2011-11-30
ACTING SPEAKER
The ACTING CLERK: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 9 I advise the Deputy Speaker, the member for Nhulunbuy, Ms Lynne Walker, shall be performing the duties of Speaker and will be the Acting Speaker presiding over the Assembly proceedings on Wednesday, 30 November and Thursday, 1 December.
Madam Acting Speaker Walker took the Chair at 10 am.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Nightcliff
Member for Nightcliff
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the member for Nightcliff have leave of absence for Wednesday, 30 November and Thursday, 1 December 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I wish Madam Speaker all the best and a quick recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Leave granted.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Stuart and Araluen
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Stuart and Araluen
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of a pairing arrangement that is in place from 10 am until noon. The pair is between the members for Stuart and Araluen and the pairing arrangement has been signed by both the government Whip and the opposition Whip.
I table that document.
VISITORS
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Katherine School of the Air students from Werenbun, accompanied by Ms Catherine Breen and Mr Patrick Curtain. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Nightcliff and Blain
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Nightcliff and Blain
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of another pairing arrangement, from 10 am for the entire sitting day. That pair is between the members for Nightcliff and Blain. It is also signed by the government Whip and the opposition Whip.
I table that document.
PETITION
Marra People’s Lands and Seas
Country Near Limmen Bight
Marra People’s Lands and Seas
Country Near Limmen Bight
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 97 petitioners praying that the lands and seas of the Marra people near Limmen Bight be protected. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully showeth this petition of the Marra people, who are the Indigenous Traditional owners and custodians of the lands and seas in and near Limmen Bight in the southwest Gulf Country of the Northern Territory, draws to the attention of the House:
- Our land and sea Country are very significant to our people. Our people hold Native Title to lands and seas in this region.
The plans threaten our sacred sites, our dreaming places, the environment, and the wildlife and plants that we hunt and gather.
We strongly oppose this proposal. We are responsible for Country, we speak for Country.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to reject these plans by Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron, and use the Territory’s environment, mining, sacred site and other laws to protect our land and sea Country, our sacred sites and dreaming places, the environment, and the wildlife and plants in and around Limmen Bight. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 191)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is an omnibus bill making a range of miscellaneous amendments to the Justice portfolio and related legislation. There are usually one or two such omnibus bills every year. This is the second of these bills for 2011. In total, the bill amends seven statutes: the Bail Act; the Justices Act; the Police Administration Act; the Liquor Act; the Local Court Act; Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act; and the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act.
The bill is part of the government’s regular legislative review and monitoring program. It results from the Department of Justice and other stakeholders identifying various problems and improvements to the affected acts. The purpose of the bill is to rectify procedural and technical problems with the operation of the amended acts, and correct errors or uncertainty caused by the legislation.
The bill also includes enabling provisions to enable voluntary transfer determinations to be made by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) to enable the transfer of trustee company estate assets and liabilities to other trustee companies. These particular amendments are consequential upon recent amendments to the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and are part of a national scheme.
The bill also includes various small updates of the statute law revision nature to those provisions amended by this bill. For example, the word ‘shall’ shall be replaced by the word ‘must’.
I now turn to the amendments in detail.
The Bail Act: the intent of the current section 6(f) of the Bail Act is to allow bail to be granted to a person who has allegedly breached a suspended sentence or good behaviour bond for a period between their committal and their appearance before the court to be dealt with in accordance with that committal. The current section 6(f) of the Bail Act provides that bail may be granted to an accused person for a period between the committal of a person under section 40 of the Sentencing Act and various sections of the now repealed Criminal Law (Conditional Release of Offenders) Act, and his or her appearance in accordance with that committal.
The references to the Repeal Act are outdated. The reference to section 40 of the Sentencing Act is incorrect, as this section provides for the ordering of suspended sentences. This has led to some doubts among the judiciary about its continued application to suspended sentences and good behaviour bonds. The amendments ensure there is no uncertainty for the judiciary in granting bail to such matters.
The bill repeals section 6(f) to remove the incorrect and outdated references. The clause inserts in section 6 redrafted subsections (f), (g) and (h). These new subsections (g) and (f) now refer to the correct provisions of the Sentencing Act. The insertion of these new subsections does not amend the intent of the provision. They allow bail to be granted to a person who has allegedly breached a suspended sentence or good behaviour bond for a period up to their appearance in the Supreme Court, new subsection (g), or Court of Summary Jurisdiction, new subsection (f). The new subsection (h) reinstates the old subsection (g) which allows regulations to prescribe any additional bail period deemed necessary. With respect to the Justices Act, at the moment, where someone fails to appear on a summons or a bail undertaking, sections 62 and 62A of the Justices Act allow the magistrate to decide the complaint in the person’s absence; adjourn it, or issue an arrest warrant.
There is no similar power in the act for the police notices to appear. (Police notices to appear are like a complaint and summons, but are issued on the spot by a police officer and do not have to be signed by a Justice of the Peace). This means, for police notices to appear, the magistrate can only adjourn the matter or issue an arrest warrant (under section 191); they cannot decide the matter in the defendant’s absence. This is not consistent with the original intent of parliament as police notices to appear were intended to have the same effect as a summons.
The amendments to section 191 will allow matters commenced by notices to appear to be dealt with in the person’s absence in the same way as they currently are for summonses and bail undertakings (in sections 62 and 62A respectively). Similar provisions exist in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
The other key amendments are consequential amendments to section 63A arising from the changes in section 191. These amendments allow police notices to appear which are dealt with ex parte (under the new provisions in section 191), to be ‘appealed’ in the same way as complaints dealt with ex parte, where the defendant fails to appear on a summons or bail undertaking. The section 63A amendments include small changes to modernise and improve the existing drafting of the section.
The Police Administration Act: in order to augment the procedural fairness offered to defendants by the changes to the Justices Act, the bill amends the content of police notices to appear to include a short warning about the consequences of failing to appear, including that the matter may now be determined in the person’s absence. This is based on a similar provision in New South Wales.
The Liquor Act: there is a minor drafting error in section 106B(3) of the Liquor Act which requires correction of this section to make sense. The defence in section 106B(3) does not correctly link to the offence in section 106B(1). Section 106B(1) makes it an offence for a licensee, or licensee’s employee, ‘to permit a child to enter or remain’ on a licensee’s licensed premises etcetera. However, section 106B(3) makes it a defence to that offence for the licensee to show that the child ‘to whom the liquor was supplied’ was over 16 years etcetera. The ‘to whom the liquor was supplied’ reference in section 106B(3) should have referred to a child ‘who is permitted to enter or remain’ on the premises. The new section 106B(3) in the bill correctly links the defence to the offence in section 106(B)(1).
The Local Court Act: section 19(3) of the Local Court Act currently allows parties to appeal, with leave, interlocutory orders made in the Local Court, (that is, orders that are not final orders) to the Supreme Court. They must do so within 14 days. This section does not allow for the Supreme Court to allow an extension of time for these appeals. This limitation can result in unfairness and unnecessary cost to parties.
By contrast, the Supreme Court can grant an extension of time for appeals from final orders in section 19(1).
In 2009, the former Chief Justice proposed that section 19 be amended to allow the Supreme Court to grant an extension of time to appeal from interlocutory orders of the Local Court. The bill amends section 19 of the Local Court Act to allow that to occur.
The Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act: the bill makes a number of minor changes to the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act to ensure oaths, affidavits and declarations contain the name of the person making them (including in the administration of an oath), and allows the discretionary inclusion of the person’s address or other identifying information, as appropriate. Although in practice written declarations and affidavits would usually contain such information, these provisions ensure names are included in the form of a declaration itself, and there is clear statutory support for inclusion of an address in such a declaration. Importantly, the amendments will support the current pro forma statutory declaration as set out on the Department of Justice website, which includes both the person’s name and address. More information about these changes is available in the explanatory statement to this bill.
The bill also repeals section 13 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act and replaces it with a new section 24A. Section 13 currently ensures that minor non-compliance with a formal request requirement does not affect the validity of an oath. The new section 24A extends this to affidavits and declarations. The amendment is consistent with a similar provision in Western Australia.
There are also two minor technical amendments to Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act to ensure that oaths of interpreters include the name of the person for whom they are interpreting, and that oaths can be recited in the third person by someone administering an oath.
Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act: the bill makes amendments to the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act that are consequential upon recent amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth government. These amendments are necessary as part of the states’ and territories’ obligations to deliver on the new national uniform regulatory framework for regulating trustee companies, which began in 2010.
Private trustee companies provide a wide range of wealth management services (including estate planning), administering deceased estates, managing the financial affairs of persons unable to look after their own interests, and administering charitable trusts and foundations.
Section 601WBA of the Corporations Act 2001 enables the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) to make a determination that there is to be a transfer of estate assets and liabilities from a trustee company (the transferring company) to another licensed trustee company (the receiving company). To make this determination, ASIC must be satisfied, among other things, legislation to facilitate the transfer which satisfies the requirements of section 601WBC of the Corporations Act 2001 has been enacted in the state or territory in which the transferring company and the receiving company are situated.
Prior to the recent amendments of the Corporations Act 2001, ASIC could make a transfer determination only if the commission had cancelled the transferring company’s registration. These types of determinations are called ‘compulsory transfer determinations’. They are currently supported by existing section 53 of the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act.
Following the recent Corporations Act 2001 amendments, ASIC may now also make a transfer determination on the application of the transferring trustee company. These new types of determinations are called ‘voluntary transfer determinations’. Before the national regulatory framework for trustee companies commenced in May 2010, many corporate groups operating across state and territory borders operated multiple subsidiaries whose purpose was to hold a trustee company authorisation in a particular jurisdiction.
