone and the Hughes Airstrips. I do not believe we have really touched the potential of the World War II sites in the Litchfield area. Sattler is the airstrip you first meet on the way out of Darwin. Sadly the water line went down the middle of it a few years back and that didn’t make it look too good. But a few years ago it was actually the emergency airstrip for Darwin, fully marked out in case of emergency. Sattler Crescent is where Bees Creek Primary School was built and, of course, it was one of those rings where the planes disappeared into the bush after they’d landed and were covered in camouflage nets. If you go there today and go for a walk past Bees Creek School, camouflage wires are still in the bush there. So, it is living history; it is still there.
Strauss is the strip that is possibly endangered by the duplication of Stuart Highway. I do hope that we can actually get the Stuart Highway around it some way. All right, it is only a piece of bitumen, but to me it is an important piece of bitumen, because the Territory is one of the few places where action really took place. I think it is worth reminding people that there was a war on here where places were bombed and people fought and died. It is one the few places in Australia where that happened. It is worth reminding people and perhaps reminding exactly where we live in this part of the world.
Livingstone Airstrip is, again, another important strip. Luckily the railway line is not going to knock it over. It appears that the rail corridor will only be 40 m there, and I think we can save it. There might be another duplication of the highway in a few more years time, so I am not sure how long it is going to last. But, again, it was one of the major fighter strips. And Hughes Airstrip, which is not on the highway but just near Townend Road, is also another vital piece of World War II history. It was a bomber strip. If you go in there you’ll see some information is there, from those historical tour signs that are on places of importance.
We have the old railway line. It is one of my pet projects, for years, to preserve the old railway line. Some people wanted to buy the bridges, and some people wanted to shift the bridges with bulldozers, and some people just took the bridges. But we need to be reminded that that old railway line was an important part of our history for a very long time. It was built under very difficult circumstances; it was important during World War II. Thank heavens part of it is now a bicycle path from Darwin out to Palmerston. If you go on that path, you go through some beautiful wetlands behind BP Palms, the old favourite area there. People will tell you it is a lovely area to ride your bike because it is full of paperbarks, and it is just a beautiful spot. I think that has even more potential, from a tourist point of view. Recreation and history, the old railway line has it all.
The old town of Southport. I had to laugh once when the NT News reported that one of our Chief Ministers, Shane Stone, had gone to Southport for the weekend. Well, they thought he’d gone to Queensland, but this is the one of the Blackmore River, one of our oldest towns. It was a very busy town in its life. I think it had quite a number of pubs, because all the gold came from Pine Creek by donkey there, originally, and ended up at Southport. Very little of the original town is there, except for layout. The cemetery is still there, but it has great potential because there is lots of history. You go into the library, there are magnificent photos of quite substantial buildings - the post office. We have not even tapped into that, and on top of that we have a great little boat ramp there for people going fishing. You can combine recreation and history at the same time.
The Channel Island Leprosarium site most of the time is locked up but, still, it is an important site. Maybe we have not promoted that as, again, a potentially important tourist site. All these areas are easily within one day of Darwin - even Koolpinyah Station. Admittedly, it is privately owned and I do not know what the owner would think, but Koolpinyah has a lot of history. If you want to look at some of the best old photographs of Koolpinyah, you will find them in the Howard Springs Tavern, decorating the walls.
There are other areas that have potential. The Darwin River Dam is not mentioned. A beautiful place to go and visit, it has some nice parks there, very much under-utilised. There’s a possibility of having walking tours around the escarpment there. It is one area you can see for miles from, once you get up onto the hills that surround Darwin River Dam. There’s people like the fishing people: Dixie Kaissis, on the Howard River, where you can go fishing there and keep your boat there. There’s Leeder’s Creek Boat Hire, another person. Tourists can go there, hire a boat and go out for half a day and come back again. You have the Jumping Crocodiles and the Eco Tours. Not everybody’s into jumping crocodiles, but there are other tours on the Adelaide River.
You have the Royal Humpty Doo Golf Course. I try and play there once a week in the morning to get exercise, and I find that if you get getting ten shots on a par three, you get plenty of exercise. It is also called the Royal Humpty Doo occasionally, because I gather one of the members went to St Andrews. You can play there but you have to get into a long queue. Someone asked him: ‘Where do you come from?’, and he said: ‘The Royal Humpty Doo’. Because he said ‘royal’ they moved him to the front of the queue straight away. So, it is handy if you can put ‘royal’ on the front of it. We have some great boat ramps as well. There is the Middle Arm one, which I think was the Catalina site, so there is some history there as well.
In another area, we have great shopping. You might say: ‘Well, what’s shopping? Big deal!’. But, in the rural area there are some places there that you won’t get in town. There’s what I call it country shopping, because it is not all big supermarkets, even though Woolies have moved out there. There are little craft shops out there that have opened. People are looking for some of those areas. I do not know whether you have been to the Atherton Tableland. People go up from Cairns to Atherton. Why? Because they find these little places with crafts from the locals. There are two shops in the Coolalinga area developing local craft now. I suppose you could include the Didge Hut which is on the corner of the Arnhem Highway and Stuart Highway. That gets pretty busy at all hours of the night.
Again, all this potential for local tourism that I do not think has been tapped into yet. Perhaps even the Robinson Barracks; one of the biggest barracks in this part of the world. A huge amount of money was spent on it; it is quite an impressive place. It may have some potential.
All I am saying is that I think we sometimes bypass what’s in front of us. We look at Darwin and then we head out to Kakadu. I think in the rural area potential for some small operators to do day tours in that area. Perhaps the government may look at it and see whether they can encourage people into that. With downturns in the economy, people are looking for something different. Perhaps they’re not going to make big dollars out of it, but it could certainly employ a few people in the small side of tourism. I think you couldn’t go past the Litchfield Shire from many of the things you might see out at Kakadu.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement on what is a crucially important activity for the Territory economy; that is, tourism. Before I move on to my support for the ministerial statement, I would have to say that I really appreciated the speech given by the member for Nelson, and his obvious knowledge of the tourist attractions in his electorate; his passion and his appreciation for them. In some ways, I would be interested to see that passion and enthusiasm reflected in some of the members in Central Australia who are here, because I must confess that I have not seen a lot of Central Australia. I have not seen, obviously, all the things I could see in the Litchfield Shire. So, there is encouragement there and it is important for us to have, particularly, close to Darwin, ideas for the development of some of these areas, many of them that we take for granted, many of them that we do not know about.
However, to return to the minister’s statement on tourism. Underpinning the minister’s statement is the professionalism and dedication of the officers of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, who provide the expert advice and strategies to government on tourism. I commend them for their efforts. I had written this speech before the opposition raised the issues that they have today, but my appreciation is of the professionalism and dedication of our public servants right across the board, in all departments. Tonight, we are talking about the Tourist Commission, and that is very important.
Irrespective of who won government in the Northern Territory on 18 August 2001, some facts are immutable. The impact of the deadly and treacherous events of 11 September 2001 on an already struggling international aviation industry was profound. Furthermore, the collapse of Ansett also had profound effects on tourism in the Northern Territory.
I would like to quote from the Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s 2000-01 report. It says:
The NT Tourist Commission report, and the report delivered by the minister here this evening, are in absolute harmony on how best to deal with the international and national situation arising from 11 September and the Ansett collapse. These strategies are namely to firstly, focus on boosting visitation from the domestic market, particularly the high yielding drive market; and secondly, to encourage Territorians to holiday within the Territory rather than visiting other tourism destinations.
I will certainly be listening to what the member for Nelson said, in terms of my visits out of Darwin. I am very interested to hear what Central Australian members have to say about their area, as well. Also, the minister mentioned about international initiatives to boost tourism in the Territory, particularly the UK market.
There is no doubt that we need more airline capacity coming into the Territory. As the minister has pointed out many times in this House over the past six months, the decisions by airline companies to fly to Darwin and Alice Springs are predominantly commercial decisions. The support given by the Martin government for Virgin Blue to fly to Darwin has been completely vindicated, particularly in the light of the tragic collapse of the Tesna bid for Ansett.
Moreover, the support given by the federal government for Virgin Blue to start the service to Darwin earlier than originally planned, is also welcome. The failed Tesna bid and the refusal of the federal government to give large guarantees of public monies to underwrite such bids, also vindicates the position of this government of not handing over large amounts of NT taxpayers’ money for pie-in-the-sky aviation schemes, as suggested by the shadow minister for tourism on a number of occasions in this House over the past six months.
There is no doubt that times are tough in the tourism sector in the Northern Territory. The minister’s statement shows that this government is taking excellent strategic plans, developed by the tourist commission, and actually implementing them. I listened with interest when the minister mentioned that a Tourism Development Master Plan was developed, but never implemented by the former CLP government. This seems to be a pattern with the previous government. Last week, in this House, I talked about the lack of implementation evident with the Collin’s report and also Strategy 21 within Territory Health Services. Now, we have a Tourism Development Master Plan as another example of lack of implementation. There has been a chorus from the opposition: ‘Don’t keep harping about the last 26 years, tell us what you are going to do’. Well, the answer is very simple, effective and eloquent: we are going to implement such plans, we are a government of action.
I listened, with interest, to the shadow minister’s response to the ministerial statement. I could not really pick out much at all about what she might propose to support the tourism industry; it was all very negative and critical. Where are after positive suggestions? They are certainly coming from the NT Tourist Commission.
The Roy Morgan research mentioned by the minister also provides a number of strategic directions to benefit tourism in the Northern Territory and, thus, the Northern Territory economy as a whole. As the minister has pointed out, the development of the self-drive market is a logical market to foster, both nationally and internationally. I was heartened to hear of the $750 000 joint marketing campaign with South Australia to attract UK tourists, and the Australian campaign directed at the self-drive market.
Further development of cultural tourism is an important initiative and it was identified during the Economic Development Summit as a crucial path forward. Unfortunately, what has also been evident is some resentment - well, it is often more than some resentment - by traditional Aboriginal landowners about the despicable and adversarial way in which previous CLP governments treated land rights issues, and then tried to pin their tourist effort on the back of Aboriginal cultural tourism and art.
This government is all about partnerships and sharing with Aboriginal people. There are four Aboriginal people sitting on this side of the House who are committed - along with the rest of us - to ensuring that these partnerships in tourism and other economic activities work to the benefit of all Territorians. I commend the minister’s statement on tourism to honourable members, and I believe that the flexibility resilience and innovative flair of our tourist operators, coupled with the thoughtful strategies and wise investment of resources by the Tourist Commission, will see us through these difficult times. Above all, we believe in the wonderful product that we have; namely the unrivalled natural beauty of the Northern Territory and, probably just as importantly, the diversity and cultural wealth of the people who call the Territory home. Madam Speaker, in these difficult times, I would also call on the opposition to support the minister’s statement on tourism.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank honourable members for their participation in a very important debate tonight given, at the outset, the value of the tourism industry to the Northern Territory economy. I am very surprised and a little disappointed in the opposition tonight that, given that tourism is the second greatest contributor to GDP in the Northern Territory and vital in terms of every single one of the 10 members opposite - in terms of their electorates, the number of people employed in their electorates involved in tourism - that only one of them could muster the wherewithal to comment on the statement tonight. The contribution for the shadow minister for tourism was pretty appalling but I will get to that later. I thank honourable members on this side and the member for Nelson for very, very positive and supportive comments.
Starting with the member for Johnston - taking the other route and starting with the last speaker first – again, a very positive contribution and also supporting me in my comments about the professionalism and the dedication of our public servants in the Tourist Commission. It has been a very difficult time and, might I say, quite a stressful time for those public servants having to deal and respond to a crisis situation. I think that they have done so remarkably well, particularly in a period of time where they lost their CEO; officers had to step up and they have done so with absolutely commendable application. Really, we are in the position we are in today due, to a large part - in not having lost hundreds of jobs and seen many operators close down - to the professionalism of those public servants and their working cooperatively with industry.
The member for Johnston also talked about harmony on a marketing strategy, and that is what we are all about. We are not like the previous government which was just throwing money everywhere: the spend, spend, spend philosophy that the Opposition Leader has so eloquently put on the public record. We are about strategically putting our effort in where we are going to get the returns. We are doing that in conjunction with the major industry players: the Australian Tourism Commission, South Australia, Qantas and numbers of other organisations. Throwing money helter-skelter around the place is not going to deliver the outcomes. We are in a period now, where we have to be very targeted, very specific and that is what the Tourist Commission is doing. As the member for Johnston said, it is all about implementation.
I couldn’t agree with him more about cultural tourism. The previous governments - and certainly in my time in the House in terms of ministerial statements on tourism - never acknowledged the importance of developing the indigenous cultural tourism aspect of our industry - or if they did, certainly it wasn’t without any great fanfare. They were quite happy to ride on the back of that particular product and take credit for the success in terms of rise in tourism numbers, but were never committed. They never had their heart - in terms of working with Aboriginal people - to actually develop what is, ultimately, going to give us the greatest boost to tourism in the Northern Territory, as far as developing that industry. I couldn’t agree more with the member for Johnston on his comments, and a great turn of phrase about the innovative flair of operators in the industry. That is exactly what I have found since becoming the Minister for Tourism: that the operators out there are certainly very passionate about their industry, totally committed to it, and are very innovative in terms of trying to develop the industry further.
I again thank the member for Nelson very much for his comments. As opposed to the shadow spokesperson, he was very positive and picked up a great number of suggestions. I know this is dangerous for a minister - and I suppose we are all new ministers; we have only been in the job six months, and the department is probably not going to like me for saying this - but let’s take a bold step forward here. In terms of the contribution from the member for Nelson tonight, I will take the Hansard record of his comments back to the Tourist Commission and suggest - for want of a better word - or instruct, that we actually form a working group and include the member for Nelson on that with the Litchfield Shire Council. Let’s see how we can pick up on some of the initiatives and the ideas that the member for Nelson brought into this Chamber tonight. This Chamber is a House of debate and certainly, as minister, if members opposite or Independents put constructive suggestions on to the table in debate, they are not going to get lost in the Hansard record. I will give the member my commitment tonight that I will instruct my department to look at a forum - a working group or initial discussions involving the member for Nelson and Litchfield Shire Council - and let’s see how we can move cooperatively in partnership and move some of those suggestions forward.
He also mentioned the great ‘Outer Darwin’ tombstones that appeared on the highway - whenever it was, a couple of years ago, I suppose. If my department had anything to do with that - and I will certainly be talking to them about it - I tend to agree with your sentiment. I have a number of good friends who live in the rural area and their sentiment is reflected by their local member, in that they certainly do not like it. I do not know what great marketing strategy that was. I have spoken to the member for Casuarina to see if his department, Transport and Works, had anything to do with it. We might have a little look at those tombstones and see what we can do. There is a lot of product being printed with ‘Outer Darwin’ on it but, again, I agree. It certainly doesn’t promote the individuality of the region, and people are absolutely wedded to the term ‘the Litchfield Shire’. That is where people live and to impose ‘Outer Darwin’ on them without any consultation probably wasn’t one of the great CLP initiatives of our time. If my department had anything to do with it, we will certainly revisit that.
Again, a very positive contribution from the member for Karama to the debate tonight and yes, a very important announcement in Question Time this morning that we will fast-track an evaluation of the Darwin City Council’s submission on the convention centre and look at other operations. It is, without doubt, an area where we can make a big impact in Darwin in terms of growing tourism. This city, sadly, lacks a convention centre and, as a government, we are committed to the development of a convention centre in partnership with industry. We will be looking at fast-tracking evaluations of all options that are on the table.
Moving to the shadow minister’s contribution to the debate tonight, I am disappointed because this is the second time in the sittings of parliament that the shadow minister has had an opportunity - an extensive opportunity - to actually put some initiatives on the table. If she doesn’t like them, she is quite at liberty to say that I am doing nothing, the department’s doing nothing - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and everybody’s absolutely cataclysmically opposed to what the government’s doing, and our lack of effort. I would like her to put some positive suggestions on the table if everything is so bad, and if she is so absolutely devastatingly concerned about the industry in Central Australia - that’s all she seems to talk about, Central Australia. She does have responsibility as shadow tourism minister for the rest of the Territory as well. It seems that the only contribution that the shadow minister has is that, somehow, in some way, we should throw money at the airlines, be it Qantas, Ansett, Virgin Blue or Flight West, and bankroll them into Alice Springs.
Dr Burns: John Howard wouldn’t do it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, and the federal member for Solomon, again, grandstanded on this issue. I see that he was absolutely, spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of convincing the Commonwealth government to bankroll Ansett. The attitude of just throwing money at the problem is unsustainable, much like the budget position that we inherited.
I would have thought that the ‘free marketeers’ opposite would understand that any additional airline capacity into Alice Springs is going to be delivered as a result of market forces and demand. That’s where this government is applying our efforts - in terms of using all the expertise that we have available through government - in partnership with private enterprise, to sit down with the airlines to try and work with them, and prove to them that the market is sustainable; that Alice Springs is viable, that there is profit to be made on that particular route. Given what has happened with Ansett, the airlines are not going to invest in a destination unless they believe that there is a return on that investment. That return is not by way of taxpayers bankrolling their operations. There is no ask on the table from either Qantas, Virgin Blue or Ansett - before the Tesna consortium collapsed - or Flight West. There has been no ask, in terms of a business case put, by these airlines to government, for support into Alice Springs.
Only today - just to show how out of touch the member for Araluen is on this issue - I have received correspondence on behalf of a number of people in the industry in Alice Springs imploring the government not to put taxpayers’ money into additional capacity into Alice Springs, because that will do one thing and one thing only - according to the correspondence I have received today - and that is, to invite retaliatory action by Qantas. The last thing that the industry needs in Alice Springs is for Qantas to take that retaliatory action. So, I would suggest to the member for Araluen - and the member for Greatorex who couldn’t even be bothered to contribute in this debate - that they actually talk a little more widely amongst the tourism industry in Alice Springs to get a view, because there is no uniformity of opinion amongst the industry.
We are acting responsibly as a government, working in partnership with the airlines and, again, I believe - and the figures are there today - there is more capacity into Alice Springs today than there was demand this time last year. We have a problem in June-July when there is, on the current scheduled flights, going to be a big problem with demand. But I believe, now the aviation industry in Australia is starting to sort itself out, that Qantas and Virgin Blue will go head-to-head. Virgin Blue have announced that they are going to purchase additional aircraft. Both will aggressively go after the demand that is there and we will see that demand picked up. Certainly, we would like to see competition into Alice Springs, and that’s why we are working with Virgin Blue on their business case, to prove to them that the commercially opportunities are there.
I would like the ‘free marketeers’ opposite - the champions of private enterprise as opposed to government owned enterprise - to really consider the responsibility of their continual calls to spend, spend, spend and throw money at the airline industry which is, ultimately, going to be unsustainable.
I thought that the member’s comments were very disappointing. She talked about ‘nothingness, a meaningless statement, the announcements were a load of rubbish’. Well, again, I can take it. I am big enough to take comments from the member for Araluen. But it is an absolute insult to the staff of the Tourist Commission to say that the strategies that they have been principally responsible for developing - given the skills, expertise, marketing knowledge and their depth of talent and expertise in terms of advising the government and me, as minister, on strategies that could be adopted, and for which, ultimately, I take the decision on - for her to say that this government’s response to 11 September and the Ansett collapse is a load of rubbish and it is a meaningless statement and nothing has happened - I am sure the public service and the Tourist Commission will be absolute aghast.
Let’s look at what we have achieved as a government. We have achieved the entry, thank goodness, of Virgin Blue into the Territory aviation market place with an additional 1000 seats per week into Darwin. Now, that’s 1000 seats per week that the previous government would have let slip through its fingers. Goodness knows where the tourism industry would be if we hadn’t secured Virgin Blue into the Northern Territory. Again, the ill-informed comments from members opposite last week in Question Time: we had the member for Port Darwin pop up and say that Virgin Blue were cancelling flights because there wasn’t enough demand - absolutely nonsense! Again, not doing the work, not doing the research, not getting the facts together. A couple of flights were pulled for technical reasons. We then had the member for Drysdale in the same debate, accusing them of having a shoddy fleet. So, here we have this continuing attack from members opposite, in terms of a very important commercial entity in the tourist industry in the Northern Territory, with their continuing undermining of Virgin Blue’s entry into the market place in the Northern Territory.
The shadow minister said we should be spending money in America and money in Japan. Again, I would ask the shadow minister to do her job responsibly, look at the market research, look at what’s actually happening in those markets at the moment: those markets have collapsed. There is absolutely no point spending buckets of money in a market place that has collapsed, and all of the indicators for some time yet say it will take it time to recover. We have been judicious with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money - not the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the opposition - and redirected that money into market places that will deliver for the industry. Not the speculative ‘roll the dice, hope for the best, let’s play the numbers, let’s spray the money around’ that the opposition would have us believe is the right way forward.
What we have seen is a marketing strategy that has put an additional $500 000 this year into promoting the shoulder season in the Northern Territory to give a really good kick start to the tourism season this year, in conjunction and partnership working with Qantas, who have put on an additional 1000-seat capacity into the Northern Territory, directly as a result of working in partnership with this government, promoting the demand and knowing that we would be following up in terms of trying to generate that demand out of the eastern states. We have the absolutely fundamental right strategy. I am no marketing expert, and I take my advice from people in the department - and I do not know where the member for Araluen gets her marketing advice. If you actually look where the demand is holding up and increasing, it is in the UK. So why would you not put your marketing effort in to capitalising on a trend that is showing growth, and maximising that value and the return on investment for a dollar spent in that market place - again, the ‘free marketeers’ opposite, no wonder the budget’s in such a mess - putting your money into that market place where it is a growing market as opposed to spending futile bucket loads of money in the American market place, which is actually declining.
$750 000 in partnership with the South Australian government, and Qantas will deliver - I am absolutely convinced, on the expert advice that I have - for the tourism industry. That is what we are here for, as minister, as government. I would like to think that tourism is not one of those great areas of government where there should be a lot of political divide on - certainly, I have not taken that approach with the federal Minister for Tourism - that you respect the advice of your professionals who understand developing markets for tourism and where you put your effort in, and get the return on investment. I would like, if the member for Araluen wishes to challenge that advice - well, on what basis, and bring the conflicting advice in here.
So, it is $750 000 into the UK, $0.5m into the east coast, an additional 1000 seats a week from Qantas, an additional 1000 seats a week for Virgin Blue - targeting of the drive market at a time where we do have reduced airline capacity. Now, if that is not a strategy then I would like to know what one is, because there has certainly not been a strategy put forward by members opposite. The member for Araluen has so much support for the position that she had as shadow tourism minister: not one member opposite stood up to support her.
In the few minutes that I have left, in terms of all words and no action - well really, again, what we are in government for is implementation. I refer members again to this wonderful glossy document, the Tourism Development Master Plan, and again, there was no implementation strategy. We have created a whole unit; we are creating a senior position for that department to actually build an implementation strategy, and a budget strategy, around the good work that went into developing this document, but went nowhere once the minister had his five minutes of media attention in terms of launching it. The same thing could be said in terms of the Aboriginal Tourism Strategy. Yes, there is one! There is a glossy brochure floating around somewhere; it is about five years old. But again, no implementation strategy.
This government will deliver, we will implement initiatives that we make decisions on that come through the public service, as opposed to members opposite, who were great at producing the glossies but did little about implementation. I would ask that the next time the shadow minister talks about tourism in this House, she actually puts some initiatives on the table, as opposed to her continuing carping criticism.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I rise to advise the Assembly of the impending retirement of Mr Tom Hurley, the Northern Territory government’s Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Tom has worked for the Territory for 28 years, initially for the Commonwealth government and then the Northern Territory government. After periods with both the Department of the Chief Minister and the Department of Mines and Energy, he joined the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in 1985. For the last seven years, he has been the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
During his time with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Tom has prepared many and varied official instruments, from the appointment of Administrators to the declaration of sewerage extension areas. Of course, he has also drafted both major and minor pieces of legislation on almost every conceivable topic, including the Anti-Discrimination Act, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation Act, the Firearms Act, the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, the Land Title Act, and The Utilities Commission Act.
Tom has been committed to providing a highly professional legislative drafting service. He is greatly respected by his clients and enjoys tremendous loyalty from his staff. Tom has also been noted for his quiet reflections upon the nature of the parliamentary process and, indeed, I have been reminded of a few lines of poetry from a book on the history of the Queensland parliament which runs something like this:
I understand that Tom has been heard to muse upon the possibility of writing an eminent legal textbook in his retirement, something to match Thornton on Drafting or Cross on Evidence. The title, I am told, will be ‘Hurley on Commas’. Hopefully, his fishing and golf will not keep him from this noble work.
I take this opportunity, on behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly, to thank Tom for his outstanding work, and for the integrity with which he has conducted both himself and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I wish him good luck and, on behalf of all members of the Assembly, wish him good luck for the future.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday 19 February, I attended the commemorative service at the Cenotaph marking the 60th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin. Inasmuch as it was a very solemn occasion, I found it profoundly moving, as well as thoroughly enjoyable and thought provoking. The music, the speakers - with their vivid recollections and stories of heroism - the wreath laying, and the dramatic military display involving anti-aircraft batteries, all worked to bring the terrible events of Tuesday 19 February 1942, very close to all who attended.
Along with many other Australian families, the Bombing of Darwin has special significance for my own family. Before I explain, I would like to read one report about that terrible day some 60 years ago. I read from an article on page 54 of the Brisbane Sunday Mail dated 10 February 2001:
As we all know, the official death toll was put at 243, although there was justifiable speculation that the number who lost their lives that day was possibly many more. The true extent of the attack was hidden from the rest of the country so as not to cause panic. It was something that was not discussed widely, but as we heard at the commemorative service, there were many stories of individual heroism and bravery.
I am proud that my father, Harold Burns, was present in Darwin, along with many other young Australian servicemen, on that fateful day on 19 February 1942. He joined the RAAF in Sydney, received training, and then proceeded to Adelaide via Melbourne. His unit then travelled to Alice Springs on the Ghan railway, and then by truck to Darwin. On that fateful day on 19 February 1942, along with many others, he withstood the attack and then helped pull injured sailors from the harbour.
In 1942, Darwin was at the frontline of World War II. In 2002, we again face an uncertain world in an unprecedented time of world conflict. The frontline of this current conflict is to a large degree uncertain, but what is certain is that we need to draw upon the courage of the generation who defended Darwin in 1942, and to safeguard our democratic way of life that they fought so hard to protect.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the Assembly of some special achievements and awards received by students attending schools in my electorate. The Office of Youth Affairs coordinates Student Citizen Awards and the Australia Day Council recognises good citizenship within schools and the community. This year, three students nominated by their schools from the electorate of Casuarina were presented with their medallions and certificates signed by the Chief Minister at the presentation ceremony on Australia Day. These students were Visalini Vinu from Alawa Primary School, Amelia Samuels from Nakara Primary School, and Amanda Carrat from Dripstone High School.
One of the recipients of the Student Citizen Award, Amelia Samuels, who was attending Nakara Primary School in Grade 7 last year, also won the Administrator’s Medal for Junior Scholar of the Year in the Northern Suburbs Cluster. The criteria for this prestigious award includes a combination of special qualities such as academic achievement, appropriate behaviour, good citizenship and concern for others. The Administrator of the Northern Territory presented Amelia with her award at Government House on 15 February. Nakara Primary School is justifiably proud of Amelia’s achievements, but it should also be noted that this is the second consecutive year that a Nakara Primary School student has won the Administrator’s Medal from the Northern Suburbs Cluster of Primary Schools. This is a tremendous achievement by the school and the teaching staff of Nakara Primary.
Dripstone High School has had one of their Year 12 students, Miranda Batten, listed in the NT’s top 20 Year 12 students in 2001. Miranda was placed sixth with a combined subject achievement score of 94. Strong results were achieved across all subject areas by a number of other students at Dripstone High School. Thanks to the dedication of the teacher and its principal, Ms Marion Guppy, who always encourages students to reach their full potential. These Year 12 students include, Reetu Mutti, Lukas Sigut, Peter Hansen, Justin McMinn, Ampigai Sivakaanthan, Erin Voth and Susanne Thompson. Congratulations to all these students, their teachers and, certainly, to their parents who I believe are proud of them.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Territory is renowned for its love of sport and, with excellent facilities and support, it is little wonder that we are producing athletes who are competing and achieving on a national, and even international, level. As I speak, Mark Hickman, one of our Territory Stingers hockey team members, is with the Australian Hockey Team competing at the 2002 World Cup in Kuala Lumpur. Incidentally, Australia just beat Korea 4:2, making them the first team to secure a place in the World Cup semi-finals. The Northern Territory government is proud to support people like Mark, through contributing approximately $5m each year to ensure that we maintain a competitive and professional sporting environment.
Some of our most gifted young athletes are being given the opportunity to develop their skills this year through Northern Territory Institute of Sport scholarships. It gives me great pride to recount some of their achievements: consider Judith Green, a disabled athlete who holds both Australian and world records for breaststroke; Bo Delacruz who is vice-captain for the Australian under-20 team that won the World Touch Football Championships in New Zealand last year; Anthony Kiffin who is ranked No 1 in Australia for the under 100 kg young men’s section for judo. Anthony recently won gold at the junior nationals. Anthony, Bo and Judith are just some of our young sports people who are getting the opportunity to develop their skills with the Northern Territory Institute of Sport this year. The Institute of Sport has awarded scholarships to 16 individual athletes and nine squads covering netball, Australian football league, swimming, cricket, hockey, rugby league, rugby union, tennis and tenpin bowling.
At the Institute of Sport, these young athletes will benefit from a fully-equipped sports science laboratory, a comprehensive weight training facility, a sports medicine network, sports psychologists and professional coaching support. Also, to ensure that every athlete has the best opportunity to participate fully in their sport, the Northern Territory Institute of Sport offers financial assistance for travel, coaching, entry and membership fees where required.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, I have been an avid sportsman myself. I have played rugby league, Aussie rules, basketball, soccer, hockey, eight ball and darts. Of course, now, with my ministerial role, I am finding a brisk walk very attractive. There is a world of difference between a weekend warrior like me and getting up at 4.30 am every week day and 5.30 am on Saturdays to battle it out in the swimming pool like young Danni Miatke, a member of the NTIS swimming squad. Danny, by the way, recently took home gold from the National Aids Championships in the under-13 100 m backstroke. I would like to formally recognise the discipline and talent of our young sports people like Danny, whose talents are being fostered by the Institute of Sport.
This year, 10 Territory athletes have been awarded elite individual scholarships with NTIS. These athletes are Libby Andrew for rugby, Judith Green for swimming, Mark Hickman for hockey, Yvonne Mitchell for judo, Eddie O’Brien for hockey, Naomi Roberts for rugby union, Ronald Voukolos for tenpin bowling, Henry Collins for boxing, Bo Delacruz for touch football, and Nicole Ostermeyer for volleyball. In addition, six Territory athletes have been awarded elite individual development scholarships and they are Anthony Roberts for motocross, David Hennessy for hockey, Crystal Attenborough for athletics, Bobbi-Jo Kalcher for tenpin bowling, Kate Bell for judo, and Anthony Kiffin for judo. There have also been scholarships awarded for the Institute of Sport squads in the sports I mentioned earlier.
Not only is the current government supporting young people in their national and international sporting goals, we also support the search for opportunities to bring world-class sporting events and people here to the Territory. This weekend, the Australian Hockey League will hold games here at Marrara Hockey Stadium for both the men’s and women’s competition. The Territory Pearls and the Atlas Territory Stingers will slog it out against New South Wales and, the following weekend, against Victoria. In a coup for the Atlas Territory Stingers, Stephen Holt, the ex-Olympic hockey player and 2001 Northern Territory Sportsmen of the Year winner, is returning to the Territory to coach them. To inject a bit of extra sting for the Territory’s rugby union Mosquitoes side Eddie Jones, the Wallabies Coach - and incidentally an ex-South Darwin union player - is also coming back in March to offer some training tips.
The Northern Territory offers a vibrant and competitive sporting environment, but rewards participation at whatever level you play in. We can be proud of what we offer, but we also need to nurture it, and that is what this Martin government aims to do.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to table a report on a study tour I undertook in December last year to Melbourne and Tasmania. I do not propose to speak to all of my report, as it goes to some 11 pages, and it is getting late in the evening. However, I do want to point out some highlights of the study tour, because I found the study tour to be a tremendous professional development and fact-finding mission.
Specifically, as Chair of the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, I met with my Tasmanian counterpart, Geoff Squibb MLC, who is one of the longest-serving members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, and has some great experience as Chair of the Subordinate Legislation Committee there. While I was in Tasmania, he took me through the advances that have been occurring in terms of national debate and discussion on proposed national schemes of legislation. I have to say that I found that discussion invaluable in terms of fully acquitting myself adequately as role of Chair. As a new member of parliament taking on the important task of Chair of the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, I am really pleased at the opportunity to spend almost five hours with the Hon Geoff Squibb, going through very fine detail of what is about to confront all of us, in national debates as Chairs of the proposed national schemes of legislation. Indeed, I am, possibly, having to attend a national meeting of Chairs from throughout Australia, in Canberra in a fortnight’s time. It was fortunate timing for me to have been given a very through briefing by Hon Mr Squibb.
I was also really fortunate while in Tasmania, because Tasmania’s parliaments had been recalled to deal with a matter of urgent legislation, specifically on termination of pregnancy. Whilst most people were enjoying an Australian summer break, our Tasmanian counterparts have been recalled to parliament. I saw the Tasmanian Assembly and Council in action. I have to say that what I found is that, in the Territory we are not all as bad as we are sometimes led to believe, in terms of the veracity and heatedness of debate. I witnessed Question Time, as well as very lengthy sessions of debate in both Houses.
I am delighted with the facilities that we, as members of parliament, have here in the Territory. We are able to work in a very good environment that enables those of us who want to use IT in the course of our day, to have access to that. We have desks in the Assembly; in Hobart the members are lucky to share what I wouldn’t even call a desk, to be honest, it is that small. Indeed, in the council, the members recline on a hard-backed, rather uncomfortable looking set of lounges.
I met with various members of parliament there, and with senior advisors, and I discussed matters that are of particular importance to me and members of my electorate. Specifically, I had some discussions on the library service in Tasmania, and on education and health, including disability.
I wanted to go to Tasmania to talk to the Tasmanian experts about their library system because, just after my election as the member for Karama, I started to be approached by several librarians about their concerns about where they saw the library service in the Territory currently, and where they believed it needed to head in terms of service delivery to Territorians. To a ‘t’ they all expressed that the library service in Tasmania was, indeed, the best model throughout Australia. I have to say that, after discussions with the head of the Library Service in Tasmania, a senior ministerial adviser and, indeed then, the minister briefly, I am really excited about what they have developed in Tasmania, particularly in terms of what it can provide to remote communities that have little or no access to library services at the moment; and in terms of what it can provide to improving access points of library services in our existing public libraries. They had a TALIS IT system there which is recognised around Australia as a best practice model. Our Virtua system leaves a to be desired, from what I am hearing. I won’t go into further detail on the library service. It is contained in my report and I urge members interested in the library service to read it.
In Tasmania, I was very pleased to find out about what is called Service Tasmania. Service Tasmania exists throughout Tasmania and members of the public can go in and literally access any Tasmanian state government level service; but they also can access many Commonwealth services, for example Centrelink. It is a one stop shop - you can go into Service Tasmania and get your boating registration or sort out your Medicare. To me, it is an exciting way of dealing with the innovations of new technology, and delivering services efficiently and effectively to people throughout your jurisdiction. I brought back some brochures on Service Tasmania. I have also been having discussions with ministerial advisors here in the Territory about its implications to the future service delivery in the Territory, because we do have a tyranny of distance issue in the Territory in terms of the cost of service delivery into remote areas.
The Service Tasmania model is a very good model for us to look into here in the Territory. It is combining the use of IT, as well as providing - and I think very importantly providing - jobs at the local level in remote areas. For example, I went to a northern coastal town called Burnie, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, an area that I know that you are very well acquainted with. I not only had a thoroughly informative time at the library there - which is a major library and highly regarded - but also visited the Service Tasmania Centre. Even in a town of Burnie’s size, the Service Tasmania Centre was not only providing somewhere in the vicinity of 10 jobs to local people but, crucially, importantly, it was providing incredibly easy access to residents, in terms of the services that both state and Commonwealth governments are meant to deliver.
I will also table the Services Tasmania brochures and the Tasmanian Library Service brochures that I have brought back.
On my study tour, I was very keen to look further into housing policy. What I have found since becoming the member for Karama is that the bulk of my constituents’ issues in the electorate of Karama …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table those?
Ms LAWRIE: I seek leave to table those brochures.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: En route to my destination of Tasmania, I took the opportunity to stop over in Melbourne for a couple of days, because I have heard from contacts in housing that there has been some very positive advances in housing policy in Victoria following the introduction of the Brack’s Labor government there. Indeed, that they have done some very comprehensive reviews into areas that I find are quite pressing areas of need in my electorate.
I am honoured to say that I met with the Housing Minister, Bronwyn Pike. I also met with her senior advisors. I accompanied the minister on a tour: we visited the opening of a new crisis accommodation centre for homeless women in the suburb of St Kilda. At that opening, I had the opportunity to speak to several industry experts about the issue of homelessness; how you can create policy that doesn’t just deal with people once they have become homeless, but what policy you need to deal with people who are at risk of becoming homeless. All of these discussions intrigued me. I was fortunate to have a meeting with the Director of Housing Policy in Victoria who, I might add, has served under five different Housing Ministers. This is a man who has survived changes of government, and kept his very senior post, and is highly regarded throughout Australia. We had a very broad-ranging discussion that went for a couple of hours. We looked at the strategies and the policies in place in Victoria, but he was also quite acquainted with the strategies and policies in place in the Territory, having been to the Territory on several visits. He certainly had very fond things to say about some of the very senior staff in the Territory.
I was particularly interested in programs that looked at community development, and these matters I have already raised with the Minister for Community Development’s staff. I am passing on comprehensive reviews that they have done in Victoria so that, essentially, we are looking at best practice models and what they have created elsewhere. I think the implications for my electorate, the electorate that includes the areas of Malak and Karama, are actually quite substantial in terms of the research I have undertaken in Melbourne. I am very excited about working with our Minister for Community Development and his staff, in implementing far more progressive housing policy.
I am very concerned, and I think I share the concern of the member for Blain, about the way that housing policy in the Territory has been mishandled to the extent that we have created housing ghettos within areas of the Northern Territory. It is a misguided policy that has created those ghettos. I refer, specifically, to sections of Palmerston, and I know that there is a small section in Malak that people consider to be a ghetto. I know that the member for Fannie Bay has dealt with issues surrounding housing ghettos notoriously at Kurringal and Wirrina.
All of the evidence in other jurisdictions and, certainly, the evidence in the UK model, shows that that is not the way to go in terms of housing policy. The way of the best practice model is disbursement of housing across geographical areas, otherwise you do create social dislocation. You do create the social ills that we are actually seeing now, in terms of crime waves. It is something that I am very keen about. I think that there is a real role for backbenchers such as myself to play, in terms of discovering what practices exist elsewhere and feeding that information to our relevant ministers. I am very, very appreciative of the opportunity I had to do that in Melbourne.
Another area that I looked into while in Melbourne, is the issue of sound reduction barriers. I met with senior VicRoads people. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you would also understand the importance of looking into the issue of sound reduction barriers. For us, we have electorates that have major arterial roads as boundaries. We have houses abutting directly against those arterial roads. It still amazes me that the CLP government planned housing that did not have buffer zones around arterial roads.
I tender this report in the hope that some people will understand the benefits that can be derived from such study tours.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do this adjournment tonight on my participation - and the participation of a large sector of the community - in regard to the Fortress Darwin concert that was on during the 60th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin.
There were three performances at the Darwin Entertainment Centre, full houses, especially appreciated and commented on by people who returned to Darwin for the 60th anniversary commemorations. The idea for the Fortress Darwin concert was developed by Peter Forrest and his team early last year, following the successful 2001 concert Somewhere North of Somewhere.
Peter Forrest and his team have done a number of concerts with historical themes, in association with military bands. They have found that this is an excellent way of getting people interested in our history - people who might not otherwise have read a history book or even a newspaper article. The 2001 concert ranged across the whole of the war in the Northern Territory. For the 2002 concert, Peter Forrest and his team developed a completely new script which focussed on Darwin and the events of 19 February 1942 – appropriate, he thought, for the 60th anniversary.
Peter Forrest and his team also tried, this year, to put more emphasis on the civilian experiences and the consequences of the war. They felt that, in the past, the commemoration of the bombing anniversary had put too much emphasis on military events. What the team really wanted to show is what it did to the lives of ordinary people.
Many elements of the script were based on actual incidents and situations, such as the last letter of Arthur Wellington; the scene in a Zero in the tropics, based on an incident which actually happened in the Great Northern Caf in 1941. This caf was operated by the grandfather of actor Evan Papandonakis, and great grandfather of promising actress, Elle Mitaros. Might I add that that was a scene that I was in, and I had a thoroughly wonderful time. I enjoyed, greatly, meeting Elle and had a really good chat with Evan. To hear about the old Darwin with the old Greek families, and about his mother and his father - who was a great leader of the Greek community – but, particularly the love that he spoke about for his mother, was quite touching, quite warm and sincere. I count my time at the whole show and meeting Evan amongst one of the highlights.
Credit should especially go to Sheila Forrest for the research work which made these scenes so faithful to earlier Darwin. Special thanks are due to the many people who shared their stories with the community and lent photographs. This enabled Peter Forrest and his team to develop the script in a very authentic way. Darwin City Council agreed to support the concert as part of the 60th anniversary commemorations. The late George Brown was an enthusiastic supporter of the idea, and it was picked up by the council committee which comprised Robyn Lesley and Carole Miller.
The production was greatly helped by receipt of a local hirer’s subsidy from Darwin Entertainment Centre, which helped contain venue costs. Front of house assistance by DEC – bookings, etc - was greatly appreciated. Fortress Darwin was truly a community concert involving about 200 people. All actors, singers and dancers were volunteers, as were some of the stage hands. Even those people who were paid put in a tremendous honorary effort. The payments were trifling and did not go anywhere near being a proper recompense for the effort involved.
The production team achieved a miracle in staging a very competent series of performances, despite totally inadequate rehearsal time due to the very limited budget and the constraints on the people themselves. This applied, particularly, to Matt James, the Production Manager, Betchay Mondragon, Artistic Director, Andrea Campbell, Wardrobe Mistress; and Chris Osborne, Stage Manager. They did wonderful jobs; highly competent without fuss for very little money. Let me say that the support they gave the aspiring actors such as myself was simply fabulous.
James Forrest and Imre Kirkovits were tireless stage hands. The same applied to Neil Hawkes, another man who I have known for quite some time, who has an excellent community spirit, who made some excellent sets including the very realistic rowing boat fitted with rollers for stage management for the bombing scene. Also Pauline and Margaret who helped with wardrobe, Renee who is Zen Hairdressing.
Personnel from the Army and Air Force were seconded by Northern Command to help. They quickly became actors, and they told me and the rest of the crew that they really enjoyed the experience. A great way to cement relations between civilian and military in Darwin.
Music was supplied by the Australian Army Band courtesy of the conductor Captain Lindsay Mee, and by the RAAF Air Command Band which travelled from Sydney to participate. They produced some truly wonderful big band music. Live recordings by the ABC were enjoyed by ABC radio audiences throughout the Territory for some days after. Flight Lieutenant John Buckley, conductor of the RAAF band, provided inspirational leadership and fitted into everything very effectively, despite the fact that the RAAF band did not arrive until the day before the first performance.
Soloist were Tim Oram, clarinet and Stephanie Lambert, vocals - both Tim and Stephanie from the RAAF band - and Darwin’s own vocalists Jill Tiller and Adam McNeill from the Australian Army Band Darwin, were all outstanding. The bands were highly professional and a pleasure to work with. Local Darwin Rondallia Band presented several string numbers, a great echo of Darwin in the 1930s and 1940s. Band member Gabe Hazelbane actually played with some of the earlier famous Darwin string bands.
A feature of the casting was the use of school children from St Johns College and Marrara Christian School. Tireless worker and brilliant actress, Marie Louise Pearson, who was in the evacuation scene, organised a crche backstage to keep the children occupied and amused. A great effort done without fuss. Maria Louise saw that it was needed and just did it. This is the stuff that true Territorians are made of. They get in there and do the job; no need to ask; they do not look for thanks; it is just good community spirit, something that we all value.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people appeared in several scenes. They were very effective, a pleasure to work with these people. They and others demonstrated what a diverse place Darwin was, and still is. They really gained confidence as the production proceeded and, after initial nervousness, they all want to be in it again next time.
We could not pay the main actors, so we looked for local identities who could act and would do so without fee. Who would forget the performances of the ex-member for Sanderson, Daryl Manzie - who I see around and have a good old chat with these days - as Administrator Abbott; Theona Mitaros as Mrs Hilda Abbott; Ken Conway, writing the heartbreaking last letter of Arthur Wellington on 18 February 1942 - Wellington was killed the next day; Tom Pauling as air ace ‘Killer’ Caldwell; Austin Asche, poetry reading with a difference; Denis Burke gave the show a great start in the opening scene as his own military predecessor, Lieutenant Colonel Horace Robinson; the Kee family and Susanne Dizon-Handberg created a wonderful Chinatown; Noeline Trinne, an unforgettable Vera Lynn revival; our own Gerry Wood, great portrayals of Bill Harney and Father Frank Flynn; Wayne Shields, voice-overs; Fred McCue, powerful closing scene as Administrator Driver.
Voice-overs by the Chief Minister were much appreciated, and brought back to mind what a great radio voice she has. Visitors remarked that only in the Northern Territory could we have our political leader involved in this way - and what a great compliment Clare’s involvement was to returning veterans and civilians.
Who would forget the dancers: Carl Black and Alana La Porte, the Furlanos display dancers and the Furlanos tap dancers. The audience response to them said it all. Images and film were projected - skillfully managed by David Auld - to reinforce the realism, including 8 mm film of the bombing taken by Seaman Monty Tuckerman from the deck of the corvette Warrnambool during the bombing. Mr Tuckerman lent his film, not seen at such length ever before, for the concert.
Make-up and sound effects were very realistic, especially for the bombing scene. Work is now proceeding to make a video of the concert. There have been many requests for this from the veterans and their families who came up to Darwin for the 60th anniversary.
Now, for the future: there have been many suggestions that the concert might become an annual event, and I would certainly support that. I would support Peter Forrest and Sheila Forrest to go it again. It was a great community effort. In particular, we hope it might be possible to develop a smaller version - perhaps cabaret style - for touring schools and outlying places, even interstate. There have been many requests for this, and I would give that my wholesale support.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was very proud last week to be able to launch the school information kit produced by the Migrant Resource Centre of Central Australia. The Migrant Resource Centre has been established since the early 1980s and, in 1992, they were incorporated to become quite independent from the Darwin Migrant Resource Centre. They have been active in helping the settlement of migrants and refugees in Alice Springs for many years.
It has always offered a very effective and essential service, not just to the newly arrived migrants, but also to the people and the community of Alice. It has become a very highly accepted and respected community organisation that really has built bridges across cultures.
The school information kit is designed to assist teachers and the school in developing awareness of the migrant community, and to foster and promote multiculturalism within our schools and the wider community also. The Migrant Resource Centre, and the schools, I hope, will use this kit to promote harmony, acceptance and understanding of the other cultures that live in Alice Springs.
The Territory has always been regarded as a model of how cultures can live in harmony and co-exist side by side for the benefit of the community. Alice Springs has a long history of migrants from around the world arriving at this special place to make their home, starting way back with the Afghans, the Italian miners, the Chinese miners and, later, the Vietnamese boat people, the people from Chile. More recently, there were the people from Bosnia and, of course, the latest lot of immigrants are the people from the Sudan. The Migrant Resource Centre have been quite effective in settling these people, finding them accommodation and jobs, and teaching them English; all the things that we want them to do.
So, it is a little bit of a disappointment that, when the tender went out for the resettlement program in the Northern Territory, it was given to a Darwin organisation, and the Alice Springs Migrant Resource Centre have been informed that they will no longer be required to settle immigrants from other places. This seems to me to be a tragic waste of resource of a community group that have done it so well for so long.
But, their school information kit was very well received by the many schools that were present there. I guess, as a past educator and a member of this Assembly, I see tremendous benefits of this type of kit as a teaching resource. It contains information that’s easy to access, and that’s what teachers like - to be able to pick up something and have all the information there for them. It also gives students an awareness of the legislation that protects residents against discrimination, regardless of sex, religion and race. I certainly commend the MRC for the work they did with this very innovative initiative, and their vision to provide a service to the community. In particular, I might mention Michelle Castagna, their Chairman, and Leony Bowey, their Executive Officer, who have worked so hard to do this.
The other function that I was very pleased to be involved with, and to launch, was the dedication of the Lion’s Walk out at the Ghan Society and the Transport Hall of Fame. The Lion’s Club of MacDonnell and Alice Springs, chartered in 1980 with 27 members and today, 22 years later, only one of those charter members remains, and that’s Charlie Mines. Charlie was behind this dedication of the Lion’s Walk to many past Lions. As last year was the Year of the Volunteer, it prompted the club to commence negotiations to, somehow or other, commemorate the work of people who are volunteers, like the members of Lions. The walk is from the Ghan across to the Transport Hall of Fame, and they have established trees and they have now put in plaques to commemorate some of their past Lions.
I mention Lion Bruce Chapman, who served as Treasurer and Vice-President; Lion Kevin John, who was the first inducted member and served on many of the executive levels; Lion Willie Wiesnicht, who was an active committee man and willing worker throughout his club association; Lion Doug MacArthur, who served at every level with two terms as President, and whose wife and son were actually present at the dedication; Lioness Iris Mahomed, who served as an active member of the Lioness’ Club of Macdonnell which, of course, as you know, is the ladies equivalent of the mens club; and Lion Otto Meyer who, although a member of the Alice Springs Lions Club, volunteered to be the guiding Lion for the MacDonnell Club for the first 12 months of their charter, thereby doubling his commitment to the Lions movement.
We were very pleased to have Mrs MacArthur and her son, Andrew, there at that particular dedication, and I was very pleased to have Andrew unveil the plaque with me on the rock. I certainly commend the Lions Club of Macdonnell on this wonderful initiative that they did. This walk will be a lasting reminder to the community of the work of the Lions Club, and a reminder to all those people who were there when the Lions Club was first getting itself established.
On 13 March - Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you’d be interested to know this - there is going to be a launch of a booklet called The Ali Curung House Sitting Booklet. It is a very simple little booklet that has been prepared by the women of Alice Springs, by some of the people who have been involved in the family and community services, by the staff, but most of all by the schoolchildren. Every house will have one of these books put in them. It says, ‘Ali Curung Council Association Housing Rules’.
It talks on the first page about all houses must have their rent paid, which is very important. It talks about dogs - keeping dogs out of your house; cleaning ideas; what you do with your rubbish; the type of things, ‘clean houses with clean yards make a happy family’ - these are all little drawings produced by the school - the toilet room; it is important what you should do: keep your toilet clean; wash your hands.
It even goes on to giving them very simple recipes, and recipes that they know actually have the ingredients that are in their store so they can buy them there and produce that. Of course, they have a few other health hints as well like: ‘Clean house, clean yards, healthy children and a happy community’, and ‘Have a bath or shower each day - clean people, no germs, healthy community’. And, of course, a very special thank you from all.
A simple little book but a very effective little book, I am sure you will agree. It is another example of how Ali Curung get together and produce things. They’re able to work in that cooperation so that they will know this will help people maintain the house, so it will actually achieve a healthier and happier lifestyle within the community.
I have to commend all the people involved in it. The little squeaky clay characters you see in the book were made by the senior primary students. This little book is full of ideas. I need to acknowledge the work Anne Maher did, as the lecturer from Centralian College who assisted in helping this. I congratulate those students who will also be graduating the same day that this particular book is being launched. It certainly is another plus for Ali Curung. I know we keep mentioning it, but the member for Barkly must be very proud of what goes on down there.
Mr McAdam: I certainly am.
Mrs BRAHAM: This morning it was asked about the levy being imposed on the registration of vintage and veteran cars. I really think the answer the Chief Minister gave lacked a little understanding and sensitivity of the whole situation. These cars are the pride and joy of these people who maintain them so beautifully, and they only bring them out on rare occasions. I know they get a restricted plate and they do not have to pay as much as an ordinary vehicle, but that’s understandable when you know they may only do 100 km a year, whereas you probably do more than 100 km a week. So, there is a special reason.
They always bring so much joy, people love to see them in processions or out on events. I think that we are being unfair to expect people who own these vehicles for special occasions to pay the $90 levy on those as well. Let’s face it, if we are all having to wear the burden of this levy, that’s fine, but these owners pay that levy on their own private vehicles - it is not as though they are not paying it. Some of them have two or three or four vintage cars, and now they’re being asked to pay that levy over and over and over again.
I know the Chief Minister did make a couple of exceptions in the bill that was passed, and I really think she should rethink this one. I think it is a little unreasonable to ask these members to have to pay this levy on top the registration of their normal cars. It is almost as though they are being slugged far more than the normal citizen of the Northern Territory just for the simple reason that they have these cars as their hobby. They get no financial gain from these cars, they’re purely for pleasure. In fact, they cost them heaps with maintenance and restoring. The pleasure the community gets from these cars when they are displayed is certainly well worthwhile. So, even though the Chief Minister said this morning that she is not considering an exemption, I ask her to rethink that, and to go and talk to these vintage car people and really get an understanding of the limited use that they have. Perhaps, even a part exemption would assist them.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I would like to bring members’ attention to the efforts of a young teacher at Tennant Creek High School, Larissa Murdock.
On Sunday 3 March, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training awarded Larissa an Australian teachers prize for excellence as part of the National Excellence in Teaching Award in Canberra. The National Excellence in Teaching Awards were presented to 35 preschool, primary and secondary teachers from across Australia.
Larissa received an Australian teacher’s prize for excellence in a rural, remote and indigenous education valued at $5000, with an additional $5000 going to the Tennant Creek High School. To the best of my knowledge, this is the second occasion that a teacher associated with the Tennant Creek High School has won such an award. I refer to Ms Anna Fidow, who was a recipient last year. The National Excellence in Teaching Awards and Commonwealth awards are given to teachers who are shining examples for their students, school and preschool communities and, as I mentioned previously, are open to all full-time teachers in government and independent schools throughout Australia.
Larissa is a dedicated teacher at Tennant Creek High School. She teaches arts, home economics and computer graphics, and is committed to giving students of all cultural backgrounds a sense of self-worth that young people clearly need in this modern world. She is highly sensitive to the needs of indigenous students and contributes consistently to promoting harmony between all students. Whilst at Tennant Creek High School, Larissa has worked with the students on many innovative ideas: a whole school anti-bullying program, with students scripting their own plays and making puppets, has reduced the incidence of teasing and has certainly improved school attendance, especially among indigenous students who make up just over half the school’s population; a highly successful Desert Harmony fashion parades for indigenous children from the bush and in town working together and modelling their own creations on the catwalk. Also, Larissa has given students international cultural exposure through trips to Malaysia and Fiji. Her contribution through the artist in residence program is another example of how Larissa caters to such a diverse cultural background. These are just some the examples that highlights Larissa’s dedication and commitment.
The coveted national awards are selected by independent panels from 100 regional award recipients. More than 3200 nominations are received from schools, communities, principals, teachers, class, parents and students Australia-wide.
Larissa’s family settled in Alice Springs when she was six months old and, clearly, she has a very long history in education as her father, now retired, was the Deputy Director of the Centralian College. Incidentally, her brother, Cameron, who also is a recipient of the same award this year, is now Deputy Principal of Bribie Island High School in Queensland. This is a tremendous example of the quality of teachers that the Northern Territory produces. I also take this opportunity to personally congratulate Cameron.
Tennant Creek High School, and the Tennant Creek community as a whole, is extremely proud of the recognition given to Larissa for her efforts on behalf of all her students. She sets an example of determination values to which so many of us can aspire. People such as Larissa inspire young people to realise their full potential. She has my respect, admiration and gratitude for her contribution to the community and I pay tribute to her and her achievements.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if I may, I also seek leave to table two articles which appeared in the Northern Territory News of 5 March, and also The Australian of 4 March. Both articles pertain to the successes of both Larissa and her brother, Cameron.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 10 and 11 Darwin High School students, accompanied by their teachers, Sara Weylen and Jeanine Matheson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Alice Springs Convention Centre
Alice Springs Convention Centre
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a ministerial report on the progress of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, a great success story.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Let’s celebrate success, don’t be miserly, let’s celebrate success.
Everyone would be aware that the Alice Springs Convention Centre has been constructed as part of Lasseters Casino. The convention centre will open for business at the end of March, this month, and will position Alice Springs as a new business tourism destination in its own right. The convention centre will accommodate 1100 delegates theatre style and allow for a banquet of about 800. The development included building an extra 74 hotel rooms and refurbishing the existing 74 at the casino. It has also been a catalyst for the refurbishment of neighbouring Rydges Hotel.
Since the convention centre began taking bookings six months ago, 10 000 delegate reservations have been made with reservations held out as far as 2009. In 2002, 2200 delegates are booked. A federal Bureau of Tourism Research study called Meetings Make Their Mark estimated that a four-day convention with 600 delegates generates $1m expenditure in the local economy. This extends to local small businesses such as florists, coach companies, taxis, restaurants, dry cleaners and printers, and of course, more. The same size convention is also estimated to create or sustain the employment of 12 people directly and six people indirectly.
The convention centre will officially be opened on 25 May. In September, it will host the Australian Tourist Commission’s Dreamtime business trade show. This is a real coup for Central Australia. Although selected Dreamtime participants have toured the Centre in previous years, this is the first time the trade show itself will be held in the Centre. It will be a fantastic opportunity for the Centre to promote itself to a whole range of international business travel wholesalers.
An important point to make about the convention centre is that it will act as a catalyst to the development and growth of Central Australian businesses. The conference and incentives markets not only brings big groups of people in, but they are very exacting in their demands. Conference organisers want an experience that their clients will always remember, and they can be hard task masters in achieving this. Alice Springs has experience with big numbers of people. For example, it deals with the Masters Games every second year with huge success. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that accommodation houses, restaurants and tour operators will now have an extra stimulus to develop product to answer the specialised needs of the conference and incentives market.
The more of these big groups we have in, the more our businesses will develop the capability to respond to their needs creatively and, I think, brilliantly. The more business generated from the convention centre, the more they will be able to reinvest in their businesses and grow them to new and better levels. Already, some operators are being assisted to develop their business to be able to expand their product to cater for very large groups. The tourism industry in the Territory has had some tough times following 11 September and the demise of Ansett. However, the Alice Springs Convention Centre is a very good story that will help shape the growth of tourism in the Centre over the next few years.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the convention centre team at Lasseters Casino who are a highly efficient and effective team and are doing an extremely good job of showing the conventions and incentives markets throughout the world what a good job Alice Springs can do.
May I also say that this side of the House is not trying to claim credit, of any sort, for the initiative of the convention centre to be built. I congratulate, very strongly, the former government and the work they did. All along, this has been a project that has had bipartisan support.
Mr Burke: Absolutely. Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: So from this side of the House, let me put it very firmly on the record, it was a good initiative from the CLP administration and one that we strongly support now and strongly supported at the time.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the closing comments of the Chief Minister, which weren’t part of her script, give us some comfort. Her comments wouldn’t appear so ingenuous in this parliament at this time if one reflected on the Hansard. When one reflects on the Hansard, one would see that there was not bipartisan support for that convention centre at all. There was criticism by the opposition about the amount of money that the government, at the time, put towards subsidising that very important initiative in Alice Springs. That is the truth of it.
It is almost as if, all of a sudden when you become government, some significant emotional event occurs and issues that you criticised in the past all of a sudden become cause for celebration. It is cause for great celebration; it is a celebration of a government that took risks, a government that was prepared to see where the future of Alice Springs lay, where risks were needed in order to grow the tourist market in Alice Springs. That is what we did and, I can say to you it was one of a pair.
I look forward to seeing the initiative of this new government with regards to the Darwin Convention Centre. There is one proposal that is public knowledge, that is from Darwin City Council, and we know there are a number of other proposals because they were being developed whilst we were in government. I look forward to a risk-taking government, a government that sees the future of Darwin the same way as Alice Springs and promotes and encourages a convention centre in this great city.
I would say to you that, with regards to the Alice Springs Convention Centre and its future success, there are enormous challenges ahead - enormous challenges with regards to how we get good transportation links into Alice Springs and, certainly, transportation links that have not been progressed sufficiently, in the opposition’s mind, by this new government by getting greater seat capacity into Alice Springs.
Also, I would say to you that I look forward to seeing just how the Masters Games are coming together because we hear many stories that those games have difficulties in terms of how successful they will be this year. I look forward to seeing what this government is actually doing to promote the Masters Games and further air capacity in Alice Springs in aiding the future of that convention centre.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is always very disappointing when the Opposition Leader stands up and goes into a whinge and whine about what is a good story for the Territory and a great story for Alice Springs. I think it is interesting that the former Chief Minister would try to rewrite history when, certainly, for a considerable time as Opposition Leader, I pushed and prodded the then government to take the steps that were needed to be taken to get a convention centre in Alice Springs - and they had to be pushed and prodded.
Enough of that. This is a good news story. If the former Chief Minister simply wants to rewrite history and then accompany that with whingeing and whining, then people will judge him on that. It is a good news story; it does have great potential in the Centre. The figures are looking great for the bookings over the next decade which, again, augers well for both the convention business and Alice Springs businesses generally. I am not coming in here and saying it was our initiative. This is a good Territory initiative and it is one that is going to work. I hope that it has strong bipartisan support for its continued success.
Members: Hear, hear!
Northern Territory Police Special Crime Unit
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I wish to address the House this morning on the Northern Territory Police Special Crime Unit. This unit has the overarching role of investigating and combating property crime via dedicated units currently operating within the Darwin and Alice Springs regions. The primary objectives of the Special Crime Unit are: the detection and apprehension of persons committing unlawful entries and home invasions upon homes and businesses; the stealing of motor vehicles and the illegal trade and disposal of stolen property; the recovery of stolen property; and the reduction in the incidence of property crime overall.
In Darwin, the Special Crime Unit consists of eight detectives and four general duty officers operating from Casuarina, Darwin and Palmerston local police offices; while the Alice Springs contingent has four detectives. The commitment of police tasked in this specific crime area is evident by recent arrests and recovery of suspected stolen property. For the month of February 2002 alone, the Darwin region Special Crime Unit has executed four search warrants on premises, recovered property valued in excess of $25 000, and arrested seven persons for over 60 offences.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr STIRLING: By way of example, on 1 February 2002 the Palmerston local police office Special Crime Unit charged one offender with 40 offences relating to unlawful entry and stealing, primarily committed upon Darwin business premises, in which property valued in excess of $95 000 had been stolen. During the same period, Alice Springs-based detectives recovered property valued in excess of $11 500 and charged two offenders with 21 property-related offences.
Regional intelligence officers have been deployed in the Darwin and Alice Springs regions to enhance the collation and dissemination of intelligence on criminal suspects and crime trends, predominantly focussing upon property-related crime. This enables a targeted response by both detectives and uniform patrol members. The introduction of the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, NAFIS, and the implementation of LiveScan fingerprinting within the Northern Territory have provided significant benefit in that crimes, including property crimes, have been cleared up. There was a total of 201 cases where fingerprints were lifted from which 140 offenders were identified in the six month period 1 July to 31 December 2001.
The use of DNA database technology has provided a significant forensic investigation tool in the fight against volume crime. In the last six months of 2001, 70 DNA profiles have been analysed from scenes of crime, with 56 offenders being identified. These examples of the work and role of the Special Crime Unit are significant and form a part of the ongoing, continuous improvement process towards the enforcement and investigation of property crime.
Last week in this Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition called into question the operational effectiveness and morale in the Northern Territory Police Force. So today, as a counter balance to that criticism being levelled by the Leader of the Opposition, I have been pleased to report to the House some recent successes the Northern Territory Police have had, focussing on the Special Crime Unit. As identified today, the Northern Territory police are doing a great job and I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to provide some balance to the criticism of recent times.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if one takes the last point first, the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for police knows exactly what happened in this Chamber last week. What happened in this Chamber last week was primarily the police minister lying in this House about …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is going to suggest I was lying, he needs to do so by way of substantive motion, and I ask him to bring it on.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you cannot accuse someone of lying except by way of substantive motion.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment. I am quite happy to bring on a substantive motion, but we know how the police minister deals with substantive motions of that nature; and that is he does not address the issue at hand, as he did not address the debate in this Chamber last week. To suggest that there were allegations raised about the conduct of police operations in support of the current Police Commissioner, that is something that police themselves will decide and, notwithstanding your press release, I have sent a full transcript of the Hansard out to police and they can judge for themselves the nature of that debate as they are already doing.
With regards to the Special Crime Unit, I applaud that initiative. I say it in the context of it being the type of initiative that needs to be widely promulgated to the general public, and it needs to counter the perceptions that are being given by some senior police officers because I have attended any number of forums where the perception being given to the community is that police are adequately resourced in their current structure. There is no doubt that right throughout the Northern Territory - and it amazes me in a place like Palmerston where I centre my efforts - the perception of rising crime rates is truly alarming. The public needs to understand exactly how police are dealing with it and where special units are put in place - and this seems to me to be similar to Operation Surf that was quite effective in the past and, I might add, criticised by some of the senior echelons of police as not being truly effective.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is a good story. It is something we will support and I wish it well in its success in the future.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his lukewarm support, I would suggest. It is a bit hard for him to come in here this morning and wholeheartedly embrace the efforts of the police. We do have in the Northern Territory a wonderful police force and a wonderful police commissioner in Commissioner White. It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition to come in here this morning and seek, within a matter of days, to rewrite the history book - when he came in here with a motion last week suggesting that morale was shot in the police force. One thing the Northern Territory Police Force has always had is the utmost confidence and trust of the Northern Territory public. Every time that the Leader of the Opposition brings in a motion of that nature, I read it as him trying to undermine the trust and confidence that the public of the Northern Territory have in our police force. I thank him for his support of the Special Crime Unit.
Community Services Ministerial Conference
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform the House of a meeting I attended on Friday 1 March in Melbourne involving Commonwealth, state and territory community services ministers. We met to progress discussions on a third Commonwealth, State and Territories Disability Agreement, CSTDA, and a range of other policy issues.
The Commonwealth, State and Territory Disability Agreement is a document of both practical and symbolic importance. At the request of Northern Territory and ACT ministers, a third agreement will be referred to as the Commonwealth, State and Territory Disability Agreement to reflect the involvement of the territories rather than the former CSTDA.
The agreement provides a framework that will help guide and strengthen the relationship between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments - and with others - to make a positive difference in the lives of people with a disability. For the first time, at the request of consumers and service providers, the agreement includes a preamble that affirms the partnership between the jurisdictions in the pursuit of a just and inclusive society.
This preamble has been drafted by the National Disability Advisory Council in consultation with advisory councils in each state and territory. It also recognises that both levels of government fulfil complementary roles in the development and delivery of public policy and services, and that both have a pivotal role in promoting the rights, equality of opportunity, citizenship and dignity of people with a disability. The agreement is based on the premise that communities are enriched by the inclusion of people with a disability and that positive assumption about the gifts and capacity of people with a disability are fundamental to their experience of a good life.
Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as parties to this agreement, seek to work cooperatively to build inclusive communities where people with a disability, their families and carers, are valued and are equal participants in all aspects of life. In the pursuit of this vision, both levels of governments recognise that people with a disability have rights equal with other members of the Australian community, and should be enabled to exercise their rights.
At the meeting, in response to calls from the federal Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone, for several things - better accountability and transparency of funding; improved choice; better access and increased participation of people with disabilities in the community - all ministers reaffirmed their commitment to an equitable distribution of resources across jurisdictions, and agreed with the resolution of funding arrangements and equity issues will occur through the multilateral CSTDA negotiations in the coming months.
I would like to take the opportunity to inform the House that I have recently approved the $1.2m allocation of the 2001-02 Disability Services Unmet Needs Funding following consideration of the priority areas and constraints of the available budget. Areas that received funding included: early childhood intervention; post-school options programs; remote area services; respite targeted at families with children 0 to 12 years with special needs; equipment and funding for people with high support needs; and funding for service system reform. I am only too aware that the funding that I have just mentioned does not go anywhere near meeting the needs of those people with a disability in the Northern Territory. However, I am confident that this government is steadily progressing towards creating a more sustainable and robust service network for people with disabilities, their families and their carers.
At the meeting last Friday, ministers also noted progress on three major research projects focussing on unmet need for disability services, management of demand, and the impact of funding made available under the second CSDA. The results of these three projects will be available in late April, early May, and will inform further negotiations at a June meeting of ministers, particularly around the Commonwealth, state and territory financial obligations under the new agreement.
In addition, all states and territories are committed to enhancing access to employment services and improved collaboration and coordination across employment and community access for people with a disability, in particular those with high support needs.
In conclusion, I want to state that this government’s commitment to providing the best possible services for people with disabilities, and their families, is paramount.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we have, yet again, the sorry spectacle of the minister standing up and reading something prepared for her that she has no heart in. It is very sad, when you hear the whingeing and whining that this minister uses to describe her portfolio area. Yes, it is a difficult area, but this business about not enough money that we heard on the radio this morning and the difficulties in the disability sector - the previous government had been working since the International Year of the Disabled in 1981 and before to build a fairly robust disability sector. The difficulty we have with this minister assuming government is that she refused to speak to the sector. They were referred, instead, to the member for Karama, and when they attempted to get in, they were given a standard letter which said, and this is from Minister Aagaard:
Since being appointed to the portfolio of Minister for Health and Community Services, I have received
requests to meet over 500 organisations and individuals - Can’t meet you all, sorry, go and talk to my
personal staff.
20 November 2001.
Unfortunately, some of these organisations that have been seeking meetings before this time - before 20 November last year - still have not got in; still have not got to talk to this minister. So, it is all very well talking about consulting, it is all very well talking about how you are going do more for the sector. You should listen, you should hear what the sector is saying, because this person here is only able to stand up and parrot things that have been written for her. She has no heart and no passion for this portfolio area, and she is completely devoid of emotion about this very important area to the extent that she refuses, pretty much, to speak to them. The sector, I know, is having difficulty in getting through to her, and I suggest that if she’s to be seen as being entirely transparent, open and truthful in this matter, she should speak to them.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it is a mystery to me what the member for Drysdale is talking about given the large number of people I have seen in my office, both non-government and other areas of the portfolio.
In relation to the disability sector, we have had two major forums. Yes, I was very happy to have the assistance of the member for Karama with this; she has considerable experience in the area of disability and was very helpful in the projects. The sector itself has informed us that they are extremely happy with the dealings of this government, and they have been saying to us that they have never been listened to before. So, I am very sorry if the member for Drysdale is not happy with the situation that the sector is actually happy with me. I will continue to work with the Commonwealth and the other states in relation to the agreement, and we will get the best possible agreement for the Territory.
Land Clearing Guidelines
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House on a matter of national importance and the steps we are taking to address it. I refer to land clearing, and I intend to speak slowly.
In other states, particularly Queensland, this is a matter of great environmental concern. In the past, large tracts of land have been cleared, sometimes with the encouragement of governments. Now we are paying dearly for such practices, we can see, with increasing salinity and erosion problems.
In the Territory, we are fortunate that wholesale land clearing has not occurred. The majority of this clearing was in urban centres, the Litchfield Shire, the Katherine-Daly catchment and the Coomalie Community Government Council areas. This is the result of urban sprawl, development of infrastructure and pressure for the development of agricultural business. The total area of land cleared in the Territory is approximately 4300 km2, or 0.03% of the land of the Northern Territory. This figure has been calculated from records of clearing and interpretation of satellite images.
Since taking government, my department and I have been working on the development of an appropriate policy and guidelines for land clearing. We all understand that the future development of the Territory will involve some clearing. It is, therefore, timely that the Martin government produces guidelines to assist people in undertaking clearing, to minimise as much as possible the impact of such clearing on the environment, which, after all, belongs to all of us and to future generations.
We have now developed these guidelines for land clearing and I am very pleased to launch the guidelines today. These guidelines are for all areas of the Territory, for broadacre development and subdivisions outside of pastoral leases. They reflect best management practices of land clearing in the Territory and will be periodically reassessed in accordance with comments received from community and industry. They are contained within this book.
The land clearing guidelines document is not a dry, technical document. It is simple; it is written to provide information to all stakeholders. It provides examples, photographs, diagrams and advice as to what to do and what not to do with land clearing. I have also asked the department to translate this document into other languages, because a large number of people who work in the agriculture business are from non-English speaking backgrounds.
The next step in this process is the development of a policy on land clearing. A draft policy for the clearing of native vegetation in the Territory is currently being prepared for Cabinet consideration. The draft policy is to be implemented by the Planning Act and it is proposed that there will be a requirement for land clearing to be subject to approval on all tenures. The community will be advised and consulted on the draft document and the issues associated with the policy implementation in the next six months, and we will also have further consultation with the Commonwealth.
It is not only our intention, but it is also our responsibility, to safeguard our environment for future generations. Let’s not forget that our environment is a significant factor in our unique Territory lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I preface my reply by asking the minister to table the guidelines that he just talked about so that we can have a look at them.
Mr Vatskalis: They will be tabled.
Mr BALDWIN: It is pertinent that people understand, right around Australia, that the Northern Territory has only 0.03% of its entire land mass cleared. That includes all of the urban development, Litchfield, of course, places like Alice Springs and, particularly, our farming areas.
It is another pertinent point of interest to have a look at the Douglas-Daly area which comes under a lot of fire. The minister will hear it from time to time when he is talking to particularly his federal counterparts, how they all focus on Douglas-Daly - and the Environment Centre focuses on Douglas-Daly. I would ask the minister to go down to Douglas-Daly and make yourself fully aware of the layout down there because it has been an area that’s been developed in good practice, and no one can deny that. Our departments in the Northern Territory have done a great job in ensuring that the right thing has been done there.
Guidelines and policy development on land clearing, obviously, will be a very contentious issue. It will be one that I will be watching very closely. I know landholders in the Northern Territory are going to be watching it very closely. I hope they get a reasonable chance to be consulted and work through on these guidelines. I hope you do not come up with what your federal counterparts came up with in the federal election: when they were running up into the campaign, they put out a policy document that talked about zero land clearing controls right across Australia. That’s something that we can do without; we are a developing jurisdiction and we have to do it in a practical way so that the areas of the NT that are going to become the focus for production of food in the future can develop in a suitable way.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, land clearing is certainly a very important issue and I welcome the minister’s statement today. I just want to make sure that people do not get carried away with the 0.03%. You could make that 0.003% for Australia and 0.00003% for the whole of the world. The percentage of clearing in my back yard is higher than that, and that’s what is important for where I live and the people where I live. So, you shouldn’t get too carried away with 0.03%; we should be worried about clearing quality, not clearing quantity. Down south they used to say: ‘We have plenty of land, so clear it’. If we go along with that same argument here, we will end with exactly the same place as Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. So, be careful of that kind of argument.
I think guidelines are good but, having seen the amount of accidental clearing caused by bulldozers that happens overnight, I think you need regulations. The regulations have to be fair and reasonable, they have to be practical. In places like Nelson and the Litchfield Shire, a lot of land clearing occurs because of subdivision. Where subdivision of small lots occurs, the government must take the initiative and remove those sensitive areas so they are not at any risk of being cleared accidentally.
I think you have to also move very quickly on areas like Leaning Tree. I noticed recently that there are 35 blocks up for subdivision, which is part of a huge subdivision development of Marrakai. I think these guidelines should be put in place immediately.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, we all know that we need to clear land if we are going to proceed with development of the Territory. However, we do not want to repeat the mistakes that have occurred down south. I have witnessed these examples with my own eyes in the centre of the Western Australian wheat belt, and also down south and, certainly, I am not going to repeat the same mistakes.
I am also resisting any pressure from the Commonwealth for zero clearing. I understand we have to have some clearing, but I also note the member for Nelson’s comments and that’s why we are going out to consult with the community and the Commonwealth as to how we are going to proceed with land clearing in the Territory.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I ask the minister to table …
Mr VATSKALIS: It needs to be tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you should table the document.
Mr VATSKALIS: I table the document, Madam Speaker.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 46)
(Serial 46)
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 main purpose of this bill is to make amendments to Northern Territory acts and regulations made necessary because of the enactment by the Commonwealth parliament of the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and other associated legislation.
The Commonwealth’s Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and other associated legislation reform national laws governing the provision of various financial products. These products include financial advice services related to shares, debentures, derivatives, managed investment products, certain insurance products, superannuation products, and retirement savings products. The outcome is a new licensing scheme dealing with persons who provide such services. This scheme will commence operation on the 11 March 2002. The relevant provisions are mostly contained in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001. The main relevance of these changes to Northern Territory legislation is that there is a need to ensure that the Northern Territory legislation uses terminology and has cross-references that match the provisions in the Corporations Act 2001. This bill aims to ensure that this occurs.
I will provide two examples of the kind of changes. The first example is that stock exchanges are now, for the purpose of the Corporations Act 2001, covered by the term ‘financial market’. The second is that the insurance agents will now be regulated under the Corporations Act 2001, rather than by the Insurance Agents and Brokers Act 1984, which act has been repealed. The Northern Territory’s consequential amendments will commence operation after commencement of the Commonwealth legislation. In this regard, the Northern Territory is in the same position as all of the states. Consequently, there will be a period of time when there will not be an accurate match between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth laws.
To a great extent, section 15(2) of the Interpretation Act operates so as to limit the possibility of legal problems arising from this mismatch. Nonetheless, the bill will provide that the new provisions are deemed to have operated from the time of commencement of the Commonwealth legislation. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass bills though all stages
Pass bills though all stages
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 42) and Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 43): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
PENALTIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 42)
(Serial 43)
PENALTIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 42)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 is to amend the Penalties Act so that the value of the penalties unit changes from $100 to $110. The Penalties Bill 1998 was introduced into the Northern Territory parliament by the then Chief Minister on 25 November 1998. It was enacted on 16 February 1999, and commenced operation on the 1 April 1999. The former Chief Minister noted a number of policy developments in relation to the legislation. These included: a review of maximum penalties in legislation; a development of a policy in respect of the maximum penalties in the legislation; the conversion of monetary penalties into penalty units; and the regular review of the value of a penalty unit.
I am pleased to advise that all four of these policy developments are still occurring. In particular, we have reached the stage where the penalties in all draft bills being provided to government for consideration are being set, having regard to a policy document developed by the Department of Justice. The process of reviewing and converting old penalties is occurring more slowly. However, the government anticipates that this process will be completed by 2003.
This bill deals with the fourth policy development introduced by the previous government; namely that of regularly reviewing the value of a penalty unit. It is critical for the efficient operation of a penalty unit scheme that the value of the penalty unit be regularly reviewed, and that there be commitment to revise the value of that unit as appropriate.
The Department of Justice has reported to me that the best indicator of the Northern Territory of any changes in the value of money, is the Darwin consumer price index. Over the period since the introduction of the legislation in 1998, the all groups index for Darwin has risen from 122.1 to 133.5. This represents a change of 9%. Based on that advice, the government takes the view that it is appropriate that the value of a penalty unit rise by 10%. When rounded off to the nearest 10, the result is that the value of a penalty unit changes from $100 to $110. It is important to remember that this increase in penalty will only apply to those individuals or organisations who do not comply with the laws of the Northern Territory. It is not a tax; it is a punishment for those who break the law.
The Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 makes two further amendments. The first is to change the name of the act to Penalty Units Act. This is occurring so as to avoid some confusion that may exist as to the respective purposes of the Penalties Act, the Sentencing Act, and the Fines and Penalties Recovery Act 2001. The second change is to amend section 4 so that it is clear that the penalty units may be used to identify what is the maximum fine that may be imposed for breaches that are not offences. Examples of these kinds of breaches include breaches of the disciplinary provisions contained in the Agents Licensing Act, and the Legal Practitioners Act. This amendment is to apply retrospectively to the date of commencement of the Penalties Act 1999.
The Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002 provides for the inclusion in the Interpretation Act of a definition of penalty unit. This amendment is being made for the purposes of making it easier to access the law of the Northern Territory. In many other jurisdictions, penalty units are commonly created under legislation such as the Interpretation Act. Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CORONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 29)
(Serial 29)
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill, but cannot help but comment on the inescapable irony that it is, in fact, a Labor government that brings in an amendment that does away with the right to silence, a concept held very dearly by many in the legal profession, many of whom are this government’s very strong and outspoken supporters.
I am grateful that I had the opportunity to correspond with the Attorney-General about this matter. I suggested some amendments. We have a minor, but not catastrophic, disagreement in respect of one. I accept his comments in respect of the second, and I note that he has accepted mine in respect of the third amendment. I understand that the amendment will be put in the committee stage. In essence, we do support this amendment.
I am given to understand that the previous government, on the basis of various coronial findings over the last couple of years, was working towards a similar amendment. As I said at the outset, I note the immense irony that a Labor government brings in an amendment such as this. At least the opposition does not need to answer to our critics, and I do understand that there are some in the legal profession who are having a hard time coming to terms with this amendment. They will, no doubt, be outspoken, and I can very happily suggest that they take the matter up with the government. On that basis, we support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the bill, bearing in mind that I might be in the committee chair when that stage is debated.
I have a few queries. One is that the law reform manual referred to matters that were taken into account in Western Australia and had (a), (b) and (c). I am wondering whether (a), (b) and (c) referred to the facts that, can the fact be proved satisfactorily some other way, as the question asked had little bearing on the outcome; and does the question reveal a crime of more serious nature than the present issue? I am wondering whether, perhaps either all of those or some of those should be incorporated into the act, with a guideline as to what should be looked at.
Another question: does the certificate become as guaranteed before or after the evidence is given? What penalties apply to someone who refuses to give evidence if ordered to? Have there been cases where someone has been granted a certificate, but evidence gathered indirectly from what they said has been used to prosecute the person? For example, if the witness mentions a name, do police go and talk to that person? He dobs that witness in. Is that the intention or would a witness be told that could happen before they actually give their evidence?
Another question is: could he have the case of a Clayton’s Certificate? That is, people with little understanding of the law - perhaps Aboriginal people from out bush, people who really had very little idea what their rights were - could they, in fact, actually give evidence and go outside the court and be approached by the police; and give the same evidence, not realising that they could be charged?
Another question is: is that statement only inadmissible if given in court? In other words, if someone says something in court and, as I said before, if they walk outside and they say exactly the same thing, is it still inadmissible or does it become a whole new ball game?
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have to say, from the outset that, despite some lingering reservations, the opposition supports the passage of this bill. The proposed amendment, as the member for Nelson touched upon, came about as a result of a coronial and, eventually, the endorsement from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, albeit not unanimous. Indeed, at least one member of the Coroners Act Amendment Subcommittee, whom I have spoken to at length, has some serious and lingering reservations about the effect this amendment will have on a person’s right to silence.
To really understand the philosophical change which is about to occur – indeed, it has occurred in some of the jurisdictions - you have to have regard to what has occurred over history, and I am not going to go through it in detail. But touching on a couple of points, the courts over many, many decades - indeed, hundreds of years - have upheld the privilege against self-incrimination. Chief Justice Gibbs in Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 Commonwealth Law Reports, speaks of the firmly established rule of the common law since the 17th century that no person can be compelled to incriminate himself. He goes on to say at page 294:
It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that the Crown must prove the guilt of an accused person,
and the protection which the principle affords to the liberty of the individual will be weakened if power exists
to compel a suspected person to confess his guilt. Moreover the existence of such power tends to lead to abuse
and to “the concomitant moral deterioration in methods of obtaining evidence and in the general administration
of justice”.
The Law Reform subcommittee also looked at that particular case and referred to that quote. It very briefly touched upon comments made as far back as 1638 about the importance of this right for silence. They quoted Bradshaw, who was counsel for Willbyrne in the famous 1638 case. He said: ‘Contrary to the laws of God, nature and the Kingdom for any man to be his own accuser ...’. So this very important principle of having the right to not incriminate yourself has a very important historic significance, and you have to have a sense of history to really understand this important issue.
There are safeguards which could have been incorporated into the proposed bill. They include any evidence given by a witness who is compelled to give evidence which may damage his or her position; that evidence could have been given in camera. There is no restriction on the use of such evidence except that it cannot be used, of course, in a criminal or civil court. The police can sit in the body of the court, they can hear what he said, and then they can further their investigations having regard to what has been said by a person who has been compelled to give evidence in the Coroner’s Court. In some of the other jurisdictions, there are some further safeguards which deal with the coroner making an inquiry as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a person to use the rule that he does not wish to incriminate himself and, if there are sufficient grounds that the coroner is satisfied that there is a risk this person may incriminate himself, he can allow this person to continue to exercise the rule against self -incrimination.
Importantly, the balance is, of course, the very important public policy of getting to the truth and we have these two competing interests - the policy of the public interest at finding out the truth versus the interests of an individual and the integrity of the system. In my view, the legislation will need to be reviewed eventually, and the opposition will certainly be keeping a close eye on the operation - the effect that this amendment will have. I suspect however, that it may disadvantage the most vulnerable section of our community: people who are not familiar with the criminal justice system and for whom English is a second language. For some of our traditional indigenous people who come into court and are not able to exercise their right to silence in the coronial matter, their liability may fall to the very periphery of the offence, but they will be cross-examined and expose themselves to agreeing with an assertion put to them by a keen and enthusiastic young lawyer.
There are some amendments, I understand, which are going to be introduced in the committee stage. The member for Stuart has, quite kindly, given me copies of those amendments and appropriate notice. I can indicate that the opposition supports those amendments as well.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the opposition supports the legislation with the amendments, but I thought it appropriate to put on record my lingering reservations about it.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I note the comments by the member for Nelson. I know they are of a technical nature and I am sure the Attorney-General will pick up on those in the committee stage.
As outlined previously by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, this bill seeks to amend the Coroners Act to bring about three major changes. Firstly, repeal and substitution of section 38. In essence, this allows the coroner to compel a witness at a coronial inquest to answer a question where it appears to the coroner to be expedient for the ends of justice for the witness to do so. Because this is a significant change which, to some degree removes the right of refusal to answer a question on the basis of self-incrimination, I will return to this later. The second area of amendment comes about through a new section 44, and this will afford the coroner the power to reverse a decision not to hold an inquest, or to reopen and inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third change relates to a new section 46. These amendments extend the reporting requirements regarding deaths in care or custody. It is noteworthy that all these changes came about as a result of a specific request from the coroner in October 2001. I will now speak in favour of the three main areas that these amendments seek to change.
First, self-incrimination or the right to silence. Currently under NT legislation, there is an unconditional protection against self-incrimination; namely, that a person that shall not be compelled to answer a question that may tend to incriminate the person. Notwithstanding the request made by the NT coroner, why, then, should this parliament join other jurisdictions such as Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT, as well as the Commonwealth in removing what has generally been regarded as a cornerstone of British justice - which has been pointed out by members opposite? In other words, the right to silence or the right not to answer on the basis of self-incrimination: why should we be moving that this be removed in coronial inquests?
Appropriately, this matter was referred to the NT Law Reform Committee for consideration, and I commend their report, Report No 23, to honourable members. Looking at the composition of the NT Law Reform Committee, it is certainly made up of some very august people including Hon Austin Asche QC AC, Mr Max Horton, Ms Maria Ceresa, Dr Phillip Jamieson, Mr Greg Macdonald, Mr Hugh Bradley CSM, Mr John Hughes, Mr Richard Bruxner, Ms Sally Gearin and Mr Peter Boyce.
Members of the Coroners Act Amendment Subcommittee consisted of Austin Asche, Greg Macdonald, Phillip Jamieson and Mr Jon Tippet QC. I found their report to be invaluable in considering this important issue. To quote from page 1 of the report:
- Some would maintain that the right to silence is a broad, overreaching inviolable philosophy of the common law
which includes, as an integral part, the privilege against self-incrimination and of which no part can be interfered
with, without serious damage to the whole and, in particular, to the liberty of the subject. This is an important
argument based on considerable legal tradition and must be properly considered.
However, is the right to silence as universal as many of us suppose? It is apparent that various parliaments have removed such privilege namely through first, royal commissions; secondly, inquiries by the British parliament into corrupt electoral practices; thirdly, the NT Waste Management and Pollution Control Act; and fourthly, the Evidence Acts of Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and the Commonwealth.
So, there seems to be quite a number of precedents for removal of such privilege. In relation to the evidence acts mentioned above, the underlying rationale is that judges should use their discretion to ascertain whether it is expedient for the ends of justice that such a person be compelled to answer such a question. Hence, we come to coronial inquests in the Northern Territory and the rights of witnesses balanced with the need for relatives of the deceased and the wider community to ascertain the truth surrounding a death. It also has ramifications for sensible recommendations regarding public health and safety.
The public health aspect is of crucial importance, I believe. As legislators in the Northern Territory, we should bear in mind that mortality rates in the category of injury and poisoning are generally far greater in the Northern Territory, compared with the rest of the Australia. That is both for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, male and female. What I am saying is that we do have high death rates through misadventure, through injury and poisoning, and so that makes it even more important for the community to ascertain the public health benefit of finding the truth surrounding a death.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee refers to the investigatory role of a coroner. This is a very important consideration in affording the coroner the power to compel witnesses to answer questions. I will quote from page 7 of the report:
- … for the coroner is, in effect, a very different person from a judge. He is an investigator with powers to call
witnesses and act very much like a continental judge to find the facts; an investigator rather than an arbiter.
I continue:
- In the course of the investigation, a coroner has wide powers: for example, to enter premises or direct others
to enter premises; to inspect documents; to take possession of anything considered relevant to the inquiry;
and give directions to the police force. These are not powers exercised by a judge, whose duty is to adjudicate
on such evidence as is placed before him by the parties.
Just continuing:
- If the coroner is not so constrained and, indeed, has a specific duty to seek out the facts for himself, surely the
argument is so strong that, if the investigation of those facts necessarily impinges upon criminal activity, he
must have the power to investigate that criminal activity in order to discharge his duty effectively.
I believe that the submission of Mr Cavanagh makes it plain that the discharge of that duty can be hindered if he is met with a legally sanctioned silence in one area. Such is the argument: coroners have an investigatory role different from a judge. They already have power to gather evidence and it is also argued that the right to silence may be an impediment to the coroner working effectively.
While the amendments seek to remove the right to silence in coronial inquests, they do not seek to compel witnesses to give self-incriminating evidence in such inquests that can be used directly in criminal, civil or disciplinary hearings. The amendments provide for witnesses to be granted certificates at the discretion of the coroner so that the actual evidence given by them cannot be used in civil, criminal or disciplinary hearings against them.
The discretion of the coroner is a pivotal consideration in this matter. In other words, the coroner must consider the benefit of compelling the witness to answer, and the forthcoming information balanced against the granting of a certificate. It is important to note that such certificates do not indemnify such witnesses against further proceedings. However, they do guarantee the actual evidence given by the witness cannot be used against them.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that self-incriminatory matters identified as being valuable to the deliberations of the coroner are often relatively trivial. To quote again from the Law Reform Committee report on page 8:
- Frequently the offences for which the witnesses seek protection are, as Mr Cavanagh puts it, comparatively
trivial or regulatory in nature. Nevertheless, the entitlement to silence has been taken.
A scenario that could face the coroner: there could be some people who are indulging in taking drugs, there could be a subsequent death. The people with the deceased may, at present, have the right not to incriminate themselves and give evidence on relatively small matters such as cannabis use. So basically, these reforms, these amendments will allow the coroner to better get to the truth of circumstances surrounding a death.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee supported the amendments related to self-incrimination, relating to the coroner being able to compel witnesses to answer questions where it is expedient for the ends of justice. The committee reported that it considers these to be important amendments to serve the ends of justice, and I heartily agree.
The second area of change relates to opening inquests. Amendments to section 44 streamline the procedure for the coroner to reopen an inquest where there has been a previous inquest, or to open an inquest where there has been no inquest. Currently such procedures must be authorised by the Supreme Court. The amendments proposed also allow for administrative efficiency by the coroner to be able to correct certain errors or omissions within a particular inquest.
Finally, reporting: these amendments oblige the CEO of any agency involved in an inquest into a death in care or custody to report back to the Attorney-General within three months, outlining the agency’s response to any recommendation made by the coroner.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I commend the proposed amendments to the Coroners Act to all members.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Coroners Amendment Bill 2001. I have never had reason to have any dealings with the coroner and so as I researched the important role this office undertakes in our community, the more I became convinced that the amendments foreshadowed were of direct benefit to all of the community.
I do not think that I am alone in my lack of exposure to the coronial process, so I would like to take this opportunity to briefly provide an overview for others like myself. What does the coroner do? In all reportable deaths, the coroner arranges for the death to be registered and provides a document to allow burial or cremation. The coroner investigates every reportable death to find out how it occurred, the circumstances surrounding it, and who contributed to the death. The coroner investigates fires that have public significance. At the end of every investigation, the coroner sets out what facts have been found, what lessons can be learned, and what can be done to prevent that type of event happening again. The coroner informs the community and government of the facts and what is to be learned by public inquest hearing. The completed file may or may not become a public document, and the report may be sent to other Attorneys-General.
When is a coronial process necessary? Well, it is necessary when the death is referred to a coroner if the death occurred unexpectedly from anything other than natural causes; from an injury or in an accident; during or as a result of an anaesthetic; while the deceased is held in an institution, in prison, in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation centre, or by police; when the identify of the deceased is not known. These types of deaths are called ‘reportable deaths’. All reportable deaths must be investigated by the coroner.
An autopsy or post mortem is an examination by a pathologist to determine the cause of death. An autopsy will be conducted if the coroner believes it is needed to determine the cause of death. Sometimes, the coroner is able to find the cause of death from the person’s medical history. In these cases, an autopsy may not be necessary. What does go on at an inquest? An inquest is a court hearing conducted by the coroner. The coroner can summons people to be witnesses, or to bring papers and other evidence. Evidence is given on oath and witnesses can be questioned. The coroner will listen and then make a finding on the death. The coroner must hold an inquest if homicide was suspected, the person was in prison or an institution, or the person’s identity is not known. In other cases, the coroner will decide whether or not an inquest is needed.