Many corporate groups wish to transfer the business of their subsidiaries to one licensed trustee company. Voluntary transfer determinations are an expeditious and a cost-effective process for trustee companies to rationalise their operations and reduce compliance costs.
The proposed amendments to the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act ensure the legislation extends to voluntary transfer determinations made by ASIC, as well as to compulsory transfer determinations. This will enable ASIC to make voluntary transfer determinations in appropriate circumstances. These amendments will ensure Northern Territory legislation continues to meet the requirements of section 601WBC of the Corporations Act 2001 and that it continues to fulfil its obligation as part of the national scheme. Other jurisdictions are also in the process of making similar amendments.
The bill also inserts new sections 55 and 56 in the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act. These sections are necessary to support the transfer determinations made by ASIC (whether voluntary or compulsory), and have been proposed by the Commonwealth in the development of the recent amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to facilitate voluntary transfers. Proposed section 55 recognises certificates of an authorised ASIC officer as evidence of a transfer so they can be used to effect a transfer. Proposed section 56 requires a registering authority to register or record a transfer of trustee company assets and liabilities, provided it is accompanied by the ASIC transfer certificate mentioned in section 55.
Many stakeholders, including the judiciary, the legal profession, and Northern Territory police were consulted in the development of this bill. I thank these stakeholders for their contribution and insights.
Madam Acting Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments in this bill improve the functioning of the Territory’s law and justice system. It represents another example of the government’s commitment to ensure the Territory’s laws and democratic institutions are robust, up to date, and effective. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Proposed Suspension of Standing Orders – Allow Minister for Health to Report
Proposed Suspension of Standing Orders – Allow Minister for Health to Report
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Acting Speaker, I move – That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Health making a 15-minute report to this House on the state of Territory hospitals arising out of the Australian hospital statistics report 2010-11, particularly the damning report on the state of Territory hospital waiting lists.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I am speaking to the motion on the suspension of standing orders. Government will not be accepting this. This is purely a stunt to try to highjack the normal business of parliament. We have legislation to debate; important legislation for the workers or Territorians. Bring on an MPI. You are so lazy, so arrogant. Bring on an MPI.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Speaking to the motion, Madam Acting Speaker, I am in full agreement with the member for Greatorex. This is an important issue. It seems we are now on the eve of a handover of our entire health system to Canberra. Given what has come to light in the last 24 hours or so, it is fitting that the minister say exactly what his plans are for the Northern Territory health service.
We have seen this government cave in to Canberra on things such as the carbon tax. They have caved in to Canberra on things such as the mineral resource rent tax. They have caved in to Canberra on things such as the second intervention. Every time something happens and Canberra rattles the cage, this mob is quite prepared to cave in. It is only fair to ask the question: will they cave in on health as well? Will they hand over the Northern Territory health system to Canberra’s control?
I note the AMA and other organisations consider Canberra would do a much better job of running our health sector than this government and this minister, in particular. Given the enormity of such an issue, I find it completely appropriate that the member for Greatorex, the shadow spokesman on Health, asks this question now, because the minister should give a full explanation to this parliament. He should stand up and explain himself, and explain what the government intends to do in relation to this issue.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. The question before the Chair was with regard to the suspension of standing orders …
Mr Tollner: That is right, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: … so I ask you to resume your seat, please.
A member: He has 20 minutes.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I ask you to resume your seat, please. The question is about suspension of standing orders. That is the question before the Chair, so we are going to put that question.
Mr Tollner: Sorry, Madam Acting Speaker, I am speaking to the motion.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume you seat please, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: Madam Acting Speaker, I am speaking to the motion.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Fong Lim. Leader of Government Business?
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Mr Tollner: Hang on, Madam …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: The question before the Chair – resume your seat, please, member for Fong Lim, there is a question before the Chair.
Mr Tollner: This is highly unusual, Madam Acting Speaker, I was on my feet speaking to the motion.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please resume your seat, or be expected to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is a question before the Chair. Resume your seat, thank you. The question is that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! A member has left the room once the division has been called. He has now returned.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that once the bells have rung, to leave the Chamber is in contravention of standing orders.
- Ayes 10 Noes 11
Dr Burns Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Bohlin
Mr Henderson Mr Chandler
Mr Knight Mr Conlan
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mr Giles
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, the debate may continue, but it is strictly around suspension of standing orders. I will be calling relevance very quickly. It is not an opportunity to launch into debate. The debate is about the suspension of standing orders. Be mindful of relevance.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. What a terrible thing when government tries to gag debate on such an important motion.
Quite clearly, the member for Greatorex has called for a suspension of standing orders because there is an important issue that should be before this Chamber about the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory. That is why we are discussing this motion, why I am talking about how this government rolls over on every single occasion to Canberra, and how pathetic it is of this government to gag debate and have it supported by the Speaker and other people in this Chamber. It is completely wrong, Madam Acting Speaker, that you would allow a gag on this debate …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! He is accusing you of bias in the debate and in proceedings. That is a very serious accusation he has made against the Office of Speaker, and he should withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim …
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Speaker, as I was saying ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if I could just comment on the point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: I have withdrawn, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: You have withdrawn. If you would just resume your seat, please.
Mr Tollner: Okay, here we go.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to not reflect on the Speaker. I am doing my best to be impartial and follow the standing orders and the conventions of this House. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Speaker, I believe that.
The fact is the member for Greatorex has raised a very important issue - the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory and a report that has been issued by the federal Department of Health and Ageing which shows an appalling effort at delivering health services in the Northern Territory. The minister should explain himself and this report that has come from the federal parliament, and respond to calls that the Territory health service be taken over by Canberra.
As I said, this government has form in this area. They have rolled over to the Gillard government on so many different areas. They caved in on the mining tax. They caved in on the carbon tax. They caved in on the live cattle export debate …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Relevance. This is about suspension of standing orders.
Mr Tollner: This is about suspension of standing orders.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: This is about suspension of standing orders. He should be arguing around the urgency to suspend the standing orders to not debate important legislation for the workers of the Territory and to pursue, instead, a simple stunt. If they were serious they could do this by MPI.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I am inclined to agree with the minister. The issue is about the suspension of standing orders ahead of, potentially, a debate on the subject of health.
Mr Tollner: That is exactly what I am speaking about, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Then if you could keep your focus to the suspension of standing …
Mr Tollner: Absolutely, Madam Acting Speaker, and I have not ranged at all from that ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: And when I am talking you are not, member for Fong Lim! The debate is about the suspension of standing orders. You have the call, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Are you finished?
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are reflecting on the Speaker, and you are on a warning!
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Acting Speaker. Getting back to the suspension of standing orders, it is vitally important this matter is discussed because we have seen a call in the media for our health services to be handed over to the control of Canberra. As I was saying, this government has form in this area. It has form in covering up the truth; it has done it time and time again. It has form in caving in to Canberra. This is a matter which needs to be discussed urgently, and standing orders should be suspended.
The government caved in to Canberra on the live cattle debate, on the carbon tax debate, and on the mining resource rent tax debate. It caved in on the biggest takeover of Territory regulatory control of businesses and pubs in relation to a second intervention - in actual fact, it welcomed that. Now, we have a call that our health services are taken over by Canberra.
I want to know - and I am sure there are other members in this place who want to know - exactly what the government’s plans are in relation to our health system. Will they cave in as they have done on all these other matters? This is vitally important to Territorians. Standing orders should be suspended to allow this to occur; we need to hear from the Health Minister, right here, right now, exactly what he plans to do. Will he cave in to Canberra as they have on so many other occasions?
We know this government is nothing but the nodding dog for Julia Gillard. Every time the Prime Minister says something - they agree. Will they agree that our health system should be handed over to the control of Canberra? That is what this motion is about. That is exactly why we should be suspending standing orders to bring it on now. We want to hear from our Health Minister. We want to hear something sensible and coherent, rather than the normal mumble jumble we hear time and time again.
I am very disappointed in the efforts of this government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: ... to gag debate. It is completely wrong that they try to gag debate …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, there are far too many interjections. I remind you of Standing Order 51.
Mr TOLLNER: I find it highly inappropriate and offensive that government tries to shut down this debate; wants to gag this debate. Next thing, we will wake up tomorrow morning, and find out they have done some dodgy deal with Canberra to hand over our health services.
I am not of the view we should be doing that - I believe it is completely wrong. However, knowing the form of this government and the way they quite willingly roll over every time Canberra says so, I believe it is absolutely appropriate the minister get up right now and explain himself, the actions of the government, why they have such a damning report out about them in relation to health, and tell us whether they are going to roll over to Canberra and hand over our entire health service to their control. They have done it with pubs, with clubs, with a range of businesses in relation to the second intervention, with the carbon tax which is going to cripple businesses in the Northern Territory and make costs of living so much higher in the Northern Territory for Territorians, and in relation to the mineral resource rent tax when we are trying to get mining industries happening here in the Northern Territory. They roll over at every opportunity they get, every time they are asked to.
So, I believe it is only fair that right now - here and now - the Health Minister actually explains to people in this place exactly what his plans are for Canberra taking over our health system - whether the job has got out of hand for him; whether they can be trusted to do the job anymore.
The way we see it, our health services are in a mess - they are a complete shambles. The report that the member for Greatorex was referring to highlights that – it is a damning report. Whilst the government may want to shut this debate up, and not want to talk about health because they know the dreadful state it is in, in the Northern Territory, Territorians have a right to know what is going on.
Madam Acting Speaker, I implore you to encourage everyone in this Chamber to support the suspension of standing orders and allow this to be debated out, and allow the minister the opportunity to come clean, talk about what their plans are in relation to our health service, and whether they are going to roll over like they always do, every time there is a bit of a problem and Canberra decides they want to interfere in our way of life.