It should also be recognised that a coronial inquest is not an attempt to solve a crime. If I may, I would like to give a brief case history of a coronial inquiry that was held last year into a number of deaths that occurred in the course of fighting a large bushfire just north of Sydney. I believe this example will round off peoples’ understanding of the coroner’s role. The coronial inquiry into the Mount Kuring-gai New South Wales tragedy in June last year begun on 16 July 2001. Four National Parks and Wildlife Park staff died in the tragedy and three were seriously injured. On 14 December 2001, the Senior Deputy State Coroner gave her findings relating to the tragedy. The coroner stressed that the role of any inquest is not to apportion blame but to determine the manner and cause of death.. In this case, it was an inquest into the death of four persons.
The coroner’s formal findings as to the cause of death are:
- … that three people died on 8 June 2000 at Mount Kuring-gai in New South Wales of incineration and
smoke inhalation sustained during a hazard reduction burn in the Ku-ring gai Chase National Park.
The coroner said that the post mortems performed on the three showed they died of smoke inhalation before they were overcome by those injuries that caused them to be incinerated. The coroner said she thought this was important for families to know. The coroner found that another fire fighter died on 4 August 2000 at St Leonard’s Royal North Shore Hospital in New South Wales from septic thrombosotopania overwhelming sepsis and cardiovascular collapse.
The coroner found that the fire on 8 June, which occurred in dry sclerophyll forest, or vegetation gum trees, in the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park north of Mount Kuring-gai near the F3 Freeway, was caused when fires being ignited by the NPWS personnel became uncontrollable. The coroner made 17 recommendations as the result of the inquest, designed to minimise or eliminate the risk of such a tragedy occurring again. The coroner also commended a number of other firefighters for their bravery under dangerous conditions.
However, sometimes in the Territory, situations have arisen where such a positive outcome in regard to clear-cut recommendations to authorities and findings of full circumstances surrounding great tragedy, has not been possible. I would like to read an extract from the Law Reform Committee Report on Privilege against Self-Incrimination by the Territory Coroner, Mr Cavanagh:
- I have been unable to find all relevant circumstances surrounding the death of the person who is the subject of
the inquest. This is particularly frustrating for the next of kin and, in many cases, has the effect of preventing
them from coming to terms with the death of their loved one. They have the apprehension that essential evidence
is being held back from them.
I understand, and I fully endorse, the empowering of the coroner to provide for a certificate to be issued to a witness who is compelled to answer questions in the inquest. I have researched and read many articles on the right to silence and, I believe, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee has mounted a strong case for such action in its Report No 23, Report on Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. In its conclusion, the committee notes:
- In view of the legislative developments in other states and territories which have modified the classic common
law privilege against self-incrimination and in view of the clear intention in the Coroner’s Act that the coroner
should carry out a thorough investigatory process which may be harmed if certain witnesses are allowed to take
the privilege and thereby withold information which may be vital to the investigation, and in view of the safeguards
imported by the power of death certificates to prevent the evidence of witnesses from being used against them at
other proceedings, on balance this committee supports the amendment to sections 38 and 41 of the draft bill to
amend the NT Coroners Act and, indeed, consider them to be important amendments to serve the ends of justice.
I am pleased to note that the member for Greatorex is on the public record as calling for such changes as foreshadowed in this debate. The member for Greatorex himself understands the role of the coroner and I place a great weight on the member for Greatorex’s views on coronial matters.
I would like to quote from an article on the NT government web site entitled ‘Lim calls for law change’ dated April 2001:
- The Minister for Central Australia, Dr Richard Lim, has said today that he wants to look at ways to prevent
witnesses at coronial hearings refusing …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You should not refer to a member by his name in the first instance, and I am not the Minister for Central Australia.
Members interjecting
Mr KIELY: I am quoting, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I think he is quoting. There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: I will continue:
- The Minister for Central Australia …
The Minister for Central Australia, Dr Richard Lim, has said today he wants to look at ways to prevent witnesses
at coronial hearings refusing to give evidence on the grounds that it may incriminate them. Dr Lim said the
ability of witnesses to do this could prevent the coroner from finding out the cause of death. He said he would ask
the Chief Minister and Attorney-General, Denis Burke, to change the law. Dr Lim said he had decided to act
following the inquest into the death of an Alice Springs woman. ‘What I want is to change the rule known as
privilege against self-incrimination which gives a witness at a coronial hearing the unconditional right to refuse
to answer a question on the grounds that the answer might incriminate them’, Dr Lim said. ‘This privilege has
already been removed in other Australian jurisdictions’. Dr Lim said he believed the coroner should also have
the ability to reopen an inquest where the coroner felt there was a reasonable need to do so.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that there has been a very thorough investigation into this tragic death
and the offer of a reward would serve no practical purposes, Dr Lim said.
Madam Speaker, I would like to close my contribution to this debate with the member for Greatorex’s own words: ‘… but what we can do is take steps to prevent a repeat of the right to silence being used at a coronial hearing to hamper the course of justice’.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the Coroners Amendment Bill 2001. On a number of occasions, I have had reason to be interested in the office of the coroner. It became obvious to me of the importance of the role of the Coroner’s Office. The amendment to this bill will assist the coroner’s investigations into every reportable death. The coroner will soon have a new and valuable tool to assist with investigations into how a death occurred, the circumstances surrounding it, and who contributed to the death.
As the minister for Justice and the Attorney-General outlined in his second reading speech, three major changes have occurred. I support the three changes he outlined in the bill. The first is the ability of the coroner to compel a witness to answer questions at an inquest, subject to certain conditions. The second is to allow the coroner to reverse a decision to not hold an inquest, therefore allowing the coroner’s ability to reopen an inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third, and not least important, is to provide the agencies to whom a copy of the coroner’s recommendation has been supplied, the onus of responding to the coroner’s recommendations in writing. The government believes this will lead to real outcomes and assist in preventing further future tragedies. I am proud to state that this government of the Northern Territory, in its legislation, places specific conditions on a witness being compelled at inquest to answer the question.
In the process of constructing this amendment bill, the NT government ensured that the experience of other jurisdictions were taken into account. They include Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Commonwealth. They also include the sad story of the experience of the South Australian and Queensland jurisdictions. The NT government, when developing this amendment, consulted with the Territory coroner. It concluded that the amendment should allow the coroner the ability to compel the witness to answer a question at an inquest, where it appears to the coroner to be expedient for the end of justice to do so.
It must be noted, as the honourable Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General has stated in his second reading speech, if the coroner orders the witness to answer the question, the witness must be granted a certificate that prevents his or her statements being used in evidence in any other proceedings against the witness. The member for Goyder touched on the balance of policy and public interest. The honourable Minister for Justice and Attorney-General clearly stated in his second reading speech: ‘The object of the coronial inquest is to find the truth about all of the circumstances of a death’. The policy in the public interest is to find the truth.
The matter of privilege against self-incrimination was referred to by the Law Reform Committee which presented a report to the Attorney-General, and recommended that the act be amended to provide that the coroner could compel a witness to answer questions at an inquest, and could issue a certificate which prevented the evidence being used in any civil or criminal proceedings against that witness.
It is noted in this House, the Attorney-General has instructed that the amendments before this House have been implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee report. I will also recognise that the coroner’s request that recommendations 15 and 16 of the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody are forcibly implemented in the legislation. I support this as a recommendation to actually be a requirement for the coroner and the government to be informed, where the recommendations made by the coroner have been considered. I support this bill and ask all members of this House to do so as well.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Very quickly, Madam Speaker, once again, I want to make a point in relation to second reading speeches. A lot of what has been said opposite should have been in the second reading speech when it was delivered to the House. Having said that, I would like to also thank - in my support of the bill - the departmental staff who assisted me with my inquiries. Once again, they were professional and thorough and I thank them for their time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to the debate today. I think it is continuing what I hope to be new tradition in this House, of paying very close and careful attention to legislation. It is heartening to see both the extent of the debate today and the quality of the contributions that were made around the Chamber. I thank you again.
Before I deal with some of the issues that were brought up by individual members, I would like to, very quickly, reiterate why we are considering this legislation today. It has come out of an approach by the coroner, who was very much aware of certain of his inquiries that were held up from a full resolution by the inability to get key evidence from witnesses in some of those inquiries. As the member for Johnston has pointed out, that does translate, in real life, to families who have not managed to get closure on a very traumatic incident in their family. Taking the detail of this bill aside, I have absolute comfort in my conscience about what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to actually give some certainty to families in the case where they have lost a loved one. We also want to give some certainty to investigations that may impinge on the general safety of the Territory public.
It is probably worth reading one part of the Law Reform Committee’s report into Hansard. It offers considerable reassurance to members that we are not passing new law here, and we are certainly not compromising the fundamental principle of the right not to self-incriminate in our inquiries. To read the conclusion of the Law Reform Committee report, they state:
- In view of the legislative developments in other states and territories which have modified the classic common
law privilege against self-incrimination and in view of the clear intention in corners acts that the coroner should
carry out a thorough investigatory process which may be hampered if certain witnesses are allowed to take the
privilege and thereby withhold information which may be vital to the investigation and in view of the safe guards
imported by the power to give certificates to prevent the evidence of witnesses being used against them in other
proceedings, on balance this committee supports the amendments to sections 38 and 41 of the draft bill to amend
the NT Coroners Act and indeed …
And this is the key part for members:
- … considers them to be important amendments to serve the ends of justice.
Elsewhere in the report, the committee also makes it very clear that the coroner’s inquiry is not the same as other courts, or the court inquiries or hearings that might be conducted in the Northern Territory. They state:
- The jurisdiction of the coroner under the Coroners Act is separate and distinct from the jurisdiction of a judge or
a magistrate in civil or criminal trial. The coroner is not bound by the rules of evidence and may be informed and
conduct the inquest in a manner that the coroner reasonably thinks fit.
We are talking about, really, preliminary matters to a court situation, where the strict rules of evidence will apply. The aim of a coroner’s inquest is to get to the truth of an incident involving the death of a person rather than to incriminate that person under either civil or criminal law. We are dealing with a slightly different jurisdiction to the main body of our court processes.
If I could move to the individual contributions of members, and perhaps clear up some of the issues that were raised. The member for Nelson asked: will a witness be told that their evidence can or cannot be used by investigators? The coroner would have the discretion to adopt the actual procedures that they address in an inquiry. They may choose to brief the witness or their representative in terms of the operation of these new provisions. There would be, on the certificate itself, the indemnity written there as to what that certificate actually indemnifies that witness from. In other words, the written contents of the inquiry cannot be used elsewhere in themselves.
The people out bush who cannot understand procedures, again it is a matter for the coroner running an inquiry. You would expect that, similar to any other hearing - whether it is within our court system or elsewhere - if there is a clearly going to be the potential for a witness to not understand the provisions of the act as it will be once the amendments are introduced, it is very much beholden on the coroner to ensure that any participant in a hearing is fully able to understand what is going on and to contribute. Again, it is a procedural matter. It is not a matter that we can build into the bill itself.
If people go outside the court and, for example, they are asked questions by the media and they give some admission there, can it be used against them? It can be; it is on the public record and it can very definitely be used.
What if the witness is subsequently approached by the police as a result of the hearing? The police would be bound to warn the witness about the capacity to incriminate themselves before they conducted an interview, and the rights that that person - prior to walking into the coronial inquiry - would resume the moment they step out of that coronial inquiry. They are in the same situation as they were before their participation in the inquiry.
Another issue: at what point is the certificate given? The certificate is given before the evidence is asked of the witness, but after the witness has made a claim for privilege. Under the procedures, the witness must claim privilege and have that claim for privilege tested by the coroner. Once that process is complete, that is when the certificate is issued, but prior to the evidence being given in the inquiry. The certificate then covers all matters that are given under the indemnity of that certificate.
What happens if a witness still refuses to give evidence? Under the new provisions it is expected that witnesses who may incriminate themselves will give evidence once the certificate procedure is explained to them. If they do not give evidence the witness can be dealt with under section 41(3). That is, they can be fined $5000 or imprisoned for six months. So, there is quite a strong penalty if the witness fails to comply with the coroner’s direction to provide that evidence.
Both the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson raised the matter of derivative use of the evidence. In other words, for members, if evidence is given as we have seen in the provisions of this bill, the evidence itself cannot be used in any other hearing. But if someone, including the coroner, becomes aware because of the nature of the evidence that a crime may have been committed, then it is possible for further investigations to track down the evidence needed to, maybe, prove that crime. In other words, the evidence provides clues as to where the police or the coroner himself or herself may wish to go and find further evidence of any guilt.
In New South Wales they have brought in provisions in their act to prevent the derivative use of evidence given under a certificate of indemnity. There are quite major difficulties with that arrangement because it then becomes beholden on either the investigators - it could be someone working with the families - to prove that they actually fought to look for the further evidence from some other motivation other than being aware of what evidence had been given in the coronial inquiry. It potentially taints other evidence that may be put to bear against the potential offender by the issue of whether that evidence was gained following the coronial inquiry evidence. In balance, we are not attracted to the idea of having a derivative use of the evidence included in the bill. We believe it is better that the normal processes of collection of evidence and presenting it to a court hearing should prevail outside the coronial inquiry, rather than being distorted in any way by a provision of non-use. I think that might deal with the issues that were brought forward.
I would like to finish, before we go into the committee stage, by thanking the opposition for their foreshadowed support of the bill and the amendment. I will be more than happy to see you put on Hansard any further concerns you have about the operation of these in practice in coronial inquiries. We will certainly take that on board if there are practical things we can do in terms of the implementation of the amended law. Sure, we are open to suggestions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr TOYNE : Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 6 which is circulated to the members, and I will give some explanation of that amendment. This amendment omits the words ‘committed in the proceedings’ from clause 6 in the amendment bill. You will be aware that the entire section of clause 6 is going to be put as a replacement to section 38 of the current act.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that evidence given by a witness in coronial proceedings under protection of the certificate can be used in evidence to prove an offence or perjury. This amendment ensures that the testimony can be used whether the perjury occurs in the coronial proceedings or other proceedings. What we are saying here is that if a witness deliberately misleads the coronial inquiry or a subsequent hearing, whether it is in a disciplinary process, say for a medical doctor or in criminal or civil proceedings for a person who is accused of an offence, if there is the evidence in the coronial inquiry and the evidence in other hearings that do not match up and indicate that a perjury has occurred, the indemnity offered by certificate is cancelled by the act of the perjury. We do not feel that we should offer protection to a witness who is offering deliberately misleading evidence to one or another of the inquiries they may be involved in, following such serious matter as a killing or a death. That is the purpose of this amendment and I will be quite happy to hear what the opposition’s concerns are about it.
Ms CARNEY: We support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
- Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CULLEN BAY MARINA AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 25)
(Serial 24)
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 25)
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the bills in their current form. Whilst I know a few people who live in Cullen Bay, it is difficult to find anybody who really understood the mechanics of the proposed amendment and the effect it would have, but there was one person who has a vested interest down there. I spoke to that person at length and, really, the proposed amendments achieve a very specific end. It is really based on common sense and, perhaps an oversight in the original act, one which wasn’t foreseen having regard to the types of development at Cullen Bay, Tipperary Waters and the like.
I can indicate that the opposition supports the bills in their current form. There are some amendments which the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General made me aware of. I have looked at those, and I indicate that the opposition also supports those amendments in their current form.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001. If I may, I would like to reiterate what the main purposes of the bills are: to permit by-laws to be made by the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation in respect of the whole of the land that is subject to the Cullen Bay Marina Act and permit by-laws to be made for the health and safety of persons. Additionally, the bill provides that existing by-laws shall be deemed, from the time of the commencement of the new legislation, to have been made under the act as amended, and for the review of penalties, and for those penalties to be expressed in terms of penalty units.
When the Cullen Bay Marina Bill was debated back on 18 November 1992, the then Minister for Transport and Works was critical of the opposition alluding to gaping holes in the legislation. The minister went on to state that he did not believe there were any. He advised the bill had been comprehensively developed, not only in the interests of future purchasers of property in the area but also and, just as importantly, in the interests of the public. He went on to note that it had been stated clearly on many occasions already that the roads, parks and beach would be accessible to the public. ‘That …’, he said, ‘… is laid down in the legislation and one has only to read what happens as a consequence of this bill’. Certainly, the bill relates to those common areas and the management of the marina itself. I will restate that point: the previous Minister for Transport and Works stated that the bill related to those common areas and the management of the marina itself.
The Cullen Bay Management Corporation exists because of the Cullen Bay Marina Act. It has the main function of managing the group title that was created under that act over the Cullen Bay development area. The Cullen Bay development area is all of the land and water generally known as Cullen Bay. It comprises the marina, the shopping centre and the residential areas between Myilly Terrace, the defence base at Larrakeyah, and Kahlin.
Under the Unit Titles Act, similar corporations exist at Tipperary Waters and parts of Bayview. In such developments, all of the owners of land, including owners of land on which there are stand-alone houses, have duties and rights in respect of the common property and the development area as a whole. The relevant management corporation is the entity that formally owns the common property and which makes and enforces the various rules governing the group title.
The bills propose that the by-law making power be extended so that it covers the whole of the development area, not just the part of the development area that happens to be common property. These bills are all about working in partnership with the community.
As the minister has advised, the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation made the proposal for the need to amend the legislation to the previous government. The citizens who reside at Cullen Bay do so because it is their preferred lifestyle. They understand the unique requirements of their community and this is reflected in the need for the Cullen Bay Marina Bill. What has occurred is that, currently, there is some room for doubt whether the by-laws that are formulated and adopted by all of the owners of property in Cullen Bay may apply, because if appears that it may only be currently lawful to make by-laws for common property.
This amendment does represent a balance; it gets right to the heart of communal living on these types of estates. This bill recognises the intent of the initial purchasers of land in Cullen Bay and supports the assumptions made by these people at the time of purchase; that is, that by-laws applied to the whole of the waterways and the development.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the Attorney-General and his staff for the briefing that he gave us on these bills and the previous bill. It was a great learning curve for me, but I hope we were able to put some input back in as much as they gave us. One of the inputs we did have is that we asked about the ramifications of these bills, and they have brought back the amendments so that these changes are not as broad as they possibly could have been, which might have meant that there were some unseen ramifications of the changes.
I would also like to thank them for all the effort they put in to give me these lovely coloured maps of places that I wish had never been developed, I suppose, like Bayview and other places here. But they at least made it much more understandable as to what land and what was being referred to by the bill. The Attorney-General’s staff also gave me some notes about this matter and I have some concerns that these particular paragraphs are not consistent. It said:
- Under the Cullen Bay Marina Act the Management Corporation may make by-laws. However, it appears
that these by-laws only apply for the land within the orange boundaries.
I do not know whether members can see that, but the orange boundaries are basically all water outside private lots.
The Cullen Bay Amendment Bill 2001 will permit the by-laws to be made that apply to the whole of the land of the development area; that is Lot 6393, plus the land coloured yellow. The main practical effect of the legislation will be that of applying the current by-laws to the whole of the land within the water area to the marina. That is, the water within the orange boundaries and the water within Lot 6378 - although I think that might be meant to be 6379 - and the water within the various lots whose boundaries extend beyond the water mark.
I have one concern because, originally, these amendments were to basically include the water that was on private lots. The case was put to me that you could, therefore, prohibit people from using a boat as a residence. I wondered why - instead of having to cover the entire area - the orange line which, at the present time, covers all of the water outside people’s blocks, couldn’t have actually been drawn through the blocks? In other words, blocks had two zones, if you want to put it that way, one is the land zone and the other is the water zone. Therefore, the law and the intention for bringing this law in would then only have applied specifically to the water. I thought that was the main reason we were bringing in the by-law originally.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, to advise members that, of course, the work behind this amendment has been going on for quite some time now. There have been discussions with the people in Cullen Bay, the management committee down there. Coming to an agreement has not been easy for the people there; there was certainly some debate, about 18 months ago, as to how the levies were going to be put. It is great to see that the legislation is coming through today. It is going to provide a much easier management system and a fairer distribution of the levies. I support the amendment.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you very much again to members for the contributions. I must say that it has been a lively process on this bill and I think the briefings, as the member for Nelson pointed out, have become a very powerful tool for this House to refine bills. We are serious about making changes to improve laws we bring through here so that everyone gets a chance to contribute. I think this will be very apparent in these sittings that, if an idea for a modification of what we are bringing forward has merit, it will be seriously assessed and introduced into the bill if it is justified to do so.
We do not feel any sense of defensiveness about the process that we are responsible for in this case, and I certainly will continue to welcome all members to make their contributions to this process. The support for this bill, of the opposition and the independent, is welcome,. The only issue that has come up that I could deal with at this stage of the process is that the by-law making capacity of the marina management applies over the whole development area. It is the yellow and the orange area if we colour code it.
Really, we are just extending the ability to make and enforce by-laws over the area that previously there had been doubt on - which is the water area - in response to the types of problems that have been identified by the residents there. Basically, we are trying to stop people using boats as houses; that the berths should be simply for the temporary berthing of visiting boats or the boats belonging to the residents or other people. We are trying to return that back, and that is the intent management has in bringing forward the need for this change. With those comments we will move to committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 24):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dr TOYNE: I wish to move an amendment to this, Mr Chairman. Clause 5 of the Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 would be amended so that it adds to the end of the section 15(1)(f) of the Cullen Bay Marina Act the words ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’. The effect of this change is that the by-law making power in section 15 will, in respect of fees and charges, only apply to such matters that are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, for example, that it would not be possible to have a lawful by-law levying a charge or fee for using a private property located in the Cullen Bay Marina. We are trying to keep the fees and charges out on those private areas under these new arrangements.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the opposition supports the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment, agreed to.
Unit Titles Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 25):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to clause 4 of the Unit Titles Amendment Bill No 2 2001. The amendment would add to the end of section 26ZD(1)(f) of the Unit Titles Act the words ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’.
The effect of this change is that the by-law making power in section 26ZD in respect of a estate developments such as Tipperary Waters and parts of Bayview will, in respect of fees and charges, only apply to such matters that are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, for example, that it would not be possible to have lawful by-law levying a charge or fee for using private property located within an estate development.
Mr MALEY: The opposition supports the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I again want to move an amendment consequential to the amendments to the Cullen Bay Act. We move that clause 5 be amended by adding to the end of section 26ZZA(1)(f) of the Unit Titles Act the words: ‘incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property’.
It might be noted that section 26ZZA became operational on the date of commencement of the Unit Titles Amendment Act 2001. That date was 1 March 2002. The effect of this change is that the by-law making power of section 26ZZA in respect of fees and charges of building management developments, only apply to such matters as are incidental to the management, use and maintenance of the common property. This means, as per the other amendments proposed, that it does not give the management the right to levy fees and charges over the use of private property within that common property area.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported as amended, agreed to.
Bills reported; report adopted.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Casuarina Senior College students and their teacher, Bill Gammon. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
SPEAKER’S STATEMENT
Conduct of Members
Conduct of Members
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am concerned at the incidence of unparliamentary language and the level of personal abuse that occurred in this House last week. I am not implying that this name-calling is something new to the parliament, because I have looked back at records and notice that other Speakers have made similar comments. However, I am appalled that new members have resorted so readily to this type of debate, and convey the impression that they think this parliament is a bit of a game, and anything goes if you can get away with it. I am equally dismayed that experienced members are setting such a bad example to new members. I would also remind honourable members that to be censured, or to be sent to privileges, is a most serious act of this parliament and sits forever in the Parliamentary Record as a reflection of that member’s actions.
I note as part of the government’s election platform, they promised to raise the level of debate in this House. The comment from one particular member of the opposition, and his call for the need to maintain the dignity of the House, I applaud. There have been many recent interjections and references that, in my opinion, have lowered the level of contributions of this House. So, in the interests of maintaining an appropriate standard of debate and order in the Chamber, I request all members to refrain from the use of such unparliamentary terms; members should refer to Standing Order 64. I appreciate the need for free-flowing and vigorous debate - I have already supported that - but this can be achieved without resorting to personal abuse.
If I determine words are offensive or highly disorderly, I expect all members to withdraw them without question, immediately and without comment. In the interest of the reputation of this House and you, members, I remind all honourable members to refrain in future from personal name-calling and abusive language.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, if I may, I would say that we do take your words seriously and we do take them to heart, bearing in mind, I am well aware, of the commitment we made to parliamentary debate. I put myself at the forefront in terms of the criticism you were making. I give you that assurance that I will be looking to my behaviour and I can assure you that each member on this side of the House will be very mindful of your comments here this afternoon.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I hope that is echoed by the members on the opposition.
Mr Burke: Absolutely!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following motion:
- That this House condemns and censures the Chief Minister for her deception and misleading of:
3) members of the public service; and.
4) most importantly, Territorians;
- in that she pledged there would be no job losses from the public service and there would be no
voluntary redundancies as a result of the restructuring of the public service, when the truth is
the complete opposite. And further, that since becoming Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay
has embarked on a ritual course of misleading and lying both to this House and to Territorians in
relation to her policies and actions.
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I simply make the point to you that this will be the first time, I think, in the history of this House - certainly in the 15 years I have been in it - that a censure motion has been gagged. It is the most important issue in terms of the practices of this House, and from the point of view of the seriousness of the issue, it is the most important action that can be taken on the floor of this House. I think it is worthy of putting on the record and, indeed, if possible, your consideration of the issue in terms of the fact that it has been gagged and the historic circumstance that this brings about in this House.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Let’s be very clear, Madam Speaker, about the record. It is misleading the House to say that it was never done under the previous regime. I certainly saw it …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You did, you said it was the first time. The Leader of the Opposition said it was the first time. A censure motion is about the most serious motion that you can bring to the floor of this House. It is a substantive motion and, as such, it requires substantial evidence and information within it to prosecute your case.
We will entertain a censure if it is brought forward with substantial evidence and information across the case, but we are not going to waste the time of this Assembly by way of dealing with insubstantial information in a substantive motion.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Just let me say that in the past it has been convention, when a censure motion has been raised, for the Leader of Government Business. to indicate whether the government will accept the censure or not. In this case the government has said no.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I accept that. I simply make the point that at various times in this House this new government has invited a censure motion to be brought on. They invited the censure motion in the context of the debate when I brought the censure motion on, and they have essentially gagged the opposition in bringing that motion forward. I think is an absolute disgrace. You have the numbers; you have the ability to respond; you state you have any number of ministers who can speak on these things. You talk about an honest, open government and yet you won’t allow the opposition to move a censure motion, when we restrained from moving a censure motion on any number of occasions in the past. I think it is an absolute disgrace, Madam Speaker, and I implore you to take forward the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s comments in your consideration.
Madam SPEAKER: Clerk, my ruling is that it was defeated, that particular motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The advice I have received is that you did move to suspend standing orders and the vote was taken on the voices, and it was defeated. You have, of course, expressed your concern and it is now recorded in Hansard. You could, in fact, seek leave to move that motion tomorrow - give notice of that motion tomorrow - if you so wish.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek further clarification. It seems to me I am now left in a situation whereby I am required to withdraw my comment, which was the initiator of the censure motion. I gather from your comments that I have no option now but to withdraw the comments that I made.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I said that your reference to standing orders was defeated, but your comments on that defeat have been recorded in Hansard, so that is on public record. What I am saying is, you could now seek leave to give notice of that motion if you so desire, but the motion is killed at the moment.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I call division on the ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: What ruling, sorry? On mine or …
Mr BURKE: On the initial ruling that we could not bring the censure motion.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The question was the suspension of standing orders, and that is what was defeated.
Mr BURKE: Yes. Call division on that.
Madam SPEAKER: I have in fact ruled on the voices.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
New Public Sector Agency Arrangements
New Public Sector Agency Arrangements
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I would like to report to members on the progress of the major changes my government announced to the Territory public sector on 13 November last year. I would like to begin by providing an overview of the rationale and approach taken in deciding the shape and direction of those changes.
In line with my government’s policy priorities, I was keen to sharpen our focus on some key areas; especially on economic development, financial management, job creation, education and training, indigenous affairs, crime prevention, health, and family services. We wanted to aim for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness, but with minimum disruption to the public sector employees working in those agencies. The new arrangements have led to changes in some work units, mostly through amalgamations rather than major reorganisation. This approach was very deliberately chosen in order to allow employees to get on with the job of providing services to Territorians in the best way possible. We wanted to minimise, as far as possible, disruption to employees and to the public.
Making changes to the structure of the public sector is never easy; I do not pretend it was an easy task. The very nature of such changes creates uncertainty for employees at all levels. The decisions took a great deal of discussion and negotiation before implementation. What we sought to do was to find the balance between the need for change to meet our goals in advancing the Territory while, at the same time, making the transition as smooth as possible for public servants - those most affected. I acknowledge the transition to the new agency arrangements involved some difficulty and challenges for the public sector, and I thank our public servants for their understanding and for their effort implementing the new arrangements.
The result of the new arrangements is a reduction in the number of agencies from 35 to 18. It was neither efficient nor cost effective for the Territory to have so many separate government agencies. Only a very small proportion of public sector employees have been required to shift offices. In fact, the biggest difference for many has been a change in agency name, and the fact that they now work in a larger organisation. My government’s aim with these new arrangements was to deliver better coordination of resources and a more targeted effort; achieve efficiencies and deliver the same or improved services to the community throughout the Territory at a lower overall cost; enable a better environment for career and personal development to support the needs of both our employees and the future of our agencies; and to enhance our regional presence through better resourced regional offices.
The changes were in line with the independent review of the Territory’s financial position undertaken by Professor Percy Allan. Professor Allan, among his other recommendations, said the government should consider restructuring the public sector into fewer departments. Interestingly, this view was echoed by delegates at the Economic Development Summit.
I have been absolutely clear about the fact that the changes to the public service have been designed to not only improve the delivery of services in line with the government’s vision for the Territory, but also to achieve a sustainable budget. In a similar vein, there is an ongoing process of evaluating existing programs to ensure they are still relevant and appropriate. However, in achieving the required savings, I reiterate that there will be no forced redundancies in the Territory public sector, and I am very pleased that we have been able to achieve so much in efficiency gains without the need for forced redundancies. However, as has always been the case, CEOs and employees, when they recognise the positions are redundant can negotiate voluntary redundancies, and this continues to occur, and has occurred, for many years.
The approach in formulating the new agency arrangements was based on very clear criteria: Agency arrangements should be clearly aligned with government directions and priorities; where there were synergies between the functions of agencies, amalgamation should be considered; in general, agencies should be categorised as either a department or a government business; new functions should only be created when there is a clear economic or social objective not currently being met, and any such functions should, where possible, be created by the transfer of existing funding and staff; that the creation of new agencies by amalgamation was the preferred approach because it causes the least disruption to staff and service delivery, while still delivering the outcomes required; existing agencies should not be broken up unless there are clear and logical reasons for that to occur; any new arrangements to facilitate viable agency representation in the regions; and larger agencies were preferred because they provide the capacity to better address the key areas of information technology, employee development and succession planning, and financial expertise necessary for the move to accrual accounting.
In the past, changes to the public service structure have been incremental, ad hoc, focussed around ministers’ personal preferences, and shrouded in secrecy. I was determined that the changes my government made were open and accountable to our employees, unions and the wider community. I took the unprecedented step of making comprehensive information widely available to the public about the changes, which included having our plans posted on the government’s Intranet and Internet sites. As well, a 1800 number was also made available for those wanting to obtain more information. The feedback through the Internet site and the 1800 number was overwhelmingly positive. How the public sector is organised is an important issue for government and the community. I believe that the new arrangements will allow us to provide greater accountability to the Territory community.
To recap briefly on the changes: the Department of the Chief Minister continues its central agency role and oversees a number of important government policy priorities. To this end, we have created the Office of Territory Development, the Office of Indigenous Policy and the Office of Senior Territorians. Also, importantly, the department will continue to support the Minister for Central Australia.
Racing, gaming and licensing functions were transferred to Treasury, given its existing role in gambling policy. The Procurement Review Board has also been located within Treasury as this board administers whole-of-government policy applying to all agencies, and should be separated from purchasing agencies. Superannuation funds management was also relocated to Treasury because of the strong financial management role involved.
A whole-of-government approach to law enforcement and all aspects of the justice system is a rationale for the creation of the Department of Justice, which has brought together elements of the Attorney-General’s Department, Courts Administration, Correctional Services, Public Prosecutions, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and the Office of Consumer Affairs. To promote and oversee the critical functions of crime prevention and safer communities, the NTsafe program and several other programs and projects have been transferred to our new Office of Crime Prevention in the Department of Justice.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development captures the requirement for a coordinated strategy to achieve the Territory’s economic potential. It brings together the functions of mines and energy, primary industries and fisheries, industries and business, and Asian relations and trade, highlighting the government’s focus on economic development and job creation.
To maintain the quality of the Territory’s lifestyle and to encourage cultural development and a greater sense of community, we brought together the functions of housing, local government, arts and museums, libraries, sport and recreation, regional development and funding of essential services to Aboriginal Territorians in remote communities. We have called this agency the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. This department will be crucial to the government’s priority of improving indigenous social outcomes.
This government recognised the need for a coordinated approach to land, transport and infrastructure development and, at the same time, overseeing important environmental and conservation issues. This is reflected in the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment.
The Department of Employment, Education and Training recognises the clear linkages between education and employment, education and training, and training and employment, as well as the functions of work health and safety which apply across all these areas.
The Department of Corporate and Information Services’ principal role is to provide services to the public sector and for this reason the functions of NT Fleet, property management and communications were included in this agency.
My government recognises that any change in public sector arrangements creates uncertainty for employees. We know that there have been some expressions of uncertainty, for instance, over the new arrangements at the Department of Justice, in Courts Administration, and in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment in the Parks and Wildlife Service. We are working with these people to address their concerns; we value them and the service they deliver to our community. For this reason, I have been keen to ensure that the new arrangements are settled quickly to provide stability within the public service, to ensure a smooth and timely transition to the new structure without impacting on service delivery.
To this end, I established a Transition Task Force that included employee representation and the chief executives of the agencies most affected. The task force has been chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of Chief Minister. As an added measure, employee liaison officers were identified and briefed by the Commissioner for Public Employment and union representatives. The liaison officers are the primary point of contact for employees and unions. They have been available to staff, generally, to deal with individual issues, information flow, reorganisation processes, and arranging staff meetings. Any problems which have been identified have been rapidly addressed by these officers. Complementing this, the CPSU circulated an information bulletin to all members and the Commissioner for Public Employment also circulated information.
The changes announced on 13 November have been implemented and the respective chief executives are in place. The Territory Cabinet remains unchanged although some ministers’ portfolios have been adjusted. The task force, set up to ensure a smooth transition and that all agencies have their new structures in place to reflect the announced amalgamations, will continue to meet and address any issues that may arise. The chief executive of my department has an ongoing watching brief to ensure all the changes are firmly bedded down. All ministers are taking an active interest in the agencies relevant to our respective portfolios and at the whole-of-government level. My colleagues will report to the parliament in more detail on the implementation of the public service changes within their portfolio areas over the coming days.
In relation to my own department, there are some initiatives I would particularly like to report on. In announcing the administrative arrangements for the public service, I reaffirmed my government’s commitment to set up the Office of Territory Development within my department. This initiative is complemented by the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador. This is a major initiative for further engaging with business and will drive many medium- and long-term projects important to the future of the Territory. I won’t take up the time of the Assembly today in listing these projects because I will be making a separate report in this place before the end of these sittings on the Office of Territory Development.
I am pleased that we have been able to improve the whole-of-government approach to senior Territorians and, to this end, the Office of Senior Territorians has been transferred to my department. The office will have a pivotal role to play in providing high-level advice on senior policy issues to myself as Minister for Senior Territorians. Operational and service delivery functions will continue to be the responsibility of line agencies; for example, administration of the Seniors Card Program will continue to be carried out by the Department of Health and Community Services. An acting director has been appointed and will work on a number of projects, including a mechanism for whole-of-government coordination, and a proposal for the establishment of an advisory group of seniors to assist with future policy development. The office will undertake broad community consultations to ensure that a wide range of views are put to government on issues affecting senior Territorians.
The new Office of Indigenous Policy being set up in my department is of great importance to my government, and the issues to be dealt with by this unit will be a high priority. The office has been established to provide strategic whole-of-government advice to myself as Chief Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The particular strategic issues I have marked as priorities are: Aboriginal economic development, including jobs and training and addressing barriers to development created by land tenure; developing a strategy to progress the resolution of outstanding Aboriginal land issues; and monitoring of key areas such as health, education, justice and other social outcomes. This initiative will result in a much more strategic and innovative approach to indigenous issues and complements the Aboriginal essential services and indigenous regional framework agreement initiatives in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
Overall, I am very pleased with the implementation of the NTPS agency changes and, generally, with the feedback I have received in relation to those changes. I am confident that the new structures will provide the foundation for my government’s vision of building a better Territory and delivering improved services to Territorians. We have to thank the Territory’s public servants for their cooperative and positive attitude to the changes; we are aware there is still some issues to resolve and we look forward to working with the public service on these matters.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this important statement.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory can be very proud of its professional public service which has provided to Territorians, over a very long period of time since self-government, a wonderful level of expertise in terms of fulfilling the duties of the various departments and agencies. That is best demonstrated by the fact that every agency, from time to time, has had initiatives that have been adopted nationally and, indeed, held up nationally - and on some occasions internationally - as to the innovative approach that they have had in dealing with particular issues. There are so many of them: the Parks and Wildlife Commission in relation to parks management in arid areas and the tropics and their wildlife research programs; the Department of Health in terms of the health programs they have had in service delivery to Aboriginal people; the indigenous health services that were pioneered in the Northern Territory with health workers; and the police force in relation to community police officers - that model was taken up in New Guinea and looked at by other international countries in terms of policing for indigenous peoples.
There are, of course, the many areas in what was formerly the Department of Transport and Works with the construction of roads and bridges and other infrastructure in the tropics with the high rainfall that we experience here. The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, which became so expert in terms of animal welfare and husbandry in the Northern Territory, and the nurturing of a cattle industry to the extent today that we lead the way in the Northern Territory with live cattle exports and, indeed, did a lot in establishing those particular markets.
There are many other examples where the Northern Territory Public Service has led the way and their programs have been adopted at the national level following national recognition and, as I say, adopted, in turn, internationally.
A dreadful thing is happening to the Northern Territory Public Service under this government and that is the loss of much of that expertise. The Chief Minister’s hollow statement today does nothing to give comfort to hardworking Northern Territory public servants who work for, not just the government, but for the Territory. We should bear in mind that many of those public servants will have been listening to this statement today from the Chief Minister, because very high levels of concern and frustration extend right across every agency in the Northern Territory Public Service, as we speak. They are as a direct result of the actions of this government in terms of the withdrawal of resources from hardworking public servants who have to deliver the programs under the auspices of their work.
I have given some examples of this over the course of the past week, where we have people working in different agencies who provide services to remote communities who formerly, before the Labor administration, had a vehicle to travel to Aboriginal communities and other remote parts of the Northern Territory to deliver those services. Now, before they can go and do their work, they have to fill out a form to apply for the use of a vehicle. That vehicle is, in many cases, shared between two or three people delivering different programs. As a consequence of that, for three of the four weeks of each month, people who were formerly out in the field helping Territorians and delivering very important services are now sitting in an office for three-quarters of the time of each month because they cannot get a vehicle.
If the Chief Minister, as she says, is very happy with the progress of major changes to government, can I tell her that public servants are not. It ill behoves her to get up here and say, and I quote from her statement:
- We wanted to aim for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness but with minimum disruption to the public
sector employees working in the agencies.
I gave another example last week of a remote community that could not get their airstrip maintained; essential maintenance that had been detailed by air transport inspectors, airstrip inspectors. The officers now responsible in the former Department of Transport and Works, had to say: ‘Sorry, there is no money left’. It is officers in agencies such as those officers who are having to take the brunt of the actions of this government, who are having to tell Territorians: ‘Sorry, there is no funding available. Sorry, the government’s current policy is not to pursue that line of operation’, although it had been done formerly over the last decade or two. It is the public servants who have to deliver those stories. It is the public servant who is at his or her workplace, at the forefront of the problem, and having to explain to unfortunate Territorians who are having their services cut. It is not the minister nor the Chief Minister sitting in the comfort of their office who have to bear this impost.
I speak very passionately today on behalf of public servants, because I know the concerns that they have, and I know that they are desperately low in morale and that that morale is decreasing on virtually an hourly basis. It is just extraordinary that the Chief Minister should get up here today and say that everything is hunky-dory; public servants are quite happy with what we are doing and they are all fitting into it very comfortably. There is an exceedingly strong contrast to that, and it comes in the form of an e-mail that is being sent around the public service - has been for the last week or so in circulation - and it is anything except praiseworthy of this government, of this government’s programs and their satisfaction with the way that this government is conducting its management of the public service. The first paragraph reads:
- Do you know what makes me really nervous about the current Northern Territory Public Service? It is the
developing culture of promoting dills with extremely limited management skills.
That is a clear demonstration of jobs for the boys …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I ask that if it is an e-mail that the member for Katherine is directly quoting from, he tables that document, please?
Mr REED: I will be seeking to table this with alacrity. Can I say that the honourable minister, in his foolish attempt then to appear concerned to those public servants listening to this parliamentary broadcast, does himself no favours at all. This e-mail has been broadcast far and wide in the public service and I will, with joy, when I am finished with it, seek leave to table it.
It goes on to explain a large number of concerns in relation to non-performers in the public service. It is code, I suppose, for those hardworking public servants - 99% of whom are hardworking public servants - but like any other work place, there are a small percentage, inevitably - given that we are dealing with human beings - of people who do not carry their weight and others have to take on that burden and do their job as well.
The last paragraph of this - I will not go into it in any great detail; I will leave it for honourable members to read and assess for themselves:
Maybe they should …
That’s the government, Madam Speaker:
- Maybe they should encourage senior management to care for their staff or the next time public servants vote,
they may have the last laugh.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr REED: For the Chief Minister to get up here and say everything is going fine, public servants are happy with the change, and not even to be aware of - and this is a fairly momentous occasion in terms of what is being circulated in the public service. It does not happen very often in terms of …
Mr Stirling: A few times over you, Mike.
Mr REED: … the circulation of comments of this kind in relation to a government and the reason for that is that public servants are professional in their approach to work and they are professional enough - to pick up the recent interjections by the honourable minister who is responsible for their well being and should be appreciative of their efforts - because public servants work for the government of the day. However, that should not, and I hope does not, detract from the fact that they should have the ability to express a point of view. From that point of view, I would hope that they continue to do so.
I want to deal with a few specific points in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement, as hollow as it is. At page 2, and I quote:
- The result of the new arrangements is the reduction in the number of agencies from 35 to 18. It was neither
efficient nor cost effective for the Territory to have so many separate government agencies.
It worked pretty well for in the order of a decade.
Mr Stirling: You could not control the budget. You could not control expenditure!
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the honourable minister will have an opportunity to participate in this debate, and I hope he does as the responsible minister.
In terms of the ability for line agencies in the former arrangements to be able to relate directly to industry, rather than be shuffled into an enormous bureaucracy such as many of them now are, to lose their identity in terms of the industries which they service is most unfortunate. It is far too early for the Chief Minister to be passing judgment on whether or not her current arrangements are successful. I would suggest, on current assessments, that that should be left until just a little later.
Let’s see how it beds down before the Chief Minister continues to crow from the rooftops as to how successful her new arrangements are, because in a future date, she might find that they’re not quite as effective as she now says.
‘Only a very small proportion of public sector employees have been required to shift offices’. Madam Speaker, that is an extraordinary statement. They mightn’t have been required to shift offices, but I can tell you that a whole lot of them have moved out of their offices; that is, they have said: ‘We have had enough, we are not going to, as professional public servants, be sitting in an office, for three out of four weeks, with the inability to gain access to adequate resources …’, in particular vehicles and other needs that they have to fulfil their duties, ‘… and to not be able to do what we are paid to do’. Many of them have spoken with their feet; they have resigned, they have had enough and they’re on the move. That is a very great concern in terms of the loss of expertise.
I won’t name any particular work areas because I know how vindictive this government is, and it was demonstrated last week by some of the backbenchers on the government in terms of some issues that I raised. We had the chorus, of course: ‘Name them, who are they?’. They only want the name for one reason - so they can hunt them down and chop their heads off as employees of the Northern Territory Public Service.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Those interjections clearly demonstrate the attitude that this government has to hardworking public servants.
The Chief Minister had the temerity to applaud the advice that she received from Professor Percy Allan, and that these were the reasons for the independent review and the restructure of the public service. There are many competent and professional people in the Northern Territory Public Service who the Chief Minister could have got that advice from, and who would have been able to give her advice in relation to how the public service could be structured to best serve Territorians. Territorians, if they’re sick of one thing, is advice from the south, and Percy Allan gave us more of it. I think it will be found to be wanting in the longer term. It is far too early, as I say, for the Chief Minister to be taking credit and saying this is all very successful. To bring up another whiz kid in the form of Professor Percy, and be able to now stand up and say what a wonderful decision and advice that he made - far too early for that; let’s give it a little bit more time.
In terms of no forced redundancies, well, what is the Chief Minister on about? We heard the Minister for Justice last night saying that well, all things were pretty right, in terms of the comments that he made. I have them here somewhere …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Mr REED: … in terms of what was going on and they had to restructure the public service. The Chief Minister and, indeed, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, are on the record as saying there would be no forced redundancies. Yet, we had on the ABC radio last night the minister saying: ‘We have, we think, a leaner, meaner, more efficient public service’. Now, in Question Time today, he tried to squeeze out from under that and he couldn’t have. He was too frightened to have a censure motion on it because he knew that the facts would be disclosed in terms of just what he was saying. He was responding directly to questions in relation to the Auditor-General, which he had raised, as regards payments to those public servants who had received redundancies.
The Chief Minister cannot get away with the fact that she said there would be no forced redundancies and, indeed, that there would be no voluntary redundancies when, on the other hand, the Auditor-General demonstrates to Territorians that these people were pushed. They were - and using, indeed, the words of the minister - they were ‘asked to go’. Now, if they were asked to go, you can put yourself in the position of an employee who is fronted by their CEO - or, indeed, the minister in many cases, and/or the Chief Minister: ‘We’re saying to you that you are going, we are asking you to leave’. Do you think you would have a future in a government that was employing you so?
Who does the employment minister think he is, if he’s going to be so arrogant as to suggest that asking someone to leave is not a forced redundancy? That, of course, gets to the nub of the matter in terms of the amount of money that they have paid for these redundancies. That’s why the Auditor-General pointed it out, because they were forced redundancies. They were just very carefully chosen words in terms of what the government was saying to explain them. Of course, they have tripped each other up because as recently as yesterday, we had one answer from the Minister for Justice, one answer from the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, we have had another answer today from the Chief Minister who has said, on page 3, that they can negotiate voluntary redundancies - and that was after she, on ABC radio, formerly said there would be no voluntary redundancies.
If that is not grounds for a censure, then what is? It is just extraordinary that this government, in six months of government, could develop such extreme levels of arrogance that they are unprepared on the floor of this House to take on a debate, notwithstanding that on two occasions during the course of the six months that they have been in government, they have stooped to the most extraordinary action of a government censuring an opposition. Unheard of, Madam Speaker. If that’s not a government in crisis, in terms of a lack of confidence in itself and an inability to be able to conduct itself on the floor of this House - in terms of being able to portray factually and fairly its policies, and to explain them to Territorians clearly and enunciate them in a way that they can be both accepted and understood, but an inability to do so to the extent that they have to censure the opposition.
Of course, when the censure is called by the opposition on the government which, in effect, is what censure motions were developed for under the Westminster system, this government didn’t have the guts to take it on. This government was so gutless - so gutless - and has become so arrogant in a period of six months that it no longer has the capacity, even after that short period of time in government, to stand up and defend its position. There is no worse condemnation of a government that cannot take on its own position, cannot argue its position on the floor of this House and enable the opposition to fulfil its responsibilities - the Queen’s opposition, so to speak, in our Westminster system - and to convey on behalf of Territorians and, in this case, the Northern Territory Public Service, what we perceive the position to be.
Now, that is something that the government is going to have to live down, and they are going to have to explain that to the people of the Northern Territory and only they, now, can do it. It will be an interesting lesson in future sittings of this parliament, as to how the government conducts itself in future cases where the opposition does call a censure motion, because they have now set the ground rules. They put the noose around their necks and they have demonstrated their levels of extreme arrogance, and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over the traditions of this House, over the traditions of the parliamentary system, and to reject the processes that should be fairly applied in debate on the floor of this House.
I have been in this parliament - I’ve been elected 15 years on the 7th of this month - and I’ve never seen, and I do not recall an action, I must say, of that kind. In terms the inadequacies of this government, I think it is a sad reflection on this House. The Chief Minister has contradicted herself, as I have pointed out, and that in itself is an extraordinary situation.
On page 4, there was an interesting statement by the Chief Minister in her speech, and I quote:
- The feedback through the Internet site on the 1800 number was overwhelmingly positive.
Again, that is not reflected in the e-mail message that I’ve tabled and, can I say, I daresay if it was overwhelmingly positive, that the Chief Minister would have used some statistics in terms of the overall number of responses that were received, and the number of responses that were positive and those that were negative. We are learning - and I use the word collectively in terms of ‘we’, because it’s Territorians as a whole - to read between the lines with this government. It is not what they say in these statements but what they do not say, that one has to be cautious of, because by omission, I suspect that the Chief Minister might by gilding the lily just a touch here in terms of what was overwhelming positive and what wasn’t. There is nothing to substantiate her remarks in that regard and, as I say, the e-mail currently doing the rounds flies directly in the face of her comments.
It would be interesting to compare ministerial statements from the former government, and statements - including this one - that have been made by current ministers; looking at the content and the substantiation and comments that were made within statements that were made formerly, and the lack of that substantiation that exists in statements that we are receiving from the ministers and the Chief Minister of this Labor government. It does nothing to promote the professionalism of the government, or to give one any confidence that they are across their jobs.
Turning to page 7, and I quote from the Chief Minister’s statement: ‘This initiative is completed by the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador’. That is, of course, the introduction of the Office of Territory Development. Here is another point where this - what was going to be - open, honest and accountable government is none of those three things. If it were open and honest, in a major statement such as this from the Chief Minister ‘showing the light ahead, the path that the government’s going to take’ would have gone on to say what the remuneration to the ambassador - that is, Mr Collins – is; would have made that known to Territorians; what his terms of reference are, in relation to the duties that he has to perform. What are the terms of his employment, as the ambassador - is he employed forever, without question; is he employed for a fixed term - six months, 12 months, two years, the term of this parliament? Don’t Territorians deserve to know? That was what the Chief Minister used to espouse in opposition. ‘Territorians …, she used to stand here and say, ‘… have a right to know’. Well, Territorians have a right to know the terms of Mr Collins’ employment as the ambassador. It is not that he has not considered worthy of the position. I think that Mr Collins is a good choice as the Investment Ambassador. I think he will apply himself, as he has to his former tasks both in this parliament and the federal Senate, and as a minister in the former federal parliaments. He will serve the Territory well, because he is committed to serve the Territory well. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Minister, when she makes a statement of this kind, shouldn’t be leaving it to be prised out of her as to what the arrangements are in relation to the appointment of Mr Collins as the Investment Ambassador.
That is yet another example where the substantiation has not been provided; where this government is again demonstrating, after six months, an enormously high level of arrogance in terms of what it said in opposition and what it does in government. ‘Listen not to what we said in opposition, but take note of what we do in government, because they will be completely different’, is the real message that the Chief Minister is sending in this and other statements that she’s making.
I hope the Chief Minister will take the chance tomorrow – maybe there is a member of her staff listening - because she does say at the bottom of page 7 that she will be making a separate report in this place tomorrow on the Office for Territory Development. Out of respect for Territorians, she might advise them what the circumstances are in relation to the appointment of Mr Collins as the Investment Ambassador - and the other matters that I have raised - because, in fairness, they should be placed on the public record. I do not see why the Chief Minister cannot keep up with her commitments that she said made in opposition, now that she’s in government.
On page 9, the Chief Minister says she’s very pleased with the implementation of the NTPS agency changes overall. She’s probably the only one who is, apart from the six ministers who sit with her, and who have designed this process and caused so much disruption amongst public servants, and, of course, reduced their morale to enormously low levels. I was in the public service for 13 years, and I know how hard public servants work. It is a great shame to talk to many of them now who do not go the extra yard anymore. Why bother going in early, or why bother staying back late? Do the work that you have to, and fulfil the requirements of your employment and your duty statement. This government does not appreciate the extra effort that public servants put into the work that they used to do. They have demonstrated by the withdrawal of resources, by the fact that they have pooled motor vehicles and other equipment, and removed the ability for people to fulfil the full expectations of their employment and their responsibilities, that they do not appreciate their efforts.
Once you get a public service that says: ‘We’ll do what has to be done but won’t go that extra yard’, that is a great shame. It is going to take years and years to rebuild it to its former strength and level of operation and efficiency. For the minister to go on public radio yesterday and say that it is a meaner, leaner and more efficient public service - and infer that it formerly wasn’t efficient - doesn’t do him any good at all! For a government minister responsible for the public service to say: ‘They are now more efficient’, inferring that they previously were not efficient, does him no credit at all.
The pooling of resources, the loss of operational identity, the chain of command and the bureaucratic process in these mega-departments – and that’s why they were got rid of in the first place, because the Northern Territory is different to everywhere else. Professor Percy wouldn’t have recognised that; he was just another expert from down south. For the Chief Minister to say: ‘Isn’t it wonderful we applied his thoughts on this matter?’, does her no credit at all, when she overstepped the expertise and experience in the public service, in terms of what could have been done to best meet the needs of Territorians.
This statement is hollow. It is outrageous that the government gagged the censure motion; didn’t have the guts to take it on and discuss the matter on the floor of the House. If that is not a demonstration of extreme arrogance; if that is not a demonstration of a gutless government; if that is not a demonstration of ministers who aren’t across their job, unable to get up and defend themselves and their actions on the floor of the House, well, I cannot recall a better demonstration of all those matters. The government should be condemned for this statement.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, well, he rails the fact that we wouldn’t accept a substantive motion by way of a censure motion this morning.
Mr Reed: Gutless, you are gutless!
Mr STIRLING: He’s just had his opportunity. In many ways, it was in a tone quite commensurate with that that would be used in a censure motion. I am not quite sure where his complaint is from. But his opening remarks go to public servants who cannot get a vehicle to go on field trips; or they have to get permission to use a vehicle; or they have to share a vehicle with five, six, seven, however many other public servants. But he offers no evidence; he doesn’t name an agency; he doesn’t say what type of work these people are engaged in. Because he gets in here and says it, we are expected to take it as absolute truth.
He suggests other cuts, again unsubstantiated, doesn’t even tell us what these cuts and moves and decisions are. ‘You can’t get a vehicle, all these cuts, they are all damaging morale’. We have already seen here, I guess, a growing tactic in relation to the opposition. Last week, it was moves by the Leader of the Opposition to try to undermine the morale of the police force and the work that they do in the community. Now it is the turn of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get in here putting forward totally unsubstantiated claims, in the first place, about public servants not being able to get vehicles. I suggest, if he were serious at all about such a complaint and the lack of service delivery that might result from that type of behaviour, he ought, in all conscience in his role as shadow minister responsible for this area, be talking to the minister and putting it to him. But he won’t because there is simply no substance to these claims at all, and he simply doesn’t care. He simply uses them for short-term political gain.
I look at this e-mail tabled by the Deputy Opposition Leader and I think it is a very sad reflection on the author - a very sad reflection on the author. When you read comments such as: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black, then you are automatically on the promotion track’.
A member: Racist.
Mr STIRLING: I see the member opposite raise his - he should have a look at this because that is the sort of attitude that is portrayed in here: unsubstantiated allegations of racist behaviour by this government and senior management in the public service; allegations that this government promotes people on the basis of race; allegations that this government promotes people on the basis of colour, because they are black. We well know - and my 11 and a bit years in here - the reputation that the member for Katherine has in relation to these sort of attitudes. He has been accused of having had a very red neck in the past, and at different times, when those accusations have been made, he has been very proud to display that red neck as a badge of pride. Promoting material such as this: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black you are automatically on a promotional track’, is entirely in line with attitudes that I have seen expressed and displayed by the member for Katherine in the past.
By tabling this e-mail here today and giving it far greater prominence that it otherwise would have - and far greater prominence that it ever deserved – it is entirely predictable behaviour for the member for Katherine, because he thinks these types of attitudes - he thinks this is representative of the majority of the population out there. Well, happily and thankfully, he is wrong. And his gleeful circulation of this e-mail with attitudes like that, does him no credit at all, as it does no credit to the author of such a document.
Well may he rail about the lack of numbers they have in pursuing and getting a censure up on the floor of the parliament today. When you come down to garbage like that that you want to base your censure on, when you come down to unsubstantiated garbage and wasteless dribble such as this e-mail portrays, and it suits you and your mate here - it suits you to peddle a racist line because that is what CLP Central Council said to you the other day: ‘Fellas, you lost the last election because you didn’t raise the racist flag’. Well here it is: ‘… existing criteria seems to be if you are black then you are automatically on the promotional track’. Good stuff, good stuff. They would love it down at Central Council, might keep your leadership alive for a few months yet. I doubt it; I don’t think anything would.
Enough of that sort of racist garbage.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Given your comments earlier to this House and the undertakings by the Deputy Chief Minister, and also the fact that he knows it should be by substantive motion that you make derogative comments. I would have thought that the degree to which he is calling the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a racist really goes beyond the pale, and I ask you to rule on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, we did say that we would not make personal abusive comments so I think you should withdraw them.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if I referred to the member for Katherine, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a racist I withdraw unreservedly. I simply stand by my remarks I made in relation to this document which I declared, unreservedly, racist. If I did, and I am not sure that I did, but I certainly withdraw any allegation that may be read that I was accusing the member for Katherine himself of racism. Certainly, this e-mail that he gleefully tables does not speak well of him, nor the author.
Employment, Education and Training is a prime example of a new department which achieves the goals outlined by the Chief Minister in her statement. I have thought long and hard about why the former government did not go this way in the creation of this agency, because it brings together the former Northern Territory Department of Education; the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority (NTETA); and Work Health and Electrical Safety from the Department of Industries and Business. I don’t think it requires a great deal of wisdom to see the value in amalgamating employment and training with education. In truth, I think the failure of the previous government to go along these lines underlined their lack of vision about the connections between education and training and employment prospects for Territorians, and the critical link between these and economic development. For example, the Territory has never had an employment strategy. The Territory has not had regular up-to-date labour market analyses to form an employment strategy, or to help set priorities for training across sectors objectively and fairly.
For the years we were in opposition, Labor pressed the then government about the urgent requirement for the Northern Territory to have an employment strategy - to no avail. Now, we will have the organisational capacity to develop this because the links are there. I have asked the department to examine how best to develop an employment strategy which will work for the Territory, one which delivers solutions that work for business, employees and the very diverse communities in the Northern Territory. This way we can view the economic and social capacity of the Northern Territory for all Territorians.
Government’s employment strategy must be underpinned by safe and protective workforce and by safe work places. Connecting Work Health and Electrical Safety to the other employment functions of government strengthens our capacity to ensure this. Work Health and Electrical Safety are now better placed to encourage preventative work practices that contribute to safer Territory work places through increased access to education and training resources. Moreover, they have the clear endorsement of this government to implement appropriate, transparent enforcement of Work Health regulations with the support of the business community. Both Work Health and the Electrical Safety Branch, and the Employment and Training Division, gain from the increased capacity and financial management and business planning offered by the larger department.
Under the previous government, smaller agencies such as NTETA lacked sufficient power and the capacity to argue their case convincingly to Treasury and government on financial and budget issues. One wonders if that was not a convenient ploy for the previous government, that you had so many disempowered, segregated smaller agencies - none of which could convincingly take on the might of Treasury. It may well have suited the former Treasurer to have that disempowerment and segregation across the public sector, because that ensured his powerful position at the pinnacle of government along with the Chief Minister.
It is no wonder, in that context and climate, that it was difficult for employment and training to establish a solid budget base. Responsible government is about responsible financial management, and government needs to be well informed in developing the budget. Agencies need sufficient financial management capacity to ensure that happens. The new Department of Employment, Education and Training ensures this capacity for all the department’s programs, and the new department consolidates the Territory’s position when it is dealing with peak national bodies such as the Australian National Training Authority, Ministerial Council and the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. This enhances our capacity to negotiate the best possible deal for Territorians.
As minister, I have signed off on the new outcome areas to be addressed by DEET. These reflect the synergies and opportunities created by the amalgamation: learners for the future, workforce for the future, indigenous participation, and efficient and effective systems to meet diversity. I report that the amalgamation has been achieved within a very short timeframe, with minimal disruption to schools and other service providers connected with the organisations that have been combined - no redundancies and minimal physical relocations of office staff. The new departmental structure is in place with the main changes being: the creation of an Employment and Training Division; the appointment of a general manager who will finetune the structure of that division; the creation of a Work Health and Electrical Safety Branch; and the appointment of a director who will fine tune its structure.
New reporting arrangements for the various divisions and branches have been determined. These new arrangements have been communicated to all staff via a newsletter and the new departmental web site. They will result in increased professional development opportunities for staff and offer a greater choice of career paths. They create efficiencies through the rationalisation of support service in the areas of finance, human resource and information technology.
It is clear from what I said that this new Department of Employment, Education and Training is well set and it will play a key role in this government’s renewed focus on economic development, job creation, education and training, indigenous affairs, and sound financial management.
I also wish to inform the Assembly of the outcomes of the government’s deliberations concerning the administrative arrangements for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. It was subject to some debate in this Chamber at the last sittings. The Chief Minister identified the need for a review of the best administrative arrangements for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment prior to finalisation of this matter. The review has been conducted and the government has determined that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment will remain a separate, stand-alone agency which retains the core functions and resources of both the Employee Relations section and the Learning Centre, necessary to assist the commissioner in the performance of his or her statutory functions.
Those functions include: the maintenance of consistent and transparent public sector employment practices and procedures across agencies; the fair and efficient operation of mechanisms for individual employee appeals against disciplinary and promotion decisions; the oversight of negotiation settlement and registration of agency enterprise bargaining agreements and any industrial disputes arising between employees and agencies; the development of policy for the future management of Northern Territory Public Service-wide employment issues and initiatives.
The government believes it is imperative that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment not only continue to do what it has been doing, and doing well, but that it should develop its role as the lead agency responsible for service-wide issues such as strategic workforce, capability and succession planning. The inclusion of the key Learning Centre functions of a leadership program development and strategic planning programs within the Office of the Commissioner to work directly with the Employee Relations section, will enhance their role and generate important future capacity to meet the challenges before us. At the same time, some functions which have grown up within the Learning Centre but which are not essentially part of the Commissioner’s statutory role - such as the management and delivery of entry level programs and short courses, and also some corporate support functions, records management, and facilities management - will be transferred to the Department of Corporate and Information Services where they fit logically into the overall functions and responsibilities of that agency.
These changes are consistent with the restructuring and efficiency principles outlined in the government’s changes to administrative arrangements announced in November. The retention of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment as a separate, stand-alone agency will, I believe, be welcomed by Northern Territory public service employees as a whole. It not only retains the office as an independent and separate office with all of the current statutory duties and responsibilities as the statutory employer of Northern Territory public servants, it also enhances the capacity of the commissioner to perform those duties to the best of his or her ability.
Finally, the position of the Commissioner for Public Employment, which fell vacant with the retirement of the former commissioner, David Hawkes in December, will now be advertised and filled in accordance with the provisions of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. I know from personal experience, from submissions and from lengthy discussion with the former Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr David Hawkes, that that model preserving the independence and the integrity of the Office of the Public Service Commissioner as a separate agency, would be strongly welcomed and heartily endorsed by him.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I say at the outset that the opposition acknowledges the government’s prerogative to implement their own policies, and that includes the restructure of the public service. However, this statement does nothing to dispel the opposition’s concerns about how these changes are occurring. The statement itself is no more than a regurgitation of the press releases and statements that were made when these changes were first announced last November. Certainly, if one is looking for any more detail than what is in this particular statement, we are sadly disappointed. Again, it points to the fact that it constantly amazes me how weak the statements are that come from this Chief Minister.
It is important, though, in one respect and in that regard, the statement raises more questions and certainly no answers. For the first time, the Chief Minister has admitted that there have been and will be more job losses. She says - and I quote from her statement - firstly that, in terms of the delivery of services, she says:
- That is in line with the government’s vision for the Territory but to also achieve a sustainable budget.
She goes on to say:
- There will not be any forced redundancies, however …
And I believe this is the first time I have seen this admission other than when she slipped on a Julie Christensen interview:
- … as has always been the case, CEOs and employees, when they recognise that positions are redundant,
can negotiate voluntary redundancies, and this continues to occur.
This is in stark contrast to a litany of assurances given by the Chief Minister to the public service prior to the election and since - including when these changes were first announced. Most importantly, this statement and comments by both the Chief Minister and her ministers reveal that first, the public service is not growing but shrinking; second, job losses were intended despite assurances by the Chief Minister that there would be no job losses; senior public servants were not paid their entitlements but were given enticements to ensure their swift departure, despite assurances given that their jobs were secure.
I would say that on these three issues alone, it is clear that the Chief Minister has misled the parliament, the media, the public service and Territorians by the way this restructure has taken place. On 9 August last year, the member for Fannie Bay signed a pledge to Territory public sector workers stating, and I quote: ‘Under Labor there will be NO job losses from the public sector’. I seek leave to table a photograph of the member for Fannie Bay signing that pledge.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: On achieving government, this Chief Minister and government embarked on a total restructuring of the public service and, when questioned in this parliament about possible job losses, the Chief Minister said - and this is from Parliamentary Record at page 69 of the Questions section of Volume 2 of the Ninth Assembly:
- There is no program of voluntary redundancies, there are no job losses.
But today, the Chief Minister has finally admitted that there are voluntary redundancies going on as a result of the restructuring. At page 71 of the same section of Parliamentary Record, the Chief Minister said: ‘There are no job losses’. Now, the opposition said at the time that the Chief Minister was not telling the truth and, in this statement today, she has admitted it. At page 73 of the same section of Parliamentary Record, the Chief Minister said:
- Let me say again to our Territory public servants: there are no forced redundancies, there is no program
of voluntary redundancies, there are no job losses.
I say, tell that to the CEOs because, as the Chief Minister’s Minister for Justice revealed yesterday, she was in the very process of asking them to leave. Tell that to the public servants who, as the Deputy Chief Minister revealed yesterday, were the fact that they were getting rid of to create a leaner public service. I take the opportunity to table both of those transcripts.
I say to the Chief Minister, tell that to the Auditor-General, whose report reveals that if it looks like a termination or a sacking and smells like a termination or sacking, and is paid out like a termination or sacking, then it is probably a termination, a forced redundancy. Not only did the Chief Minister say that there would be no job losses - which was totally incorrect - not only did the Chief Minister say there would be no forced redundancies - again she was not telling the truth - not only did the Chief Minister say there would be no voluntary redundancies - the third time she did not tell the truth - but she also said, and again I refer to the same section of Parliamentary Record at page 75:
- … we are growing the public sector from the number of about 14 400-ish at the moment ...
Now, how does that stack up against the Deputy Chief Minister’s comment to Channel 8 last night where he said:
- We have, we think, a leaner, meaner, more efficient public service.
They would certainly be meaner, I reckon, in the context of being angrier. How does that stack up with reality? Of course, the answer is it does not stack up; it was yet another misleading of this parliament; a deliberate lie to this parliament.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has been here since 1994. If he does not know standing orders, he ought to.
Mr BURKE: I am prepared to put forward a substantive motion on the issue.
Mr STIRLING: But it is not a substantive motion, Madam Speaker, and he cannot infer lying. Withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: It was the context of you saying you said the Leader of Government Business lied and you know you cannot say that. So, just withdraw that and continue.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Let’s put this in context. The Chief Minister was making these statements about no job losses months after she had miraculously discovered the ‘black hole’. Despite whatever effect that was supposed to have on the budget, on the Territory, the Chief Minister was adamant and persistent in that particular lie that the restructuring of the public service would cause no job losses. At the same time, the Chief Minister was misleading this parliament and she was doing the same to the media. On 13 November, the Chief Minister told Julia Christiansen on ABC Drive Time program:
- Reporter: You said before the election and after the election there would be no forced redundancies?
Chief Minister: And there will be not any forced redundancies, absolutely 100%, no forced redundancies.
Reporter: You have just made one.
Chief Minister: There are always exceptional circumstances.
Now, I wonder what those CEOs who are being asked to leave, or those CEOs with whom the government was doing a deal at the time, thought of that particular exchange? It goes on:
- Reporter: Will there be voluntary redundancies?
Chief Minister: No, we want to see the public sector be able to do its job, very critical in terms of service
delivery for Territorians from Darwin to Alice, to our remote areas, and this agency agreement is all about
being able to deliver those services.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table an extract of the transcript of that particular interview.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then on 27 November in an interview with Fred McCue on the Morning Program on ABC radio, the Chief Minister was pushed to answer whether the public service would be smaller in 12 months time than it was on that day. After twice telling the Chief Minister she was not answering the question, he finally received this answer:
- Chief Minister: Bottom line is, Fred, there will be no forced redundancies in the Territory Public Service and
there will be no program of voluntary redundancies. That is very clear and is a very strong line from this
government.
Leave granted.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think he is getting to like that word and he shouldn’t be using it.
Madam SPEAKER: A point of order has been called on that last sentence where you accused the Chief Minister …
Mr BURKE: I withdrew the word ‘lie’, can I use ‘mislead’?
Madam SPEAKER: Mislead, yes.
Mr BURKE: She misled him at the very beginning of her political career, as we all know from the infamous article in the Sunday Territorian. Again, on 27 November and again in an interview with Julie Christiansen on ABC Drive Time, this exchange occurred:
- Reporter: How can that be done without job cuts. I mean, you have guaranteed there will be no job cuts but isn’t
it going to be tempting for the CEOs to say, ‘Okay, this is the way to cut our costs, we will get rid of some of these
jobs’?
Chief Minister: First thing, I ran over the last couple of weeks, workshops with CEOs and senior management
about how to work smarter in government; how to work more efficiently. There will be no forced redundancies,
there will be no program for voluntary redundancies. There are no job loss targets set, nothing like that.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, you will recall that, at this time, the CLP were raising the spectre of job cuts, job losses in the public service - so much so that, not content with just telling this House there’d be no voluntary redundancies, no job losses …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … the Chief Minister took the extraordinary step …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order! The Opposition Leader has the floor.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to all public servants and I quote from the letter:
- There has been public speculation of massive job losses in the public sector as a result of the mini-budget
measures. I can assure you this is not the case. As advised two weeks ago, while there will be savings in
senior executive management, there will be no forced redundancies and no voluntary redundancy program.
Now, let’s see what they said to the unions. On ABC TV news on 13 November, it was reported that the Public Sector Union was not worried about any job losses. The union’s Mark Hathaway appeared, saying:
- Essentially, we have been advised by the government that the amalgamation of agencies is going to have its
major effect at the top of those agencies.
Take another example. On 13 November, the Chief Minister told ABC Drive Time, and I quote:
- If you take an area like Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, you have got the area that incorporates
Transport and Works where Dave McHugh is still the most senior person there. You have got Lands,
Planning and Environment where John Pinney is …
The problem with this litany of lies is that they were unnecessary, if only the Chief Minister had the courage of her convictions. Why didn’t she just admit …
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he is again ascribing lying to the Chief Minister and should withdraw that.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. This litany of untruths - why didn’t she just admit that this new government planned to get rid of some senior managers and CEOs? Why didn’t she admit that voluntary redundancies would be offered to those down the line who found themselves redundant as a result of the restructuring? Why didn’t she just admit that, unfortunately, there would be job losses because this Labor government wanted a leaner, meaner public service? I ask the question why because it is a serious question. And the answer is, the Chief Minister will always get away from telling the truth; she will dissemble at every opportunity. She does it because she thinks she can get away with it. As you, yourself reported, Madam Speaker, only a few days ago when you said: ‘Enough of that Mona Lisa smile, we need some action’. Or, as Paul Toohey wrote in The Australian on 26 January this year when he said:
- She rarely departs from the pre-rehearsed script and questions disappear into the sad vacuum where they
bounce around unanswered for eternity.
Or, again, quoting Paul Toohey:
- Martin manages to make her interrogators sound like pestering nags while she, unflustered, comes across as
a stateswoman. It works for her, how long it will work for everyone else is another matter.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Stop misleading everyone.
Mr BURKE: Stop misleading everyone, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is, as said, endemic in the Chief Minister. Look at her record on the cost of living. For two and a half years, as Leader of the Opposition, she railed against the then government that they were doing nothing about the cost of living - it was a major issue. The Chief Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, said:
- A caring government will not stand aside while so many of their constituents suffer the burden of high prices.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Now, was she misleading when she was Leader of the Opposition, or is she misleading now on Sky News or does she just mislead and dissemble all the time? Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case. Only last week, the Chief Minister welcomed the endorsement of her government’s budget management by credit rating agency, Moody’s. She told this House how good that assessment was and she told everyone else through a media release, but nowhere did she acknowledge what Moody’s said. This government was facing – and I quote from the Moody’s assessment:
- Achievement of their slower pace of growth will be challenged by ongoing pressures in health, education and
justice, along with the expansion of services that are part of the new government’s mandate.
- The government’s current program of expenditure measures may be insufficient to offset these pressures.
More aggressive adjustments could become necessary.
What about the other ways this government is treating the public service? They have, down the line, public servants writing their dorothy dixers and writing their speeches, even though the now Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, only a few months ago in July last year, said that this should never be done. I refer him and this government to his speech recorded in Parliamentary Record Volume 29 of the Eighth Assembly at pages 8481 through to 8485. What about the media management meeting of the Chief Minister’s top staff within weeks of taking over? It ordered that all good news stories had to be reported by the departments direct to the Chief Minister’s media unit. He flagged how this government intended to:
- ... manipulate the media to ensure there was a spread of news - that is, rather than having two good news stories
on one day, having the two stories run over two or three days.
What about forcing the public service to send out political propaganda when they issue renewal notices for motor registration? How is it not politicising the public service when this government forces them to insert a flyer stating: ‘This levy is part of the government strategy to address the poor state of the Territory’s budget, and the unsustainable budget deficit inherited from the former government’? The government may believe that, but we dispute it. It is party politics, and it is something public servants should not be ordered to send out.
What about the weekly issue sheet that public servants have to fill in, under this government? They have to record every time an MLA contacts them, what the issue was, and what action was taken. This is not simply complying with the code of conduct under the public service Public Sector Employment and Management Act but rather, so that the weekly list can be passed up the chain of the department and then on to the minister’s office. These intimidatory tactics - politicising the public service, keeping watch on everyone - it is all of those, and it leaves public service, at all levels, living and working constantly under threat.
And what must those public servants now think, losing their jobs, when the staff on the fifth floor has burgeoned? The previous government had nine ministers, and that included the staff in Alice, Tennant and Canberra - a total all up of 72 ministerial staff. The equivalent figure for this government is 80. How many of them are off the books and still being paid out of their department’s budget, rather than the Chief Minister’s budget? This explosion of staff advising ministers goes to the very heart of why the Chief Minister is spreading mistruths about the cuts to ministerial budget. It was the Chief Minister who said - and I emphasise, before the election - that she would save $2m simply by cutting the ministry from nine to seven. Now she claims it is all part of her black hole strategy.
It was the Chief Minister who should have known - or else didn’t want to say to anyone - that cutting the ministry by two has no effect on the ministerial budget, because their salaries are paid out of the Legislative Assembly’s budget. The only way she’d achieve a cut of $2m was to cut the ministerial staff and, instead, she has increased it. She has not cut their budget by 27%, but by a meagre 6.8%, and the figures tell the story, not the Chief Minister - just as she was caught out by the Auditor-General over her spending when she was Leader of the Opposition. She used - this might be a bit of trivia for the day - enough paper at the taxpayers’ expense to cover the white line on the Stuart Highway from Darwin down to Pine Creek. As the Auditor-General has pointed out, of the particular examples that he examined, 50% of that paper was used for party political purposes.
Dr Toyne: They’ve researched this! They must have been on this for weeks!
Mr BURKE: You would be smiling too - a lot of it went directly to your electorate. If you had an ounce of integrity, you’d pay it back.
Dr Burns: Who are you pointing to?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the member for Johnston I am referring to, also the member for Karama sitting behind him, and the member for Sanderson sitting over there – every one of them. If any one of them had an ounce of integrity, they’d be making rumblings in the Labor Party to at least pay back the 50% that the Auditor-General has clearly pointed out was misappropriated from taxpayers. We said she was running the Labor Party campaign out of the Opposition Leader’s office at the expense of the taxpayer and she denied it. As the Auditor-General report shows yet again, she has a strange idea of what the truth is.
What about the exchange with ABC’s Morning Program on the 30 December last year, when she had to explain why she was no longer going to save $50m on government consultancies? The Chief Minister told the interviewer:
- Well, we didn’t have all the details of all those consultancies, and we subsequently discovered that some
of those consultancies are actually health classified; they’re medical specialists as consultancies.
Even the interviewer knew she was being fed porkies on that one. The interviewer said:
- How can you claim ignorance though, on this? It would have been a vital issue, and an issue that came up
consistently in appropriation debates with yourself and other Labor members asking specific questions and …
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be set aside to allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish his comments.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The interviewer was correct, as any perusal of any Hansard budget debate shows that the Chief Minister persisted, because when she’s on a good mistruth, she sticks to it. I’ve not even touched on the policy backflips; the lies about how she voted on the statehood referendum; the blatant discrepancies between the document Access were given to cost and that bought in as part of the mini-budget …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Could you rephrase that, Leader of the Opposition, about the untruths of the statehood?
Mr BURKE: I’ve not even touched on the policy backflips or the mistruths of how she voted on the statehood referendum. The Chief Minister proclaimed, before coming to office, that she would head an open, honest, and accountable government. In the opposition’s opinion, she has achieved none of this. By this very basic flaw in her character, this need to tell a story - this character needs to spin a version, tell mistruths - that she is corrupting this government and its relations with this House, the public service, the media and Territorians. Her action today, both by herself and her government, and every member of this parliament - particularly those younger ones, who all said in their initial speeches to this parliament about how honoured they were to be part of the democratic process - to gag a censure motion under the Westminster system. Considering you, yourselves, have raised two censure motions by government against the opposition in the short time this House has sat since you came into government - one against one member of the opposition - and to not allow a censure motion from the opposition in return, is an absolute disgrace, and it spells the death knell of democracy in the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I condemn the motion.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition feels a bit better now that he has had a half hour whinge about the usual topic of his life these days.
Dr Burns: There is no evidence.
Mr Elferink: The idea is to allow for evidence, you wally. That’s why you bring the motion on. You have no idea how the system works, mate, and you have no idea what sort of an affront, what just happened to these people.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you are talking across the Chamber. Enough! Order! The Attorney-General has the floor, you do not.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, like a ship with no rudder, he could not change his tune when he was not offered the censure motion, and decided to do it anyway, with a few amendments. Well, that’s okay, you have had your shot. It is on Hansard, so you can be satisfied.
I am pleased to report on progress in implementing the agency restructure of my two departments: the Department of Corporate and Information Services and the new Department of Justice. Before moving to the detail of that, I would like to pay tribute to my CEOs, Richard Coates and Sarah Butterworth. It is certainly a pleasure to work with two professionals with the ability and commitment of Richard and Sarah. I would also like to pay tribute to the professionalism of our former CEOs within the two departments for which I have carriage, in accepting and working within the changed structure. To have recognised that the government of the day wanted to bring about those reforms, and to renew their enthusiasm for the work that they’re doing, is a tribute to their commitment to their profession.
To take the Department of Corporate and Information Services firstly, the changes made to the DCIS as part of the agency restructure in November were:
- (1) the transfer of the NT Library and Information Service to the new Department of Community Development,
Sport and Cultural Affairs;
(2) the transfer of the NT Superannuation Office to Treasury;
(3) the transfer of NT Property Management to DCIS from the Officer of Public Employment;
(4) the transfer of NT Fleet to DCIS from the Department of Transport and Works; and
(5) the transfer of telecommunications function to DCIS from the Office of Communications, Science and
Technology.
The changes have strengthened DCIS’s role as a central service provider for the NTG agencies; the additional functions of property and light vehicle fleet management complement the existing suite of services that DCIS already delivered to agencies. DCIS has developed a costing model in order to charge DBDs for its services, and it will now be able to extend this to all its customers, at least in notional terms, so that the full cost of line agency outputs is readily available …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! State of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells, we do not have a quorum. We only have eight, ring the bells.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr Elferink: It is called obeying the rules, something that you guys have totally forgotten about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, don’t start!
Mr Elferink: It is up to you guys to keep a quorum, you are the government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you have already been spoken to once about speaking across the Chamber. We have enough now.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The rigour of the DCIS costing model is currently being applied to property management to enable fully justified charges to agencies in future. As a GBD, NT Fleet joins DCIS’s other two GBDs - the Government Printing Office and the Occupation Technical Management Services - in providing services predominantly to NTG agencies.
I am particularly pleased that the telecommunication functions have been transferred into my portfolio. Already, the Communications Unit has worked hard to realise the Northern Territory government’s commitment to support the outback digital networks bids for up to $20.3m funding under the Networking the Nation Program and the National Communications Fund, which will be used to build remote telecommunications services throughout the Northern Territory.
I was sorry to see the departure of NT Libraries and Information Services to Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. It is an area in which I maintain a keen interest, but acknowledge its better strategic fit within the cultural affairs portfolio and the able management of this area by my ministerial colleague.
DCIS has undergone a very smooth transition which was finalised well before Christmas. The agency was particularly fortunate in that the managers of both Properties and Fleet had previously expressed a desire to be part of DCIS due the closer synergies than with their previous agencies. They have readily been integrated into the DCIS planning framework, reporting requirements, and the strong communication practices within the agency. There were no specific savings associated with the changes to DCIS structure but, like all agencies, DCIS has had to achieve budget improvement targets and has developed a comprehensive and inclusive approach, which involves a wide range of work units, in meeting the challenge. DCIS will shortly be embarking on a customer survey to assess the extent to which it is meeting its customers’ needs and to identify areas for improvement. The survey will encompass the new services and will provide a further opportunity for DCIS to present as a cohesive, central service provider.
Before I finish with DCIS, I would like to pay acknowledgement to a particularly exciting area within the DCIS development. That is the development of Wizard Systems for accounts payable and accounts receivable. The introduction of the GST brought many complications in the way payments and revenue are processed. DCIS, since its inception, had a major focus for what it terms working smarter, or otherwise known as process improvement. The Percy Allan report recommended the review of back office systems for efficiency. Through DCIS’ focus towards working smarter, many of these reviews were already well underway, one of which is known to the finance people working in the agency as the Wizard. The Wizard is a term which symbolises the quickness and mastery of delivering the processes to DCIS employees in a more efficient and logical manner using the very latest technology.
The Northern Territory government is at the forefront with this technology, with one of only two sites operating in production world-wide. The technology has enabled the development of more efficient screens for data entry; it provides calculations; real time validations; checks and instructions to operators in the application of their processes. It also automates communication through electronic mail between DCIS regions and client agencies. The Wizard is an interactive product which delivers an efficient and cost-effective processing mechanism that allows provision of a value-added service to our clients. The Wizards have been developed for processes surrounding accounts receivable, accounts payable, fixed assets and purchase order. Accounts receivable and accounts payable Wizards are currently in production to a higher level.
Because of the innovative and newness of this technology, DCIS has risen to the challenge of solving many technology problems and barriers. This has been done through a cross-sharing of ideas and free-flowing communication between the private sector, interstate and overseas, and many skill bases within DCIS. Mostly it has been through a strong determination to arrive at a more efficient process. Many interested international and national users of the system on which our government accounting system, GAS, is based, attended a conference in Adelaide last year and were very interested in this and other innovative developments in the Northern Territory.
I just want to say, in closing on this particular topic, I want to express my gratitude to the DCIS staff and contractors who have carried out the work on the Wizards and wish them every success in the ongoing development of this exciting project. That translates into mountains of paper that was previously processed, which is now going to be done in a very concentrated way through a series of screens for which DCIS staff are being trained in the appropriate areas. I definitely think we are moving very well in that area.
The restructure created the Department of Justice by combining the former Attorney-General’s Department, Office of Public Prosecutions, Public Trustee, Registrar-General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Anti-Discrimination Commission and the Office of Courts Administration. In addition, staff from the Criminal Justice Statistics Group and a number of policy officers from the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services have been brought together in the Department of Justice to form the new Office of Crime Prevention. These staff numbers will be boosted by an addition of five new positions in the year 2002-03. The amalgamation of these agencies into the new Department of Justice created a number of organisational and administrative challenges for its new CEO, Mr Richard Coates.
I am pleased to be able to report on the significant achievements made in progressing the amalgamation of those different agencies and the positive benefits which have started to flow. Rationalisation processes are well underway; they will achieve significant savings in the cost of providing corporate services across the new department, and will share expertise that is needed for the move to accrual accounting. Previously, each of the former agencies was responsible for their own human resources, financial management and information technology needs. Resources were being diverted from their core business needs to maintain a proper level of corporate services. This was unrealistic for the smaller agencies, one of which had only nine employees.
I am also pleased to be able to report that several NT government agencies have approached the new Department of Justice to explore the possibility of expanding the level of legal services it provides. The department is working on options which could lead to more cost-effective legal services for the government.
Already, the benefits of using the skills of staff from different areas which are now encompassed within the new department, are beginning to be seen. For example, a policy officer from the former Attorney-General’s Policy Division, with investigation experience, has conducted inquiries for the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. A prosecutor from DPP has filled a temporary vacancy in the policy area, bringing specific skills and knowledge relevant to the development of the proceeds of crime legislation and other technical expertise in an area of implementation of the three-point plan on drugs. In turn, a legal policy officer was, on short notice, able to fill the position of Sheriff at the Supreme Court when that position became temporarily vacant. Policy officers from the Office of Consumer Affairs, which had been located within the Department of Industries, Business and Resource Development, have been co-located within the department’s Legal Policy Division. They bring practical, valuable commercial experience with them and are now working in an environment where they can rely on the extensive legal experience of the department’s policy lawyers, providing greater depth in commercial and related areas of policy development.
The training of articled law clerks and young lawyers will now be broadened, as they will be able to rotate through a number of different areas in the new department. Through the greater pool of legal expertise, the department is now in a position to re-institute the position of Crown Counsel, who will provide high-level legal advice to government and work on larger legal issues with the Solicitor-General. It is expected that, through the new pool of legal expertise, savings will be made through less reliance on consultants.
Concerns were expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner about the independence of their officers under these new arrangements. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act ensures by statute the independent exercise of the director’s powers and functions, and the Public Sector Employment and Management Act has been amended to ensure that the CEO of the Department of Justice can make delegations to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable the director to continue to make decisions on matters such as the staffing, promotions and other administrative matters like travel and finance. These delegations are being finalised after extensive consultation with the DPP. Late last year, I had discussions with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and invited him to bring proposals to me if he had any continuing concerns about his independence. He has brought nothing forward to me and has certainly indicated that he is happy with the way things are progressing.
I have also continued to address these matters which will strengthen the independence of the Northern Territory judiciary. Provisions of the Magistrates Act as they currently stand - and as they have stood for some years - give the government the power to reduce or vary the conditions of serving magistrates to their detriment. I have requested my department to commence, in the latter part of this year, a review of the Magistrates Act with a view to protecting the terms and conditions of magistrates during their period of office. I look forward to bringing this, and other amendments which may be necessary to further this important purpose, before the House. Overall, the amalgamation has brought together a number of departments involving the justice system, and created a strong agency with staff with wide skills and experience.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to note the significant progress achieved by the new Department of Justice in successfully implementing the amalgamation, and the continuing very good work of the Department of Corporate and Information Services under the new arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to address the statement by the Chief Minister. I begin by addressing a certain document which, according to the members opposite, by this stage should be written in Cantonese for all of their understanding of it. The document I draw members’ attention to is the Labor Good Government policy document.
Dr Burns: Well, he can still join.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am astonished that I already have to start to deal with the interjections from the members opposite. ‘I can still join’, says the member for Johnston. Well, quite frankly, I would not want to join a party which is as treacherous to its own causes as this one is in this Chamber today.
I draw the members’ attention to Good Government, page 8, their document:
- Good government and the credibility of the public service demands a public service that is able to give
frank, fearless advice.
And yet, what do we see occurring in this Chamber? We see members opposite glibly coming in here and rattling their names off, saying: ‘Oh, we know which political party this person is a member of’ and ‘Oh, we know what political party that person is a member of’. ‘We know who you are,’ they say, and as a consequence of that, how is the public service supposed to give fearless advice when they talk about members of political parties in this Chamber, like the cowards that they have become?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an astonishing situation that we find ourselves in here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. But I can tell you something: these people come in here and they say that they believe in good government. They went to the election on a policy of good government. This document here is the one that they provided to the people of the Northern Territory and yet, they name individual public servants - they are not even senior public servants; we are talking about middle level public servants and lower - in this Chamber, associating their political persuasions with them.
We have the Minister for Police making public comments about: ‘Well, we know that 70% of the police force votes for the CLP’. Well, that is an extraordinary thing for a minister of the Crown to say - an extraordinary thing. It is an outrageous thing for the minister to say. They are in the process of politicising the public service, despite the fact that they have created a Good Government document which they delivered to the people of the Northern Territory. It was deceptive and it was untrue.
I draw them to the next sentence in this Good Government document:
- Labor believes that our public servants should not be required to act as political advisors to a government
that is ready to blur the lines between political and public needs.
How many departmental staffers work on the fifth floor? How many departmental staffers are there up there working today? Well, I would have expected an interjection: ‘None. None, Madam Speaker,’ but no! The point is that there are departmental people working on the fifth floor. They are in the process of politicising the public service. The Minister for Police, by even suggesting which way he believes public servants under his control would vote, is politicising the public service. It is an outrage, and it is far beyond the scope of anything that they suggested in this document when they went to the last election.
That document goes onto say:
- Labor strongly believes that a good government is not served by major disruption to the public service.
They have been gutting the public service. We have not yet had laid on the table - promised by the minister during Question Time today - the numbers and the figures of the public service back in August. Now I note that he has to go and get those particular documents.
Mr Stirling: I will go and find out where they are.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you promised them, but you are not prepared to do it - until such time as the Minister for Police has to be prompted into doing it.
I draw members’ attention to page 59 of Budget Paper No 3. If you look at that item, it deals with insurances. Because they came up with a figure of $60m there, and they have to then place into that budget paper a figure that they do not like, what do they do? They leave it blank. It is not a zero entry. Nothing. It is blank; it is just a blank space in a place where there is supposed to be an entry. How is this honest, and how is this accountable to the people of the Northern Territory?
This is the government that was going to provide for the people of the Northern Territory honest, accountable, open government. On the very first instance that they get an opportunity to take a censure motion which they invited, they shut it down before it could even be put to a vote. This parliamentary Chamber has become a disgrace because of the way that this government, which complained bitterly how badly they were treated that it inspired them to put in their Good Government document comments such as:
- Much of the parliament’s time currently revolves around the use or misuse of ministerial statements. Many
provide little real information for the citizens of the Territory, are highly political in nature and followed
with a multitude of speakers from the government side of the House.
What is their response? They give us more ministerial statements and they give us ministerial reports. Wonderful stuff. Ministerial reports - they have doubled up on it. And what are they actually doing? They are dropping their dead hand upon this Chamber; a dead hand that they have absolutely no intention of lifting despite the fact that they took this to the people of the Northern Territory and said: ‘This is our policy position’. I can see the members opposite: this irritates them and I am sure it annoys them to hear this sort of stuff. But, frankly, they have to hear it, because I sat here in the Chamber the other night and spoke in relation to the quality of some of the debates that come before this House, and the member for Johnston - I talked about the sanctity of the House and you, yourself, Madam Speaker, addressing the parliament prior to Question Time, talked about the decorum and the sanctity of this House - sat there and nodded, I recall, and agreed with what I was saying or appeared to, at least. Then, why on earth would you come into a place called a parliament and try to crush debate? The very name ‘parliament’ comes from the French to parle: to talk. This is a place of debate and yet, when this mob, this rabble across the other side of the Chamber here, do not want to hear it because it does not suit them, they just stop debate; not even giving a chance for the case to be put.
The Leader of the Opposition was moving a motion. He was in the process of moving a motion and he was shut down. When he sought even a simple right to vote, it was denied by the members opposite and by the Leader of Government Business. This is open, this is honest, this is accountable government?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe that the member is reflecting on your decision that you took, on advice from the Clerk, that there was no opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to call for a division once there was no question before the Chair and once you have ruled. If the member for Macdonnell wants to call your decision and your judgment into argument, then I certainly believe that you need to put him straight.
Mr Elferink: What have you got against voting?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, no. This is an outrage.
Madam SPEAKER: I – excuse me!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I do not care. This Chamber is stopped …
Madam SPEAKER: I am warning you!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, this Chamber is being used and we are being …
Madam SPEAKER: I am warning you! You are speaking out of order. Let me finish.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker – all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, what I am saying to you is that, if your comments were meant to reflect on my decision, then you should withdraw them. If they had some other interpretation, then please explain.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, my interpretation is that that rabble over there, that outrageous rabble who believe in the parliamentary system, who believe in debate, who believe in open and accountable government, have come into this Chamber and they have become much, much worse in the space of six months than they could ever have accused us of in 26 years. Frankly, I do not care what the minister thinks. The fact of the matter is that they are deliberately trying to deny members on this side even the right to vote.