Madam Acting Speaker, that is what this suspension of standing orders is about and that is why we should all support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, I do not support the motion. People should be allowed to debate the motion. Many issues come before us, and many could claim to be urgent. One of the problems with dropping something at a moment’s notice is that some of us have not read the report. I heard this morning on the radio - and it is the first time I have heard about it - that Dr Beaumont said the Commonwealth should take it over.
There is a range of views about this very important issue I have not had a chance to listen to. If health in the Territory has a problem, it did not happen yesterday; it would have happened over a long period of time and …
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: You are not wrong!
Mr WOOD: Madam Acting Speaker, it is not necessary for this to be an urgency debate. If the opposition wishes to bring it on, they can bring it on through a censure motion. They can ask questions of the minister in parliament today whether he has a knowledge of what is actually in the report. I do not have that knowledge. By all means, it is an important matter, but there are many important matters we have to discuss in this parliament and we normally do it through a process which is set out in our Notice Paper. That is not to say there are not times where there is a requirement for something to be urgent but, in this case, that is not necessarily the case. I will not be supporting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, this motion does nothing other than to endeavour to give the minister 15 minutes of this parliament’s time to address an issue which is vitally important to many Territorians; that is, the state of their hospital system.
It does not invite a debate. We do not ask in the motion, even briefly, for debate on the issue. What we require is a truncated version of a ministerial statement about an issue of deep importance to many Territorians.
The process of asking for that 15 minutes has actually taken much longer than 15 minutes. It was not necessary to jump through all of these hoops. If the minister is a competent minister - as I hope he would be - he would be fully across the contents of that report and would already have flash briefs from his department telling him exactly what it agrees, and disagrees, with in the report. Moreover, he would have his own opinions and comments to make.
I am saddened the member for Nelson does not support the motion. However, it does not prevent the government from agreeing with the motion to enable the minister 15 minutes. All we have asked for is a 15-minute report from the minister to this House to let us know what is going on. It is not too much to ask. Unfortunately, in the government’s haste to not support an opposition motion, they have overlooked a simple fact: we do not ask for any debating rights, we only asked for an explanation. I would have thought the minister would have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Acting Speaker, all this motion was for, was an opportunity for the Health Minister to report. This was the biggest issue this morning; it was all over the news and the ABC morning program. Paul Bauert from the AMA was on the radio tipping a complete bucket over the Northern Territory Health Department. I am sure many Territorians listening to that program were alarmed at the state of their Territory hospitals and, in particular, the Royal Darwin Hospital.
We thought it might be a good idea for the minister - he is the Minister for Health - to explain to Territorians the direction of Territory hospitals: where we are going, why we have got to this place, how we have come to the situation where the Northern Territory emergency waiting list times are the lowest in the country - that is, the time seen. In other words, 52% of people in the Northern Territory are seen on time. That is the worst of the country, closely followed by the ACT, then Tasmania. I would think Territorians out there, particularly those listening to the program in the suburbs of Darwin and across the NT who heard that news this morning, would be alarmed and very concerned, particularly if they utilise the health system regularly. They would like to see some leadership from the Health Minister who could step up to the plate and say, ‘This is the situation, okay things are ...’ - all you need to do is 15 minutes.
I agree with the member for Port Darwin, this could be done and dusted if you agree with the motion. This could be all over; you could have stated your case, and you would have been a better minister for it and people would have actually accepted, probably on face value, what you had to say. All they want is a little honesty. All they want is a minister to take a little responsibility. Instead of putting the cart before the horse, they actually want to see a minister getting up and embracing his ministerial responsibility. But, no, we do not see it; we see debate being gagged.
There is, obviously, something to hide. There is, obviously, something quite serious in this report. I have not read the whole report. You do not need to read the whole report, you just have to turn to pages 18 and 19 to see the vital statistics of exactly where we are. It is pretty ordinary and, in fact, it is backed up by your own hospital board reports which were tabled in parliament last week. The figures do not quite match up. Here we have 62%; I think it says 65% in this report ….
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! This is a debate on the suspension of standing orders, this is not the debate on the substantive motion. I know the member for …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: … Greatorex does not actually respect the parliament, but it is a debate on the relevance of standing orders.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order, member for Fong - member for Braitling, could you cease interjecting, please? Member for Fong Lim, is this a point of order?
Mr TOLLNER: I am speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Speaker. Clearly, this is part of the reasons for setting aside of standing orders. The member for Greatorex is explaining exactly why it is that standing orders should be set aside. He is giving some more detail to what is contained in this health report, which he wants the minister to explain now. I see no reason at all to try to put him off that line he is running at the moment. Clearly, the member for Karama is trying to gag debate, trying to stop discussion on this, and I believe you should rule her point of order out of order, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you for the counsel, member for Fong Lim. I am inclined to agree with the minister and her point of order in the same way that I cautioned you regarding Standing Order 67, member for Greatorex: relevance. I have not called you as yet, but just to remind you, the question currently is specifically about suspension of standing orders – specifically about standing orders. So, if you could …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I am saying it twice; I will say it three times so you will understand. So, member for Greatorex, if you could please stick to the question please around suspension of standing orders?
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. The government’s interpretation of relevance varies quite differently to our interpretation. To me, this is right to the point - right to the heart of this whole question that the hospital system and our health system is in such disarray that even the AMA of the Northern Territory has publicly come out on radio and highlighted the dire situation. They have actually said the Northern Territory Health Department has failed in its duties to provide a core service to Northern Territorians over many years. This report is just more proof of that.
I do not know how the arguments that are being put to this parliament could be any less relevant, particularly on this side of the House this morning. This is the whole point. By virtue of this motion and the suspension of standing orders it goes to the very heart of the failure of the Northern Territory Health Department. All we have asked is that standing orders be suspended so the Health Minister can put the minds of Territorians at ease. No doubt, they woke this morning to the news that, yes, we have the worst hospital system in the country; the worst emergency waiting times in the country. We are now dragging the chain. We have had the worst, or close to the worst, for a long time. Now, we officially have the worst.
This is not some independent report, this is a report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare put together by the Australian government in Canberra. This is a pretty accurate report on the state of hospitals. Anyone who has been through our Northern Territory hospitals knows the state of hospitals, particularly Royal Darwin Hospital.
It is perfectly reasonable that standing orders be suspended this morning. If you look at the Notice Paper, it is not as if we have a lot on. We had an extra sitting day over the course of this parliament. You throw in an extra sitting day and all you want to do is bring on your political puff pieces for another seven days ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: That is all you want to do. It is all you have done all year, and all you do year after year. You have nothing to add ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: You have nothing to add to the debate - nothing at all. Thanks to the member for Nelson, we have been able to at least spend 20 minutes talking about something of meaning to the people of the Northern Territory - something they can relate to, that means something to them and their families; that is, taking their children or themselves to the hospital and being seen to on time. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with being seen to on time in a Northern Territory public hospital? To you, there seems to be some problem with it.
Minister, you do not even want to explain to the people of the Northern Territory why we have reached this stage; why we have come to this after all these years.
This is a bad government and a bad situation we have in this parliament right now. The member for Johnston wants to gag it because he knows they are in trouble. You are in big, big trouble. All we ask is the minister spend 15 minutes explaining to Territorians why Northern Territory hospitals are in such a shambles and such disarray - why only 52% of people are being seen to on time in our emergency department. What is wrong with that? ‘Let us bring on another political propaganda puff piece day after day after day’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Again, relevance. This is about suspension of standing orders. We have the work health legislation and the constitutional convention legislation before us to debate. We know you do not want to debate the constitutional convention legislation; we know this is simply a tactic to avoid debate on statehood because you have reneged …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Honourable members, responding to the minister’s point of order, I call your attention to relevance, Standing Order 67. I have a strong feeling we are having the debate about the subject you would like to bring before the House when, in fact, member for Greatorex, the debate is about the suspension of standing orders.
There are far too many interjections across the Chamber from both sides, and I ask members to be cognisant of Standing Order 51. Member for Greatorex, you have the call and I ask you to come to the point quickly.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I would like to talk to the point of order raised by the member for Karama.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that point of order, member for Fong Lim. Resume your seat, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I would like to respond to her point of order.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you, member for Fong Lim. Member for Greatorex, have you finished?
Mr CONLAN: No, Madam Acting Speaker, I still have 10 minutes.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have the call. I remind you of relevance as well as, and directing your comments through the Chair. Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Acting Speaker, this has nothing to do with the statehood debate ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The member for Daly, who was not even in his chair, was calling out abusive comments. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I did not hear those comments, but thank you for withdrawing, member for Daly.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Acting Speaker, this has nothing to do with statehood or trying to hijack parliament, gag, or defer bills or debates. I remind the government it was you who brought in the adjournment of parliament at 9 pm because you could not be bothered working any later. We can stay here all night if you like. We could get this debate out of the way and we could stay all night ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The adjournment debate is unlimited on a Wednesday night.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The Treasurer continues to raise frivolous points of order that have nothing to do with the debate whatsoever. They are simply to limit the member for Greatorex having a possible say and explaining why there should be a suspension of standing orders. What she raises is completely frivolous. She knows it, I know it, and it needs to be pointed out to this Chamber that she is constantly going on with frivolous points of order. You should drag the member for Karama into line, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you for the advice, member for Fong Lim. I will be seeking relevant points of order, not frivolous points of order. I draw your attention, once again, to relevance. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. Yes, indeed, adjournment debates do go longer on Wednesday nights, but Government Business ceases every single sitting day at 9 pm. We are more than happy to amend that standing order, if we can get there, and we can debate Government Business well into the night or the wee hours of the morning, if you like. So, do not come in here and say: ‘You are just trying to take up our time - our precious, little time - because we all have to get home at 7 or 8 o’clock at night’, or what have you. Just remember it was this government that ceased Government Business at 9 pm, because they did not want to work past 9 o’clock.
Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate today we spend some time on a meaningful debate, something that means something to the people of the Northern Territory, which is important to those people; that is, hospital waiting times.
People who turn up at a hospital, either for themselves or perhaps with a family member, want to be seen to on time. They do not want to be sitting in a hospital that has the lowest - or I should say the highest, because it is actually the highest - waiting times in the country. In fact, only 52% of people who present - a little over half - at the emergency department are seen on time. There are only 62% of Category 2 Emergency (attended within 10 minutes) seen on time, according to the hospital ward report at RDH.
This is a very important issue to people of the Northern Territory. I do not see that it is completely out of order or, for some reason this is so absurd or way out; that you would ask a minister of the Crown, the head of the department, the No 1, the big kahuna, to come in here, if he has any idea of what is going on with his department – and that is another question in itself. Nevertheless, we give the minister the benefit of the doubt. If you are across what is happening with your department, if you and your CEO are, in fact, embarking on a program or ways to improve hospital waiting times, then I believe you should tell the people of the Northern Territory. Use this platform, use the generosity of the opposition, to take the 15 minutes.
We are giving you the 15 minutes – take the opportunity, embrace it. Why not walk in and say - if you have any idea what you are doing, any confidence about what you are doing with your department or the hospitals of the Northern Territory: ‘By all means, I relish the opportunity. I will dive in head first and say, yes, please, give me 15 minutes. Why do you not give me 20, give me 25, give me 30? I will take all morning, if you like, to explain what is happening with our hospitals’. The people out there in the northern suburbs, the people of Darwin, the people of the Top End who are lining up in droves at Royal Darwin Hospital just to be seen, would appreciate it. They would value it; they would welcome the opportunity we have given the Northern Territory Health Minister to explain to us, please, what is happening.
That is all we have asked, and that is all the suspension of standing orders was about, Madam Acting Speaker - purely an opportunity, a gift from us to you. We wanted to set aside your nonsense, all the rubbish you bring into this parliament, time and time again - the absolute nonsense ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I take it the member for Greatorex is reflecting that the Constitutional Convention is rubbish. I ask him ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order. Resume your seat, please. Honourable members, there are far too many interjections. I remind you of Standing Order 51.
Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67 about relevance. The debate is about the suspension of standing orders. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. This has to do with the 90% of the rubbish you bring into this place in ministerial puff pieces - ministerial statements - time and time again. I thought I had seen the worst one, but then - bingo! - it pops up in my inbox. What is it called? I cannot even remember what it is called – how to make the Territory great, or something like that – it was like the health statement by the Health Minister. This, again, goes to the heart of his credibility.
He talked about the state of the Health department and gave us a ministerial statement a little while ago, but he was so devoid on detail, he strolled into areas like mining and fisheries - and this was a health statement. This was a health puff piece, and then we are into mining and fisheries. It is just ridiculous. Of course, the opposition moved to shut that down because it was another waste of time. Time wasting - absolute time wasting.
Here is an opportunity to do something of meaning, something solid, something of substance in this parliament just for once. Why do you not do something of substance just for once in your life, so you can say at the election campaign: ‘We have done something. We have actually done something. I got to my feet with confidence, I am the Health Minister’. I would relish that opportunity. Bring on a motion any time you like. I defy you, I challenge you, to bring a motion into this parliament and ask me to spend 15 minutes talking about Territory hospitals. I will do it with bells on; I would relish the opportunity to show the people of the Northern Territory that I have some idea of what is going on in the health department. As a shadow minister, I would relish that opportunity …
Members interjecting
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: But you cannot do it, you cannot do it. You sit there and you have to hide behind the members for Karama and Johnston …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
A member: He is.
A member: No, he is not.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Araluen! Member for Greatorex, the Leader of Government Business is quite correct. You are asked to address your comments through the Chair.
I am reminding you, yet again, of relevance, Standing Order 67. The debate is about suspension of standing orders.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Acting Speaker, indeed, it is about the suspension of standing orders that would allow the Health Minister to get to his feet in this parliament. Surely, he can structure a 15-minute argument on the state of hospitals ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I am not going to do this again, but it is repetition. We have heard this …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, member for Greatorex, while I take this point of order.
Dr BURNS: Repetition. We have heard this one sentence, this one paragraph, 15 or 20 times. If he cannot marshal an argument without endless repetition - I just ask what he is trying to do. He is trying to take up time so we do not get to the Constitutional Convention ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seats, if you have not been given the call.
Leader of Government Business, you are quite correct in upholding Standing Order 67. Member for Greatorex - resume your seat, member for Port Darwin - I remind you of Standing Order 70 which allows me to discontinue a member’s speech ...
Mr CONLAN: If the motion is put, Madam Acting Speaker, yes.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Actually, it is not open to debate or amendment. This is your last chance to be relevant please, and to address your comments directly to the question with regard to suspension of standing orders. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Talk about repetition! I think it is called reinforcement; reinforcing the notion that you guys have no idea - absolutely no idea. You had the opportunity - a gift from us - to come in here and spend 15 minutes talking about health, explaining this damning report and why the Territory hospitals are in such a shambolic state, and all you have done is hide behind the rest of your team.
Madam Acting Speaker, addressing that point of order, Standing Order 70, yes, you can, but the motion must be put. I have read that standing order, Madam Acting Speaker ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Actually, member, to discontinue speech.
Mr CONLAN: I just thought I would clarify that because you are new in the job.
Shame on you, Health minister ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Pause please. Honourable members, the question is with regard to the suspension of standing order that the question be put.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker!
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that, it is not actually on the put; it is on the motion of suspension of standing orders. I think that is why there was some confusion on the voices.
Mr ELFERINK: There is confusion, Madam Acting Speaker. The question that should be before the Chair is that the motion be agreed to.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I will put that once again. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Dr Burns
Mr Bohlin Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Henderson
Mr Conlan Mr Knight
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS
Intervening Business be Postponed
Intervening Business be Postponed
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I move - That intervening business be postponed so we can debate the Constitutional Convention on Statehood ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The member with carriage of that, being the Leader of the Opposition, is not currently in the room. We have had no notification in relation to this particular motion. I am sure we are happy to accommodate the government, but it would be unreasonable for the government to expect the presence of the Leader of the Opposition when it does not occur in that order on the Notice Paper.
What I simply ask, Madam Acting Speaker, is if that is what the government wants to do, the House be adjourned for a short period enabling the member with carriage on this side of the House to be ready.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please. I am seeking advice from the Clerk.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Please pause, minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, resume your seats, please. I am going to suspend sittings for three minutes to resolve this matter. When the bells ring in three minutes time, I ask members to resume their seats.
The Assembly suspended.
The Assembly reconvened.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, the House does now resume. The Leader of Government Business had put the question with regard to the reordering of government business. Are there any further speakers to this motion?
Motion agreed to.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (ELECTION) BILL
(Serial 178)
(Serial 178)
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Speaker, the Chief Minister and I have been in this parliament for 12 years. Most of my time in this parliament has been spent in opposition. The committee I have spent the greater part of my time on has been the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Being on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and then being given an opportunity - and, in fact, a privilege - to be involved in the Statehood Steering Committee, has been an experience I recognise as being an historic involvement.
It has given me access to this aspiration for the Northern Territory to be the seventh state. It has given me access to the underlying narrative that this is a place which is going somewhere; that we want to be standing shoulder to shoulder with our colleagues who are already recognised through the Australian federation as fully-fledged states. The Australian Constitution provides that capacity and the ball has been put into our court to prepare another stage of this journey towards that destination.
It has given me opportunity to hear stories of those who have been involved in this for a very long time: members of this Chamber, members representing the Territory interests both here and federally. Sadly, their desires for this destination live on, but they have left us – one being Bernie Kilgariff. He was often quoted as saying he got on a bus and wanted to see where it would take him. He wanted that bus to take him to the place where we were recognised as being the seventh state. I had the fortune to be able to speak at his passing, and made reference to the obligation we now have to continue on that journey. The same story with Sam Calder, a man who participated and provided leadership in this debate to take us to that destination. In many ways, just mentioning those two and others, we know we are just part of this story. It is a long and arduous task, but each of us must be faithful to the obligations we have along that way. It has befallen us now to take that next stage.
For anyone who has considered the Australian Constitution and the decision for Australia to become a Commonwealth, it is easy to conclude that occurred quite swiftly and efficiently. Hindsight provides that view but, if you take a closer inspection, you see there were many hiccups. In fact, at the time of the decision, it was still not certain whether Western Australia would, in fact, be a part of the Commonwealth. That is just a little glimpse into the challenges a group of people, having a desire for the colonies to become a nation, a Commonwealth, had to go through.
There would have been many hiccups, disappointments, and hurts along the way. However, we do not see that so clearly when we are looking back over the span of time. There will be some, at this juncture, because there has been some controversy over one aspect of this particular phase of the journey, and they will vent and point and criticise. I can understand that because there has been much riding on this. Much emotion has been invested, just as there was at the formation of the Australian Constitution and the Commonwealth being established. There would have been a variety of views, just as there has been here.
However, let me make it absolutely clear: the Country Liberal Party has a proud tradition, a heritage we must honour as members of the Country Liberal Party, that we fully and without reserve support statehood. We fully recognise the lessons of the past and, being a participant of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we believe it was necessary we move to the phase where we now have a Constitutional Convention of elected members. We accept the conclusion of history that that Constitutional Convention must involve the citizens of the Northern Territory, and we support that.