What the hell is the point of having a bloody - sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No, withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that. What is the point of having a parliamentary Chamber …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I am getting a little tired of your overbearing manner. You will …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, we are being …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a moment. We have a point of order.
Mr Elferink: We are being gagged by this lot …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am going to gag you in a minute. I am going to throw you out if you do not stop.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, I believe that he is reflecting on a decision that you made in the Chair in regard to whether the Leader of the Opposition could call for a division on previous debate in this House. You made a ruling and he is reflecting on that ruling.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the member withdrew his remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I apologise and I withdraw those remarks, but I point out to the members opposite that this House is a place of debate, and that privilege, that right, I daresay, is being denied, and it is being denied in their approach to this Chamber. It is they who claim to be the representatives of the people of the Northern Territory. They claim to uphold, held their hand over their heart, and said: ‘We will provide an open and honest accountable system of government’, but they deny the right to debate. They intend to deny every opportunity of the right to vote. They have been miscreant, to say the least, in their approach.
To sit here and gag the censure that they invited, after delivering two censures themselves in this House against members of this side of the House - and I refer to page 328 of the House of Representatives Practice that:
- … again, the passage of a motion censuring the opposition has no substantive effect. On one occasion,
a notice of motion for the purpose of moving that an address be presented to the Governor-General
informing him that the opposition invited a censure of the House was ruled out of order on the grounds
that it was fruitless.
Now, these members opposite have the audacity to suggest that a motion that hasn’t even been spoken to - they have no idea of the substance behind that motion - is fruitless, when they had pushed through, rammed through this House, motions which have been deemed in the House of Representatives to be frivolous. They have given up on this parliamentary process. Their idea of a parliamentary process is not to allow debate, but to sit like a dead weight on the chest of Territorians.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this mob approach the parliamentary process with such glibness - and I notice that they are all laughing and having a wonderful time at the moment, and they are so much enjoying their position - but frankly, I have never seen arrogance in this House equal to what’s happening over there. I know that they are enjoying their newfound power but, where is the quality of their Good Government paper? Would it be that their approach to this parliament is so immature that they actually want to ignore their Good Government paper on no other grounds than they can rub it in the nose of the CLP?
Dr Burns: Well, we are introducing FOI. That’s in there as well.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not going to rise to that particular issue because I am going to follow the rules of this House and not preempt debate.
I draw the attention of those members opposite to their Good Government paper – well, the whole document for a start.
Mr Henderson: At least we have policies.
Mr ELFERINK: Well what’s the use of publishing policies, you fool, if you are not going to stick to them?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is outrageous. It is all right for those clowns to sit over there …
Madam SPEAKER: I have spoken today and I expect you to respect that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not reflecting on you. I withdraw the comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Right. I am not quite sure why you are so angry at the moment. Just get on with the debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am angry with them, and I will tell you why I am angry with them: it is because everything that they promised has been a bald-faced untruth.
Ms Lawrie: Have you looked at the last 26 years?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that’s the interjection I was waiting for: ‘Have you looked at the last 26 years?’ You guys were going to fix it. What you have done is come back and been much worse. You have been much worse in your approach to the governance of the Northern Territory than the CLP ever was. That’s my problem: is that you guys came out with a promise to people of the Territory which was essentially a lie. Madam Speaker, I have not called any member opposite a liar, before they get to their feet.
I remind them, in conclusion, in their Good Government statement:
- Labor is concerned with the priorities and conventions of government. Labor has been astounded by the CLP’s
willingness to undermine well-accepted parliamentary democratic processes and traditions to further their
positions of power which, in turn, detract from the Territory’s path towards statehood. We will move quickly to
make sure that respect for the parliamentary process and political life is restored. It is to no one’s benefit to have
doubts thrown over the motives and activities of people participating in public life.
Do you believe that?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Then, why on earth did you guys support - Madam Speaker, why did those members opposite who agreed with what I just read out, support the gagging of a censure motion?
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Hypocrisy, that’s what it is. And how did you know - Madam Speaker, how did the member for Johnston know, in your case ...
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you direct the member to address his comments to the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: That’s a very good idea, I think, perhaps if you speak to me.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Johnston voted to gag a debate - voted to gag a debate. He says he supports this stuff, but he voted to gag a debate. And he says: ‘Oh, yeah but the censure was frivolous’. How did he know that? It didn’t get debated. The motion wasn’t even put; it was shut down. He had no way of knowing what the censure motion would be. There could have been a particularly good reason, an absolutely unassailable reason to censure the Chief Minister, and he had no idea because he was not prepared to listen to the argument, and he is a hypocrite as a result. Each and every one of those new members opposite who is interjecting saying: ‘Ha, ha, ha, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah; it’s all tough for the CLP’, are being hypocrites because they aren’t engaging in the debate process. They have no interest in the good government of the Northern Territory. They do not care about this parliamentary process and they are a disgrace. They are an absolute disgrace to everything that they planned and stood for.
They have fallen like a dead hand across this Chamber. The Minister for Police talks about the idea of responsible government and referred to it in his comments, and then talked about fiscal management. The term ‘responsible government’, for the edification of the Minister for Police, is not managing this responsibly or managing that responsibly; the concept comes from the idea that the government is responsible to the parliament, the sovereign people, who are representatives of democracy.
They are not allowing debate to occur. They have no intention of becoming responsible to this parliament. They have tried their hardest to shut down debate when it doesn’t suit them to hear it, and they are not reflecting, in any way, the processes of responsible government. The fact is that they have shut down a censure motion without listening to the arguments, and that is a disgrace and, as a consequence, all members of that government who voted to shut down that censure motion, are equally disgraceful.
You have betrayed Territorians in terms of abandoning this document and you stand condemned for it. You guys have to go out there and explain to Territorians – Madam Speaker, the members opposite have to go out and explain to Territorians why they have not lived up to their promises. And they have not; they have done a miserable job.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I will try very hard not to be drawn into the provocative comments from the member for Macdonnell, delivered with his usual alacrity - but really, very precious and sanctimonious comments from the member for Macdonnell. I will go through some of his issues.
The censure motion is, as this House knows, the most serious motion that you can bring before the parliament. It allows unhindered debate, allegations to be put, in terms of decisions that have been made by ministers, casting aspersions on whether ministers have told the truth or not, and it does provide for a forum in our system of parliamentary democracy to have an unhindered debate. But, in terms of moving a censure motion - and the opposition had the whole of Question Time to lead into this censure motion - they absolutely did not substantiate any of the allegations that were put in Question Time today. Questions rambled all over the place: there was no theme, structure and, certainly, no evidence to support the substance of a censure motion that the Leader of the Opposition tried to put before the parliament. If we had that censure motion, we would have lowered the bar that would have allowed, at any time, any of those members opposite to come in here and make totally frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against any member of government, and suspend the business of the House for a couple of hours. This is, obviously, the tactics of the new opposition, post their love-in last weekend - or whenever it was - in terms of regrouping …
Dr Burns: Lake Bennett.
Mr HENDERSON: … down at Lake Bennett. Thank you, member for Johnston. We’ve obviously seen what these tactics are going to be, and it is to target people with unsubstantiated allegations. It started off last week - this amazing attack that has withered on the vine and gone nowhere - on my colleague the member for Arnhem, where the member for Goyder came into this House and used parliamentary privilege and accused a minister of intervening in the public service; directing a prison officer to make a decision in regard to Aboriginal prisoners. That’s a very, very solid allegation to make. It raged for three days, but with not one shred of evidence to substantiate that argument.
The Leader of the Opposition, again, came in here today and raised allegations in terms of public servants with their heads being cut off, and morale through the floor; but absolutely no substance to the allegations whatsoever. What the opposition is doing is very much treating this parliament with contempt; the rules of debate in this House with absolute contempt. Their position in this House - a very responsible position in terms of holding the government accountable and holding ministers accountable - and they walk into this House and make totally unfounded allegations based on rumour and innuendo, and then want to have a forum where, essentially, they can basically tell lies about any particular minister and not substantiate it.
Well, they are going to have to do a lot better than that. If they want a censure motion to get up - and I’ve only been in this parliament for two-and-a-half years, but two years of that in opposition. In terms of us bringing a censure motion when we were in opposition, we certainly didn’t do it lightly, we certainly didn’t do it frivolously. I would urge members opposite to go back through the Parliamentary Record and look at one time when we did bring a censure motion where we didn’t have substantial evidence to support it. We have nothing from those members opposite …
Mr Baldwin: Almost every time.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Daly, you can get up in response afterwards and show any occasion where we just waltzed in here with unsubstantiated allegations, and wanted to suspend business before the House.
If we look at what happened here today, as well, the Leader of the Opposition certainly knew what was coming from the Deputy Chief Minister - it will probably be revisited tomorrow. He certainly didn’t want to hear what was coming from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If the pious member for Macdonnell wants to talk about governments and the responsibility of government, some of the issues and decisions that were made in regards to particular staff members whilst the election campaign was actually in full swing, well, they’ll get it with both barrels tomorrow.
The other point that the member for Macdonnell made in regards to politicising public servants: again, absolutely unsubstantiated allegations. For the member for Macdonnell to target public servants who are working on the fifth floor of Parliament House, in the majority of occasions …
Mr Elferink: Page 36 of last week’s Hansard, you wally!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … the majority of cases in very technical areas - I have members of the public service working in my office on the fifth floor in technical areas; they’re not being politicised. The previous government did exactly the same thing. To target those public servants and to suggest that those public servants are allowing themselves to be politicised by some form of osmosis that might be in the rarefied atmosphere up there on the fifth floor, is an absolute insult to those public servants. They would not come and work in a ministerial office in anything other than their capacity as public servants, giving advice to ministers in the areas of which they have responsibility, and in which those public servants have the expertise. Members opposite who were ministers did that for many years.
Again, if he wants to grandstand on issues in terms of our Good Government document, what we will do in being a responsible government - and we will honour each and every one of those commitments in that document - is that we will present financial information, through the budget papers, to the people of the Northern Territory which is true, accurate and correct - not within eight weeks of being tabled before this House, those budget papers being absolutely proven to be an absolute lie to the people of the Northern Territory to the tune of $107m. We certainly will not be doing that; they will forever stand condemned in terms of lying to the people of the Northern Territory, misrepresenting …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member cannot make allegations of that type without a substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to withdraw the comment?
Mr HENDERSON: I will withdraw the word ‘lie’, but I certainly will stand by ‘misrepresenting’ the true nature of the accounts to the people of the Northern Territory. We have moved immediately to introduce fiscal integrity legislation to ensure that that misrepresentation of the most fundamentally important aspect of government - which is the fiscal regime - never occurs again.
Mr Elferink: What fiscal integrity is there in a blank sheet of paper? It is blank; you have not filled in the details.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, can you please resist the temptation to interject constantly?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, the member opposite is making allegations about good budgetary management when he is absolutely incapable of reading Budget Paper No 3, where he has failed to fill in the blanks.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, the member for Wanguri has the floor at the moment.
Mr Elferink: Well then, he should tell the truth.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not like to hear it, and they will forever be judged by it. Everybody in the community knows the absolute misrepresentation and the fraud that were the budget papers that were handed down in this House eight weeks before the election.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Fraud actually has a criminal connotation …
Dr Burns: And a moral one.
Mr DUNHAM: … and it is in one of those allegations, if it is made, about members in this House akin to words like ‘misappropriation’, ‘fraud’, ‘deception’. All of those words were used previously in a censure motion and cannot be used in other than a censure motion, if this minister wants to keep talking like that.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I did not accuse any individual member of the opposition of fraud. What I did say was that the budget papers that were tabled before this parliament - so an object, being the budget papers - were fraudulent and misrepresented the true state of the Northern Territory government finances. I have not accused any individual members opposite of fraud.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice on the point of order. If you do not address the individual, it is okay, is the advice I’ve received. So, the member for Wanguri should continue his speech.
Mr Dunham: You’re a bunch of frauds!
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It’s okay. I can cop it. I can cop it.
We will also be introducing freedom of information legislation into this parliament, which is something the previous government, and governments over many years - in spite of election commitments 1994, 1997 - absolutely failed to do. For the member for Macdonnell to come in here and puff his chest out and carry on in his sanctimonious manner, well, we will be judged at the end of our four-year term in terms of the quality and integrity of this government. I am sure that history will treat us well.
Moving on to supporting the Chief Minister’s statements, I would like to inform the parliament regarding the restructure of my new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. My department was created on 13 November 2001 from four previous departments: Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Industries and Business, and Asian Relations and Trade. Those four departments were abolished, along with the former Office of Resource Development previously located within the Department of Mines and Energy. The former Department of Industries and Business was made up of both industry developments and industry regulatory components - a major task involved in the dissection of that department, with parts going to six agencies under the new arrangements. These involved the transfer of staff and budgets of: industry development functions of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development; Racing and Gaming and related functions to NT Treasury; Work Health to the Department of Employment, Education and Training; Consumer Affairs and related functions to the Department of Justice; tourism development to the NT Tourism Commission, and that has been a great move; and regional development to the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
Staff transfers have been completed and budget dissections agreed after extensive evaluation and negotiation and a fair degree of argy-bargy, I would say, between the agencies and Treasury. Similarly, some eight positions in the corresponding budget, from within the former Office of Resource Development, have been identified for gas development functions and transferred to the new Office of Territory Development within the Department of the Chief Minister. All other staff and budgets of the former four industries departments are now part of the new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development, hereon known as DBIRD.
In working through these dissections, a number of acts involving industry regulation that had remained with my departments under the 13 November 2001 Administrative Arrangements Order, have been identified for better placement with other agencies. It is proposed these will transfer over the next set of amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Order. There is no specific legislation needed, however, to either create the new department or to put the transfer arrangements into effect. With the amalgamation of these four departments, the new department has been structured to ensure its industry client base can readily identify where to access the department for its requirements. This includes a strong regional presence being incorporated into the structure.
The new department is structured in five principal groups being: Minerals and Energy, Primary Industry, Fisheries, Business and Trade Development, and Strategic Services. In addition there are three regional offices in Central Australia, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Fisheries has been separated from primary industry in recognition of the significance of that sector in recreational and commercial fisheries management and development, and in furthering the development of aquaculture. I know that the officers who work in the Fisheries Division are very excited about that move and they are given recognition in their own right, in terms of the agency structure of the absolute importance of developing our fisheries base in the Northern Territory.
This government has announced a further number of initiatives to enhance recreational fishing and the benefits it brings to the Northern Territory. These were outlined in the November mini-budget, including increased funding to AFANT, facilitating improved access agreements with both indigenous land owners and pastoral lease holders, and improved infrastructure and other indigenous programs including establishing community fisheries officers. The stand-alone fisheries group within the department will be able to focus on these initiatives, along with the ongoing work of researching and managing the Territory’s valuable fisheries resource.
Aquaculture is an example of where bringing the resources of government industry agencies together will enhance assisting an emerging industry. Much of government focus to date has been on research and development at the biological and hatchery end, and appropriate technical extension services. The new department will be better positioned to provide assistance in the commercial development aspects of the industry, and to help coordinate strategic requirements across other government agencies. Actually, commercialising that science that has been developed, is now a key focus of the division.
A major task in the department has been the pulling together of the industry development and commercial sections of the four previous industry agencies. The services previously provided by the Department of Industries and Business and the Department of Asian Relations and Trade have been combined, recognising that local, national and international components of commercial development need to interrelate for the growth of our industry sectors. Units pursuing supply and service of oil and gas and mining are being combined with those pursuing defence support, as there are a number of synergies in the work they do and the resultant building of Territory industry capability. Financial assistance arrangements previously operated in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries are being combined with those of the old Department of Industries and Business to again bring some efficiencies in the conduct of similar activities.
The new business and trade development group brings together all these skills and will maintain a commercial focus on outcomes being sought by government and the business sector. Obviously, there will be a close liaison with the new Office of Territory Development, particularly in investment attraction programs, and securing the flow-on benefits to the Territory of major project initiatives such as gas developments pursued by the Office of Territory Development. Within the department a new strategic services group has been established to place more emphasis on targeting the activities of the department and providing advice for portfolio directions. Within this unit the Asian relations component of the previous Department of Asian Relations and Trade will work up strategies for our engagement with Asian countries with a view to being more targeted on achievable outcomes. The unit is reviewing our overseas representation in Asia to ensure best value for money, and that work programs are coordinated back to real industry needs here in the Northern Territory.
This strategic services group will also house the information management and public relations and communications functions of the departments, and continue other strategic departmental initiatives such as the future expansion of the Ord River Scheme into the Northern Territory and the development of the Katherine/Daly basin for agricultural purposes and its coordination across other government agencies.
The policy development and coordination cell of strategic services will continue to provide coordination of the economic summit outcomes and will coordinate the conduct of the Chief Minister’s business round tables and follow up their outcomes. This group will put increased emphasis on industry development policies, including local content and industry capacity building, international trade strategy, economic evaluation across industry sectors and broad industry focus on economic advice to government. Strategic services will also include legislative and legal services, ministerial liaison, and the department’s corporate planning and corporate government’s functions.
The minerals and energy group will continue its prime focus on developing the geological information base of the Northern Territory and the attraction of exploration by the mining sector. The key functions are mining tenure, land access and occupational health and safety, and mining operations will remain within this group both for the mining sector and for petroleum, including offshore exploration and upstream developments. With the creation of the national Ministerial Council on Energy, this group now plays an increasing role in energy policy coordination in the Territory. An interdepartmental committee has been established through my department to ensure a whole-of-government approach to energy policy matters.
The primary industry sector will focus its attention on the continued development of the pastoral, agricultural and horticultural sectors, and the extensive resource protection arrangements necessary to support those industries. Research programs focussed on these industries will continue their prime importance for future developments, and will continue to be coordinated in consultation with relevant industry sectors. The primary industry sector provides considerable scope for growth in coming years and will be a key feature of the work programs. The group will continue to include the quarantine functions of AQIS, including international and interstate barrier protection. The primary industry group contains very extensive experience and skills vital to the protection and development of these industries. The Territory has enjoyed strong growth in its live cattle trade and in expanding horticulture markets, but must be forever vigilant against disease, pests and weed threats.
The three regional offices of the Territory will build on existing operations in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek that will bring a broader industry approach in each. Regional directors will have a very active role in liaising with industry and in coordinating activities with other agencies to ensure relevant growth opportunities are identified and brought to fruition.
In line with the Territory’s budget statement in November last year, particular emphasis will be given by my department’s CEO to the threefold bottom line of producing financial outcomes within annual budgets, maintaining high staff morale and job satisfaction, and improving services. In recognition of this, the financial general services and human resource management functions of the department will report direct to the CEO.
My department will have strong consultation links with industry and other relevant groups in setting its programs and activities. In the minerals and energy, primary industry and fisheries areas, this will build on existing industry relations through advisory bodies and other mechanisms. Many of these have been in place for long periods, with good levels of understanding built up between government and industry. It is more difficult to build structured arrangements with the more commercially competitive industries with a host of varying requirements. However, this will be a foundation of the new department’s operations with close consultation on issues as they arise.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the minister be allowed an extension of time to complete his speech.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
For example, my department is currently organising forums in Darwin and Alice Springs for discussion of the business sector on insurance concerns. These sessions will enable a better understanding of local industry and community insurance concerns to be taken to the Commonwealth government’s national forum. My department has also begun a review of the operation of Territory business centres presently run by the department. The review will be across government and involves a representative from the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This review will enable government to determine the best way to provide business services in the future, and to coordinate the efforts of agencies on which the private sector relies for licensing, regulation and services. This will also build on the government’s election commitments to establish business case managers across government.
In restructuring the department, considerable importance has been placed on involvement of staff and maintaining staff commitment. Three Employee Liaison Officers have been appointed to enable staff to voice concerns and give feedback on issues involved in the restructure. There are many complex issues to be addressed in bringing four departments together, each of which had varying policies, practices, procedures and cultures. Progress is being made in working through these issues to bring consistency to operations, but at the same time ensuring that the specific needs of groups are met. As a simple example, each department have a travel policy with appropriate arrangements and payment rates. In bringing the four departments together, the specific needs of officers such as those travelling at sea in Fisheries, in remote locations, stock inspectors, AQIS staff, field geologists and the like, need to be catered for.
One area my department will focus on is indigenous economic development. This was identified in the Economic Development Summit as an important area for both indigenous people and for the Territory to reach its development potential. In structuring the new department, the temptation to create a special unit to address indigenous economic development has been resisted. Rather, the department will engage indigenous development opportunity through its mainstream industry groups, with each including appropriate programs to fit the industry sector. Last week, I outlined to this Assembly the programs being conducted in mining-related activities. Active programs are being pursued in fisheries, pastoral and horticulture, and in general business developments.
In times of change and budgetary constraints there will, of course, be some concern at the uncertainty created until the process of change is complete. The Chief Minister has repeatedly made it clear that no public servants will be forced into redundancy, despite of the continuing scare campaign being run from members opposite, totally irresponsibly, I might add. The new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is evolving and its new structure will provide new challenges and opportunities. Many staff will see little change in their jobs, particularly in specialist areas, but some will need to adapt to new approaches and for some, change locations.
The new department of DBIRD is well underway in its structuring and refocussing of operations. In the next phase, its corporate planning will be developed in consultation with its clients and stakeholders, leading to new business plans for 2002-03. On a personal note, I would like to thank the staff of DBIRD who have been working through this change for their understanding and their absolute total commitment to it. Many of those staff I have spoken to see a very exciting future in terms of opportunities in bringing all of the economic areas of government together, and really pushing through on initiatives that are going to come through government and also through industry sectors. I look forward to continuing to work with some very good, capable and motivated officers in my new department.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the public servants of the minister’s department as well - thank them for putting up with the pressure that they are currently under with the amalgamations that are going on. I will come back to that, but I want to pick up one point and make it very clear to this House on the point of a censure motion, because the Minister for Industries and Business has raised it and has brought a new element into the discussion, one that the Leader of Government Business presented here this morning. That element is that, before a censure motion will be accepted, those proposing the motion must first substantiate their claims - which is a load of nonsense. In the Westminster system, it is unprecedented - unprecedented.
Mr Stirling: You never did it? You guys never did it? Goodness me!
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection by the Leader of Government Business who should actually know better. He might like to go and seek some advice on this. The fact of the matter is that a censure motion can be brought on at any time. It can even be brought on as an ambush mechanism, without any former knowledge or any prior debate on the subject with regard to a censure motion. So, to bring in this new argument that first we, the opposition, have to substantiate our claim …
Mr Dunham: And need a day’s notice.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, well, that was thrown in as an added bonus - we have to have a day’s notice now. But that’s unprecedented, and we do not have to live with that. But, the fact that you have to substantiate it first is just rubbish - absolute rubbish, never heard of before in the Westminster system.
Whether the government wants to accept the motion is a different story. So there are two issues. First, we don’t have to, neither do they, the government, have to substantiate bringing on a censure motion. You do not have to provide any facts that make it worthwhile to do it; you can bring it on without notice at any time that there is not a question before the Chair. Whether or not they want to bring it on is another issue, and it is a matter of guts. That is a matter of guts as to whether the government - in this instance - wants to stand up, take on a censure motion to substantiate its position, or protect its position, or put its position on a certain subject. That just comes down to a matter of guts - nothing to do with whether or not you can substantiate it.
The Leader of Government Business well knows, because he watched in this House many times, former Leaders of Government Business - Barry Coulter, Mick Palmer - that when censure motions were brought on by the opposition, the Leader of Government Business would stand up and say: ‘Madam Speaker, we accept the censure motion and we ask that it be brought on immediately’, every time that I can remember in my eight years of this House. So, it comes down to whether or not the government, if they are being censured, has the guts to take it on and put their position. Unfortunately, in the case of today, they obviously didn’t.
Mr Stirling: Scared of you, Tim. We were a bit scared of you.
Mr BALDWIN: And you know full well - picking up on the interjection - Leader of Government Business, you know full well how it works. I think you were a bit confused this morning, just like the other night when you didn’t realise that you had to have an absolute majority to bring on setting aside standing orders. Then, the next day, you wheel in the Chief Minister out of her sick bed so that you have an absolute majority when you didn’t need it, because you didn’t set aside standing orders, or move to. You have to get it right. It would be well behoved of the Leader of Government Business to look up his standing orders and get right across them.
Mr Stirling: I guess that’s the difference, then. I guess that’s the difference. I have the ability to learn.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s the difference. So, next time we move a censure, it would be nice to see the government have the guts to take it on and support their position.
In regard to this quite hollow statement, I have a couple of points to make. Earlier today, the minister for industries and business, when my colleague - I think the Member for Katherine, or it might have been the Leader of the Opposition - talked about a high level of concern in the public service - it might have been during Question Time - the minister for industries and business yelled out: ‘Says who? Who says there is concern in the public service?’
A member: Don’t point to the memo, the e-mail.
Mr BALDWIN: I won’t point to the e-mail; I will point to a letter that has been written to the minister for industries and business by some very concerned people in Katherine - and I will tell you who they are because he has the letter - Northern Territory Horticultural Association, Katherine Branch. They have written to the minister with very grave concerns. The first paragraph:
- We view with concern the continuing reduction of resources to the Katherine region, particularly the recent
loss of three staff members from the Katherine Research Station.
Second paragraph:
- We are particularly worried that the current DPIF concerns about funding are further reducing support
available to horticulture in the Katherine region.
That’s who says who, Minister. That’s who says who.
Mr Henderson: I got the letter today. Today, today, and if they want to do business like this ...
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection because this is worth getting on Hansard. He now says: ‘If that’s how they want to do business’. Well, what are you going to do with them, Minister?
Mr Henderson: I will meet with them next week.
Mr BALDWIN: Very good, it is about time. Can you answer the question on their road while you’re seeing them?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, can you direct your comments through the Chair, please?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to put my remarks through you.
So, there is a case of people who are concerned, and it is a very real concern. I am told by others in that department that, on questions of horticultural assistance, that if you actually want - because of the lack of staff down there, because of the lack of funding, it is an ongoing set of logics - some information from an outsourcing officer, a field officer, regarding horticulture, at the moment they can only give it to you - you can only ring into Katherine for horticultural assistance on Wednesday. Because that’s how they are filling the position from Darwin - on a Wednesday. So, if you have, on your property, an outbreak of some disease or another that you need urgent assistance on, what are they supposed to do if it is on a Thursday? What are they supposed to do? They ring in and they say: ‘Oh well, you’ll have to wait until next Wednesday, we’ll have someone down there’. That’s just not good enough. This is an industry, obviously, worth a lot of money to the Northern Territory. It is an industry that provides a lot of jobs in the area and, certainly, a lot of income to the local Katherine businesses. It is just not good enough that the cuts that this government are instigating …
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: And it is going to get worse.
If we are to assume that this is the beginning of what’s going to happen, with a 2.5% cut to these departments’ budgets in this financial year, what’s going to happen next financial year when they’re asking for 5%? That’s the question. This is what public servants are very worried about - not only in Katherine, but all over the place. I had some people come up to me in Darwin just the other day. They’re concerned - and this might sound very, very trivial - that they have had their Internet access cut. Now, okay, maybe we could all say: ‘They don’t Internet’. Some have said they have had their mobile phones taken away. I think it has been raised here in this debate that many have had their access to vehicles taken away, or their easier access to vehicles taken away so that, in fact, they have to put in quite substantial paperwork and book ahead for the use of vehicles. These particular people were field workers. So, how are they going to do their job? How are they going to provide their services - and I hear the Chief Minister say: ‘We’re all about creating more efficient services right across the Northern Territory’. Right across the Northern Territory, yet, what’s happening is that people have to stay at their desks. They do not even have a mobile phone to use; they cannot get on the Internet. It is just getting ridiculous.
It is going to be interesting to see how bad it gets by the end of this calendar year when the departments are looking for 5% of cuts out of all of those doing agencies. That’s the point here. It is all very well to say: ‘We’re going to isolate off education and health and police from these cuts’. But the cuts that are occurring are occurring to the very agencies that give support to business. And they need those extension services to be more efficient, and to provide more in the way of income to the Territory’s economy.
The really sad part about all of this is that the Chief Minister has said it will be up to the CEOs to find the 5% cuts and the 2.5% cuts. It will be up to them to provide the efficiencies out of their departments. And you know exactly what that’s doing. The CEOs will go to their deputy CEOs - and now with these amalgamations they have a number of them, so you have a few CEOs that are peak CEOs, if you like. They will be saying to their deputy CEOs: ‘You find me the 5%’. The poor old deputy CEO has to go along and tap people on the shoulder. Maybe not now with the 2.5% cuts, but when it comes to a 5% cut they are going to have to cut whole programs to find the savings - with people in them. That poor old deputy CEO is the poor fellow, poor person, woman, who is going to have to go along to her or his colleagues and say: ‘I am very sorry about this. Your program has to be cut and your five jobs or whatever it is have to go’. It is a very onerous thing to have to put on to that level of management.
I think it is very sad that it is happening that way, rather than this government having the fortitude to do it at a political level where they go through a process where it is open and transparent, and they take full responsibility for the angst that is just beginning. It has a long, long way to go and, I imagine, by the end of the year, perhaps, we will see a repeat of the concerns that were shown during the processes that the previous CLP government went through. They were straight up and down processes that we took political heat from, and we don’t stand back from them. If you have to cut the costs within the public service, do it politically; do it straight up front. Don’t lay it on your CEOs and deputy CEOs and then step away from them and say: ‘No, find more efficiencies’.
It is going to be very interesting to watch, and I am sure that we will all hear from various public servants, and also members of government. I am sure they’re getting phone calls too, in their electorate offices. I am sure, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you’re getting a few walking into your electorate office with concerns. If you’re not, then perhaps you’d better move your electorate office or something, I do not know. Certainly, we are on this side, and I am sure members on that side are. I am sure people like the minister responsible for the public sector would be hearing these concerns when he knocks around the place.
That’s what I wanted to put on the record. I certainly wanted to put on the record the point about the censure motions and how, all of a sudden, we have members of the government side rewriting the Westminster ethos and the system, and that …
Mr Stirling: You blokes never did it? Short memory.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the Leader of Government Business’ interjection. He misunderstands: there are two elements here. They do not have to take on the censure if they do not want to. But, for us to have to substantiate it is just utter rubbish. That’s what he needs to learn, and I suggest he takes some advice from the Clerk - I did - to clarify that, because I couldn’t remember having to substantiate a censure motion before bringing one on, ever. There is no precedence for it, and it would be a good lesson for him to learn.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak in support of the Chief Minister’s statement on the new arrangements that we have put in place for the public sector. I should begin by recalling that, back in November, at the time the Chief Minister announced the new administrative arrangements, the opposition characterised the changes to my portfolio responsibilities as a demotion.
Well, I think that’s a sad reflection of the disdain the opposition has for social justice, quality of life issues, and the delivery of services to Territorians - particularly those living in remote areas. We know that the CLP has always regarded these issues as second order and not worthy of serious effort. But, can I say that, when the Chief Minister offered me this rank of portfolio responsibilities, I was absolutely delighted. It brings together a range of areas that have long been a focus of my working life, and issues that I am passionate about. So, whilst the opposition might place low priority on local government, housing, sport and recreation, regional development, library services, and developing the quality of life in all our communities, I felt I had been given first prize.
There is one point that I would like to emphasise, particularly to those members opposite. I have often said - and I will continue to say - how proud I am to be the first Aboriginal minister in this place. But, I am not here just for myself, my family, or my countrymen; I am here as a minister for all Territorians, regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. I will be discharging my responsibilities without fear or favour to anyone, and everyone. My focus is on improving the quality of life and the delivery of services to all Territorians, and the humbug from those opposite will not divert me from that course.
Since taking responsibility for what I will refer to broadly as the community development portfolio, I have been struck by the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff who have been brought together within the new department. It has been both a challenging and exciting time for all of us, as we adjust to the new structural arrangements and, as the Chief Minister has pointed out, making changes is never easy. However, I believe that my department has coped well with the transition, and that we are already seeing significant benefits in terms of greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services. I would like to run through a number of those most important changes. Clearly, structural issues were critical in the initial stages, and the new structure for the department was outlined to start on 4 December 2001, and all associated staff moves were completed by 17 December. Office moves were kept to a minimum and, ultimately, only 30 or so staff were involved.
The new structure includes a Regional Services Division with responsibility for service delivery to the public for housing, local government and regional development, and for sport and recreation field services. This division will provide greater focus on regional and community needs; the quarry of service delivery to the public; and on training for frontline staff. Some streamlining of support service areas will continue over the next 12 months as vacancies occur through natural attrition. An immediate imperative that was required of the new department was to implement savings initiatives. The majority of the savings achieved this financial year have been made by implementing short-term measures to cut expenditure, while having minimal impact on services to the public. Examples of such measures include: prioritising travel; freezing replacement of furniture and fittings; reducing public relations advertising and document production expenditure; and restricting recruitment to service delivery and other essential functions.
Examples of ongoing efficiencies made include: the transferring of housing maintenance management back to my department from the Department of Transport and Works and introducing a new approach that provides improved service at less cost; reducing the number of motor vehicles and introducing more efficient fleet management; achieving efficiencies in telephone equipment and usage; and streamlining support services and achieving economies of scale. In addition to these immediate savings, ongoing savings and efficiencies have been identified, which will require further lead times for planning and implementation. In the meantime, I can highlight a couple of examples that come from the housing area.
Replacement of the current mainframe-based housing information systems with a modern purpose-designed integrated system to provide better support for services to the public and better management information at a significantly reduced cost. This project has commenced and is expected to save $0.5m per annum within three years. Additional savings are planned by using this opportunity to streamline housing services systems and procedures; the introduction of a strategic approach to housing stock, planning and management; together with the development of enhanced asset management policies and procedures. With better planning and management, savings of approximately $1m per annum is expected within three years.
Of course, the nature of changes in the workplace always impact upon the staff. They can have an unsettling impact and they can diminish staff morale. However, I am pleased to report that the day-to-day work of the large majority of staff in my department has been unaffected by the changes over the past few months. These staff are performing their duties as usual. For some staff whose duties have been affected by the restructure or the savings measures, the changes have had some initial unsettling effect. However, a number of staff in different areas of the department have shown initiative in identifying areas where efficiencies can be achieved by doing things differently. Generally, staff have shown a keenness to make the new arrangements work effectively and, where new priorities have been set, to strive to make them a reality. What this commitment by staff means overall, is that we are achieving efficiencies as well as improving service delivery in a number of areas.
Improved services to regional areas and remote communities are expected from the more integrated approach being implemented through the new Regional Services Division. The transfer to this department of responsibility for essential services in remote areas, including the power, water and sewerage, will enable greater coordination with housing construction, and is expected to facilitate the negotiation of coordinated planning and delivery of housing and infrastructure administered by ATSIC. Greater coordination in this area is also expected to lead to more sustainable training programs and ongoing employment for remote residents. The development of regional agreements, especially in remote areas, has the potential to increase local decision making, develop community capacity, and result in greater employment in remote and regional areas. Improved service delivery arrangements and housing will see property management officers based in each area Housing Office. Also, the levels of frontline staff will be boosted, together with the provision of nationally accredited training, to provide better housing services to the public.
As the Chief Minister has said, the focus of my department is to improve and maintain the quality of the Territory’s lifestyle, and to encourage cultural development and a greater sense of community. This new department brings together quite a diverse range of functions and services, from public housing to the arts, and a significant challenge is to establish a common core identity across the department, while retaining the distinct service stream identities. The core objective which is common to the range of services provided by the Department of Housing and Infrastructure to arts, museums and library services; sport and recreation; local government; regional development and regional agreements, is the objective of community development and capacity building.
I want to conclude by emphasising that one of the significant strengths of my department is the quality of the people; its human capacity, its human capital. For years, there have been many dedicated and committed people within my department, as well as in other areas of the public sector, who have laboured under a disinterested and disengaged government - a CLP government. Innovative and creative ideas and thinking were stifled, and the drive to develop better public policy was consistently blocked. What I’ve observed within my department over the last few months is that staff, at all levels, have become liberated, encouraged, by the openness of our administration, and encouraged by our willingness to listen to their ideas.
Recently, I had a residential workshop with my ministerial staff and senior officers from my department, at which we discussed a range of important policy issues. I also emphasised to my departmental officers, that I see them as integral to a successful partnership. What staggered me here, is that it soon became clear that they probably have never been treated like this. They have never been recognised by government ministers as having a key role to play. For 26 years, it had been ‘do as you told and keep your ideas to yourselves’. What a waste!
However, this Martin government is different. This government is about recognising the talents and professionalism of our public servants. We want them to be challenging us with new initiatives and new ideas. We are about building partnerships and engagement, and what I look forward to over the coming months and years, is working with a reinvigorated public sector that sees itself as a respected and valued partner in providing good government and service delivery to all Territorians.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place my comments on the record with regards to the Chief Minister’s statement on new public sector agency arrangements.
It is the prerogative of a government to re-order, to restructure, and no problem at all with that. In fact, any new management coming into a workplace, it is almost expected that that is what would occur. Personally, when I looked at the restructure - as one in opposition you are inclined to seek the other side of the equation and that is the job, by the way, that is what our job is on this side. That is what this whole parliament is about - both sides of the equation being reflected upon and coming, hopefully, to a new place. I was inclined, on first glance, to find the obvious fault. But, I would have to say, personally, that the restructure made sense. I do not have a problem with the nature of the restructure.
However, the comments that have been endeavoured to be raised on this side have been the implementation of the restructure and aspects of that. It is no way intended to be interpreted - as it so easily is in comments from the other side - is that it is a denigration of the public service. Far from it. We have dealings with the public service, and hold those members of the public service in high esteem. Just as a management team would come into a new workplace and impose a new structure upon the management, I don’t think the position here has been any comment against the right to restructure; it is the implementation of that structure. There is always going to be some groaning. There is always going to be some hurt. There are always going to be some problems.
But, I would have to say that this parliament is to reflect on the other side of the equation, and there are none so blind as will not see. When we have an opportunity here to raise one aspect of this restructure that is echoing around the community - granted those who are so blind that they cannot see, they will not see, they are only hearing that which would come to them which would be favourable to the ear. Granted, a point was even raised to Madam Acting Deputy Speaker: ‘Has anyone mentioned it to you in your electorate office?’ ‘No.’
Well, I will tell you what: things have changed. We have people on that side of the House who once were on this side of the House. I was once on that side of the House, now I am on this side of the House. I am seeing for myself the other side of the equation. There will be people who will come to me now that I am in opposition and speak to me about things that they have not been able to say comfortably to members on the other side. I am sure if you could reflect - if you are on that side of the House; or once on this side - that was the case not so long ago. You are getting information; people are commenting to you. They are speaking privately to you; they are asking you not to phone them at work but they are wanting to give you messages. That is the same thing that happened when you were in opposition, I understand. Nothing has really changed.
The previous speaker referred to liberty; how the public service now has this great sense of liberty and freedom. Well, once again, if we reflect on the nature of the way things do work, of course they are all seeking to please their new management, let’s say. But that sense of liberty, I even heard that reflected in the media a couple of days after the event. I am sure you can understand that I did not share the euphoria. However, change is not a bad thing. I took the opportunity to stand back and say: ‘Well, this is really about the Northern Territory’. There was, generally, a feeling of: ‘I wonder what is going to occur from this?’ There was sense of excitement of historic change. Well, I can tell you from what I heard that that sound of liberty and that joy faded very quickly. It faded for me, personally, when I had sympathy for the expressions that were uttered from this side when I first entered this Chamber. I had sympathy; I heard; I understood what was being said and the frustration that was contained on this side of the House. I would have thought that some of those sensitivities would have been translated to that side of the House. That is what I have found: the greatest sadness is to see the very things that were despised and ridiculed and grieved the hearts of those so much when they got to this side of the House - I find it the height of hypocrisy - to be able to perform in a way which is in excess of the things that were once so offensive. I say that quite candidly because the last time I spoke in the House, on Tuesday, I had never been so angry, because I was seeing exactly that in operation.
I am not going to go into details. I heard members interjecting on the government side saying: ‘Where’s your evidence, where’s your evidence of the disquiet?’ Well, where is the real evidence of the great applause in the public sector? Exactly the same; it is anecdotal. We have a 1800 number, we have an e-mail, but we do not have the evidence, we just have the comment. We just have anecdotal references on both sides of the equation. We had the opportunity to raise something of substance, but it was blocked. I think that was the height of dishonour to allow that to occur.
A member: There was no substance.
Mr Elferink: You didn’t know that. That’s the point.
Mr MILLS: There is no substance in that interjection, I would have to say - no substance whatsoever. No sense of respect or understanding what this Chamber is meant to be. Two sides of an equation: you listen to the other side of the equation and do the honourable thing and at least invite it and set it, and let those that sit outside this Chamber - because this is their Chamber - assess the weight of the issue, not by the weight of your numbers, the number of seats you happen to currently occupy.
There is a well known fairy story, The Emperor’s New Clothes. I would have to say what I reflected in hearing these comments: that there was once an emperor who had such a high regard for the appearance of himself that he was tempted to take on the employ of a couple of visitors who were able to sell the concept of the most dazzling and spectacular array that you could ever imagine. The weight and the strength of the emperor was so prevailing that all those around the emperor conformed to the view that this fantastic material was actually invisible, but they could not see that because the emperor wished it not to be the case. So, nobody who was in the close surrounds of the emperor accepted or acknowledged the fact that they neither could see what they could see.
I just want to warn members opposite that we need to get outside the equation a little and reflect on this in a higher way - that we are endeavouring to bring another side of the equation. I do not want to be locked into the same situation again and again. I am going to be here for a long time and I do not want to see a repeat of the same type of silly rhetoric that is going on about casting our minds back: ‘Yes, but when you were in government’. ‘Yes, but now you are in government’. Let’s look together how we can work forward on this.
There is an acknowledgement on this side that there is change and change is not always easily accommodated. But, let us at least put on the table and let those outside the Chamber - because this is their Chamber - to be able to reflect on the issues of importance that we would dare bring into this place.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Chief Minister’s statement on the restructure of the public sector and I have to agree with the member for Blain. The government has the prerogative and the right to restructure its public service and, like the member for Blain, I was on both sides. I was a public servant before, I am not one today. While I was a public servant, I did not like the CLP, I did not agree with the philosophy, but I worked there and I provided the best advice I could and the expertise they demanded from me.
I wrote Legislative Assembly briefs for a number of then ministers, now members of the opposition. I provided advice, I warned ministers. I did not ring my colleagues in the Labor Party to tell them how they could find something wrong with the then ministers and their portfolios. Instead, I advised the ministers because I was a public servant - I was a professional public servant.
On the other hand, as a public servant I was subjected to several reviews. Do I have to remind you of the Cresap review in the Health Department in 1989 or Planning for Growth? Once again, we copped it and we didn’t complain - at least not very loudly. In any case, even if we complained, nobody was prepared to listen.
With regards to the restructuring of the public service, the agencies that I am responsible for were a significant part of the overall restructuring that occurred in November 2001. In my view, the result of this restructuring has led to an increase in the efficiency of our operations. As the Chief Minister has said, the aim of the government was to streamline and make more efficient the operations of government. Not only is it a worthy goal, but an essential one. I believe the proliferation of agencies, evident in the latter years of the CLP’s regime, was undermining efficiency and effectiveness, and I believe that the number of agencies was making the task of administration more difficult than it should have been.
Nowhere is that more evident than in my own portfolios. As members would be aware, the agencies of Land, Planning and the Environment, Transport and Infrastructure were effectively merged by the restructuring. The Parks and Wildlife Commission were also merged at this time. The Power and Water Authority and the Ports Corporation were added to my portfolios because of the natural synergies between these corporations and the portfolios I hold responsibility for. The merging of two departments that have historically close links has made a lot of sense.
Prior to this merge, agencies linked to transport and infrastructure were required to meet regularly and frequently with agencies attached to Lands, Planning and Environment, and in some cases, with the health department. I had many meetings with Lands, Planning and Environment, many meetings with Transport and Works, all three together for many days and, quite often, we couldn’t reach an agreement because each department had its own agenda or was going its own way. Prior to this merger, agencies linked to transport infrastructure were required to meet regularly and frequently with other agencies. They did so to progress and move forward development and the use of land. This involved time consuming interdepartmental meetings, and always involved the potential of one agency or other not to be operating within the same agenda or time constraints. Now, the entire development process, from the identification of land, the evaluation of services, the feasibility environmentally and the approvals through the Consent Authority, are all contained within the one department.
Not only does this make more efficient operations, it makes for more effective communication; it ensures that all the government’s relevant authorities and agencies are working on the one track. It saves time and, ultimately, money. It also allows us to progress matters more sensibly and in a more timely fashion. It is already evident to me that this is making for better outcomes.
Let me provide some information as to where this agency restructuring currently is. The Executive Management Group has been established and has worked on how the three former agencies can be brought together to better deliver government services. A Management Board has also been formed. An Office of the Environment and Heritage has been established; the office has direct reporting responsibilities to me, the Minister for the Environment, to ensure independence. The responsibilities and processes of the new office are under review to look at ways of improving the level and independence of environmental and advisory services.
Let me pause at this point and make that process clear to the members. This government takes seriously its environmental obligation; we recognise that the balance between sustainable development and our environment has to be struck carefully and in a way which retains our lifestyle and our future growth. By providing this office with greater independence and the ability to report directly to me as minister, gives it a place in the bureaucracy which allows our environmental policies to be effective.
In furthering the government’s agenda, members of the Management Board participated with some staff representatives in a department strategic planning two-day forum facilitated by Doug Stace. A draft document has been produced outlining the department’s strategic intent, its core objectives, the goals, critical performance issues, core values and service delivery areas for the next three years. A workshop was held with ministerial staff, senior staff from my departments, identifying short, medium and long term goals and activities for all of my portfolios.
This is the first time in the memory of many senior public servants where the minister, his staff and the senior members of his department have worked together to develop a working plan for a department in this way. It was an open, honest meeting with the government’s agenda and pre-election statements forming the core of the business conducted. It produced a working plan for the next 12 months and an outline for the term of office that will ensure my office and the department are running on the same tracks.. It guides the operation of all our works.
In addition, I have commenced visits to all offices or workplaces where departmental staff are working and located, and during this year, I intend to drive all the way from Darwin down to Uluru, stopping on the way and meeting all my staff - not the people who work for me, but the people who work together.
Staff from various divisions of the departments had been involved in office relocation to amalgamate fragmented services. The new department will have a staff level of about 1300, approximately 10% of the public sector. As a part of the transition process, Employee Liaison Officers have been identified in each agency. Ideas and suggestions would be collected by the department’s representatives.
A Window into the Organisation forum has been established, where the Chief Executive Officer regularly meets with staff members across the organisation, to discuss issues and share ideas. The CEO has met and talked with many groups in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine; he has also visited Tennant Creek.
A Cabinet submission will be prepared requesting the amendment to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and abolition of the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act. All Territorians are rightly proud of the work of our Parks and Wildlife staff. I am particularly proud of their efforts. This amalgamation of departments will ensure that the conservation arm of our government has a very important and close say in the workings of the development arm of the government. Their agenda goes from being the agenda for the commission separated from other departments, to being the agenda of this new major department. New delegations under the various acts administered by the department will have to be prepared to reflect these change.
Like every department, my departments have budget bottom lines that need to be achieved. This has been necessary because of the budget situation inherited from the CLP regime. The budget was detailed in a mini-budget statement by the Chief Minister. The achievement of those goals is possible because of the efficiencies gained from the merger of the departments. In effect, through the amalgamation we have achieved more efficient and effective decision-making processes based on development of effective systems within our agencies, rather than across a number of departments - efficiencies that provide a greater scope to achieve the government’s final outcomes; and a coordinated approach through the development of an effective working relationship between the minister, my office, and the agencies that will deliver the government’s election commitment and policies.
I am very proud of the people I work with in the departments of my ministry. They are professional public servants who have a professional and a personal commitment to the future of our Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to concur with the words of the member for Blain earlier; I think that they were very wise words. The only thing I might disagree with him on: this is not bipartisan, but sometimes it is tripartisan - there are three sides to the story, occasionally, to come out of parliament now.
I cannot talk about the whole of the restructuring of government because I basically do not have the ability to gain enough information to speak on that fairly broad subject. However, I do have some concerns about Parks and Wildlife, and I have mentioned this to the Chief Minister in a meeting we had earlier this year.
I come from the same philosophy that the member for Blain has spoken about. I see it as my job to raise issues here, regardless of whether the government agrees or doesn’t agree. In this case, I feel I need to raise issues about Parks and Wildlife.
There are a lot of people in Parks and Wildlife who, I think, are extremely dedicated. They have not got into this job because it is the public service; they have got into that job because they love their job. Whether it is looking at mimosa control or whether they are studying frill-necked lizards in one of the national parks, or whatever, those people love their job and that’s their career, it is their vocation in life. When those people come to me, I know they’re not coming to me because they are political; they are coming to me because they are deeply concerned that what they have put all their time and effort into in life, they see as being threatened. I am one of those who’s had the phone calls, maybe because I am on this side of the House, or maybe because I am the one in the middle. The impression I have - and I have had some phone calls today - is that morale is extremely low in the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Now, for sure, that is probably a very broad statement, and you will probably find there are people in Parks and Wildlife who, perhaps, are not worried at all. But I am getting these from people who - I just mentioned before - are the ones who feel that, basically, this is their life; they want to work for Parks and Wildlife. They are coming to me and saying that morale is low.
I could give you a few examples of why they are finding that at the moment. They tell me a few years ago, Col Fuller was the gentlemen who the government employed, I suppose, to make some rather nasty cuts to a lot of departments. They say that when he got to what was the Conservation Commission or Parks and Wildlife, he took every ounce of fat out of that department. The cuts that have occurred today are starting to get to the bone. The meat’s gone, just about, and they are now getting into the bone. I can give you a few examples of where people feel that it has just gone so far, it is now starting to hurt.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ah Kit: What about Shane Stone? ‘We know who you are. We know who rings up talk back, we know who they are’. Shane Stone said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Ah Kit: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD: I am just talking specific programs. Some of these have not come from the department. I know there are Friends of the Botanical Gardens, for instance, who had a program to put in a cycad garden - I think it was a world cycad garden - they’d actually had a nursery set up which was producing the cycads all ready to go, and then that particular landscape service was cut. Of course, they don’t know what to do with their cycads now because, basically, if they keep them any longer, they are just going to outgrow their pots and that will be the end of them. That is only a little aspect.
I have heard that the feral dove program in Alice Springs has been cut, or has gone. Of course, the problem with a program like that, if you cut it, the feral doves population starts to grow again and you’re back to square one. That’s some of the problems people have.
I have heard that positions have been reduced and not filled anymore. There just simply is not the money to fill those positions and, of course, what can happen is that if you do not have enough people working there, you can get things like plans and management not being completed.
Mr Baldwin: What about the Commission Board. Where are they going to go?
Mr WOOD: I will get to the Commission Board. There are matters like making sure we can do firebreaks around our parks, reduce feral animal control and mimosa control. Mimosa and feral animals again, like the feral dove: if you reduce your work on those areas, then they’ll catch up with you later, because they’ll just be back on the increase.
There are a couple of other issues. I gather ranger training, and the junior ranger training has been cut. Little things, but I think they’re very important things. I hate to see things like – well, I hate to see any ranger training, but especially the junior ranger training being cut, because taking the Parks and Wildlife side out of it, I think it is important that government supports projects which encourage youth to get into this area. If you want to look at the bigger program, it keeps kids off the street, they learn about a lot of environmental issues. I think it is important for the youth of today to be involved in those things.
I have heard - I know there is a mention about the liaison officers here. Just a couple of comments. One, I heard the liaison officer had resigned a couple of months ago from the Goyder Building, I think it was, and I am not sure if that’s been replaced. And I had another comment from someone else, that they knew there were liaison officers, but they felt very uncomfortable to go there because they thought if they said something it would get back to them. They weren’t really interested in the political side, that is one of the things they are saying to me. ‘Look, we didn’t want to get involved, we like our job, we want to get on with our job, but we are just a bit worried that if we say something, perhaps it will come back to us, and we will be in trouble’.
The minister mentioned a fact which I think is a good change. He talked about how we now have an Office of Environment and Heritage, and I congratulate the government on doing that. He said that that will have a direct access to himself as the minister, and I think that’s a positive approach. I do believe that we still should be looking at having one department of environment which includes Parks and Wildlife, and includes the environment section of Mines and Energy, and the environment section of Primary Industry. I think the minister is actually looking at that. And perhaps look at the Queensland model, they do have a department of environment and it does cover all those areas.
The other area, which was just mentioned by the member for Daly, was the future of the commission. I know there have been rumours around that the commission will go, and that will require a change in the act, but I would certainly ask the government to be fairly cautious before it does that. My feeling is that the commission does create that little bit of an independent forum for Parks and Wildlife, and it allows it to be at least a little at arms length away from the government, where you are getting independent advice. I am not sure what the advantages of getting rid of the commission are, but I think that before the government decides to get rid of it, perhaps we need to get some papers out on it and look at the pros and cons, so we can have some debate out there in the public as to whether that is a good idea. I feel that the commission does play a good role in the area of Parks and Wildlife, in seeing the people who are on it - there are Aboriginal people on it, and there are some scientific people on it, as well as a number of public servants, and I think there is a member from the tourist industry on it.
You have to remember, Parks and Wildlife is not just about environment: as well, it has an income. It has an income from tourists, straight away, so we have to be careful what we do with Parks and Wildlife. It could affect the economy, if we cut it too much. Are we going to have places closing down at 3 pm or 4 pm because we cannot afford to put people on to staff those areas? Just off the top of my head, I think Windows on the Wetlands goes from 7 am to about 7 pm. I think the reason it does that is so it can pick up the early tourists going out to Kakadu and probably can pick up a few on the way home. So, we’d hate to see cuts occur in those places.
With Parks and Wildlife, I ask the government to be careful, as the member for Blain said. Certainly sometimes - and I probably got the same thing sometimes in the council - you hear the good things. In my view, in my position, people feel safe; they can give me a ring and say the things they really feel. I genuinely believe they are not political; what they are trying to do is tell me that these things are happening to the detriment of the department. They want their department to be a good department, and they want their job to be a good job, and they’re fiercely loyal to their job. So, when people come to me who I know are like that, I believe them, because I don’t believe they would come to me if there wasn’t a genuine need to come to me.
I feel my job today is to pass that information to the government. Perhaps, sometimes, the government has to look past its people at the top so that you have maybe, sometimes, the bad stuff sieved out, before it gets to the minister. Maybe, sometimes, the ministers have to go out and - well, I know it is difficult because you have big departments - actually have lunch with a few of these people. Sit down and say: ‘Look, I am going to have dinner at the local tavern, and I will take a few people out’. I know it is very hard when you are busy, but I used to try and take - again much smaller, the Litchfield Shire Council - try and take the staff out for lunch occasionally, just so I met them, so I understood what they were. You did not take the top people out, you just took the staff out.
I do have a couple of other matters that I would like to raise as well, and these are just general issues. I know the departments have been made much bigger, and I again agree with the member for Blain. I felt this was a good thing to do, to amalgamate, and if you look at the Territory in the perspective of having only 200 000 people, you’d say: ‘Well, why do we need so many ministers?’ But, on the other side of the coin, we are a huge land mass and that, in itself, has to be balanced against a small population. We have issues like large distances of travel; it is much harder for some of those people out there to be contacted. We still have all the departments that a lot of other states have, so we have to deal with those issues.
One of the things that does come back to me at times is access to ministers. Now, it is hard to say. I just mentioned to the member for Wulagi today that a gentleman had come to see me about not being able to gain access to the minister. There may be other reasons for that, but I have heard people say they sometimes have difficulty having access. Whether we have given so much workload - the member for Wulagi …
Mr Henderson: Wanguri.
Mr WOOD: Wanguri, sorry. I just put the wrong suburb, it starts with the same letter and ends with the same letter, I think.
I take may hat off to him in some ways; that’s a huge portfolio. There’s a massive amount of stuff in there; also, the member for Casuarina. That’s a big workload on people. I would be more worried that ministers might burn out, because you really want ministers to be on top of it all the time. Whether the government would give some consideration to even having a junior minister who took on some of the lesser ministerial areas? I put forward that as a suggestion, perhaps to take some of the workload off people. It is all very well to restructure but, if you just put huge loads on ministers, I am not sure you’re going to get the best out of them.
One other thing, there has been a question about public servants being required to write questions for ministers. I have no problem with public servants writing briefings to questions - I had two public servants speak to me and say they have been told to write questions. I find it a bit strange; maybe people might dispute that. What I would say is surely - because I know when the government gets up and basically gives dorothy dix questions - if you can’t write dorothy dix questions, I reckon you are having a hard time. I have had two people who have said to me that they have been asked to write questions so, I am passing that on. People may agree or disagree, but it is perhaps worth looking at.
All in all, I again support the member for Blain. I think that it is the right of the government to bring in changes, and I supported a lot of those changes. I felt there should be a look at the amount of waste that sometimes occurs in the public service, because I think sometimes there is stuff that you will hear people say: ‘Oh, such and such’. I heard a case the other day - I am just trying to think - where someone did something, and you say: ‘Well, that was just a waste of money’. Perhaps we have to look at things, not so much about real projects that you get involved in, in Parks and Wildlife, but how many times have we sent people off to some sort of conference down south? You have to ask: does anyone evaluate whether that conference was worth going to?
I used to travel; I used to go to meetings sometimes, and you have to ask: was it worth it? I would be a millionaire if I got $1 for every word that was spoken at every meeting that did not achieve anything. But, if I got a dollar for every meeting I went to where we did achieve something, I would still be pretty poor. I think sometimes we have to evaluate whether some of these courses – there is always training, there is upgrading of people - you have to wonder whether that is something that could, perhaps, be cut back a little; whether it is of great value. Instead, put something back into Parks and Wildlife where you have projects that really cannot stop, because there, you are dealing with either living animals or plants, and you just cannot stop. Those projects need to be ongoing, otherwise they are basically destroyed. You also have to realise that some of those scientists and those people who have put their life energy into those projects, if they are cut, their morale naturally goes. They have to ask: ‘Why am I here still?’ They’re qualified people who really want to do this work for the Territory and, if you cut it, that’s the end of their morale. Sometimes they go somewhere else and we lose them - the whole of Territory - they’ll go to another place.
What I ask is that the government take on those matters I’ve raised. I’ve raised them with a genuine concern for the people in Parks and Wildlife. I do not put them out as a desk-bashing criticism. I do put it firmly to the government to at least take those things into account.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I think it is important to look to the words of this statement, to look for the future directions of this government, because they have been very, very difficult to find out of any of the statements thus far. I think the Chief Minister gave it away at the bottom of page 2, where she says:
- I’ve been absolutely clear about the fact that the changes to the public service have been designed not only
to improve the delivery of service in line with government’s vision for the Territory, but also to achieve a
sustainable budget.
That’s where we are. If you look at the matter of forced redundancies, unforced redundancies, reductions in the public service, turnover, attrition, all of those issues - if you look to them, you will see that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
If you go to the various documents that were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, you will see, on a number of occasions - and I will just quote from one because they are available to all the members. This was in an interview, 8DDD, 13 November last year, where a reporter asked the question:
So, there’s 14 400 public servants now; after four years, how many would you like to see that reduced by,
whether this is by natural attrition?
This is the Chief Minister speaking:
- Julia, Julia, what I want is better service delivery for Territorians. What we want is a spring in the step
of public servants when they get up in the morning and go to work. And, yes, I want savings over time.
But how can you do that without reducing the size of the public service?
Chief Minister:
Well Julia, I say again there’s a 10% turnover over time, and I’m saying to my CEOs: ‘You will manage
that process and you will make savings’. There is a problem with this, and that is that some of the high turnover areas are areas where people do not like to work. They do not like to work there because they are hard jobs; often they are thankless jobs; sometimes they are jobs where people are keen to use it as a stepping stone to get somewhere else. Every minister on the other side must know areas where that occurs. If you want to target these areas as where you are going to reduce the public service, you have a pretty big problem. Do an analysis of your high turnover areas; do an analysis of why people leave areas like, for instance, child protection. It is a very difficult job and the people who are there, often for their own security of mind and other factors, will leave the job because it is so difficult and the burn-out rate can be so high. So, I would caution the government about this idea of: ‘Don’t worry about redundancies, it will all work out because people leave anyway, 10% of them, and we’ll just pinch those jobs’.
I was a bureaucrat in the Northern Territory Public Service for a long time, as a person called a compulsory transferee - which means that we came from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Public Service, whether we liked it or not. It was a breath of fresh air; we realised things could happen quickly, we realised there were abbreviated reporting lines, we could get words into the minister’s office pretty quick. We changed things really quickly. I was a regional director in Katherine and, as such, I was responsible for the several departments that were represented there. One was the Department of Lands, and they came once a week, for a day or so, and we argued long and hard that Lands should be represented in Katherine. Lo and behold, it eventually happened. What was one day a week, turned to full-time staff of something like 18 people, because what happens is, you can produce savings like this. You can produce them, you can reduce your public service. You could get rid of local government tomorrow and make enormous savings. However, you have to ask yourself: is that in the best interest of the people …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, the reason I go to local government is because there was a time when we didn’t have local governments in many of these places. It comes at a cost, but we would say that the cost derives a benefit to the people who are there. So, we think that the Chief Minister is being a bit specious saying: ‘No forced redundancies, no unforced redundancies’, which we know to be a porky. We can also go to the fact that this idea that people will leave and we just do not replace them, will mean that there will be some crisis areas. I am reluctant to talk about them, because there is an element of witch-hunting and vindictiveness among those opposite. It is one of those things that I think is a shame, because it means that the public servants who are speaking to me are quite right to be concerned about their jobs - and they are speaking to all of us on this side. I would be very surprised if they are not speaking to those on the other side. I would be really surprised if they do not have friends who do not vote our way, who are coming to them and saying: ‘Look, there is a morale problem. There is a crisis of confidence in the new government; they are not cutting the right areas. It is a death by a thousand cuts, as they are just taking the little itty bits and pieces without looking at entire program areas. The Chief Minister does not have our confidence because of the way she has handled this issue and, in any event, we do not believe her public utterances’. I guess the reason they are saying that is that they hear the same things we hear on the radio, where the Chief Minister backflips from position to position.
Of course, that is something that we could have been a little more clear about had we been given the opportunity for a censure this afternoon. Because, as one of the four members on this side who have been censured, I think it is a little bit cowardly for the government to use its numbers to gag a debate at this time. I have been associated with this parliament for a while. I have been the subject of censure motions when I was a minister, and often they are an ambush. Often they come out of the blue. Often, I would say, they are specious and, certainly in some cases, I was censured for things that this current government is doing. So, what they found offensive in my actions, they are continuing to do.
I think it is hypocritical to the extreme. It is, certainly, lacking in any courage. It is an indicator of a lack of confidence in your own ability, and it is, certainly, one of those things where their arrogance in this matter will be manifestly obvious to everybody who looks at a debate of this type, where they will see that these are issues that should have been brought to the public eye. They are issues that the Chief Minister ably demonstrated that there had been a series of statements that were put to the media that were later proved to be untrue. Now, in other places that is called a lie, Madam Speaker. And we believe that that word still applies. I know I am prohibited from using it but, when a Chief Minister says things that are later proved to be untrue, I think it is something that we should discuss in this House. Because if she continues to do it, the word ‘lie’ will be used by others outside this House and she will get a title as a person who lies a lot. So, whether we use it in this House or not, it goes to the credibility of the Chief Minister. And I think to, in a …
Ms Martin: Why don’t you be accurate? Your mob have been calling me a liar for seven years; why just say three years? Hey, let’s just do it.
Mr DUNHAM: My mob have been calling you a liar for seven years? Well, I guess she is a born liar, Madam Speaker. So, if I was to use the label …
Mr STIRLING: That is a point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr DUNHAM: I am picking up on an interjection. She asked whether I called her a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: I know, but you still cannot make references like that …
Mr DUNHAM: The interjection was whether I will call her a liar for a period of three years and I do not agree with that. I would call her a liar for much longer than that …
Madam SPEAKER: And the Chief Minister should know much better than that, but I would ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: And Chief Minister, do not make those comments across the floor.
Mr DUNHAM: I guess she was merely using the wrong terminology.
It is interesting because the Chief Minister has just been on radio - and I have the transcript here - and it makes beautiful reading. With 10 minutes I am sure I could read most of it into the Parliamentary Record given that those opposite do not interject too much. We have a situation where a reporter has put a series of questions to the Chief Minister - only a matter of some minutes, an hour or so ago - and the questions relate to pretty much the sort of stuff we have talked about here in the censure motion. And that is that:
- The Auditor-General says possibly seven have been, well have received termination pay, a suggestion
they have been sacked. Have they been?’
‘No, Julia, simply and absolutely no’.
‘Were they asked to leave?’
‘Julia, simply and absolutely no’.
Reporter: ‘Right. Can I play you something that the Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, said yesterday?
- Toyne: The CEOs that were asked to leave, being terminated in that way, we had to pay them, you know,
quite a substantial payout.
So the reporter puts that question, and it is glossed over by the Chief Minister who is getting quite good at being able to jump from side to side of an argument, and the media are getting quite used to it. She puts the same case pretty much to the reporter saying: ‘Well, so Toyney’s done it. So what? I do it all the time’. And her answer is, the now, Chief Minister:
- Well, I’m just saying that Peter used the wrong language and that is quite clear. I am the Chief Minister.
I am telling you what happened.
And later on the reporter goes on to say:
- Have you got confidence in your Attorney-General who can get something so serious, so wrong?
And she says:
- I am clearing it up because he just used the wrong words.
So we do not have to use the word ‘lie’ in this parliament anymore. We can say the Chief Minister’s been using the wrong words again. Because she’s used a lot of the wrong words recently; she’s been saying ‘yes’ when she means ‘no’. She has been saying that ‘this is an absolute guarantee’ when that is not the case. Some of the wrong words she has been using go to the fact that we could have laid all this out to the people today in the censure motion. She has found a new word ‘prosecuted’. ‘They haven’t prosecuted a case, there was simply an abuse of parliament’. Later on she tells the reporter, ‘But it wasn’t the issue they were trying to prosecute, Julia’. Well, we don’t know what they were trying to prosecute.
The word I think she means is ‘prostitute’. I think some of the processes here are in danger of being prostituted by somebody who doesn’t use the right words. It is going to make a mockery of this parliament if it is prostituted in this way, because the issues of a censure motion are well known to the Chief Minister. She has participated in them, she has been in this House when people have been censured on specious and frivolous grounds, and she has seen it. She knows exactly what its purpose is. She has seen the sorry spectacle of the opposition being on the receiving end of the censure motion on two occasions in the short time that she has been the Chief Minister. So, she should know what it is about.
We have proof absolute that this censure motion had grounds. That proof was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We now have an issue of competence. The issue of competence is not just in the Chief Minister; the issue of competence is in her Attorney-General because she has said, outside of this place, that he used the wrong words. Now, if he is going to go around using the wrong words about such a serious issue, and if we are in this parliament using the wrong words about important matters that have appeared in the Auditor-General’s report, I think that we might have to change our terminology to make that a simile for lying. Because, I think that it is pretty hard for the Chief Minister to escape this issue. She is going to be pursued not just by us; she is going to be pursued by the media; she is going to be pursued by possibly audit-type inquiries about it. Certainly, the CEOs who were terminated, asked to leave - and all those others words that have described their disappearance from the public service - are not going to be too friendly towards her.
The dismissive way she talks about the Auditor-General who, in his report of February 2002 at page 32 says, and I will read it for the benefit of Hansard:
… that the termination payments were calculated on the basis of an employer termination under the
government’s contractual arrangements, allowing them, based on their pre-contract employment history,
to receive up to 48 weeks of notional salary in addition to five weeks payment in lieu of notice. If these
employees had resigned, they would not have been entitled to these payments.
I think that is a pretty serious thing for the Auditor-General to be saying. When the Chief Minister, mere minutes ago, went on to the radio and said: ‘Oh, I don’t have any disagreements with the Auditor-General’, I think she has either not read the report; she is doing her old trick of just winging it and making up stuff as she goes; or maybe she is using the wrong words.
In any event, I think that this has to be taken further. It should be taken further by way of a censure motion. You should caucus tonight and think about censure motions. You should talk about whether you need advance notice. You should talk about the stupid notion that somehow we have to demonstrate that we have a censure motion.
So what do we do? We run a censure motion and then you say: ‘Yes, that’s a censure motion’, and we run the basis of it. It is a facile notion and it is a notion that is being put by somebody who has taken great comfort in the strength of their numbers and good on them; they have the numbers in this House. But they do not have the moral authority coming from those numbers to prostitute some of the issues in this parliament - some of the issues that have come from a democratic heritage that stretches back for centuries.
I would ask them to caucus on this tonight and to think about the sorry history of this particular issue today. I would ask them to, possibly, ask some of the backbenchers and others what they think about morale and the issues in the public service. If the answer is that things are going swimmingly, you really have a big problem with hearing what the people are saying out there because, independents are hearing it, we are all hearing it. There are many members who you could talk to who have close friends who have relatives or are public servants - ask them. And if you are getting a universal thumbs up about the wonderful things you are doing, particularly given that the big tsunami still has to come, and the tsunami is: ‘You have 10% wastage in there and we want you to burn all those jobs. Wherever somebody goes, shut the door and wall it up behind them because we need to harvest that money’.
If you’re really, really stupid and brutal about it, there are lots of ways you can do it. Like I said, all you have to do is trade off some of things that we put in place knowing they cost money. We put things in place to provide the quality of life that we have here, and we put things into place to provide services for people, particularly in remote areas - and they cost money, so withdraw them. Do what Percy tells you: have megadepartments, centralise everything, have CEOs totally responsible - and the pain is in the bush. The pain is in the small communities; the pain is in the specific programs that lose their identity in this amorphous blob that becomes the super-departments. What happens is the articulate will float to the top and get their area serviced and the remote, the inarticulate traditional people sometimes, will not be heard because the reporting lines are just so big and complex.
I ask the Chief Minister to go to her reporting service and pull this record off the machine and to either let us know what’s going to happen to the Attorney-General now that he’s lost her confidence in speaking out about an issue in a way that he used ‘the wrong words’, and whether it is a matter that warrants the attention of this parliament. It has certainly come to the attention of the Auditor-General, it has come to the attention of the parliament, and it has now come to the attention of the media, the people out there. All of those have a feeling that the wrong words have been used to them. There is a feeling of betrayal about this issue, and there is a smell that is not going to go away because we know this is step one.
We’ve read Percy Allan’s report, too, and we know what he’s saying. We’ve read this stuff about ‘the changes are to achieve a sustainable budget’. To achieve a sustainable budget from public service changes, you have to get some money. You get some money by spending less, and you spend less because you pay fewer people, and you pay fewer people because you have not filled jobs or you have given them the flick or sacked them or terminated - whatever you want to use. What we want to know are the figures promised by your Leader of Government Business. They still have not hit the deck here. Now, as a minister I knew - oh, they going to hit the deck, are they? - once a month we got figures for the whole public service, every instrumentality. It was listed, the trends were extrapolated both backward and forward looking. There was a capacity to monitor growth and there was a capacity to monitor some of the departments that use high levels of casuals, job-sharing, part-time and all of those complex issues that relate to how you measure the size of your public service. We would like to see the same figures.
The question that was asked this morning that wasn’t answered by the Treasurer was: how much were they in August when you assumed power, how much are they now, and -I think we could say - how much do you reckon Percy thinks you should cut it back? Hathaway’s talking about - one of your mates in the union that you were so cosy with - the fact that you’re talking over certainly hundreds, several hundreds and probably in the thousands.
So these are things that we need to hear, and I am very pleased that the Chief Minister has graced us with her presence in the closure of this debate because, on issues of economic importance, she did a bolt and we all stood up and spoke. She had this bloke stand up and dump on all of us over here individually; this bloke said he wasn’t going to speak at all until I had spoken. It is good that she has mustered a bit of fortitude in them to at least stand on their hind legs, and it is good she has turned up to complete this debate. Now, when she does, tell us about the confidence in the Attorney-General; tell us what the numbers are; tell us what this wastage attrition rate thing means; give us an assurance that nobody is going to be offered redundancies because we know that is using ‘the wrong language’; and tell us any other things she should clear up before this record turns into an epitaph for this Chief Minister.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I had earlier decided not to speak, but I thought I should add some words from the Central Australian perspective. When I read the Chief Minister’s statement, it just bore out what I had always thought of her when she was the member for Fannie Bay, later the Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Martin: I still am the member for Fannie Bay, Richard.
Dr LIM: When you were only the member for Fannie Bay and then later as the Leader of the Opposition. I always thought that she had a good media profile, speaks well, presents well, reasonably good looking on television, and sounds pretty good on radio also. But she never had substance, and today’s statement bore that out: that there was no substance in the material that she presented, and it is no wonder her health minister is likewise. I mean, the one example is the other. I suppose her restructure of the public service was intended to save money, but at what cost?
The loss of corporate memory to the Northern Territory has been immense. The people who have left, the Chief Executive Officers who have left the Territory have cost this community a great loss in corporate memory. It is going to take a long while for her southern cronies to start to catch up and understand the idiosyncrasies of the Northern Territory. Now, we talk about no forced redundancies. I have had several CEOs say to me - the ones who have left - that if you were to be placed at a desk and spend the next few months doing very little but special projects that are handed to you when the acting CEO so chooses, it is really a death warrant for the CEO. Why should they sit there for the rest of their time looking at a dead-end job, having a brain-dead existence? That’s the question: why would these people, highly skilled, with a lot to contribute, with all the knowledge of the Northern Territory, be put into a brain-dead job? And the answer is: why would they want to do it?
Of course, if the offer of 52 weeks’ of salary is there, why would they be so stupid not to take that and run? Now, is that forced redundancy? Well, in a way I believe it is. You cannot say that they voluntarily walked out. Technically, you’re right, but the core issue is that they were put into a corner, told to look at a blank wall for the next 52 weeks. Of course, they would resign. Of course, they would take their redundancies and get on with their lives. They would have closure with one and start again. There’s no other way to look at this issue of redundancy than this cynical exercise that’s been done by the Chief Minister.
She’s concerned about saving money for the Northern Territory. You know, I was very surprised when I heard the way she went about looking at food prices in the Northern Territory, and what she did there. You will recall that, late in January, she decided that she would bring the Northern Territory Treasury Food Price Review to twice a year, saying that the ABS does its own reviews and, therefore, will be sufficient. The question is: the ABS does not do food price reviews in any other cities than capital cities which means in the Northern Territory, only Darwin gets that food price survey, the rest of the Territory does not.
An article in the Centralian Advocate of 22 January, front page headline says: ‘Soaring Food Costs Hit Alice Springs Families’. If the Chief Minister was real about looking after the whole of the Territory, then she’ll be looking very closely at what she can do to assist Central Australians. Instead, we are looking at high food prices and a Chief Minister who does not give a damn about what’s happening in Central Australia. That’s surely not the way to go. You will recall a statement that she made back in 1998, 1999, on 20 April when she was interviewed by Fred McCue, and she said:
- I want the committee to make a difference, that’s what I’ve said. Every Territorian, whether you live in Darwin,
Alice Springs, Ngukurr, Nhulunbuy, wherever, you want this committee to make a difference because we know
we pay an awful lot for our food and groceries. There’s no question about it. I want the prices committee to
make a difference.
As the Chief Minister, she doesn’t really care. Now that is the sort of attitude that I believe this Chief Minister has. She is concentrating on Darwin, and ignoring the rest of the Territory. It is important that, if the Chief Minister wants to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to be fully inclusive, to ensure that those of us living out of Darwin do get some share of her concerns.
She has not even talked to the Minister for Sport and Recreation about the Masters Games in Alice Springs. Less than six months to go to the Masters Games, and the organisations have not been adequately supported. The organising committee of the Masters Games is not getting the support from the minister and the government as it has had in past years from the CLP government. Fortunately for us, I understand that the accommodation houses are reasonably well booked for the Masters Games, but all this extra work, at the expense of all the volunteer organisations, the organising committee that is supposed to be set up through the Department of Sport and Recreation, have been very, very severely decimated by the restructuring, and they have very few staff to do the work.
Another issue that the Chief Minister has ignored in Central Australia is the lack of land. We have talked about the shortage of residential land in Central Australia. For the last six months we have been arguing that the government must put in some real measures to free up residential land in Central Australia. What has she done? Absolutely nothing. All we have heard is that her government is negotiating with the Central Land Council and Arrernte people for some Larrapinta stage 4 land. Now, that is going to take a long while. The real estate industry in Alice Springs was quoted not so long ago, saying that there is a dearth of land. I quote from an article, again, showing to you the headlines: ‘Alice Running out of Housing Land’, in the Centralian Advocate of 8 January this year. In the first couple of paragraphs it says:
- Alice Springs needs more land to be made available to build homes if it is to continue to grow’.
Real Estate Institute Southern Region Director, Andrew Doyle, said this yesterday. Mr Doyle
said there were just a few unsold blocks left in the town.
That’s an indictment. That’s an industry saying that this Chief Minister, this government, is not doing anything about it. Central Australia desperately needs a government that will look south of the Berrimah Line to ensure that things get underway. To say that this government does nothing, says nothing … The article that was in The Weekend Australian a few weeks ago says it all for us when it says that, when the Chief Minister is interviewed, she says lots of words, lots of platitudes but when it comes down to the crunch, she has said nothing. Well, this statement has said nothing that encourages me to believe that this government will look after the Northern Territory, especially Central Australia.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all members for their contributions, in varying degrees. I have struggled to understand what the previous speaker was actually talking about. It is very interesting to hear the member for Greatorex and the member for Drysdale really, fundamentally, be so offensive. I mean, to have other members in this House want to discuss my personal attributes, I find quite extraordinary. I think those two members, particularly, should look at how they treat members of this House and that, because the Chief Minister happens to be female, I do not want members of this House discussing my personal attributes about whether they think I am good looking or not. It is not part of the deal of being a politician. And it is certainly not something that I want the member for Greatorex to give me his opinion on. So, I would appreciate the member for Greatorex …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is very offensive Richard. I would appreciate the member for Greatorex, if he wants to speak to a statement - that was a substantial statement about a restructure of the public sector, that I announced on 13 November last year - then he should do this House the graciousness to actually speak about it, and not to spend his time making fatuous and irrelevant comments. The same with his mate, the member for Drysdale.
This statement today is about the restructure of the public sector. It is an important move for the Territory and it was done very well. The actual restructure was put in place - these changes - and we calculated less than about 200 public servants - between 100 and 200 public servants - would actually have to move their chairs. But most of the impact would have been in terms of the name of the agency you are working for - that name would have changed. I think that this restructure was done very thoughtfully, and it has been done very logically. Our public servants were well informed through the Intranet, through the Internet, through letters to them to explain what was happening. If we compare it to the kind of processes of Planning for Growth, which caused massive disruption; or the 1000 jobs that were targeted in the early 1990s through the expenditure review committee; then any words from the CLP trying to compare this process from this Labor government with how they have previously treated the public sector, is really a sham.
This has been - and I am not standing here saying there are not some areas in our public sector where people do feel disconcerted about the changes. Change, in itself, is often disconcerting and it has to be handled properly. Because we recognise that, we put in place a Transition Task Force, we did involve the unions in it very closely, and we have Employee Liaison Officers in all areas. I am sorry to hear some members of the House say that we have public servants who feel reluctant to talk to those Employee Liaison Officers. I would certainly encourage public servants to do so, because we want to hear back about whether they are affected in terms of how they can do their job through this restructure, and we want to hear back the warts and all from every employee.
We have put in place the mechanisms. We are talking to public servants - not just talking to our CEOs, we are talking to public servants - right through from, ECO5 down to AO1. We are talking to them all, and we want to be able to give them the confidence of what this exercise was about, what this restructure was about - and a restructure that has happened in other parts of Australia - and recognise that you simply cannot have so great a number of agencies in a jurisdiction like ours; that this restructure has within it enormous opportunities for our public servants to enhance their careers - much greater opportunities. It really is an opportunity for this new government to get the public service to focus on what we believe is the real mission of our public service - and that’s service delivery to Territorians. This restructure enables us to do that.
To listen to members of the opposition simply say this is about targeting job numbers, it is absolutely absurd. At the same time, we are increasing those who do deliver our services: the police, the teachers, the nurses. How we are building an Office of Territory Development, how we are building an Office of Indigenous Policy. In fact, we are focussing on that critical aspect of government which is service delivery. To simply have this debate skewed for the purposes of the opposition to talk about: ‘Oh, it’s just about a jobs numbers exercise’, is patently absurd, because we have been consistent all along. That is not what it is about. There are savings to be made, and we have been very up-front about this. We had Percy Allan return to the Territory in mid-November to hold workshops for CEO level, for senior management level, to talk about how savings can be made in the backroom engineering areas. These are real, these have been put in place in other jurisdictions and they have made savings.
I have not pretended all along that we do not have an attrition rate of 10% over a year, that is a fact of Territory life. But, what we want is enhanced service delivery. So, if you look at, simply, the kind of arguments being put by the opposition that, when someone leaves a job we are not going to fill it. How on earth does that fulfil the criteria of better service delivery? No, it doesn’t. Take a look in the newspapers on the weekend, the national ones. Take a look in the NT News. Every week there are jobs advertised; a full page every week. We are building our public service; we are building our public sector, and the arguments that we have heard here this afternoon are simply ridiculous.
One of the purposes behind this restructure, in having less agencies, is that we fundamentally believe, as a new government that, in many areas, it takes whole-of-government to deliver the outcomes. If you look at areas like education and crime prevention, it takes whole-of-government. In many areas, it takes a whole-of-government energy and synergy to be able to achieve those outcomes. This restructure, with less agencies, means we can do that.
In the economic area, in DBIRD - as we now, in a friendly way, call it – we have brought together the economic drivers of the Territory. These will have synergies and better outcomes, because it is a coordinated approach. We are not going to have the approach where primary industries used to run off overseas and then DART would run off overseas, and nobody would be talking to each other. This is about talking; this is about getting better bang for our buck. In the important area of employment, education and training, about bringing together those absolutely critical areas to make sure that we are working together - that education is working in with training, is working to job creation. Again, there is a logic to what we are doing.
This is not an exercise about: ‘Can we reduce numbers in the public sector?’ It is not. It is about better service delivery. It is about getting better outcomes, better results for Territorians, and for service delivery. I made it very clear, on 13 November, this is not about forced redundancies - it is not – and there is no program of voluntary redundancies. If you want to look at the figures, let’s look at this government compared with the previous government. From January last year to August, there were 152 voluntary redundancies under the previous government. Under our government, from August to January this year, there were 39. Now, let’s do a comparison. There is no program of voluntary redundancies but, of course, in the public sector our size, there are voluntary redundancies. We recognise that, because 152 happened under the previous administration in six months – no, seven months. Our comparison at 39 …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting, speaker after speaker said: ‘Well the Chief Minister, she just …
Mr Wood: Can you table that document?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, certainly, we are going to table it; it was when there was nothing before the House. But I can table it now for all members of the opposition who are interested. I am very pleased that the member for Nelson is interested.
I listened to member after member here talk about: ‘There was nothing in this statement, what is the Chief Minister going to do?’. I know I am not to draw attention to where they are, but there is not a one here; not a one here to listen to this. After being challenged: ‘Come in here and wind up this debate’; not a one here.
Dr Burns: Not even one to raise a point of order about it.
Ms MARTIN: And not even one to make a point of order. Let me put on the record, there is no one in our public sector who has a job; who wants to have that job; who hasn’t got it. So, all this rubbish we are hearing - no one has lost their job. Nobody who wants that job, has lost it.
We have the rubbish being spoken in here this afternoon, the attempt to twist words and somehow pretend, if you twist the words hard enough, you must be getting to some other meaning. Well, let me make it very clear: I might be a simple and straightforward person but, when I say things I mean them. So, when I say no forced redundancies, no program of voluntary redundancies, that’s what it is about. When I say that the four CEOs identified in the Auditor-General’s report, were those who chose to have voluntary redundancies, that is the absolute truth. That is the absolute truth, so, let’s just get this straight.
It is interesting, for a government that used to try and attempt to throw the Auditor-General’s report down late at night and never talk about it later. They’ve suddenly had a turning on the road to Damascus, and are now saying that the Auditor-General is - which is fine, but it is interesting, things turn quite quickly. I have no problems with what the Auditor-General said. There is no one who has left under the Labor government, who hasn’t been paid out according to their contract - we are absolutely certain of that - and within the same kind of framework and protocols as established by our predecessors.
I would like to get to this area of low morale. Speaker after speaker just threw: ‘There is low morale; there is frustration and concern; public servants aren’t happy.’ Yet, except for - and I do accept that in the Parks and Wildlife service we do have an area that we really need to address, because I know that there are members in that area who do not feel as though the integrity of the service under these new arrangements is being addressed. I can say to those who work in Parks and Wildlife: you are valued by this government and any changes do not devalue the job you do, the expertise you have, and the importance you have to us. So, I take that on board. That is an issue we have to address, and maybe it is one we have to articulate more clearly to the service.
We had speaker after speaker simply say: ‘There is low morale’; but no evidence. They simply said: ‘There is frustration’; but no evidence. ‘There is concern and we have had phone calls’. Well, what did the phone calls say? What areas were they from? You do not have to identify the person. What did they say when they rang? Did they give evidence of this low morale? Did they say what areas it is from? Did they say that the ability to deliver services for the Territory was being diminished or damaged? Not a one; we just heard the rhetoric. We heard the opposition rhetoric of: ‘If there’s been a good initiative from government, we are going to whinge and whine and carp about it’. That’s all we got.
I find that this was an important debate this afternoon. There were some contributions from the opposition, and I thank my ministers for their full support, because we now have a much clearer outline, in public, of what this restructure is about, and what has been happening with various departments with the kind of energies and commitments and the strategies that are being put in place. I think that Territorians should feel very heartened about that. What I am hearing back from our public service - and I am not pretending it is all 100% - but I am hearing back: ‘This is great. We have a new energy; we have a government that is listening to us; and we have better career opportunities now’. That is what I am hearing back. And so, if we really genuinely have from the opposition, public servants who are suffering from low morale, well, I say it is important for the opposition to come in here and articulate where those areas are. Don’t be specific, give us a general idea, because we want to address it. That’s what the Employee Liaison Officers are there for; that’s what the Transition Task Force is there for. That’s what we want to hear and address.
I think we have seen a new energy in our public sector. I think that we have a government that values the corporate knowledge, that values the expertise; that is saying to public servants: ‘We want to hear your ideas. You’ve been sat on for years; you weren’t able to of disagree with the policy, because you were in fear, you were trying to second-guess ministers. Well, that’s over and we want to see your career prospects enhanced’. I know when I spoke to Julia Christiansen - and the member for Drysdale quoted this - that I said I would love to see public servants getting up and going to work with a spring in their step. Well I do, and I do not apologise. I certainly do not apologise.
This has been an important statement to this House; it has been an important initiative from this government. I want to thank all those involved in the planning for the restructure, because I think that, overall, it has been done with more sensitivity and more information shared with those who it is going to affect than we have ever seen before, in any restructure from this Country Liberal Party. So, my thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
NTPS Numbers and Redundancies
NTPS Numbers and Redundancies
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it gives me enormous pleasure to table a document entitled Northern Territory Public Sector Numbers and Redundancies. The source is the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. It details the questions raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Katherine, this morning. I am very happy to lay that on the Table.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Territory Tourism
Territory Tourism
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, tourism is a vital part of the Territory economy, and of our society. Tourism is the second-largest sector of our economy and, after mining and resources, directly contributes more than 8000 jobs and more than $900m to the Territory economy. Taking into account indirect spending and employment, the tourist industry supports over 11 000 Territory jobs and injects over $1.5bn into our economy per annum.
The Northern Territory is blessed with natural attractions and an ancient culture that provides visitors from around the world with a unique experience. Our greatest advantages in the highly competitive tourism marketplace are our pristine natural environments, our natural icon attractions including national parks and, most importantly, our people - particularly our indigenous people and the wealth of history and culture they have to share with national and international visitors.
The challenge for government and the Northern Territory tourism industry is to work together to build on these competitive advantages, our environments and our people, to provide tourism experiences that will attract new visitors, encourage them to stay longer, and keep them coming back, and to do so on a sustainable manner whereby our natural environment is respected and preserved, and all Territorians share in the economic benefits that increased tourist numbers will bring.
It has been a tough time for the Territory’s tourism industry over the past six months. The events of 11 September, the collapse of Ansett and the downturn in the global aviation industry have impacted adversely on tourist numbers, particularly international visitors from the US and Asia. The immediate impact of these events was dramatic, with falling tourist numbers affecting the industry internationally. As a competitor in a global market, the Northern Territory was seriously affected. Whilst recent international arrival figures are showing some tentative positive signs of bouncing back, particularly in the Northern Territory’s key markets in Europe, it will take some time to rebuild international traveller confidence to the level it was before the tragic events of last September.
To recap on the strategy adopted by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission post 11 September, the challenge in this difficult climate was to understand the changed international market, particularly the decline in airline numbers, and to identify and best target marketing spending to areas where people were still willing to travel, particularly the domestic air and drive markets. The Tourist Commission engaged Roy Morgan Research to undertake a series of telephone interviews with Australians to assess the impact of the Ansett collapse and the US terrorist attacks, and subsequent war against terrorism, on Australians’ travel intentions. The research proved what we have always known: Australians are resilient. Over the next 12 months, our intentions to holiday remain strong, and we still have a slight preference for air travel.
A result of our research with Roy Morgan was an intra-Territory advertising campaign. Conducted jointly with the Tourist Commission and the four regional tourist associations, the campaign’s intention was to encourage local Territorians to holiday at home.
Australia wide, the Territory Tourist Commission conducted a November national recovery campaign with the message that the NT is ‘open for business’. The campaign addressed key issues of accessibility, affordability and availability. The full-page colour advertisements were published in a variety of press in key domestic markets. The campaign was value-added by the promotion of all participating partners’ packages on a series of on-line travel sites. The response from the press advertising was excellent, resulting in a high number of inquiries to the commission’s holiday centre regarding the Northern Territory drive market options. However, the best results were realised from the on-line strategy which initiated a number of bookings that I have been advised today, in the period October to January, of 4426 inquiries which initiated significant numbers of bookings direct with participating partners.
In addition, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and Territory Discoveries have embarked on an integrated tactical campaign to deliver immediate results to the NT industry, which commenced on 24 February. This four-week campaign of press, TV and Internet advertising advertises travel until 30 June, prior to the Territory’s traditional domestic peak season. A direct mail piece sent through the NT Holiday Centre to identify ‘hot prospects’, will also be used to encourage conversion. Again, that direct mail has gone to over 12 000 individuals and organisations.
National Marketing have dubbed March 2002 NT Month. A month of activities will showcase the Territory to both national trade and consumers. Activities include the Territory Muster which has been branded ‘Outback comes to the city’ as part of the 2002 Year of the Outback. This series of consumer shows involves 41 NT operators and all four regional tourist associations, and will travel to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Other activities planned for NT Month are features in Trave Trade and Travel Week publications, travel agency window displays, incentive drives for sales staff, and cooperative marketing and promotional activities with large industry partners such as Qantas Holidays, Great Southern Rail and Voyagers Hotels and Resorts. The effectiveness of these campaigns will be tracked through the NT Holiday Centre and the NT Travel Monitor, and will be used to track trends in interstate travel to the Territory.
Internationally, the Northern Territory is currently in the middle of its biggest single campaign, working with the South Australian Tourist Commission, Qantas and Bridge the World on a major UK-based campaign entitled ‘Discover the Other Oz’. This $750 000 campaign aims to bring visitors from the UK into South Australia and the Northern Territory and self-drive the Explorer Highway. It includes massive press, radio, billboards - on major roads in every tube station in London - and on-line advertising. This is a clear example on the Northern Territory working cooperatively with industry and operators to maximise the return on our marketing investments in our high yielding markets.
A key focus of both the domestic and international campaigns are the drive market. The self-drive market has been just as resilient, and has equal potential for growth as the unstructured backpacker market. Initial evidence from interstate and in the Northern Territory indicates that self-drive destinations enjoyed a good Christmas period. Given the current air capacity situation and the propensity for Australians to take domestic holidays, the commission will target the self-drive market for increased activity in 2002. An indication of the strength of this drive market is the fact that 40%, or 1922, of brochures issued to date, as a result of consumer inquiries to the Holiday Centre, have been about the drive market.
In January 2002, Territory Discoveries released its first dedicated self-drive program which was distributed nationally through retail travel agencies. I table a copy of that package for honourable members. This program is in conjunction with the current four-week television, press, and direct mail campaign underway in the major markets of Sydney and regional NSW including Canberra, Melbourne and regional Victoria, plus south-east Queensland.
Madam Speaker, 2002 as all members would know, is the Year of the Outback and the Northern Territory will be supporting and participating in a range of activities to celebrate this occasion, including the Desert Knowledge Conference and ‘Songlines from Alice’. The Northern Territory has an advantage in this year, as we dominate consumer recognition as the outback - the real outback. Research conducted for the NT Tourism Commission by Roy Morgan Research in December 2000 showed that the NT was the most associated state or territory with the terms ‘unique’, ‘natural’ and ‘remote’. Research undertaken by other state tourism authorities has also shown the NT as the clear leader in being associated with the outback. This has been reinforced by the NT Tourism Commission changing its logo to ‘Australia’s Outback – Northern Territory’.
The commission is capitalising on the Northern Territory’s identity as Australia’s real outback during the Year of the Outback, both domestically and internationally. Working with the Australian Tourism Commission, the international exposure is primarily through the Visiting Journalists Program, (VJP), which provides media and public relations activity in our target markets; for example, the UK and Europe. Again, in the last six months we have had a large number of journalists come through the Northern Territory. For example, 17 September, a journalist called Jennifer Guerrini-Maraldi, Country Life - this is a weekly UK glossy targeted at affluent readers living, or with a second residence in rural areas. This will produce an outback special for Country Life in the United Kingdom, which will feature Darwin and Crab Claw Island. Another example; a national TV station in Germany visiting most regions in the Northern Territory to produce travel documentary entitled ‘Voyages Voyages’, aired to 1.2 million viewers throughout Germany and Australia. There are a large number of these visiting journalists who come through, and my department works with them to give them a great experience of the Northern Territory, which ultimately is reflected in their articles and media back in their home countries.