There is bipartisan support for statehood and the Constitutional Convention, but such is our conviction over the need to preserve and protect this process from any potential for political interference of any kind, to give this process the cleanest possible air, then it was our view - my view, and the view of my party - that this election should occur after the next Territory election, which is but some months away. That could possibly be - but mischievously I say - interpreted by our political opponents as being an attempt to derail statehood. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is my genuine conviction that the position I have described, my colleagues have articulated, and members of our community have given voice to, is to strengthen and preserve and protect the statehood process - nothing more, nothing less.
I predict there will be some contention around that, but I will not be fazed by that. I urge my colleagues and those in our community who are aspiring to statehood to recognise this is a difficult step that we take, but a step we take with the best interests of the long-term objective; that is, to engage our community exclusively and specifically in a critical issue: the engagement in the question of the development of a constitution for the Northern Territory, a critical step towards becoming the seventh state.
We were faced, and I was faced as others were, with how to deal with this rising controversy over the date …
Mr Henderson: There is no arising controversy.
Mr MILLS: … and in doing so I recognise there would be some disappointment, some contention, because others hold a different view. One obvious issue was this decision had been arrived at and brought into play - and I have to admit at the time I did not fully recognise the significance and the implications of having two elections at the same time and, effectively, three elections within six months.
Having been involved, I know the most critical aspect of the progress of this story is it not be interfered with, or any potential for it to be contaminated with other motives or agenda be eliminated or reduced as far as possible. As we move closer to elections - one being a local government election where the impact of the local government reforms are being played out and considered by communities - there is a certain amount of concern in the community over the effect of implementation of Labor’s shire reforms. The right thing to do was to allow the community to properly test and assess those issues in their own local government election, and give them space to do that. I support that position.
I understand LGANT had a view they expressed. I was unaware of it at the time but, I guess, considering it was locked in, it was a fait accompli and they thought that was that. However, their views, arguments, and concerns at the time were valid then, as they are now.
To settle that and move to a Territory election on 25 August next year - you know once people move into a space where they become aware there is going to be an election their minds turn in that direction. We have been around for some time, we know that occurs. To allow those considerations to be expressed without any other matter adding to or subtracting from those considerations, it is important we have clear space around the Territory election.
Once the air is clear and the two issues have been settled - local government and Territory parliament - then it is the position for the Twelfth Assembly of the Territory parliament to permit, with as much space as possible and as early as possible, the next phase to occur without delay. It is of the highest priority.
I have to say that would be the unreserved commitment in the Twelfth Assembly: that this matter be brought on as a matter of highest priority and be resolved, so there is no discouragement for those who hold the view that statehood is somehow being set back when the purpose is to strengthen, protect and have it brought on as soon as we possibly can - if given that opportunity to serve in the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
To that end, if that does occur and the Chief Minister agrees, that matter could be the responsibility of the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to determine the date. Separately from that, it is my view, if I am given the opportunity in the Twelfth Assembly, that matter must be resolved as soon as possible without delay. Not that we can bind the Twelfth Assembly to a position. I ask if the Chief Minister would agree. If the Chief Minister agrees to the date being moved to sometime after the Twelfth Assembly - at the decision of the Twelfth Assembly - then my colleagues would support the passage of this bill.
This bill does not tie us to a date; it establishes the means and the mechanisms for such an election to occur. If we have that agreement, then we can support this bill. By supporting the bill, we are demonstrating, once again, our full and unreserved support for statehood exists. We can establish some confidence in members of the community. I acknowledge those who have worked on – including my colleagues – the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee over time and, most recently, particularly on the Statehood Steering Committee. This is a difficult process for some who are particularly close to it, but we have to acknowledge …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Much has been happening around this particular bill, but I ask whether the Leader of the Opposition will give an assurance that the process, as outlined in this bill, will not be altered post the election.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, that is not a point of order. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: It is a shame we have that kind of non-point of order to raise a political point, because that is the last thing we actually need. If we have the assurance from the Chief Minister - as I understand it does exist - we need that assurance provided for the people of the Northern Territory so we can move forward. As I have already said, member for Johnston, the bill would be supported. If you cannot understand what I have just said and, if you are endeavouring to try to find some place to stand here to salvage some political point - well, shame on you, because what I have said is borne out by all I have done and said in my time in this Chamber.
Support for legislation is support for legislation. Support for statehood is something I and my colleagues provide without reserve. That is something, as I have already outlined, member for Johnston, that is much bigger than us. Support means support.
Madam Acting Speaker, provided we have an assurance presented to this parliament that the issue of the date be a matter exclusively for the next Assembly, the Twelfth Assembly, then this bill will be supported by the opposition.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Speaker, there is no question about the significance of the Northern Territory in the story of Australia. Historically, the Territory gained prominence as the Australian front line in the World War II, opened up the outback when the Overload Telegraph was completed, was witness to historic flights from the United Kingdom and United States, and the national stage of the Aboriginal land rights movement. The Territory has also gained national, if not international, prominence through its abundance of mineral wealth, both onshore and offshore, its close proximity to Asia, its vast array of natural variety and special environmental landscapes, and its growing population across the Territory.
To many, both in the Territory and elsewhere in Australia, it seems to be an anomaly the Territory does not have the status of existing Australian states and, despite some level of limited self-control, the Territory is, ultimately, subject to the legislative control of the Commonwealth. By contrast, the Australian Constitution outlines a number of powers for states in relation to the Commonwealth. The Territory is represented by two Senators in the Commonwealth parliament, whereas each state is represented by an equal number of Senators which, since 1984, is 12.
Territorians are also in a different position in that their votes in national referenda are counted only once in the overall tally, but not counted towards a state tally, which is the second criteria for a successful referendum. Some state-like responsibilities, such as control of uranium mining, remain, to some degree, in Commonwealth control. Also, when we compare the Territory to states, unlike the states we do not have our own democratic constitution under which the principle of representative democracy in the Territory is enshrined and protected. What democratic rights we do have continue to exist only at the absolute discretion of the Commonwealth parliament and government, and can be eroded or taken away as those institutions think fit. This was illustrated when the Legislative Assembly enacted the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, the validity of which was upheld by the Court of Appeal of the NT Supreme Court, only to be overruled by the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 of the Commonwealth parliament.
Such a Commonwealth act could not constitutionally be enacted in respect of a state and was, therefore, limited in operation to the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, and Norfolk Island. Clearly, as a result, the Commonwealth does not, and did not, consider it bound, even by convention, to uphold the democratic principle of self-government which it established itself in the territories. It is not constitutionally constrained to do so.
Because the Territory is not a state, it does not have its own constitution and, therefore, no protection under section 106 of the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution does not specify that a state, including a new state, must have in place a written document described as ‘the constitution’ of that state. However, since section 106 of the Australian Constitution does contemplate if there is such a state constitution, it will be constitutionally protected, subject to any alteration of that state constitution, by the state, in accordance with the mechanics in that state constitution.
In recent times, this section, together with the implied constitutional doctrine that prevents the Commonwealth from attacking the very existence of the vital functions of the state, or from discriminating against a state, has been used in the High Court on several occasions to strike down Commonwealth legislation. There are important protections of representative democracy in the states; there is no such parallel constitutional protection in the Territory, even with self-government.
While I am not a constitutional expert - although with this current debate, I wish I was - it seems clear to me that section 106 provides a qualified, but important, protection to a state and its own constitution and, accordingly, a guarantee of the democratic principle.
All Australian states presently have their own state constitutions which incorporate the principle of representative democracy and responsible government to varying degrees. The proposed Constitutional Convention’s clear role is to discuss, debate, agree, or disagree on what should be contained in a new state constitution. There are state constitutions and a federal constitution to draw upon, constitutions from new countries such as Timor-Leste, which may be discussed. The drafting of a new constitution for Territory might be a catalyst for scrutiny of the older state constitutions in our country, or even of the Australian Constitution itself.
The convention will be a people’s convention and have limited involvement by elected officials, as this was a major stumbling block in past conventions and outcomes in regard to gaining the support of the people of the Northern Territory.
During the 100 years since the transfer of the Territory from South Australia to the Commonwealth in 1911, the Territory has progressed through various stages of constitutional development. These stages have included complete Commonwealth administration and have evolved to the current form of self-government granted in 1978. Over the years, there have been numerous reviews, reports, inquiries, committees, intergovernment agreements, representations, community consultations, conferences, conventions, and research. Statehood has been the point of discussion in universities around the country and has been debated and dissected by many academics and, while the views vary, as can be expected, the key outcomes were that it is a subject worthy of debate and discussion.
There is a mountain of paperwork and an enormous level of advice and views from everyone who has remotely been considered or wants to know anything about self-government, statehood, why the Territory is what it is today, and why it is not called a state or enjoys the same rights as the states of Australia. In recent times, and as a result of a groundswell in sentiment, in 1985 a bipartisan committee was established in the Legislative Assembly which published a series of reports and discussion papers covering the major issues relating to the development of a constitution for the Territory, and the possibility of the grant of statehood.
I was going to detail the history of some of these committees of the parliament but, in the interests of time, I will leave that for another time; however, I would like to continue from the tabling of the report of the Statehood Steering Committee earlier this year, or late last year, to which we all spoke.
In addition to the work of various parliamentary committees over many years, there has been a steady stream of Northern Territory politicians travelling south to knock on doors, meet all colour of politicians, appear before parliamentary committees, and meet with high-level government officials. In February 2007, the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, and the Minister for Statehood, Syd Stirling, met the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddick; Peter Slipper, who was then the Chair of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; and the then shadow Attorney-General and Territories minister, Mr Jim Lloyd. In the first half of 2009, the Minister for Statehood, Malarndirri McCarthy and I travelled to Canberra and met the Minister for Home Affairs and the Special Minister of State, Senator Faulkner, and many other MPs from all parties, including the minister for Resources, Martin Ferguson.
In February this year, Madam Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard, my colleagues, the members for Brennan and Arafura, and I met advisors from the Prime Minister’s Office, as well as shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the President of the Senate, as well as a number of MPs from the Coalition Labor, The Greens and Independents.
These meetings were fruitful and very worthwhile, and what impressed all people we met was the absolute - at the time - rock solid bipartisan approach to statehood. It was clear to me and to my colleagues this position is what impressed these national federal MPs the most.
Earlier this year, Madam Speaker and I appeared before the Senate Committee on the Reform of the Federation, and the LCAC appeared before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs about the Senator Bob Brown bill during this year as well.
Yes, the path to statehood will be complex and complicated; and yes, there will be divides that have to be bridged. However, I have confidence the divides can be bridged and parties can come together towards a common goal; that is, equity and fairness for all Territorians.
The future of the Territory is beyond politics. It is bigger than politics, and simply because there are serious issues to discuss, debate, decide and deliberate upon, and the future for Territorians is in our collective hands. In planning and thinking towards the Constitutional Convention, as I see it, there are four main constitutional issues that will arise which must be addressed and resolved, and they are:
1. what mechanisms should be used in admitting a new state to the federation;
2. the level of representation of the new state in both Houses of the Commonwealth parliament;
3. the terms and conditions of admission of the new state; and
4. the most appropriate means of resolving any significant, legal and constitutional uncertainties.
I will not go into the details of these four issues; suffice to say they have to be addressed and will be addressed, both at the convention and in subsequent discussions between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments.
Then there are the financial and economic implications. What will be the new arrangements that differ from how the Territory operates today? Changes to the financial arrangements in respect to uranium mining, national parks, the operations of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the status of Ashmore and Cartier Islands on the grant of statehood may all have economic implications for the Territory and the impact on the government’s revenue capacity and expenditure requirements. These matters need to be addressed. It may be there are little or minimal changes, but they must be addressed.
Reserve powers is another important area that would be discussed at the Constitutional Convention. When the Territory was granted self-governing powers, some powers were not given to the Territory. They were, for example: Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; control and management of some parks, notably Kakadu and Uluru; ownership of uranium and prescribed substances; ownership of minerals on Commonwealth land; and industrial relations. Again, I am not going to go into great detail on those items, other than to say it is my firm view that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has to be patriated to the Northern Territory without any reserve powers resting with the Commonwealth, without any constitutional entrenchment, and the Territory should assume control and ownership of uranium, just as the states own and control the mining of uranium. In regard to the national parks, the two national parks, Kakadu and Uluru, have to be transferred to management of the Northern Territory and its people.
Ashmore and Cartier Islands are an interesting matter. Upon the grant of statehood, should we incorporate them into the Territory - because we did have them and the Commonwealth took them away from us with a stroke of a pen previously - should they be left as a separate Commonwealth territory, or should they be attached administratively to Western Australia? These are questions that will need to be addressed, and is one matter that, again, will be discussed during the convention and, I am sure, subsequent to the convention.
Recent events and announcements with regard to this legislation and subsequent convention have been disturbing, to say the least, and I personally have not been comfortable with some statements made inside and outside of the House. I have also been disturbed with the level of misinformation given to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. For example, there is always going to be a cost-sharing arrangement for the elections if they were to be coincided with the LGANT local government elections. For some to suggest this was not the case - that there was not going to be a cost sharing - was simply misleading and mischievous. Again, comments that there will need to be many more polling stations across the electorates in the Territory is also not correct. The polling places will be as they are for local government and Northern Territory elections.
It goes without saying all of us live with the legacy of the past convention and referendum. However, I believe not only have we learnt from that experience, we have in place quality processes, procedures, educational material, and a full and comprehensive program to educate, enlighten and, at times, entertain people over the issues associated with statehood and the path to statehood.
More importantly, what we have learnt from past experiences is we need to move on the path to statehood in a strong bipartisan way - a path I strongly recommend we continue to adopt, otherwise the Territory is doomed to be an outcast in our Australian society and we will not achieve statehood in my lifetime.
The matter of achieving Territory equality and equity is bigger than all of us. It continues to surprise me how some people trivialise either statehood or the path to statehood. I urge those who are not as familiar with the implications of not achieving statehood or being in tune with the community on this matter to do so, because if you ignore the sentiment and the momentum out there in the community currently - and I include remote communities as well - it will be at your peril.
For over eight years many people have worked diligently and quietly on the path towards statehood - average Territorians who have strong feelings about statehood who want the Territory to have equity and fairness: Maurie Ryan, a passionate advocate for Aboriginal rights as well as the rights of all Territorians; Jamey Robertson, union man who drove us all to the point of distraction during meetings; however, was always committed to making the Territory a better place; Ray Wooldridge, local government pioneer who spoke out in support of statehood always and is never backward in telling you if you are not on the correct track - a terrific champion for the Territory and equal rights for Territorians; Pete Davies; Irene Nangala; Peter Schaefer; Daniel Bourchier; Jenny Medwell; Kathleen Chong-Fong; Brian Martin; Stuart Kenny; and Wayne Connop, just to name some of them - I have intentionally not included everyone. There are so many people who have worked so hard for so long, quietly and consistently, and they have taken us to the point we are now on this legislation and planning for a Constitutional Convention and, also, for the subsequent referendum.
I pay tribute, finally, to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who have done such a terrific job in getting us to where we are today: Dennis Meehan, the statehood program director; Pauline Lewis, the administrative assistant; Matthew James, the events coordinator manager; and Nora Kempster, community information and outreach manager. It is these people who have wandered around the Northern Territory to over 50 Aboriginal communities, done the show circuit more years than I can care to remember, and have spoken, ad nauseum some would say, on statehood and what is involved, in a very professional manner. I compliment them for the work they have been doing. What we have achieved would not have been possible without their commitment and support, and I personally thank them.
In closing, Madam Acting Speaker, I ask the members of this House to seriously consider their commitment to the Territory’s future, and implications to the future of governing in our own right with equity and fairness for everyone.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to speak to this very important bill. It is an incredibly sad day when we look at the long road to statehood. Previous speakers have reflected on the history of the Northern Territory on that journey.
I have spent the six years of my time in parliament very much involved with the Statehood Steering Committee and, now, as the Minister for Statehood. One of the things I said from the outset in working with the Statehood Steering Committee is statehood is really precious; it is a gift for our children and the children of the Northern Territory into the future. What kind of gift it is depends on each and every one of us as to how we shape and how we decide to walk together in that future. If there was one thing that was critical from the outset was the need for bipartisanship; that the parliament of the Northern Territory, every parliamentarian of the Northern Territory, agreed we should walk together, irrespective of all the other issues we debate in this House, and of the personal and public politicking that goes on with all types of issues.
If there was one area we have successfully - until now - been able to work very well with it is the statehood process. Protecting and preserving the integrity of that process has been fundamental for this parliament. It had been a core value of this parliament and the members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Those members on that committee were appointed by this parliament to work together to ensure that road is one that is walked together with integrity, transparency, and information that is inclusive, not exclusive.
That committee is made up of Madam Speaker, the member for Nightcliff; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the member for Goyder; the member for Brennan; the member for Arafura; and the member for Fannie Bay. Those men and women on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee have been entrusted by this parliament to proceed with a road map. They have been entrusted by this parliament to talk to all of the people of the Northern Territory. They have been entrusted by this parliament to speak to federal parliamentarians on behalf of this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory - and they have done that.
On the 17 June 2011, after much consideration, travel across the Northern Territory, and discussion with hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the Northern Territory, a joint decision was declared by the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Madam Speaker, the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and members of the Constitutional Convention Committee, including people such as Fran Kilgariff, Professor George Williams and me, as Statehood Minister and, of course, my deputy shadow in Statehood, the member for Goyder.
On 17 June 2011, in this centenary year, we have reflected on the history of the Northern Territory and our place in our nation’s history - 100 years of being a Territory, over 50 000 years of stories. It was an important, historic day in the history of the Northern Territory’s very clear road map to becoming the seventh state in the Federation on 17 June 2011. On that day, this parliament, supported by all those members, declared the road map forward. That road map included the full election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention in Darwin in April 2012. A full election with three delegates in every electorate was declared and supported wholeheartedly.
For the next five months, all of those members who work for the Statehood Secretariat - and I commend each and every one of those staff who have given, and do give, to this spectacular road map on their every effort on behalf of this parliament, all parliamentarians, and the people of the Northern Territory, to express to the people the reasons why it is so important we achieve equality with our fellow Australians. For each and every staff member who has worked so diligently that date, 17 June, was a shining light. It was a pivotal turning point in our step forward. It gave certainty and a position that was very clear to this parliament, of a road to walk on.
For the next five-and-a-half months, those staff, and all of the people who have been involved with this process - hundreds and hundreds of people across the Northern Territory who have believed in this bipartisan process of this parliament by every parliamentarian - rejoiced because there was certainty and a firm view that this was a position that was highly endorsed by this parliament ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, forgive the interruption, but it is midday. As you have at least 25 minutes to go, I ask that you resume those comments after Question Time.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, I shall.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you minister.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
General Business – Order of Business
General Business – Order of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, just for one moment …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not a point of order. I have negotiated this with the members opposite. I just want to get on the record the arrangement we came to earlier. I can bring it up after the bill; it is just convenient to do it now.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Acting Speaker, this is just a notification of an alteration to the conduct for General Business.
Madam Acting Speaker, I move – That the consideration of General Business for this day be conducted in the following order.