All domestic advertising now refers to the Northern Territory as ‘Australia’s Outback’ and advertising texts encourages a sense of urgency in Australians’ travel plans so that they plan their holiday during the Year of the Outback to the real outback, the Northern Territory. Additional Australian marketing initiatives are a national partners cooperative advertising campaign, an NT operators cooperative advertising campaign, and an unstructured market campaign. The unstructured market - basically backpackers - traditionally comprises 29% of international visitors to the Territory. The backpacker market has proven to be reasonably resistant to the fears that have impacted the general international market.
I have outlined what we have been doing to respond to the events of September last year and our current marketing activities. I wish now to outline the government’s plans for the immediate future.
The Tourism Working Group established during the Economic Development Summit confirmed that the keys to recovery and sustainable long-term growth are an increased aviation capacity, infrastructure developments and product diversity. I wish to again place on record my thanks to the members of that working group who worked on well after the summit had finished to provide the government with a range of sensible suggestions on how to grow the industry in the Northern Territory. A lot of work went into developing the Tourism Development Master Plan under the previous government, and it contains a range of useful suggestions for taking the industry forward. I was disappointed to find, however, that no implementation strategy had been developed to accompany the plan, which remained something of a wish list without any real ownership.
A priority task for the Tourist Commission now is to develop a realistic, fully-funded implementation plan, in consultation with the tourism industry, to deliver real outcomes. As part of the recent public sector restructure, the government has returned the responsibility for tourism infrastructure development to the Tourist Commission. Therefore, the people who know what the industry wants will be working directly with industry to prioritise their requirements for improved infrastructure and work out the best way to deliver it. A Destination Development Unit has now been established within the commission to facilitate infrastructure development opportunities with potential investors.
The Tourism Drives program management committee has also been reconstituted directly as a result of a meeting that I had with CATIA, who were concerned that it had been disbanded or abandoned by the previous government. It has been reconstituted, and it met recently to advance the Tourism Drives strategies and to build on the drive marketing campaign. The committee comprises representatives from relevant agencies and ensures a whole-of-government approach to implementation.
As the participants at the Economic Development Summit clearly identified, the future economic developments of the Northern Territory, including the tourist industry, must involve the full participation of indigenous Territorians. One of the major reasons international tourists visit the Northern Territory is to experience Aboriginal culture and to understand the history of this ancient land. We will work closely with Aboriginal people to improve opportunities for increased participation in the tourist industry, and to improve the experience of visitors to the Territory to understand and experience Aboriginal culture. I know of a number of products currently available and under development including fishing tours - they’re an exciting potential growth area.
There is enormous potential for Aboriginal tourism internationally. Cultural tourism will provide a direct benefit to our Aboriginal community, as well as the Territory as a whole. World-wide, the demand for authentic cultural tourism experience is increasing. 28% of interstate and international holiday visitors in 2000-01 indicated a motivating factor in their decision to visit the Northern Territory was the desire to experience real Aboriginal culture. The Territory is best positioned to fulfil the indigenous culture desires of visitors to Australia. The International Visitor Survey conducted by the Bureau of Tourism Reseach shows that over half of all international visitors to the Territory had experienced Aboriginal art, culture or cultural displays, and one-third had visited an Aboriginal community or site. These proportions were much higher than in any other state or Territory.
In terms of the domestic market, around half of all Australians who travelled interstate and experienced Aboriginal art or culture, cultural displays or visited an Aboriginal community or site, did so in the Northern Territory. Supporting and facilitating growth in this area, with the full involvement of Aboriginal people, is a priority for the Labor government.
Business tourism is another exciting growth area for the Territory. The new Alice Springs Convention Centre, due to open next month, will stimulate the local economy with forward bookings, equating to over 20 000 delegates, already being received for the period between its opening and Christmas this year. The NT Tourism Commission, through the NT Convention Bureau, has successfully bid to host ‘Dreamtime’, Australia’s annual incentive travel event, in Central Australia in September this year. ‘Dreamtime’ allows industry direct access to over 100 of the world’s top incentive buyers, and will involve a two-day trade show at the new Alice Springs Convention Centre, as well as a familiarisation program for the international buyers that will include Uluru.
‘Dreamtime’ is a perfect opportunity to expose both the Alice Springs community and industry to what this sector of the travel industry is all about, and what high standards of service delivery are demanded by incentive groups. ‘Dreamtime’ 2002 in Alice Springs will accelerate the development of business tourism as an increasingly significant part of the Territory’s tourism mix.
2002 is the International Year of Ecotourism. The International Year of Ecotourism program plans to assist Australia consolidate its position as a world leader in terms of sustainable practices, accreditation, product development, research and training. With the Territory’s unique natural assets, ecotourism is inherent in all of the Territory Tourist Commission’s marketing strategies. The commission’s wholesale arm, Territory Discoveries, is capitalising on the International Year of Ecotourism through the launch of its latest program, a 26 page Nature and Cultural Experiences brochure. The brochure is available nationally through 43 Australian Geographic retail stores as well as travel agencies. I can commend this brochure to honourable members. I do not have a copy with me, but I will bring some in tomorrow. It really is a fantastic effort. The Territory Discoveries product launch is backed up by a public relations strategy through the Visiting Journalists Program.
I have also met twice with the federal Minister for Tourism, Joe Hockey, and I’ve been encouraged by both his understanding and his enthusiasm for the tourism portfolio, and his particular interest in expanding opportunities for cultural tourism and ecotourism in Australia. I have invited Minister Hockey to visit the Northern Territory and he has accepted. I will be working with the Regional Tourism Associations to develop options for Minister Hockey’s itinerary which showcase the wonders that the Territory has to offer, and I look forward to working cooperatively with him over the forthcoming years to develop these opportunities.
I have spoken a number of times in the House on the Northern Territory government’s aviation strategy. Access is, and always has been, the single most critical issue. In 2000-01, 66% of interstate and international visitors entered the Territory by air and these visitors injected around $566.8m into the Territory’s economy. As such, the importance of reliable air capacity in the Territory cannot be overstated. The Territory needs certainty in terms of airline schedules, coupled with reasonable ticket prices. Those were the underlying reasons for the government initiating its agreement with Virgin Blue last August.
The announcement last week of the withdrawal of the Tesna consortium bid for Ansett was a major disappointment to the Territory government and, particularly, to the ex-Ansett workers who now have little or no prospect of regaining their jobs. The decision emphasises, once again, how volatile the aviation market remains. However, the decision at least provides some certainty to Qantas and Virgin Blue to finalise their route plans for this year, particularly to Central Australia.
The government’s aviation committee is working closely with the private sector, particularly Northern Territory Airports Pty Ltd, to build the business case to attract sustainable increased airline capacity to the Northern Territory. We intend to leverage the expertise available within the private sector, to encourage new routes that meet the demands of tourists and needs of the tourist industry. Qantas has done a great job of rebuilding capacity into the Northern Territory after the events of last year.
Domestic scheduled capacity to Darwin was actually 9% higher in February this year than February last year, whilst capacity into Alice Springs and Ayers Rock exceeds last year’s equivalent demand at this point. Continued effort is required to build further capacity to grow the market and take advantage of emerging opportunities, including the opening of the convention centre.
Virgin Blue services to Darwin have loaded well in the first months of service. Virgin Blue has also committed to looking closely at possible services to Alice Springs. Virgin Blue see opportunities on some of the key interstate routes into Alice Springs, and we are working closely with Virgin Blue to encourage them to include Central Australia in their expanded schedules. We are also in ongoing discussions with Qantas management to expand their capacity into both Alice Springs and Ayers Rock.
International air capacity is a critical issue. Overall, international capacity into Darwin was significantly lower in February 2002 than the previous February, with the number of carriers reduced from seven to four. Singapore Airlines has withdrawn direct flights to Darwin. Malaysia Airlines has felt the pressure of global changes in aviation, withdrawing many of its international routes including the KL-Darwin route. This withdrawal means an important link to the NT’s key source markets in Europe has been lost. On a positive note, however, Royal Brunei flights now terminate in Darwin, which has provided some much-needed additional international capacity into Darwin.
A key role of the NT Aviation Committee is to provide the business case for both domestic and international carriers to include the Northern Territory in their schedules. Qantas’ new international carrier, Australian Airlines, will be operating out of Cairns from September this year servicing existing Asian, as well as emerging, markets. Australian Airlines management has indicated that Darwin is being considered as part of this operation. I have been in contact with Australian Airlines CEO, Denis Adams, and will be meeting with him shortly to encourage Darwin’s inclusion in Australian Airlines operations.
Australia’s advantage in the international tourism market is that it is seen as a safe destination. We need to leverage this reputation and promote the Territory as a place that can be experienced in safety and comfort. The continued growth of the Northern Territory tourism industry is a priority for the Martin Labor government. The international events of last September, and the collapse of Ansett, were a major blow to our industry which, as a participant in a competitive international market, we cannot hide from.
However, in recent weeks, I’ve met with tourism industry representatives in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Gove, and I’ve been encouraged by the enthusiasm and optimism of operators. I will also be meeting with regional operators in Tennant Creek shortly. We have a great product in the Northern Territory, and talented people ready to provide memorable experiences for our visitors. All of the industry representatives I have spoken to have agreed that tourists to the Northern Territory want to see our stunning environment, but they also want to meet Aboriginal people and understand indigenous culture. We are committed to working with Aboriginal people to expand opportunities for cultural tourism and for ecotourism, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation, so that all Territorians can share in the benefits of a growing tourism industry.
Finally, I wish to thank the staff of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, led by Acting CEO John Fitzgerald, for their work over the difficult last few months, and I look forward to working with the Tourist Commission, the tourist operators in the Northern Territory, and their representatives in the regional tourist associations, to further grow our tourist industry in a sustainable manner which will benefit all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, but I cannot help but wonder whether the minister would have bothered making a statement at all, had it not been for the motion the opposition attempted to put last week. To refresh his memory, that was that this government be condemned for failing to provide adequate support to the Northern Territory tourism industry, reducing the promotional effort of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, both in Australia and internationally, and for failing to secure Virgin Blue services to Alice Springs and Yulara.
We have heard very little from this minister in relation to tourism over recent times. It is curious - is it not? - that, only days after the opposition attempts to move its motion to condemn this government’s blundering approach and inaction, the minister obviously has someone who knows a little more about tourism than he does, to write a statement for him to read. Nevertheless, the opposition is grateful to him for providing a statement. We would have thought that, given the circumstances in which the Northern Territory now finds itself, that the minister - or those around him - would have seen fit to provide a statement with vision and action, rather than what appears to be a paragraph by paragraph response to the opposition statement last week. Something along the lines of a comprehensive plan of action would have been wonderful to hear and, like the statement that preceded it, actually says very little, in a few thousand words. So, it is a disappointing statement. However, the minister is generally regarded as a disappointment, so I suppose it is not all that surprising that his statement is similarly disappointing. Nevertheless, some matters require a response from me; some matters I will repeat from last week.
The minister admits, fairly early on in his statement, that the tourism industry is a highly competitive industry. It begs the question: why is it that the Treasurer announced cuts to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission in the November mini-budget? There was a cut of $241 000, plus the $2m deal with Virgin Blue, that equates to $2.41m. To further refresh the minister’s memory, there was a cut, in particular, of $191 000 from the market research focus budget. There was a cut to the research budget of $11 000, and the market focus budget of $191 000. The domestic tourism market, we know, must be stimulated by government to promote tourism to the Territory, but there was a cut of $67 000 to the commission’s destination image market budget. To make matters worse, this government also cut, by $59 000, Territory Discoveries, which develops tourism products for sale to consumers in the domestic market.
The minister admits that the industry is a very competitive one - a highly competitive one, in his words - but his government has slashed the NTTC’s budget as part of a plan to pay for the outrageous Labor promises during the election campaign. It is no wonder that people in the industry simply do not take him seriously. The minister said in the statement that, after the events of 11 September, the NTTC engaged Roy Morgan Research to assess the effects of those tragic events, as well as the Ansett collapse. The research showed, and I quote the minister in his statement: ‘We had a high preference for air travel’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is against that backdrop that, both before and during this government’s negotiations with Virgin Blue last year, Territorians were told, all along, that an alternative airline was going to come to the Territory. The minister constantly forgets that half of them are in the south, and we were short changed because the government failed to secure the commitment for Alice Springs and Yulara.
Government failed to achieve a full and satisfactory outcome for all Territorians by agreeing to one flight a day from Virgin Blue to the Top End, and no services to the Centre. What this shows is that, even though the minister’s advice is that there is ‘a high preference for air travel’, he forgets - he completely forgets - in the course of his negotiations with Virgin Blue, that one of the priorities was to get another airline into Central Australia. Five months later, of course, still nothing. We suggest that the minister might like to reassess, in future, obtaining advice from Roy Morgan Research, on the basis that he doesn’t accept the advice he receives.
Elsewhere in his statement, the minister detailed a number of advertising campaigns, some of which included a number of high inquiries to the commission’s Holiday Centre. It is very pleasing to hear the minister refer to the Holiday Centre, because it might just mean that he sees some benefit in the Holiday Centre, and no doubt those employed there are looking to him to confirm tonight that the Holiday Centre won’t be closed or it won’t be cut back. If that is not the case, I call on him in his closing remarks to put on the record …
Mr Henderson: Who said it would be? And when did you stop beating your wife, that’s the next one?
Ms CARNEY: … that the Holiday Centre will not be cut or relocated, thereby taking jobs away from local and loyal employees.
Unfortunately, a slight deafness prevents me from picking up the interjections, but I must say, I see the minister chuckling away, he needs to know …
Mr Henderson: Who said it is being cut or closed? Not me. Running vicious rumours again.
Ms CARNEY: … that people in the Holiday Centre are, indeed, concerned for the future. There is a whisper going around that the Holiday Centre that they will be relocated. Since the minister finds that rumour so hysterically funny, it would be delightful for him to confirm on the record tonight that nothing will happen, and I will very happily advise the employees accordingly.
The minister seems to take great pride in the advertising campaign launched as recently as 24 February which, by his own admission, only runs for four weeks. Last week, it’s curious, he said that the campaign would run for three weeks. Later in the day he said four weeks. Now we know it is four weeks, so at least, now having been briefed properly, the minister knows that it is four weeks and the public will know accordingly.
The opposition welcomes that campaign but, like so many in the industry, cannot help but wonder whether it is enough. $500 000 is a lot of money to spend, but for four weeks worth, we question: would it not have been wiser for the government to inject more money so that we could stimulate the Territory tourism economy, which, as everyone in this House knows, is the second largest revenue earner for the Northern Territory?
There is also a reference in the minister’s statement to NT Month, which is a month of activities that showcases the Territory, both domestically and internationally, as I understand it. The minister reveals, however, that he doesn’t completely have his head around his portfolio, because these kinds of initiatives, these consumer trade shows, (a) have been around for years and, (b) have little, if anything, to do with government, because they are in fact driven by industry, with assistance from the regional tourist associations. So, this government, in its typical fashion, by this statement, seeks to gain, or claim credibility for these sorts of initiatives, but they shouldn’t because they have been happening for years anyway. Well, it typifies this statement, because, generally, it is a bunch of nothingness and a bunch of meaningless statements. What the tourism industry needs now is some action, some decisiveness, something new, a bit of injection of enthusiasm, at the very least, from government. But I digress.
The minister’s statement also referred to some other activities that, again, are not propelled by government. They are the features in publications such as Travel Trade, Travel Week and so on. Government again, I suggest, is trying to use these sorts of examples to suggest that it is actually doing something. Well, it won’t work, because I know, and the industry knows, that these things have nothing to do with government. It is a fairly desperate government that needs to fill a lengthy ministerial statement with a whole lot of things that really have nothing to do with government. But again, I digress.
I do say, however, that the industry is screaming for action, and the motion the opposition attempted to put last week is still a valid one in the sense that this statement hasn’t sought to cure the government’s deficiencies, nor does it seek to placate or put at ease those involved in the tourism industry.
Last week, you may recall that I spoke in this House about the international situation, and I drew attention to the government’s lethargy in that area. The minister says that the Northern Territory Tourist Commission is working on a major UK-based campaign. Of course, we welcome the efforts announced this afternoon in Question Time, especially in relation to the Discover the Other Oz; that is a good campaign.
However, what the minister does not say is why he goes around, as he did in Katherine a few weeks ago, saying on the one hand that he has increased tourism promotions, and then saying only moments later, that it has been cut back in the United States and Japan. The minister admits that Australia is seen as a safe destination so, it is clear that there is an opportunity for the NTTC to embark on heavy promotion in those countries, if it has the resources. Unfortunately, under this Labor government, those resources have been severely cut. They were cut within a couple of months of this government coming to office. What little money the NTTC has to spend, it must be very targeted and very specific. The opportunity has gone; it is unable to properly embark on promotional campaigns in a number of other countries.
The minister also referred to the focus of both the domestic and international campaigns being the drive market. However, it really is astonishing that the minister says, and I quote from his statement:
- … that the initial evidence from interstate and the Northern Territory indicates that self-drive destinations
enjoyed a good Christmas period.
I ask: who on earth wrote this statement? Of course, there was a good drive period over Christmas because the flights were significantly reduced. Go to almost any jurisdiction and you’ll find that the drive market was stimulated like it has never been stimulated before. I speak from first-hand experience as well, because, having driven halfway around the country over Christmas, I saw my fellow Territorians and fellow Australians all out on the roads.
The statement is really embarrassing in its content. It looks like - to use an analogy - it was written by a first-year law student. It is sloppy; as I said before, it is a bunch of nothingness. I suggest the minister and his staffers, whoever they are - those unknown people, not known by those in the tourism industry - should have spent their time producing results, rather than this hollow vacuum statement. But, as I said only a few days ago when speaking about tourism, it gets worse. Having referred to the importance of the self drive-market, the minister’s statement then boasts:
- In 2002, Territory Discoveries released its first dedicated self-drive program, which is distributed nationally.
The question is, how on earth does this minister reconcile that, with his Treasurer slashing the funding of Territory Discoveries by $59 000 in the new budget? If this Tourism Minister sees an important role for Territory Discoveries - and by this statement, anyone reading it would assume that he does - how on earth can he look members of the tourism industry in the eye when he is very much a part of this government that cut funding to Territory Discoveries only after a couple of months in office? No doubt, the minister will do his best to explain that in his closing remarks.
The statement then goes on to mention that this year is the Year of the Outback. Again, the minister seeks to place, as I understood his statements, some importance on that. To that extent, the comments are pleasing. I note, though, that he also referred to the fact that the commission is working on international exposure through, and I quote from the statement: ‘… Visiting Journalists Program which provides media and public relations activity in our target markets’. Again, this is an extraordinary thing for the minister to have said, in light of other developments affecting tourism in the Northern Territory. Of course, I speak, in particular, to the government recently relinquishing, without so much as a fight the Australian Outback Safari. The loss of the Outback Safari could not come at a worse time for the Territory tourism industry. This event was worth about $4m a year to the Territory economy and gave the Territory enormous exposure, both internationally and Australia-wide. The fact of the matter is, journalists from around the world …
Mr Henderson: It is not what CATIA said. They said it brought nothing to Alice Springs.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you wouldn’t know, you have never been there.
Journalists from around the world arrived in Central Australia and then took off to a number of remote locations - not the sort of locations that regularly appear on our screens let alone on the screens of those internationally. But a flock of international journalists arrived and they tracked the Outback Safari from Central Australia all the way to the Top End. Now, arguably you cannot buy the type of international publicity that those journalists provided to the Northern Territory. This government saw fit not to support that valuable initiative, and it loses a number of international journalists. Yet, this minister says how wonderful it is that we have some international journalists coming with what he describes as the Visiting Journalists Program.
Well, the opposition suggests that the minister try to get his head around his portfolio to the extent that he can work out with his left hand what the right hand is doing. Certainly, both hands at this point appear to be on the Territory’s cash registers. It would be very useful if he could get his stories straight as to why it is that he supports the Visiting Journalists Program when, at the same time, he actively gets in the way and prevents a number of international journalists coming to the Northern Territory and doing us all a favour. The government should have tried much harder to retain the Australian Outback Safari, but it didn’t. That sums up this government’s lack of imagination to do anything meaningful to stimulate tourism and business sectors. While this government continues with its lethargic approach, the Territory economy and, indeed, the tourism industry will continue to go backwards.
Given the importance and the potential of the Year of the Outback to the Territory economy, perhaps the minister will use this opportunity, in his closing remarks, to reveal what funding, if any, his government will put into the Year of the Outback. It is no good, on the one hand celebrating the virtues of such a wonderful event and then not putting your money where your mouth is by supporting it. So, I call on the minister tonight to enlighten us. I note from a media report this morning, that the Alice Springs Town Council was kicking in $100 000. It would be very embarrassing if this Labor government didn’t, or fell short of this $100 000 figure. I say very sincerely that we in the opposition and, as the minister would presumably suspect, many of the tourism industry would want his government to put funds into this very important event. If he’s unable to provide details of how much money his government is going to contribute then, perhaps, he would be good enough to let us know why it is that he’s unable to enlighten us this evening.
Half way through the statement, the minister - actually the author of that statement, I should say - actually made me think that there was going to be a revelation: something revealed other than just platitudes. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the case. Half way through, the minister referred to the Economic Development Summit and made reference to a working group and said: ‘… the working group worked on well after the summit had finished to provide government with a range of sensible suggestions on how to grow the industry in the Northern Territory’. I ask the minister: is he sure about that? Because, I understand that a number of the RTAs were quite dissatisfied with the recommendations that came directly out of the Economic Development Summit, and that many of the RTAs have not even finished their responses. So, why on earth the minister has said that the outcomes of the Economic Development Summit had finished, I do not know. I am very certain that that statement will come as a surprise to some of the members, if not the hierarchy of some of the Territory’s four RTAs. The bottom line is that the minister is saying that he has an outcome from the Economic Development Summit as far as tourism is concerned. My information is that that is not the case.
The minister referred to the establishment of what he has called the Destination Development Unit in the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. What the minister does not say - and, of course, this again typifies the approach of this government - don’t look for what is said but look for what is not said. What the minister does not say is whether that unit has received any funding. In fact, he completely glosses over the fact that the destination budget of the NTTC was cut in the mini-budget by $67 000. Again, we would ask for clarification about those issues. If the minister is hell-bent on saying something, then we ask that he say it properly and that he back it up with information or, at least go through the motions of trying to explain or reconcile why he, as the Tourism Minister, is trying to do something and yet at the same time, his Treasurer seems to be going off in another direction. However, as they constantly remind us, they are all part of the same team. Anyway, Minister, the opposition awaits your comments.
One interesting part of the statement - and I am very happy to commend the government for it - is its statement about indigenous tourism. The government says that it will improve opportunities and increase participation in the tourism industry. This declaration is welcomed by the opposition. The opposition, when in government, did foster this approach. I am sure the minister is aware of the very real challenges that exist in, not only creating and developing, but ensuring that indigenous tourism becomes sustainable. My understanding is that there are countless examples, for some reason or another, of various indigenous tourism operations or operators not being sustainable in the long term. Nevertheless, we welcome the assertion that the government is committed to that area.
The statement really does look backwards and not forwards. The minister referred to the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the NTTC’s successful bid to host the Dreamtime, which will draw the world’s top incentive buyers for a two-day trade show in Alice Springs. These are not the initiatives of this government. Government, we say again, must provide resources, the ideas and expertise so that it can lead the industry. The government has very starkly demonstrated that it consistently falls well short of doing those things, to date. For my own part, having developed very good relationships with a number of people in the tourism industry over a relatively short space of time, I do hope that the government does get its act together.
Some things become political, but when we are aware that people’s livelihoods are at stake, politics really does fly out the door. So again, I very sincerely hope that the government and, in particular, this minister, does what he can to come up with some ideas, rather than going on and on in a 22-page statement that really, with the greatest of respect, just amounts to a load of rubbish. It really would be good for all us.
However, another welcomed statement was regarding ecotourism. The minister noted in his statement that ecotourism was inherent in the NTTC’s marketing strategies. Again, nothing new, but we welcome it.
In terms of aviation, we see, again, more expressions of hopes that Virgin Blue is getting to Central Australia, or at least the problems in the south will be resolved. We, like those in the industry, await the results in that regard. We call for action and not just platitudes. The minister also said - and I noted this with interest - that he had been in contact with Australian Airlines, but he does not say when that contact first began. I am not suggesting for a moment that he is obliged to do so but, in light of the fact that it was raised last week by the member for Katherine and myself, about when the minister was going to make some progress with Australian Airlines, I would have thought that the minister might provide a bit more detail to avoid the conclusion that some people might draw that the minister has only, in fact, made representations in very recent times. I, on behalf of the opposition, urge the minister to meet with the CEO, as he has foreshadowed, as soon as possible and to report to parliament at the next sittings of the outcomes of those discussions.
I note, with interest again, something unsaid by the minister. He did not touch upon or make a reference, in any way, to the Masters Games. That might be because it is the first time in the history of the games that the games are, in fact, in trouble. It raises the questions: what has the minister done; what involvement has he had; is he concerned, as many other people are? There is an array of issues that government needs to address, one of which is to do something to assist the organisers and volunteers who, I am told by people in Alice Springs, have been left to fend for themselves. You may be aware of this, Madam Speaker. I am also told this afternoon by one of my colleagues that there is a Master Games hotline - a fact which I knew - and that this hotline has been withdrawn. What that means is that organisers and volunteers do not have a particular aid to assist them with their tasks and this, of course, makes things extremely difficult for those people interstate to find out information about the Masters Games. This might be why it is that registration for the Masters Games is extraordinarily low.
In conclusion, the statement has, at best, attempted to address some of the issues raised by my colleagues and I last week, arising from the motion that we attempted to put. That was a detailed motion made by me as to the ongoing inadequacies of the government; of this minister. It is very curious, indeed, that only a few days later he comes in with a statement - presumably prepared by someone else who knows something about the industry - from which he simply reads. The coincidence is incredible, in that it just goes so close to a paragraph by paragraph answering of the matters I raised in the motion. For me, that illustrates very clearly that the minister, on his feet, was unable to properly address matters raised in the motion last week. The logical extension of that is that this is a minister who does not have his head around the portfolio.
I might say that that might not be entirely the minister’s fault, since his esteemed leader and his government are hell-bent on maintaining government with only seven ministers. The opposition said right from the beginning that this was a mistake, and there is no better example than the Minister for Tourism - and for almost everything else - when a motion is put by the opposition in this House, that he gets to his feet and is unable to adequately address the matters that we raised, and then some days later comes back in with a statement. You may recall that the minister’s response in Question Time last Wednesday was nothing short of abysmal, as well.
Again, the statement is almost meaningless. It certainly does nothing to convince me that the minister is across his portfolio, or that this government is committed to the tourism industry. Although I am not convinced, the more important issue is whether those in the industry are convinced. I can assure the minister that they would not be, after this dreadful tourism statement that he has provided tonight.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker. it is with absolute delight that I stand here tonight to commend the Minister for Tourism on his statement. I have to say I am still somewhat bemused by the ill-informed comments of the shadow spokesperson for tourism from Central Australia. The minister has provided the House this evening with a comprehensive statement showing quite clearly that this government is committed to funding and promoting tourism in the Territory.
The member opposite seems to be as thick as the wad of money that this government is pumping into tourism. I will deal with it in as simple language as possible. We are pumping into tourism …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have a quorum. You count me as well. It is all right. There is no point of order. Continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: The minister has quite clearly stated, both in sittings last week and again today, that the government is pumping about $1.2m into marketing the Territory in this shoulder season leading into the peak season. Specifically, in excess of $1.2m is going into a tourism marketing campaign down the eastern seaboard of Australia, and in the United Kingdom. The drive market strategy, the four-week advertising campaign called Territory Discoveries across the major markets of Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, regional Victoria and New South Wales, and south-east Queensland in this forthcoming shoulder season prior to the dry peak season, is a commendable strategy that our Tourism Minister is supporting in its endeavours to bring much needed visitors to the Territory.
This is a coordinated cross-government approach because our Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Lands and Planning, and Environment is also looking at approaching the Territory’s highways, which will serve us in good stead in the future in terms of improving the drive market.
The international strategy, which deals with the exciting initiative of some $750 000 in the Discover the Other Oz campaign in the United Kingdom, is targeting backpackers. We are working with the Australian Tourism Commission, Qantas and Bridge the World in targeting these backpackers. We’re working hard to ensure that the Territory is featuring prominently in this advertising campaign.
This government has also given its full support to the establishment and completion of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Indeed, we have moved a step further than that; we are showcasing the Alice Springs Convention Centre with parliament being held there next year. Further, again today we hear action from this government - we are fast-tracking an assessment of the Darwin City Council’s proposal for a convention centre, and the answer on that fast-tracking will be available within weeks.
Again tonight, we hear that the Development Consent Authority decision to knock back a resort on the Hotel Darwin site has been overturned. There will be a much needed resort in Darwin. Again, this government is working with business and assisting developers to create the types of venues that will attract tourists to Darwin. We know that the Territory has a tremendous natural beauty. We know, and it is evident in the minister’s statement, that we have a rich cultural heritage and beauty that this government is well placed to expand upon and deliver to tourists coming to the Territory.
The minister has gone to great lengths to try and explain to the opposition - and it keeps falling on deaf ears, I appreciate that - that it was this government that delivered a second airline into the Territory in Virgin Blue, and that negotiations are continuing in terms of delivering services by Virgin Blue to Alice Springs. Further, this government has worked with Qantas to deliver a 1000 increased capacity into the Territory, and it is this government that is negotiating with Australian Airlines for a Darwin to Singapore connection. All the actions of the minister that the shadow spokesperson says doesn’t have his head around the portfolio - quite a curious statement, that one.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission has a very supportive, aware minister. Aware, particularly, of their needs to operate in a very competitive marketplace. The Territory Discoveries domestic market campaign along the eastern seaboard really aims to maximise visitation to the Territory, and take advantage of the increase in airline seats available, that have been delivered through a very positive working relationship between our minister and the major airlines, Qantas and, now, Virgin Blue.
Territory Discoveries is also developing air and land lead-in packages of three nights accommodation, and with Holiday Centres - those same Holiday Centres that the shadow spokesperson seems to think are going to evaporate - consultants will be using their expertise to extend the length of stay of visitors. And for the first time Territory Discoveries is also entering the New Zealand marketplace.
In this Year of the Outback, the Tourist Commission has changed its logo to ‘Australia’s Outback - Northern Territory’. Our minister has been hands on in working with his Tourist Commission in supporting initiatives. I repeat: we have a natural beauty in the Northern Territory that attracts visitors. Our outback is spectacular, with Kakadu and Uluru internationally admired designations. These current marketing campaigns that the government - I repeat the government - is funding, showcase our natural beauty.
The impressions of other Territorians that have come through surveys, teach our tourism experts that Australians find the overall lifestyle in the Territory to be attractive, and that we have a wonderful green environment. It is really the result of surveys that finetune our marketing expertise in the tourism sector.
I have to say the shadow spokesperson’s comments, I found, were incredibly ill-informed. I recommend that the shadow spokesperson seek a briefing from the minister to become informed. She describes things such as a ‘bunch of nothingness’. I have to say I found her comments to be completely a nothingness.
We have, since being in government, delivered Virgin Blue into the Territory, in a time when it was crucial. We’ve encouraged the Alice Springs Convention Centre, supporting it by showcasing it with parliamentary sittings next year. We’re fast-tracking an assessment of the proposed Darwin Convention Centre and we are providing an environment in the Territory, importantly, where developers see real opportunity to moving ahead with exciting proposals such as resort developments.
All of this is a result of hard work of our ministers and Chief Minister. We’re not taking a hands off approach. We’re very much hands on. Madam Speaker, I commend our Tourism Minister for his efforts, and I look forward to hearing more exciting initiatives.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was going to start off by saying: ‘I’m excited’; maybe not because of what’s in this piece of paper here, but because I think perhaps we are missing an opportunity in the Litchfield Shire that I think people haven’t realised.
I suppose one of the problems with trying to promote Litchfield Shire is it is never called that. If you come out of Darwin you see this great monolith made of concrete with ‘Outer Darwin’ on them and if you come across them …Mr Kiely: Another CLP initiative.Mr WOOD: It is a worry, isn’t it? If you come across from the Adelaide River floodplains, right out in this beautiful pristine floodplain, there is a great concrete monolith again with ‘Outer Darwin’ on it. They are on the Manton Dam side of Litchfield Shire, and you will find them also out on the Cox Peninsula Road going out towards Dundee Beach.Sadly, ‘Outer Darwin’, for most people in the rural area, gave one the impression that they were literally out of Darwin and discarded people. So, perhaps maybe one of the new minister’s first challenges is to put up some signs on the boundaries of Litchfield Shire saying ‘This is the Litchfield Shire tourism region’. That would please a lot of people and it would also highlight that we do have an area which is a municipality called the Litchfield Shire.The reason I say Litchfield Shire is one of the best kept secrets, is that I think we have not yet realised that there is a great tourist potential in that region. It is just the perfect area for the one-day tourist market. In this book that the minister has handed out today - you won’t find it under Litchfield, sadly, but you’ll find it under ‘Outer Darwin’ - you’ll find mention of a few places: Palmerston and Marlow Lagoon, I am not sure if the Mayor Annette Burke doesn’t …Dr Burns: Don’t visit the toilets.Mr WOOD: Well, thank you for that comment from the member for Johnston. I am sure Palmerston and Marlow Lagoon do not exactly want to be regarded as ‘Outer Darwin’. You have the Darwin Crocodile Farm, Howard Springs Nature Park, Jenny’s Orchid Garden, Barramundi Fishing Park, Wishart Siding - although sadly that just refers to a place where you can get tourist information. I should note that, sadly again, the tourist bureau, when it put up the information maps, there is not one mention that Litchfield Shire even exists. You can go to those maps, there is nothing about Litchfield Shire, so it is a little bit sad. Reidy’s Fishing Lures, a great place, Noonamah and Manton Dam recreation area, Berry Springs Nature Park, the Territory Wildlife Park - one of the greatest places in the Territory - Majestic Orchid Farm, the Litchfield Pub Rodeo, the Southport Exotic Fruit Farm, Tumbling Waters Tourist and Van Park - they’re all great places, but I do not know whether people realise what else is out there.
These are the places, probably, that you do not see very often – McMinns Lagoon, wonderful place. People go all the way out to Kakadu to look at birds. If you go to McMinns Lagoon it has water in it all year, it has ducks and geese and all sorts of things, and it has a lovely little picnic area there. It is only just over half an hour out of Darwin. Girraween Lagoon - it is on private land; hopefully one day it will become public land as the Girraween Estate is developed - beautiful place, deep water. People actually boat on that, it is so big. It also has a little bit of recent history. It was were parts of Crocodile Dundee was filmed. The bit where Charlie the buffalo happened to sit on his haunches after Crocodile Dundee stuck his finger in his head, was filmed just there. Where there was a crocodile attack was also filmed there, so it has a little bit of history that way. Benjamin Lagoon, out a bit further, beautiful area - always full of water, always has plenty of wildlife.
The Howard Springs Shooting Reserve – well, shooting is only held there for a very limited time of the year. If anyone’s walked through there it is a magnificent area. All right, you do not want to go there in the evening when the mosquitoes will carry you away, but it has rainforests, mangroves, open woodland and it is one of those places that very few people know about.
The Gunn Point beaches, of course, most locals know about them, but they certainly aren’t really one of the major tourist attractions. Where do you find beaches in the Darwin area? This is one of the few places. Black Jungle, not really accessible to the tourist, but a great area. Howard River itself – if anyone’s been along the Girraween Road, especially the dirt section of Girraween Road, the Howard River is absolutely beautiful. It has large areas of rainforest on both sides of it. Again, probably the only people who know about it are the locals.
There is a new subdivision south of Humpty Doo called the Goodwood subdivision, and there are two areas that are the headwaters of the Howard River. They have huge magnetic anthills, bigger than you see just about anywhere else. There are also quite a number at Lambells Lagoon, in an area of land that, when the residents got together, asked the government to remove that land from the horticultural subdivision, otherwise those magnetic anthills today would be probably mangoes.
There is also the new Shoal Bay Conservation Park which, hopefully, in later Question Times I might be asking where exactly is it. The mangroves of the harbour - I still think we have lots of work to do on promoting the attractions of the harbour, from traditional food gathering and publicising the biodiversity of the harbour. When you realise that there are 444 species of fish that have been identified in Darwin Harbour, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are places like the Churcher wetlands - who would know where that is? It is in the rural area, it is a beautiful area to walk, it is an area that’s practically pristine. It is actually a branch of the Howard River and, of course, the locals all know it. It is quite a big area, and it has been taken out of the subdivisions and it has been protected.
On top of that, you have great areas of World War II history. You have the Sattler, the Strauss, the Livingstone and the Hughes Airstrips. I do not believe we have really touched the potential of the World War II sites in the Litchfield area. Sattler is the airstrip you first meet on the way out of Darwin. Sadly the water line went down the middle of it a few years back and that didn’t make it look too good. But a few years ago it was actually the emergency airstrip for Darwin, fully marked out in case of emergency. Sattler Crescent is where Bees Creek Primary School was built and, of course, it was one of those rings where the planes disappeared into the bush after they’d landed and were covered in camouflage nets. If you go there today and go for a walk past Bees Creek School, camouflage wires are still in the bush there. So, it is living history; it is still there.
Strauss is the strip that is possibly endangered by the duplication of Stuart Highway. I do hope that we can actually get the Stuart Highway around it some way. All right, it is only a piece of bitumen, but to me it is an important piece of bitumen, because the Territory is one of the few places where action really took place. I think it is worth reminding people that there was a war on here where places were bombed and people fought and died. It is one the few places in Australia where that happened. It is worth reminding people and perhaps reminding exactly where we live in this part of the world.
Livingstone Airstrip is, again, another important strip. Luckily the railway line is not going to knock it over. It appears that the rail corridor will only be 40 m there, and I think we can save it. There might be another duplication of the highway in a few more years time, so I am not sure how long it is going to last. But, again, it was one of the major fighter strips. And Hughes Airstrip, which is not on the highway but just near Townend Road, is also another vital piece of World War II history. It was a bomber strip. If you go in there you’ll see some information is there, from those historical tour signs that are on places of importance.
We have the old railway line. It is one of my pet projects, for years, to preserve the old railway line. Some people wanted to buy the bridges, and some people wanted to shift the bridges with bulldozers, and some people just took the bridges. But we need to be reminded that that old railway line was an important part of our history for a very long time. It was built under very difficult circumstances; it was important during World War II. Thank heavens part of it is now a bicycle path from Darwin out to Palmerston. If you go on that path, you go through some beautiful wetlands behind BP Palms, the old favourite area there. People will tell you it is a lovely area to ride your bike because it is full of paperbarks, and it is just a beautiful spot. I think that has even more potential, from a tourist point of view. Recreation and history, the old railway line has it all.
The old town of Southport. I had to laugh once when the NT News reported that one of our Chief Ministers, Shane Stone, had gone to Southport for the weekend. Well, they thought he’d gone to Queensland, but this is the one of the Blackmore River, one of our oldest towns. It was a very busy town in its life. I think it had quite a number of pubs, because all the gold came from Pine Creek by donkey there, originally, and ended up at Southport. Very little of the original town is there, except for layout. The cemetery is still there, but it has great potential because there is lots of history. You go into the library, there are magnificent photos of quite substantial buildings - the post office. We have not even tapped into that, and on top of that we have a great little boat ramp there for people going fishing. You can combine recreation and history at the same time.
The Channel Island Leprosarium site most of the time is locked up but, still, it is an important site. Maybe we have not promoted that as, again, a potentially important tourist site. All these areas are easily within one day of Darwin - even Koolpinyah Station. Admittedly, it is privately owned and I do not know what the owner would think, but Koolpinyah has a lot of history. If you want to look at some of the best old photographs of Koolpinyah, you will find them in the Howard Springs Tavern, decorating the walls.
There are other areas that have potential. The Darwin River Dam is not mentioned. A beautiful place to go and visit, it has some nice parks there, very much under-utilised. There’s a possibility of having walking tours around the escarpment there. It is one area you can see for miles from, once you get up onto the hills that surround Darwin River Dam. There’s people like the fishing people: Dixie Kaissis, on the Howard River, where you can go fishing there and keep your boat there. There’s Leeder’s Creek Boat Hire, another person. Tourists can go there, hire a boat and go out for half a day and come back again. You have the Jumping Crocodiles and the Eco Tours. Not everybody’s into jumping crocodiles, but there are other tours on the Adelaide River.
You have the Royal Humpty Doo Golf Course. I try and play there once a week in the morning to get exercise, and I find that if you get getting ten shots on a par three, you get plenty of exercise. It is also called the Royal Humpty Doo occasionally, because I gather one of the members went to St Andrews. You can play there but you have to get into a long queue. Someone asked him: ‘Where do you come from?’, and he said: ‘The Royal Humpty Doo’. Because he said ‘royal’ they moved him to the front of the queue straight away. So, it is handy if you can put ‘royal’ on the front of it. We have some great boat ramps as well. There is the Middle Arm one, which I think was the Catalina site, so there is some history there as well.
In another area, we have great shopping. You might say: ‘Well, what’s shopping? Big deal!’. But, in the rural area there are some places there that you won’t get in town. There’s what I call it country shopping, because it is not all big supermarkets, even though Woolies have moved out there. There are little craft shops out there that have opened. People are looking for some of those areas. I do not know whether you have been to the Atherton Tableland. People go up from Cairns to Atherton. Why? Because they find these little places with crafts from the locals. There are two shops in the Coolalinga area developing local craft now. I suppose you could include the Didge Hut which is on the corner of the Arnhem Highway and Stuart Highway. That gets pretty busy at all hours of the night.
Again, all this potential for local tourism that I do not think has been tapped into yet. Perhaps even the Robinson Barracks; one of the biggest barracks in this part of the world. A huge amount of money was spent on it; it is quite an impressive place. It may have some potential.
All I am saying is that I think we sometimes bypass what’s in front of us. We look at Darwin and then we head out to Kakadu. I think in the rural area potential for some small operators to do day tours in that area. Perhaps the government may look at it and see whether they can encourage people into that. With downturns in the economy, people are looking for something different. Perhaps they’re not going to make big dollars out of it, but it could certainly employ a few people in the small side of tourism. I think you couldn’t go past the Litchfield Shire from many of the things you might see out at Kakadu.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement on what is a crucially important activity for the Territory economy; that is, tourism. Before I move on to my support for the ministerial statement, I would have to say that I really appreciated the speech given by the member for Nelson, and his obvious knowledge of the tourist attractions in his electorate; his passion and his appreciation for them. In some ways, I would be interested to see that passion and enthusiasm reflected in some of the members in Central Australia who are here, because I must confess that I have not seen a lot of Central Australia. I have not seen, obviously, all the things I could see in the Litchfield Shire. So, there is encouragement there and it is important for us to have, particularly, close to Darwin, ideas for the development of some of these areas, many of them that we take for granted, many of them that we do not know about.
However, to return to the minister’s statement on tourism. Underpinning the minister’s statement is the professionalism and dedication of the officers of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, who provide the expert advice and strategies to government on tourism. I commend them for their efforts. I had written this speech before the opposition raised the issues that they have today, but my appreciation is of the professionalism and dedication of our public servants right across the board, in all departments. Tonight, we are talking about the Tourist Commission, and that is very important.
Irrespective of who won government in the Northern Territory on 18 August 2001, some facts are immutable. The impact of the deadly and treacherous events of 11 September 2001 on an already struggling international aviation industry was profound. Furthermore, the collapse of Ansett also had profound effects on tourism in the Northern Territory.
I would like to quote from the Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s 2000-01 report. It says:
- The future outlook for the NT tourism industry as at 30 June 2001 had been optimistic. Overseas visitation
had reached a new peak level, with strong growth forecasted. However, this optimism is now overshadowed
by events that had occurred prior to writing this report, namely: terrorist attacks in the USA and the
consequential declaration of War against Terrorism; and the collapse of Ansett Australia. These events,
coupled with the slowing global economy, have resulted in difficult times for industry and will continue to
impact well in to the future.
The NT Tourist Commission report, and the report delivered by the minister here this evening, are in absolute harmony on how best to deal with the international and national situation arising from 11 September and the Ansett collapse. These strategies are namely to firstly, focus on boosting visitation from the domestic market, particularly the high yielding drive market; and secondly, to encourage Territorians to holiday within the Territory rather than visiting other tourism destinations.
I will certainly be listening to what the member for Nelson said, in terms of my visits out of Darwin. I am very interested to hear what Central Australian members have to say about their area, as well. Also, the minister mentioned about international initiatives to boost tourism in the Territory, particularly the UK market.
There is no doubt that we need more airline capacity coming into the Territory. As the minister has pointed out many times in this House over the past six months, the decisions by airline companies to fly to Darwin and Alice Springs are predominantly commercial decisions. The support given by the Martin government for Virgin Blue to fly to Darwin has been completely vindicated, particularly in the light of the tragic collapse of the Tesna bid for Ansett.
Moreover, the support given by the federal government for Virgin Blue to start the service to Darwin earlier than originally planned, is also welcome. The failed Tesna bid and the refusal of the federal government to give large guarantees of public monies to underwrite such bids, also vindicates the position of this government of not handing over large amounts of NT taxpayers’ money for pie-in-the-sky aviation schemes, as suggested by the shadow minister for tourism on a number of occasions in this House over the past six months.
There is no doubt that times are tough in the tourism sector in the Northern Territory. The minister’s statement shows that this government is taking excellent strategic plans, developed by the tourist commission, and actually implementing them. I listened with interest when the minister mentioned that a Tourism Development Master Plan was developed, but never implemented by the former CLP government. This seems to be a pattern with the previous government. Last week, in this House, I talked about the lack of implementation evident with the Collin’s report and also Strategy 21 within Territory Health Services. Now, we have a Tourism Development Master Plan as another example of lack of implementation. There has been a chorus from the opposition: ‘Don’t keep harping about the last 26 years, tell us what you are going to do’. Well, the answer is very simple, effective and eloquent: we are going to implement such plans, we are a government of action.
I listened, with interest, to the shadow minister’s response to the ministerial statement. I could not really pick out much at all about what she might propose to support the tourism industry; it was all very negative and critical. Where are after positive suggestions? They are certainly coming from the NT Tourist Commission.
The Roy Morgan research mentioned by the minister also provides a number of strategic directions to benefit tourism in the Northern Territory and, thus, the Northern Territory economy as a whole. As the minister has pointed out, the development of the self-drive market is a logical market to foster, both nationally and internationally. I was heartened to hear of the $750 000 joint marketing campaign with South Australia to attract UK tourists, and the Australian campaign directed at the self-drive market.