1. Orders of the day: order as indicated; and
Motion agreed to.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (ELECTION) BILL
(Serial 178)
(Serial 178)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Acting Speaker, this is an important debate in relation to the road to Statehood, and where we are in the maturity of this parliament, the Eleventh Assembly of the Northern Territory, in our determination to walk together towards becoming the seventh state in the Federation.
As I said in the beginning, it is also a very sad day as we consider the steps that have been taken to reach this point. I refer to several things I see as critical for members to consider as we embark on this debate this afternoon. I urge members of this Eleventh Assembly of the Northern Territory parliament not to be afraid to allow the people of the Northern Territory to vote for delegates to the Constitutional Convention per an agreement we reached on 17 June 2011.
What we are aspiring to in the Northern Territory is to become the seventh state in the Australian Federation. This parliament calls on the federal parliament to treat this parliament with dignity and respect and allow the parliamentarians of the Eleventh Assembly to be able to speak on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory in a considered, mature, responsible way that provides hope for a future for all people of the Northern Territory.
That is a request we, as parliamentarians in this Assembly, put to the federal parliament as we knocked on their doors, urging them to consider us to become the seventh state in the federation, and the way we are treated by that parliament tells us how difficult it is - the closed hearts, the deaf ears, the distanced eyes, and people who look elsewhere.
In the Northern Territory parliament, we should not be afraid to allow the people of the Northern Territory to have their say; to vote, as planned, in March next year for the April convention that was planned on 17 June 2011 in a very coordinated, well-respected process by both sides of this House.
Members of this parliament need to be very careful in their consideration in this debate not to misjudge the people of the Northern Territory. Do not say the people of the Northern Territory are unable to consider how to vote or are unable to know the difference between a local government vote and a vote for a delegate to a Constitutional Convention. Do not misjudge the sensibilities of the people of the Northern Territory - in the same way we urge those who are bigger and more powerful than us in the federal parliament to not treat us in that same manner.
I urge members of this parliament not to be afraid to allow those issues which are very important to the people of the Northern Territory be open, transparent, and discussed and debated in a very frank way. That is what democracy is about. When members of this parliament become afraid that any elected member to a convention who might stand in their electorate against them, it really hits at the raw nerve of our belief in democracy.
I urge members to really consider what it is they are afraid of. It is our own humanity to want to protect our own little patch. When I heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to ‘contamination of the issues’, I found that incredibly disturbing.
We in this parliament should not be afraid to allow the people of the Northern Territory to discuss and debate, in a very mature and responsible way, the issues that affect each and every Territorian - whether it is land rights, customary law, the national parks, uranium, or whether we should have an Upper House or a Lower House. These are not issues we should consider as contamination; these are issues of freedom of speech. These are issues which men and women have fought for in world wars to protect the democracy of this nation. These are issues of free-thinking Australians who have a right to vote to become the seventh state in the Federation.
This parliament should not be afraid to allow those issues out there. It is not about the contamination of issues. We should not underestimate the intelligence of the people of the Northern Territory to decide. That is what I am hearing: a real fear about the contamination of the issues. I say it is about freedom of speech, not contamination of issues. It is about hope, belief in the future, respect, growing up and coming together, and putting aside those differences we all want to highlight; as human beings we can recognise there is one common goal and good here.
When we agree, as a parliament, to follow a particular road, we set an agenda for the rest of the Northern Territory to see that we respectfully follow. On 17 June, we came to that decision in a respectful process of integrity of this parliament, with members opposite and members on this side of the parliament. As I said, it was an incredibly difficult thing to do, and I commend all members of the House, in particular those members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for consistently, passionately, diligently working through the issues that are so vital on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory.
It is about freedom of speech. We should not be afraid but, unfortunately, the fear is very real. The fear has become real and has seeped out into misinformation. I am here to put on the public record that there is nothing to be afraid of, members. Do not be afraid of the people of the Northern Territory discussing those issues. Do not be afraid of those issues being very real and important to the people of the Northern Territory.
The bill provides the date for the Constitutional Convention - a date declared by the minister by Gazette. The bill also provides that the date for the polling day is the day gazetted by the minister. Notwithstanding the Chief Minister’s second reading speech when introducing the bill to the House, where he stated the election date for the Constitutional Convention would be 24 March 2012, the same date as the local government elections, this was based on our understanding of the bipartisan support for that date, jointly announced with the opposition on 17 June 2011.
As the Minister for Statehood, let me make it very clear that our intent is to progress the path to statehood, and we do not want the date for the Constitutional Convention to stop this process. I acknowledge, as the opposition has walked away from the agreed time frame and process to elect the delegates to the convention, and the timing for the first convention, that the previous bipartisan agreement on these dates no longer exists. As the opposition has walked away from this agreement, the date for the election will have to be determined by the next parliament.
A very sad day, indeed, for the Eleventh Assembly of the Northern Territory parliament - a very sad day for all the workers in the Statehood Secretariat, and the hundreds and hundreds of people across the Northern Territory who have entrusted this parliament to proceed with a road map that was clearly announced on 17 June 2011 in this centenary year - a very sad day for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Speaker, I speak on behalf of Madam Speaker who is also Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. As members are aware, Madam Speaker has leave of the Assembly and I will deliver her remarks on her behalf, and as a fellow member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
This is a vitally important bill. In order to consider the bill before the Assembly today it is useful to have an understanding of the recent history of the move towards statehood in the Northern Territory. This has, to some extent, been covered by other members today, but it is worth re-emphasising. I intend to go into some detail to provide the proper context.
For over 100 years, statehood has been on our minds in the Territory. Over the past 25 years, this Assembly has made a concerted effort to steer a path which has, unfortunately, hit some hurdles during that time, which is what this bill is aimed at avoiding this time around.
This legislation will enable the compulsory election of delegates for a Constitutional Convention, nothing more and nothing less - a simple but very significant mechanism. It means people in the Territory will take control of all our destinies.
I now turn to consideration of how the decision to bring in this legislation has been reached and the roles of the various bodies tasked with facilitating statehood.
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (LCAC) has overarching responsibility for the move towards statehood. The LCAC terms of reference, 1(b) and 1(c) provide the basis for the committee’s brief to advise on statehood, and clauses 3, 6, and 7 specifically relate to the creation role and administration to form a Statehood Steering Committee and the existing Constitutional Convention Committee.
Clause 6, which was agreed by the Assembly on the 2 December 2010, specifically states that the Northern Territory CCC, which is the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee, shall assist with the implementation of the statehood program as determined by the standing committee leading up to and including a Constitutional Convention.
The LCAC has been informed by previous committee work. Three reports in particular have been very instructive. First, the report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development in the form of a discussion paper on representation in the Territory, Constitutional Convention published in October 1987. For the benefit of all members and historians alike, the membership of that committee was Mr Hatton, Mr Ede, Mr Lanhupuy, Mr Palmer, Mr Setter and Mr Smith. That paper considered the options of wholly-elected, partly-elected, partly-nominated, and wholly-nominated models for a future Constitutional Convention. This was a short paper and, while it canvassed the options, it made no specific recommendations, but it opened the debate leading to where we have arrived today.
Do we want a fully-elected Constitutional Convention? Yes, we do, and this bill we consider today will facilitate the election of those delegates at an election where voting is compulsory, consistent with all other elections in the Territory and Australia as a whole.
Almost 10 years after the publication of that discussion paper and after many years of drafting and consultation, the Select Committee on Constitutional Development published the final draft Constitution for the Northern Territory in December 1996 - a draft document that has been examined in some detail by the Statehood Steering Committee, as well as the LCAC and the Convention Committee being informed about what was put forward and what happened next.
What happened next is, of course, on the public record. The draft document was replaced at the last minute by the government of the day at the 1998 Statehood Convention. This tactic led to a great deal of concern in the community about how previous community-driven processes were diverted at the most crucial time.
This legislation assists us to build community competence and credibility in the renewed process; one that will not have government interfering in what the people want. Perhaps the most crucial of reports that informs all of us in how we conduct ourselves about statehood is the one that was handed down in April 1999.
The then members of the LCAC, Messrs Hatton; Bailey; Balch, as the alternate; Elferink; Lugg; Stirling, as the alternate; and Toyne, as the alternate, tabled a report in this Assembly called Report into appropriate measures to facilitate statehood. That report came down with six recommendations, all six of which have been at the forefront of LCAC activity on this matter ever since, and which led to the creation of a Statehood Steering Committee and the subsequent Constitutional Convention Committee, both of which were majority community-sourced and -driven advisory committees to this Assembly.
In 1999, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended, in summary:
1. that the Assembly should re-commence the process towards statehood;
2. the Northern Territory government should consider whether there was a need for a referendum to start that process;
As indicated, the Statehood Steering Committee was an advisory committee to the standing committee, in existence from the selection of membership which was undertaken early in 2005 by members of the LCAC after a Territory-wide public advertising campaign seeking expressions of interest. The LCAC always had three of its members on the Statehood Steering Committee, and retains three members on the Convention Committee.
During February 2011, as Chair of the LCAC, I tabled the final report of the Statehood Steering Committee in the Assembly. The matter of the election of delegates to the proposed Constitutional Convention was a key element of the document tabled. The Statehood Steering Committee was in existence from April 2005, when it first met in Alice Springs until its final meeting held in Darwin during December 2010. During its existence, the Statehood Steering Committee undertook extensive information campaigns and published a range of materials, consulting broadly with Territorians along the way. The final Statehood Steering Committee report to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs contained 10 recommendations.
Recommendation 2 was to appoint a new convention organising committee. This was implemented immediately, and the NTCCC as it is now known, first met in December 2010. A number of the recommendations required the LCAC to approach the government for financial and policy support to implement.