Further development of cultural tourism is an important initiative and it was identified during the Economic Development Summit as a crucial path forward. Unfortunately, what has also been evident is some resentment - well, it is often more than some resentment - by traditional Aboriginal landowners about the despicable and adversarial way in which previous CLP governments treated land rights issues, and then tried to pin their tourist effort on the back of Aboriginal cultural tourism and art.
This government is all about partnerships and sharing with Aboriginal people. There are four Aboriginal people sitting on this side of the House who are committed - along with the rest of us - to ensuring that these partnerships in tourism and other economic activities work to the benefit of all Territorians. I commend the minister’s statement on tourism to honourable members, and I believe that the flexibility resilience and innovative flair of our tourist operators, coupled with the thoughtful strategies and wise investment of resources by the Tourist Commission, will see us through these difficult times. Above all, we believe in the wonderful product that we have; namely the unrivalled natural beauty of the Northern Territory and, probably just as importantly, the diversity and cultural wealth of the people who call the Territory home. Madam Speaker, in these difficult times, I would also call on the opposition to support the minister’s statement on tourism.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank honourable members for their participation in a very important debate tonight given, at the outset, the value of the tourism industry to the Northern Territory economy. I am very surprised and a little disappointed in the opposition tonight that, given that tourism is the second greatest contributor to GDP in the Northern Territory and vital in terms of every single one of the 10 members opposite - in terms of their electorates, the number of people employed in their electorates involved in tourism - that only one of them could muster the wherewithal to comment on the statement tonight. The contribution for the shadow minister for tourism was pretty appalling but I will get to that later. I thank honourable members on this side and the member for Nelson for very, very positive and supportive comments.
Starting with the member for Johnston - taking the other route and starting with the last speaker first – again, a very positive contribution and also supporting me in my comments about the professionalism and the dedication of our public servants in the Tourist Commission. It has been a very difficult time and, might I say, quite a stressful time for those public servants having to deal and respond to a crisis situation. I think that they have done so remarkably well, particularly in a period of time where they lost their CEO; officers had to step up and they have done so with absolutely commendable application. Really, we are in the position we are in today due, to a large part - in not having lost hundreds of jobs and seen many operators close down - to the professionalism of those public servants and their working cooperatively with industry.
The member for Johnston also talked about harmony on a marketing strategy, and that is what we are all about. We are not like the previous government which was just throwing money everywhere: the spend, spend, spend philosophy that the Opposition Leader has so eloquently put on the public record. We are about strategically putting our effort in where we are going to get the returns. We are doing that in conjunction with the major industry players: the Australian Tourism Commission, South Australia, Qantas and numbers of other organisations. Throwing money helter-skelter around the place is not going to deliver the outcomes. We are in a period now, where we have to be very targeted, very specific and that is what the Tourist Commission is doing. As the member for Johnston said, it is all about implementation.
I couldn’t agree with him more about cultural tourism. The previous governments - and certainly in my time in the House in terms of ministerial statements on tourism - never acknowledged the importance of developing the indigenous cultural tourism aspect of our industry - or if they did, certainly it wasn’t without any great fanfare. They were quite happy to ride on the back of that particular product and take credit for the success in terms of rise in tourism numbers, but were never committed. They never had their heart - in terms of working with Aboriginal people - to actually develop what is, ultimately, going to give us the greatest boost to tourism in the Northern Territory, as far as developing that industry. I couldn’t agree more with the member for Johnston on his comments, and a great turn of phrase about the innovative flair of operators in the industry. That is exactly what I have found since becoming the Minister for Tourism: that the operators out there are certainly very passionate about their industry, totally committed to it, and are very innovative in terms of trying to develop the industry further.
I again thank the member for Nelson very much for his comments. As opposed to the shadow spokesperson, he was very positive and picked up a great number of suggestions. I know this is dangerous for a minister - and I suppose we are all new ministers; we have only been in the job six months, and the department is probably not going to like me for saying this - but let’s take a bold step forward here. In terms of the contribution from the member for Nelson tonight, I will take the Hansard record of his comments back to the Tourist Commission and suggest - for want of a better word - or instruct, that we actually form a working group and include the member for Nelson on that with the Litchfield Shire Council. Let’s see how we can pick up on some of the initiatives and the ideas that the member for Nelson brought into this Chamber tonight. This Chamber is a House of debate and certainly, as minister, if members opposite or Independents put constructive suggestions on to the table in debate, they are not going to get lost in the Hansard record. I will give the member my commitment tonight that I will instruct my department to look at a forum - a working group or initial discussions involving the member for Nelson and Litchfield Shire Council - and let’s see how we can move cooperatively in partnership and move some of those suggestions forward.
He also mentioned the great ‘Outer Darwin’ tombstones that appeared on the highway - whenever it was, a couple of years ago, I suppose. If my department had anything to do with that - and I will certainly be talking to them about it - I tend to agree with your sentiment. I have a number of good friends who live in the rural area and their sentiment is reflected by their local member, in that they certainly do not like it. I do not know what great marketing strategy that was. I have spoken to the member for Casuarina to see if his department, Transport and Works, had anything to do with it. We might have a little look at those tombstones and see what we can do. There is a lot of product being printed with ‘Outer Darwin’ on it but, again, I agree. It certainly doesn’t promote the individuality of the region, and people are absolutely wedded to the term ‘the Litchfield Shire’. That is where people live and to impose ‘Outer Darwin’ on them without any consultation probably wasn’t one of the great CLP initiatives of our time. If my department had anything to do with it, we will certainly revisit that.
Again, a very positive contribution from the member for Karama to the debate tonight and yes, a very important announcement in Question Time this morning that we will fast-track an evaluation of the Darwin City Council’s submission on the convention centre and look at other operations. It is, without doubt, an area where we can make a big impact in Darwin in terms of growing tourism. This city, sadly, lacks a convention centre and, as a government, we are committed to the development of a convention centre in partnership with industry. We will be looking at fast-tracking evaluations of all options that are on the table.
Moving to the shadow minister’s contribution to the debate tonight, I am disappointed because this is the second time in the sittings of parliament that the shadow minister has had an opportunity - an extensive opportunity - to actually put some initiatives on the table. If she doesn’t like them, she is quite at liberty to say that I am doing nothing, the department’s doing nothing - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and everybody’s absolutely cataclysmically opposed to what the government’s doing, and our lack of effort. I would like her to put some positive suggestions on the table if everything is so bad, and if she is so absolutely devastatingly concerned about the industry in Central Australia - that’s all she seems to talk about, Central Australia. She does have responsibility as shadow tourism minister for the rest of the Territory as well. It seems that the only contribution that the shadow minister has is that, somehow, in some way, we should throw money at the airlines, be it Qantas, Ansett, Virgin Blue or Flight West, and bankroll them into Alice Springs.
Dr Burns: John Howard wouldn’t do it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, and the federal member for Solomon, again, grandstanded on this issue. I see that he was absolutely, spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of convincing the Commonwealth government to bankroll Ansett. The attitude of just throwing money at the problem is unsustainable, much like the budget position that we inherited.
I would have thought that the ‘free marketeers’ opposite would understand that any additional airline capacity into Alice Springs is going to be delivered as a result of market forces and demand. That’s where this government is applying our efforts - in terms of using all the expertise that we have available through government - in partnership with private enterprise, to sit down with the airlines to try and work with them, and prove to them that the market is sustainable; that Alice Springs is viable, that there is profit to be made on that particular route. Given what has happened with Ansett, the airlines are not going to invest in a destination unless they believe that there is a return on that investment. That return is not by way of taxpayers bankrolling their operations. There is no ask on the table from either Qantas, Virgin Blue or Ansett - before the Tesna consortium collapsed - or Flight West. There has been no ask, in terms of a business case put, by these airlines to government, for support into Alice Springs.
Only today - just to show how out of touch the member for Araluen is on this issue - I have received correspondence on behalf of a number of people in the industry in Alice Springs imploring the government not to put taxpayers’ money into additional capacity into Alice Springs, because that will do one thing and one thing only - according to the correspondence I have received today - and that is, to invite retaliatory action by Qantas. The last thing that the industry needs in Alice Springs is for Qantas to take that retaliatory action. So, I would suggest to the member for Araluen - and the member for Greatorex who couldn’t even be bothered to contribute in this debate - that they actually talk a little more widely amongst the tourism industry in Alice Springs to get a view, because there is no uniformity of opinion amongst the industry.
We are acting responsibly as a government, working in partnership with the airlines and, again, I believe - and the figures are there today - there is more capacity into Alice Springs today than there was demand this time last year. We have a problem in June-July when there is, on the current scheduled flights, going to be a big problem with demand. But I believe, now the aviation industry in Australia is starting to sort itself out, that Qantas and Virgin Blue will go head-to-head. Virgin Blue have announced that they are going to purchase additional aircraft. Both will aggressively go after the demand that is there and we will see that demand picked up. Certainly, we would like to see competition into Alice Springs, and that’s why we are working with Virgin Blue on their business case, to prove to them that the commercially opportunities are there.
I would like the ‘free marketeers’ opposite - the champions of private enterprise as opposed to government owned enterprise - to really consider the responsibility of their continual calls to spend, spend, spend and throw money at the airline industry which is, ultimately, going to be unsustainable.
I thought that the member’s comments were very disappointing. She talked about ‘nothingness, a meaningless statement, the announcements were a load of rubbish’. Well, again, I can take it. I am big enough to take comments from the member for Araluen. But it is an absolute insult to the staff of the Tourist Commission to say that the strategies that they have been principally responsible for developing - given the skills, expertise, marketing knowledge and their depth of talent and expertise in terms of advising the government and me, as minister, on strategies that could be adopted, and for which, ultimately, I take the decision on - for her to say that this government’s response to 11 September and the Ansett collapse is a load of rubbish and it is a meaningless statement and nothing has happened - I am sure the public service and the Tourist Commission will be absolute aghast.
Let’s look at what we have achieved as a government. We have achieved the entry, thank goodness, of Virgin Blue into the Territory aviation market place with an additional 1000 seats per week into Darwin. Now, that’s 1000 seats per week that the previous government would have let slip through its fingers. Goodness knows where the tourism industry would be if we hadn’t secured Virgin Blue into the Northern Territory. Again, the ill-informed comments from members opposite last week in Question Time: we had the member for Port Darwin pop up and say that Virgin Blue were cancelling flights because there wasn’t enough demand - absolutely nonsense! Again, not doing the work, not doing the research, not getting the facts together. A couple of flights were pulled for technical reasons. We then had the member for Drysdale in the same debate, accusing them of having a shoddy fleet. So, here we have this continuing attack from members opposite, in terms of a very important commercial entity in the tourist industry in the Northern Territory, with their continuing undermining of Virgin Blue’s entry into the market place in the Northern Territory.
The shadow minister said we should be spending money in America and money in Japan. Again, I would ask the shadow minister to do her job responsibly, look at the market research, look at what’s actually happening in those markets at the moment: those markets have collapsed. There is absolutely no point spending buckets of money in a market place that has collapsed, and all of the indicators for some time yet say it will take it time to recover. We have been judicious with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money - not the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the opposition - and redirected that money into market places that will deliver for the industry. Not the speculative ‘roll the dice, hope for the best, let’s play the numbers, let’s spray the money around’ that the opposition would have us believe is the right way forward.
What we have seen is a marketing strategy that has put an additional $500 000 this year into promoting the shoulder season in the Northern Territory to give a really good kick start to the tourism season this year, in conjunction and partnership working with Qantas, who have put on an additional 1000-seat capacity into the Northern Territory, directly as a result of working in partnership with this government, promoting the demand and knowing that we would be following up in terms of trying to generate that demand out of the eastern states. We have the absolutely fundamental right strategy. I am no marketing expert, and I take my advice from people in the department - and I do not know where the member for Araluen gets her marketing advice. If you actually look where the demand is holding up and increasing, it is in the UK. So why would you not put your marketing effort in to capitalising on a trend that is showing growth, and maximising that value and the return on investment for a dollar spent in that market place - again, the ‘free marketeers’ opposite, no wonder the budget’s in such a mess - putting your money into that market place where it is a growing market as opposed to spending futile bucket loads of money in the American market place, which is actually declining.
$750 000 in partnership with the South Australian government, and Qantas will deliver - I am absolutely convinced, on the expert advice that I have - for the tourism industry. That is what we are here for, as minister, as government. I would like to think that tourism is not one of those great areas of government where there should be a lot of political divide on - certainly, I have not taken that approach with the federal Minister for Tourism - that you respect the advice of your professionals who understand developing markets for tourism and where you put your effort in, and get the return on investment. I would like, if the member for Araluen wishes to challenge that advice - well, on what basis, and bring the conflicting advice in here.
So, it is $750 000 into the UK, $0.5m into the east coast, an additional 1000 seats a week from Qantas, an additional 1000 seats a week for Virgin Blue - targeting of the drive market at a time where we do have reduced airline capacity. Now, if that is not a strategy then I would like to know what one is, because there has certainly not been a strategy put forward by members opposite. The member for Araluen has so much support for the position that she had as shadow tourism minister: not one member opposite stood up to support her.
In the few minutes that I have left, in terms of all words and no action - well really, again, what we are in government for is implementation. I refer members again to this wonderful glossy document, the Tourism Development Master Plan, and again, there was no implementation strategy. We have created a whole unit; we are creating a senior position for that department to actually build an implementation strategy, and a budget strategy, around the good work that went into developing this document, but went nowhere once the minister had his five minutes of media attention in terms of launching it. The same thing could be said in terms of the Aboriginal Tourism Strategy. Yes, there is one! There is a glossy brochure floating around somewhere; it is about five years old. But again, no implementation strategy.
This government will deliver, we will implement initiatives that we make decisions on that come through the public service, as opposed to members opposite, who were great at producing the glossies but did little about implementation. I would ask that the next time the shadow minister talks about tourism in this House, she actually puts some initiatives on the table, as opposed to her continuing carping criticism.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I rise to advise the Assembly of the impending retirement of Mr Tom Hurley, the Northern Territory government’s Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Tom has worked for the Territory for 28 years, initially for the Commonwealth government and then the Northern Territory government. After periods with both the Department of the Chief Minister and the Department of Mines and Energy, he joined the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in 1985. For the last seven years, he has been the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
During his time with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Tom has prepared many and varied official instruments, from the appointment of Administrators to the declaration of sewerage extension areas. Of course, he has also drafted both major and minor pieces of legislation on almost every conceivable topic, including the Anti-Discrimination Act, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation Act, the Firearms Act, the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, the Land Title Act, and The Utilities Commission Act.
Tom has been committed to providing a highly professional legislative drafting service. He is greatly respected by his clients and enjoys tremendous loyalty from his staff. Tom has also been noted for his quiet reflections upon the nature of the parliamentary process and, indeed, I have been reminded of a few lines of poetry from a book on the history of the Queensland parliament which runs something like this:
- I am a parliamentary draftsman
I compose the country’s laws;
And of half the litigation
I am undoubtedly the cause.
I understand that Tom has been heard to muse upon the possibility of writing an eminent legal textbook in his retirement, something to match Thornton on Drafting or Cross on Evidence. The title, I am told, will be ‘Hurley on Commas’. Hopefully, his fishing and golf will not keep him from this noble work.
I take this opportunity, on behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly, to thank Tom for his outstanding work, and for the integrity with which he has conducted both himself and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I wish him good luck and, on behalf of all members of the Assembly, wish him good luck for the future.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday 19 February, I attended the commemorative service at the Cenotaph marking the 60th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin. Inasmuch as it was a very solemn occasion, I found it profoundly moving, as well as thoroughly enjoyable and thought provoking. The music, the speakers - with their vivid recollections and stories of heroism - the wreath laying, and the dramatic military display involving anti-aircraft batteries, all worked to bring the terrible events of Tuesday 19 February 1942, very close to all who attended.
Along with many other Australian families, the Bombing of Darwin has special significance for my own family. Before I explain, I would like to read one report about that terrible day some 60 years ago. I read from an article on page 54 of the Brisbane Sunday Mail dated 10 February 2001:
- The first raid by 81 high level bombers, dive bombers and Zero fighters from the Timor Sea created havoc
in Darwin Harbour. Three naval vessels and five merchant ships were sun; eight naval vessels and two
merchant ships were damaged; and three merchant ships were beached; 23 planes were destroyed.
As we all know, the official death toll was put at 243, although there was justifiable speculation that the number who lost their lives that day was possibly many more. The true extent of the attack was hidden from the rest of the country so as not to cause panic. It was something that was not discussed widely, but as we heard at the commemorative service, there were many stories of individual heroism and bravery.
I am proud that my father, Harold Burns, was present in Darwin, along with many other young Australian servicemen, on that fateful day on 19 February 1942. He joined the RAAF in Sydney, received training, and then proceeded to Adelaide via Melbourne. His unit then travelled to Alice Springs on the Ghan railway, and then by truck to Darwin. On that fateful day on 19 February 1942, along with many others, he withstood the attack and then helped pull injured sailors from the harbour.
In 1942, Darwin was at the frontline of World War II. In 2002, we again face an uncertain world in an unprecedented time of world conflict. The frontline of this current conflict is to a large degree uncertain, but what is certain is that we need to draw upon the courage of the generation who defended Darwin in 1942, and to safeguard our democratic way of life that they fought so hard to protect.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the Assembly of some special achievements and awards received by students attending schools in my electorate. The Office of Youth Affairs coordinates Student Citizen Awards and the Australia Day Council recognises good citizenship within schools and the community. This year, three students nominated by their schools from the electorate of Casuarina were presented with their medallions and certificates signed by the Chief Minister at the presentation ceremony on Australia Day. These students were Visalini Vinu from Alawa Primary School, Amelia Samuels from Nakara Primary School, and Amanda Carrat from Dripstone High School.
One of the recipients of the Student Citizen Award, Amelia Samuels, who was attending Nakara Primary School in Grade 7 last year, also won the Administrator’s Medal for Junior Scholar of the Year in the Northern Suburbs Cluster. The criteria for this prestigious award includes a combination of special qualities such as academic achievement, appropriate behaviour, good citizenship and concern for others. The Administrator of the Northern Territory presented Amelia with her award at Government House on 15 February. Nakara Primary School is justifiably proud of Amelia’s achievements, but it should also be noted that this is the second consecutive year that a Nakara Primary School student has won the Administrator’s Medal from the Northern Suburbs Cluster of Primary Schools. This is a tremendous achievement by the school and the teaching staff of Nakara Primary.
Dripstone High School has had one of their Year 12 students, Miranda Batten, listed in the NT’s top 20 Year 12 students in 2001. Miranda was placed sixth with a combined subject achievement score of 94. Strong results were achieved across all subject areas by a number of other students at Dripstone High School. Thanks to the dedication of the teacher and its principal, Ms Marion Guppy, who always encourages students to reach their full potential. These Year 12 students include, Reetu Mutti, Lukas Sigut, Peter Hansen, Justin McMinn, Ampigai Sivakaanthan, Erin Voth and Susanne Thompson. Congratulations to all these students, their teachers and, certainly, to their parents who I believe are proud of them.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Territory is renowned for its love of sport and, with excellent facilities and support, it is little wonder that we are producing athletes who are competing and achieving on a national, and even international, level. As I speak, Mark Hickman, one of our Territory Stingers hockey team members, is with the Australian Hockey Team competing at the 2002 World Cup in Kuala Lumpur. Incidentally, Australia just beat Korea 4:2, making them the first team to secure a place in the World Cup semi-finals. The Northern Territory government is proud to support people like Mark, through contributing approximately $5m each year to ensure that we maintain a competitive and professional sporting environment.
Some of our most gifted young athletes are being given the opportunity to develop their skills this year through Northern Territory Institute of Sport scholarships. It gives me great pride to recount some of their achievements: consider Judith Green, a disabled athlete who holds both Australian and world records for breaststroke; Bo Delacruz who is vice-captain for the Australian under-20 team that won the World Touch Football Championships in New Zealand last year; Anthony Kiffin who is ranked No 1 in Australia for the under 100 kg young men’s section for judo. Anthony recently won gold at the junior nationals. Anthony, Bo and Judith are just some of our young sports people who are getting the opportunity to develop their skills with the Northern Territory Institute of Sport this year. The Institute of Sport has awarded scholarships to 16 individual athletes and nine squads covering netball, Australian football league, swimming, cricket, hockey, rugby league, rugby union, tennis and tenpin bowling.
At the Institute of Sport, these young athletes will benefit from a fully-equipped sports science laboratory, a comprehensive weight training facility, a sports medicine network, sports psychologists and professional coaching support. Also, to ensure that every athlete has the best opportunity to participate fully in their sport, the Northern Territory Institute of Sport offers financial assistance for travel, coaching, entry and membership fees where required.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, I have been an avid sportsman myself. I have played rugby league, Aussie rules, basketball, soccer, hockey, eight ball and darts. Of course, now, with my ministerial role, I am finding a brisk walk very attractive. There is a world of difference between a weekend warrior like me and getting up at 4.30 am every week day and 5.30 am on Saturdays to battle it out in the swimming pool like young Danni Miatke, a member of the NTIS swimming squad. Danny, by the way, recently took home gold from the National Aids Championships in the under-13 100 m backstroke. I would like to formally recognise the discipline and talent of our young sports people like Danny, whose talents are being fostered by the Institute of Sport.
This year, 10 Territory athletes have been awarded elite individual scholarships with NTIS. These athletes are Libby Andrew for rugby, Judith Green for swimming, Mark Hickman for hockey, Yvonne Mitchell for judo, Eddie O’Brien for hockey, Naomi Roberts for rugby union, Ronald Voukolos for tenpin bowling, Henry Collins for boxing, Bo Delacruz for touch football, and Nicole Ostermeyer for volleyball. In addition, six Territory athletes have been awarded elite individual development scholarships and they are Anthony Roberts for motocross, David Hennessy for hockey, Crystal Attenborough for athletics, Bobbi-Jo Kalcher for tenpin bowling, Kate Bell for judo, and Anthony Kiffin for judo. There have also been scholarships awarded for the Institute of Sport squads in the sports I mentioned earlier.
Not only is the current government supporting young people in their national and international sporting goals, we also support the search for opportunities to bring world-class sporting events and people here to the Territory. This weekend, the Australian Hockey League will hold games here at Marrara Hockey Stadium for both the men’s and women’s competition. The Territory Pearls and the Atlas Territory Stingers will slog it out against New South Wales and, the following weekend, against Victoria. In a coup for the Atlas Territory Stingers, Stephen Holt, the ex-Olympic hockey player and 2001 Northern Territory Sportsmen of the Year winner, is returning to the Territory to coach them. To inject a bit of extra sting for the Territory’s rugby union Mosquitoes side Eddie Jones, the Wallabies Coach - and incidentally an ex-South Darwin union player - is also coming back in March to offer some training tips.
The Northern Territory offers a vibrant and competitive sporting environment, but rewards participation at whatever level you play in. We can be proud of what we offer, but we also need to nurture it, and that is what this Martin government aims to do.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to table a report on a study tour I undertook in December last year to Melbourne and Tasmania. I do not propose to speak to all of my report, as it goes to some 11 pages, and it is getting late in the evening. However, I do want to point out some highlights of the study tour, because I found the study tour to be a tremendous professional development and fact-finding mission.
Specifically, as Chair of the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, I met with my Tasmanian counterpart, Geoff Squibb MLC, who is one of the longest-serving members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, and has some great experience as Chair of the Subordinate Legislation Committee there. While I was in Tasmania, he took me through the advances that have been occurring in terms of national debate and discussion on proposed national schemes of legislation. I have to say that I found that discussion invaluable in terms of fully acquitting myself adequately as role of Chair. As a new member of parliament taking on the important task of Chair of the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, I am really pleased at the opportunity to spend almost five hours with the Hon Geoff Squibb, going through very fine detail of what is about to confront all of us, in national debates as Chairs of the proposed national schemes of legislation. Indeed, I am, possibly, having to attend a national meeting of Chairs from throughout Australia, in Canberra in a fortnight’s time. It was fortunate timing for me to have been given a very through briefing by Hon Mr Squibb.
I was also really fortunate while in Tasmania, because Tasmania’s parliaments had been recalled to deal with a matter of urgent legislation, specifically on termination of pregnancy. Whilst most people were enjoying an Australian summer break, our Tasmanian counterparts have been recalled to parliament. I saw the Tasmanian Assembly and Council in action. I have to say that what I found is that, in the Territory we are not all as bad as we are sometimes led to believe, in terms of the veracity and heatedness of debate. I witnessed Question Time, as well as very lengthy sessions of debate in both Houses.
I am delighted with the facilities that we, as members of parliament, have here in the Territory. We are able to work in a very good environment that enables those of us who want to use IT in the course of our day, to have access to that. We have desks in the Assembly; in Hobart the members are lucky to share what I wouldn’t even call a desk, to be honest, it is that small. Indeed, in the council, the members recline on a hard-backed, rather uncomfortable looking set of lounges.
I met with various members of parliament there, and with senior advisors, and I discussed matters that are of particular importance to me and members of my electorate. Specifically, I had some discussions on the library service in Tasmania, and on education and health, including disability.
I wanted to go to Tasmania to talk to the Tasmanian experts about their library system because, just after my election as the member for Karama, I started to be approached by several librarians about their concerns about where they saw the library service in the Territory currently, and where they believed it needed to head in terms of service delivery to Territorians. To a ‘t’ they all expressed that the library service in Tasmania was, indeed, the best model throughout Australia. I have to say that, after discussions with the head of the Library Service in Tasmania, a senior ministerial adviser and, indeed then, the minister briefly, I am really excited about what they have developed in Tasmania, particularly in terms of what it can provide to remote communities that have little or no access to library services at the moment; and in terms of what it can provide to improving access points of library services in our existing public libraries. They had a TALIS IT system there which is recognised around Australia as a best practice model. Our Virtua system leaves a to be desired, from what I am hearing. I won’t go into further detail on the library service. It is contained in my report and I urge members interested in the library service to read it.
In Tasmania, I was very pleased to find out about what is called Service Tasmania. Service Tasmania exists throughout Tasmania and members of the public can go in and literally access any Tasmanian state government level service; but they also can access many Commonwealth services, for example Centrelink. It is a one stop shop - you can go into Service Tasmania and get your boating registration or sort out your Medicare. To me, it is an exciting way of dealing with the innovations of new technology, and delivering services efficiently and effectively to people throughout your jurisdiction. I brought back some brochures on Service Tasmania. I have also been having discussions with ministerial advisors here in the Territory about its implications to the future service delivery in the Territory, because we do have a tyranny of distance issue in the Territory in terms of the cost of service delivery into remote areas.
The Service Tasmania model is a very good model for us to look into here in the Territory. It is combining the use of IT, as well as providing - and I think very importantly providing - jobs at the local level in remote areas. For example, I went to a northern coastal town called Burnie, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, an area that I know that you are very well acquainted with. I not only had a thoroughly informative time at the library there - which is a major library and highly regarded - but also visited the Service Tasmania Centre. Even in a town of Burnie’s size, the Service Tasmania Centre was not only providing somewhere in the vicinity of 10 jobs to local people but, crucially, importantly, it was providing incredibly easy access to residents, in terms of the services that both state and Commonwealth governments are meant to deliver.
I will also table the Services Tasmania brochures and the Tasmanian Library Service brochures that I have brought back.
On my study tour, I was very keen to look further into housing policy. What I have found since becoming the member for Karama is that the bulk of my constituents’ issues in the electorate of Karama …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table those?
Ms LAWRIE: I seek leave to table those brochures.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: En route to my destination of Tasmania, I took the opportunity to stop over in Melbourne for a couple of days, because I have heard from contacts in housing that there has been some very positive advances in housing policy in Victoria following the introduction of the Brack’s Labor government there. Indeed, that they have done some very comprehensive reviews into areas that I find are quite pressing areas of need in my electorate.
I am honoured to say that I met with the Housing Minister, Bronwyn Pike. I also met with her senior advisors. I accompanied the minister on a tour: we visited the opening of a new crisis accommodation centre for homeless women in the suburb of St Kilda. At that opening, I had the opportunity to speak to several industry experts about the issue of homelessness; how you can create policy that doesn’t just deal with people once they have become homeless, but what policy you need to deal with people who are at risk of becoming homeless. All of these discussions intrigued me. I was fortunate to have a meeting with the Director of Housing Policy in Victoria who, I might add, has served under five different Housing Ministers. This is a man who has survived changes of government, and kept his very senior post, and is highly regarded throughout Australia. We had a very broad-ranging discussion that went for a couple of hours. We looked at the strategies and the policies in place in Victoria, but he was also quite acquainted with the strategies and policies in place in the Territory, having been to the Territory on several visits. He certainly had very fond things to say about some of the very senior staff in the Territory.
I was particularly interested in programs that looked at community development, and these matters I have already raised with the Minister for Community Development’s staff. I am passing on comprehensive reviews that they have done in Victoria so that, essentially, we are looking at best practice models and what they have created elsewhere. I think the implications for my electorate, the electorate that includes the areas of Malak and Karama, are actually quite substantial in terms of the research I have undertaken in Melbourne. I am very excited about working with our Minister for Community Development and his staff, in implementing far more progressive housing policy.
I am very concerned, and I think I share the concern of the member for Blain, about the way that housing policy in the Territory has been mishandled to the extent that we have created housing ghettos within areas of the Northern Territory. It is a misguided policy that has created those ghettos. I refer, specifically, to sections of Palmerston, and I know that there is a small section in Malak that people consider to be a ghetto. I know that the member for Fannie Bay has dealt with issues surrounding housing ghettos notoriously at Kurringal and Wirrina.
All of the evidence in other jurisdictions and, certainly, the evidence in the UK model, shows that that is not the way to go in terms of housing policy. The way of the best practice model is disbursement of housing across geographical areas, otherwise you do create social dislocation. You do create the social ills that we are actually seeing now, in terms of crime waves. It is something that I am very keen about. I think that there is a real role for backbenchers such as myself to play, in terms of discovering what practices exist elsewhere and feeding that information to our relevant ministers. I am very, very appreciative of the opportunity I had to do that in Melbourne.
Another area that I looked into while in Melbourne, is the issue of sound reduction barriers. I met with senior VicRoads people. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you would also understand the importance of looking into the issue of sound reduction barriers. For us, we have electorates that have major arterial roads as boundaries. We have houses abutting directly against those arterial roads. It still amazes me that the CLP government planned housing that did not have buffer zones around arterial roads.
I tender this report in the hope that some people will understand the benefits that can be derived from such study tours.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do this adjournment tonight on my participation - and the participation of a large sector of the community - in regard to the Fortress Darwin concert that was on during the 60th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin.
There were three performances at the Darwin Entertainment Centre, full houses, especially appreciated and commented on by people who returned to Darwin for the 60th anniversary commemorations. The idea for the Fortress Darwin concert was developed by Peter Forrest and his team early last year, following the successful 2001 concert Somewhere North of Somewhere.
Peter Forrest and his team have done a number of concerts with historical themes, in association with military bands. They have found that this is an excellent way of getting people interested in our history - people who might not otherwise have read a history book or even a newspaper article. The 2001 concert ranged across the whole of the war in the Northern Territory. For the 2002 concert, Peter Forrest and his team developed a completely new script which focussed on Darwin and the events of 19 February 1942 – appropriate, he thought, for the 60th anniversary.
Peter Forrest and his team also tried, this year, to put more emphasis on the civilian experiences and the consequences of the war. They felt that, in the past, the commemoration of the bombing anniversary had put too much emphasis on military events. What the team really wanted to show is what it did to the lives of ordinary people.
Many elements of the script were based on actual incidents and situations, such as the last letter of Arthur Wellington; the scene in a Zero in the tropics, based on an incident which actually happened in the Great Northern Caf in 1941. This caf was operated by the grandfather of actor Evan Papandonakis, and great grandfather of promising actress, Elle Mitaros. Might I add that that was a scene that I was in, and I had a thoroughly wonderful time. I enjoyed, greatly, meeting Elle and had a really good chat with Evan. To hear about the old Darwin with the old Greek families, and about his mother and his father - who was a great leader of the Greek community – but, particularly the love that he spoke about for his mother, was quite touching, quite warm and sincere. I count my time at the whole show and meeting Evan amongst one of the highlights.
Credit should especially go to Sheila Forrest for the research work which made these scenes so faithful to earlier Darwin. Special thanks are due to the many people who shared their stories with the community and lent photographs. This enabled Peter Forrest and his team to develop the script in a very authentic way. Darwin City Council agreed to support the concert as part of the 60th anniversary commemorations. The late George Brown was an enthusiastic supporter of the idea, and it was picked up by the council committee which comprised Robyn Lesley and Carole Miller.
The production was greatly helped by receipt of a local hirer’s subsidy from Darwin Entertainment Centre, which helped contain venue costs. Front of house assistance by DEC – bookings, etc - was greatly appreciated. Fortress Darwin was truly a community concert involving about 200 people. All actors, singers and dancers were volunteers, as were some of the stage hands. Even those people who were paid put in a tremendous honorary effort. The payments were trifling and did not go anywhere near being a proper recompense for the effort involved.
The production team achieved a miracle in staging a very competent series of performances, despite totally inadequate rehearsal time due to the very limited budget and the constraints on the people themselves. This applied, particularly, to Matt James, the Production Manager, Betchay Mondragon, Artistic Director, Andrea Campbell, Wardrobe Mistress; and Chris Osborne, Stage Manager. They did wonderful jobs; highly competent without fuss for very little money. Let me say that the support they gave the aspiring actors such as myself was simply fabulous.
James Forrest and Imre Kirkovits were tireless stage hands. The same applied to Neil Hawkes, another man who I have known for quite some time, who has an excellent community spirit, who made some excellent sets including the very realistic rowing boat fitted with rollers for stage management for the bombing scene. Also Pauline and Margaret who helped with wardrobe, Renee who is Zen Hairdressing.
Personnel from the Army and Air Force were seconded by Northern Command to help. They quickly became actors, and they told me and the rest of the crew that they really enjoyed the experience. A great way to cement relations between civilian and military in Darwin.
Music was supplied by the Australian Army Band courtesy of the conductor Captain Lindsay Mee, and by the RAAF Air Command Band which travelled from Sydney to participate. They produced some truly wonderful big band music. Live recordings by the ABC were enjoyed by ABC radio audiences throughout the Territory for some days after. Flight Lieutenant John Buckley, conductor of the RAAF band, provided inspirational leadership and fitted into everything very effectively, despite the fact that the RAAF band did not arrive until the day before the first performance.
Soloist were Tim Oram, clarinet and Stephanie Lambert, vocals - both Tim and Stephanie from the RAAF band - and Darwin’s own vocalists Jill Tiller and Adam McNeill from the Australian Army Band Darwin, were all outstanding. The bands were highly professional and a pleasure to work with. Local Darwin Rondallia Band presented several string numbers, a great echo of Darwin in the 1930s and 1940s. Band member Gabe Hazelbane actually played with some of the earlier famous Darwin string bands.
A feature of the casting was the use of school children from St Johns College and Marrara Christian School. Tireless worker and brilliant actress, Marie Louise Pearson, who was in the evacuation scene, organised a crche backstage to keep the children occupied and amused. A great effort done without fuss. Maria Louise saw that it was needed and just did it. This is the stuff that true Territorians are made of. They get in there and do the job; no need to ask; they do not look for thanks; it is just good community spirit, something that we all value.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people appeared in several scenes. They were very effective, a pleasure to work with these people. They and others demonstrated what a diverse place Darwin was, and still is. They really gained confidence as the production proceeded and, after initial nervousness, they all want to be in it again next time.
We could not pay the main actors, so we looked for local identities who could act and would do so without fee. Who would forget the performances of the ex-member for Sanderson, Daryl Manzie - who I see around and have a good old chat with these days - as Administrator Abbott; Theona Mitaros as Mrs Hilda Abbott; Ken Conway, writing the heartbreaking last letter of Arthur Wellington on 18 February 1942 - Wellington was killed the next day; Tom Pauling as air ace ‘Killer’ Caldwell; Austin Asche, poetry reading with a difference; Denis Burke gave the show a great start in the opening scene as his own military predecessor, Lieutenant Colonel Horace Robinson; the Kee family and Susanne Dizon-Handberg created a wonderful Chinatown; Noeline Trinne, an unforgettable Vera Lynn revival; our own Gerry Wood, great portrayals of Bill Harney and Father Frank Flynn; Wayne Shields, voice-overs; Fred McCue, powerful closing scene as Administrator Driver.
Voice-overs by the Chief Minister were much appreciated, and brought back to mind what a great radio voice she has. Visitors remarked that only in the Northern Territory could we have our political leader involved in this way - and what a great compliment Clare’s involvement was to returning veterans and civilians.
Who would forget the dancers: Carl Black and Alana La Porte, the Furlanos display dancers and the Furlanos tap dancers. The audience response to them said it all. Images and film were projected - skillfully managed by David Auld - to reinforce the realism, including 8 mm film of the bombing taken by Seaman Monty Tuckerman from the deck of the corvette Warrnambool during the bombing. Mr Tuckerman lent his film, not seen at such length ever before, for the concert.
Make-up and sound effects were very realistic, especially for the bombing scene. Work is now proceeding to make a video of the concert. There have been many requests for this from the veterans and their families who came up to Darwin for the 60th anniversary.
Now, for the future: there have been many suggestions that the concert might become an annual event, and I would certainly support that. I would support Peter Forrest and Sheila Forrest to go it again. It was a great community effort. In particular, we hope it might be possible to develop a smaller version - perhaps cabaret style - for touring schools and outlying places, even interstate. There have been many requests for this, and I would give that my wholesale support.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was very proud last week to be able to launch the school information kit produced by the Migrant Resource Centre of Central Australia. The Migrant Resource Centre has been established since the early 1980s and, in 1992, they were incorporated to become quite independent from the Darwin Migrant Resource Centre. They have been active in helping the settlement of migrants and refugees in Alice Springs for many years.
It has always offered a very effective and essential service, not just to the newly arrived migrants, but also to the people and the community of Alice. It has become a very highly accepted and respected community organisation that really has built bridges across cultures.
The school information kit is designed to assist teachers and the school in developing awareness of the migrant community, and to foster and promote multiculturalism within our schools and the wider community also. The Migrant Resource Centre, and the schools, I hope, will use this kit to promote harmony, acceptance and understanding of the other cultures that live in Alice Springs.
The Territory has always been regarded as a model of how cultures can live in harmony and co-exist side by side for the benefit of the community. Alice Springs has a long history of migrants from around the world arriving at this special place to make their home, starting way back with the Afghans, the Italian miners, the Chinese miners and, later, the Vietnamese boat people, the people from Chile. More recently, there were the people from Bosnia and, of course, the latest lot of immigrants are the people from the Sudan. The Migrant Resource Centre have been quite effective in settling these people, finding them accommodation and jobs, and teaching them English; all the things that we want them to do.
So, it is a little bit of a disappointment that, when the tender went out for the resettlement program in the Northern Territory, it was given to a Darwin organisation, and the Alice Springs Migrant Resource Centre have been informed that they will no longer be required to settle immigrants from other places. This seems to me to be a tragic waste of resource of a community group that have done it so well for so long.
But, their school information kit was very well received by the many schools that were present there. I guess, as a past educator and a member of this Assembly, I see tremendous benefits of this type of kit as a teaching resource. It contains information that’s easy to access, and that’s what teachers like - to be able to pick up something and have all the information there for them. It also gives students an awareness of the legislation that protects residents against discrimination, regardless of sex, religion and race. I certainly commend the MRC for the work they did with this very innovative initiative, and their vision to provide a service to the community. In particular, I might mention Michelle Castagna, their Chairman, and Leony Bowey, their Executive Officer, who have worked so hard to do this.
The other function that I was very pleased to be involved with, and to launch, was the dedication of the Lion’s Walk out at the Ghan Society and the Transport Hall of Fame. The Lion’s Club of MacDonnell and Alice Springs, chartered in 1980 with 27 members and today, 22 years later, only one of those charter members remains, and that’s Charlie Mines. Charlie was behind this dedication of the Lion’s Walk to many past Lions. As last year was the Year of the Volunteer, it prompted the club to commence negotiations to, somehow or other, commemorate the work of people who are volunteers, like the members of Lions. The walk is from the Ghan across to the Transport Hall of Fame, and they have established trees and they have now put in plaques to commemorate some of their past Lions.
I mention Lion Bruce Chapman, who served as Treasurer and Vice-President; Lion Kevin John, who was the first inducted member and served on many of the executive levels; Lion Willie Wiesnicht, who was an active committee man and willing worker throughout his club association; Lion Doug MacArthur, who served at every level with two terms as President, and whose wife and son were actually present at the dedication; Lioness Iris Mahomed, who served as an active member of the Lioness’ Club of Macdonnell which, of course, as you know, is the ladies equivalent of the mens club; and Lion Otto Meyer who, although a member of the Alice Springs Lions Club, volunteered to be the guiding Lion for the MacDonnell Club for the first 12 months of their charter, thereby doubling his commitment to the Lions movement.
We were very pleased to have Mrs MacArthur and her son, Andrew, there at that particular dedication, and I was very pleased to have Andrew unveil the plaque with me on the rock. I certainly commend the Lions Club of Macdonnell on this wonderful initiative that they did. This walk will be a lasting reminder to the community of the work of the Lions Club, and a reminder to all those people who were there when the Lions Club was first getting itself established.
On 13 March - Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you’d be interested to know this - there is going to be a launch of a booklet called The Ali Curung House Sitting Booklet. It is a very simple little booklet that has been prepared by the women of Alice Springs, by some of the people who have been involved in the family and community services, by the staff, but most of all by the schoolchildren. Every house will have one of these books put in them. It says, ‘Ali Curung Council Association Housing Rules’.
It talks on the first page about all houses must have their rent paid, which is very important. It talks about dogs - keeping dogs out of your house; cleaning ideas; what you do with your rubbish; the type of things, ‘clean houses with clean yards make a happy family’ - these are all little drawings produced by the school - the toilet room; it is important what you should do: keep your toilet clean; wash your hands.
It even goes on to giving them very simple recipes, and recipes that they know actually have the ingredients that are in their store so they can buy them there and produce that. Of course, they have a few other health hints as well like: ‘Clean house, clean yards, healthy children and a happy community’, and ‘Have a bath or shower each day - clean people, no germs, healthy community’. And, of course, a very special thank you from all.
A simple little book but a very effective little book, I am sure you will agree. It is another example of how Ali Curung get together and produce things. They’re able to work in that cooperation so that they will know this will help people maintain the house, so it will actually achieve a healthier and happier lifestyle within the community.
I have to commend all the people involved in it. The little squeaky clay characters you see in the book were made by the senior primary students. This little book is full of ideas. I need to acknowledge the work Anne Maher did, as the lecturer from Centralian College who assisted in helping this. I congratulate those students who will also be graduating the same day that this particular book is being launched. It certainly is another plus for Ali Curung. I know we keep mentioning it, but the member for Barkly must be very proud of what goes on down there.
Mr McAdam: I certainly am.
Mrs BRAHAM: This morning it was asked about the levy being imposed on the registration of vintage and veteran cars. I really think the answer the Chief Minister gave lacked a little understanding and sensitivity of the whole situation. These cars are the pride and joy of these people who maintain them so beautifully, and they only bring them out on rare occasions. I know they get a restricted plate and they do not have to pay as much as an ordinary vehicle, but that’s understandable when you know they may only do 100 km a year, whereas you probably do more than 100 km a week. So, there is a special reason.
They always bring so much joy, people love to see them in processions or out on events. I think that we are being unfair to expect people who own these vehicles for special occasions to pay the $90 levy on those as well. Let’s face it, if we are all having to wear the burden of this levy, that’s fine, but these owners pay that levy on their own private vehicles - it is not as though they are not paying it. Some of them have two or three or four vintage cars, and now they’re being asked to pay that levy over and over and over again.
I know the Chief Minister did make a couple of exceptions in the bill that was passed, and I really think she should rethink this one. I think it is a little unreasonable to ask these members to have to pay this levy on top the registration of their normal cars. It is almost as though they are being slugged far more than the normal citizen of the Northern Territory just for the simple reason that they have these cars as their hobby. They get no financial gain from these cars, they’re purely for pleasure. In fact, they cost them heaps with maintenance and restoring. The pleasure the community gets from these cars when they are displayed is certainly well worthwhile. So, even though the Chief Minister said this morning that she is not considering an exemption, I ask her to rethink that, and to go and talk to these vintage car people and really get an understanding of the limited use that they have. Perhaps, even a part exemption would assist them.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I would like to bring members’ attention to the efforts of a young teacher at Tennant Creek High School, Larissa Murdock.
On Sunday 3 March, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training awarded Larissa an Australian teachers prize for excellence as part of the National Excellence in Teaching Award in Canberra. The National Excellence in Teaching Awards were presented to 35 preschool, primary and secondary teachers from across Australia.
Larissa received an Australian teacher’s prize for excellence in a rural, remote and indigenous education valued at $5000, with an additional $5000 going to the Tennant Creek High School. To the best of my knowledge, this is the second occasion that a teacher associated with the Tennant Creek High School has won such an award. I refer to Ms Anna Fidow, who was a recipient last year. The National Excellence in Teaching Awards and Commonwealth awards are given to teachers who are shining examples for their students, school and preschool communities and, as I mentioned previously, are open to all full-time teachers in government and independent schools throughout Australia.
Larissa is a dedicated teacher at Tennant Creek High School. She teaches arts, home economics and computer graphics, and is committed to giving students of all cultural backgrounds a sense of self-worth that young people clearly need in this modern world. She is highly sensitive to the needs of indigenous students and contributes consistently to promoting harmony between all students. Whilst at Tennant Creek High School, Larissa has worked with the students on many innovative ideas: a whole school anti-bullying program, with students scripting their own plays and making puppets, has reduced the incidence of teasing and has certainly improved school attendance, especially among indigenous students who make up just over half the school’s population; a highly successful Desert Harmony fashion parades for indigenous children from the bush and in town working together and modelling their own creations on the catwalk. Also, Larissa has given students international cultural exposure through trips to Malaysia and Fiji. Her contribution through the artist in residence program is another example of how Larissa caters to such a diverse cultural background. These are just some the examples that highlights Larissa’s dedication and commitment.
The coveted national awards are selected by independent panels from 100 regional award recipients. More than 3200 nominations are received from schools, communities, principals, teachers, class, parents and students Australia-wide.
Larissa’s family settled in Alice Springs when she was six months old and, clearly, she has a very long history in education as her father, now retired, was the Deputy Director of the Centralian College. Incidentally, her brother, Cameron, who also is a recipient of the same award this year, is now Deputy Principal of Bribie Island High School in Queensland. This is a tremendous example of the quality of teachers that the Northern Territory produces. I also take this opportunity to personally congratulate Cameron.
Tennant Creek High School, and the Tennant Creek community as a whole, is extremely proud of the recognition given to Larissa for her efforts on behalf of all her students. She sets an example of determination values to which so many of us can aspire. People such as Larissa inspire young people to realise their full potential. She has my respect, admiration and gratitude for her contribution to the community and I pay tribute to her and her achievements.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if I may, I also seek leave to table two articles which appeared in the Northern Territory News of 5 March, and also The Australian of 4 March. Both articles pertain to the successes of both Larissa and her brother, Cameron.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016