The recommendations are worth revisiting in the context of the bill before the Assembly because it really is quite extraordinary for each and every one of the recommendations of the committee report to this Assembly or, indeed, to any parliament to be adopted by the government of the day:
1.1 The Statehood Steering Committee, by mutual agreement between the SSC and the LCAC, conclude its work at the end of 2010 and report to the LCAC on the 2010 year of activities.
1.3 The LCAC approaches the Northern Territory government to seek adequate funds to support a process which will result in democratically elected delegates being decision-makers at the Convention.
1.4 An election process for delegates should take place with all necessary promotion and support so as to inform Territorians how to become involved well ahead of the Convention.
1.5 The election process shall allow 17 year old Territorians the ability to vote and to nominate to be a candidate for election as a delegate to the Convention.
1.6 The Convention should take place in two discrete sessions over an adequate time to ensure the acceptance and understanding of the program by as many Territorians as possible.
9. The Second Convention should convene in Alice Springs over approximately five days to ratify a Final Draft Constitution for presentation to the Legislative Assembly by early 2013.
10. The Territory government must continue to engage the Commonwealth government and parliamentarians on the terms and conditions of Statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution (as described in the SSC Information Paper What Might the Terms and Conditions of Northern Territory Statehood Be? to be released by the LCAC on behalf of the SSC on 1 January 2011) prior to undertaking any referendum on the question of Statehood for the Northern Territory.
These 10 recommendations, which were agreed to by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and have been supported by the government, underpin our plans for a convention and the path to statehood. No member of this Assembly spoke against any of these recommendations at the time, and I have not heard anyone do so today, yet we appear to have had a setback in the debate surrounding the bill. I do not want to overstate that; however, I am very concerned about the damage it may have done to the bipartisan approach we have taken together for a period of more than 11 years - and I will get to that matter shortly.
The task of the NTCCC is to advise the LCAC on how to implement the outcomes of the 10 Statehood Steering Committee recommendations, and provide direction to the Office of Statehood located with the committee secretariat in the Department of the Legislature Assembly, and do the groundwork to prepare for the convention. The drafting of the convention program, advertising program, and the logistics required to conduct the convention are considered by the NTCCC and remain matters for final endorsement by the LCAC.
The LCAC and NTCCC secretariats worked to prepare the relevant Cabinet papers on behalf of the Department of the Legislature Assembly to seek funding and policy approval from the government and, when approval was provided, undertook the role of giving drafting instructions to Parliamentary Counsel for a bill to be introduced by the government.
Now the bill is introduced, it is a matter for the government, not the committee, to provide support and advice to the government on the content and debate of the bill itself.
I have heard comment the Cabinet has somehow subverted the committee’s work. That is not the case. The committee submitted a request seeking funds to fund the NT Electrical Commission to run an election. The government came back to the committee and questioned the high cost of a standalone election. The Electoral Commissioner, Mr Bill Shepheard, had advised the committee that a standalone election is in the vicinity of $2m. That amount and further costs were sought by the committee based on that advice.
Quite rightly, the government was concerned to keep costs down, and there were discussions about sharing costs, and a suggestion of sharing the date with the local government elections in March next year. This pragmatic suggestion was adopted by the LCAC in May this year. No members of the LCAC - neither government members nor opposition members - expressed any concern at the time. The rationale was understood, and it was further considered beneficial not to send Territorians to the polls three times within a short time frame given the Territory general election is also due next year.
The arguments I have heard in the past few days and here today against the holding of the convention election in early 2012 are very odd. If it is too political to occur in the same year as the general election, then how can those same people speaking against it contemplate and support the elections for local government during year as the Territory election? After all, those are real politicians too, not just convention delegates.
The administration of the statehood program resting with the committee administered by the Department of Legislative Assembly is a direct legacy of debate in this Assembly on 25 June 2004. The Assembly debate on the content of the terms of reference for the Statehood Steering Committee made it clear the statehood program should not be administered by a government agency. The members who contributed to that debate were Messrs McAdam, Elferink, Burke, Henderson, Mills, Dunham, Wood and Kiely. As I have mentioned on a number of subsequent occasions since then, the Assembly has considered reports and statements on the work of Statehood Steering Committee and the various delegations by ministers and shadow ministers to the Commonwealth.
Turning to this bill, I wish to remind members the legislation was introduced into the Assembly to allow for the election of delegates as recommended by the Statehood Steering Committee. The need for legislation was identified by the Solicitor-General in advice to the Statehood Steering Committee on 20 March 2008 which said:
- Previous advices have suggested a need for legislation to govern the electoral machinery in the event that the convention was to be constituted by elected members. If there is no constitutional or other requirement then electoral process of that sort must be supported by legislation unless it was desired to make voting compulsory.
The LCAC decided to make voting compulsory. The government supported this decision and is the key rationale for the introduction of this legislation. There is apparently no other need for this legislation. All LCAC and SSC recommendations and decisions can be implemented without legislation. Non-compulsory election could go ahead. However, could there now be dissenting voices to derail the process?
The government has revised its role with regard to statehood over the years. Quite deliberately, the existing government has kept at arm’s length. Perhaps that is why government members are now so surprised by the attitude of some opposition members.
During 1986, the then Chief Minister’s policy statement, Towards Statehood, of 28 August 1986 proposed three stages: (1) preparation of a draft constitution; (2) development and adoption by a constitutional convention; and (3) referendum.
During 1998, the government of the day convened a Statehood Convention and a government-written draft constitution was presented to the chosen convention delegates. The stated aim was to achieve statehood by 2001 in conjunction with the centenary of Federation.
The Select Committee on Constitutional Development’s final draft constitution for the Northern Territory from December 1996 was not used as the template. This approach caused considerable controversy at the time; some delegates walked out of the convention. The controversy overshadowed the convention, an outcome we do not want this time around.
The statehood referendum was held on 3 October 1998 resulting in a 51.3% no vote to the following question:
- Now that a constitution for the state of the Northern Territory has been recommended by the Statehood Convention and endorsed by the NT parliament, do you agree that we should become a state?
This question required people to agree to the content of the constitution, the process of the Statehood Convention, and to statehood itself.
During 2003, then Chief Minister Clare Martin recommitted the government to statehood by announcing at the Charles Darwin Symposia held at Charles Darwin University that the new program would seek to achieve statehood by 2008.
Chief Minister Martin later backed away from the time frame and stated the time frame was a matter for Territorians. As I have already indicated earlier this year, the government considered the submission from the Department of Legislative Assembly on behalf of the LCAC to implement the 10 recommendations of the final report of the SSC. Government agreement was communicated during May 2011.
As members are, no doubt, aware, on 17 June this year, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition held a joint media conference with the NTCCC members to announce the convention would be held in April 2012.
It has been on the public record for five-and-a-half months that that election would take place in March, and the convention in April, with a second convention well after the 2012 Territory general election. This was planned strategically to allow for the first convention to be held for the business to be dealt with, and for a lull in that process while the Territory general election is held, and then reconvene in Alice Springs in early to mid-2013. The committee was very conscience about avoiding electoral politics, and this was achieved until now.
In the overall debate, it is also worth remembering the 10th Statehood Steering Committee recommendation and the role of the Commonwealth. It remains up to the Commonwealth as to what the terms and conditions of statehood will be. They are watching us and they will be interested in any fractures in the process to demonstrate a real commitment to statehood by Territorians. They supported a referendum process held in conjunction with the 1998 federal election and it was unsuccessful. They will not be doing that again in a hurry. That is also why we want to keep statehood matters away from Territory and federal elections.
On 23 October 2009, the Commonwealth published its response to the 2007 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report entitled The Long Road to Statehood which, in part, says:
- The Commonwealth Government supports in principle the granting of statehood to the Northern Territory, subject to the resolution of outstanding policy and constitutional issues by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments, and the Commonwealth Parliament’s consideration of any proposed terms and conditions of statehood.
The LCAC is sensitive to, an informed by, the previous experience and decided the delegates to the election should be wholly elected; however, there should also be panelists in two distinct streams. The panelists fall into the social and economic stream, and the legal and technical stream. The role of panelists at the convention is to provide views, guidance, and advise to the delegates who will be the participates voting on resolutions and making the final decision of the convention. Panelists will have the opportunity to be heard and contribute to all debates at the convention.
The following have been, or are being, invited to be panelists at the convention: the Chief Minister or nominee; the Leader of the Opposition or nominee; the Minister for Statehood; the shadow minister for Statehood; the Chair of the LCAC; the two Senators for the Northern Territory, the member for Solomon and the member for Lingiari; the Minister for Regional Development; Commonwealth minister who is responsible for Territories; and the Attorney-General Commonwealth.
The draft convention program contains a formal opening session of one-hour duration for the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to speak, and a closing session of the same duration. Any of the above panelists will be able to contribute and speak during the eight days of the convention itself. The LCAC may adjust the draft convention program prior to its proposed publication in early 2012.
While, at first, the LCAC’s preferred approach was for a standalone election because of the 1998 experience of a referendum in conjunction with the Commonwealth election caused some comment at the time that the standalone election is preferable, the pragmatic and cost-effective response of the government has been supported by the LCAC since May this year.
The LCAC agrees not to require support for a standalone election based on the inconvenience to electors attending polling places three times within a single year, and the costs associated with three separate polls. The LCAC and NTCCC have been, and still are, working with the NT Electoral Commission to avoid confusion that might arise on polling day by conducting a distinct advertising campaign, developing an easily distinguishable ballot paper, and announcing a different opening date for candidates to nominate to be elected as convention delegates.
As indicated above, the LCAC decided to make voting compulsory in the same way that all Territory elections are compulsory, because this is a significant matter which affects all Territorians. The government supported this decision.
I am very disappointed the people in the Office of Statehood will now lose their jobs, as they have no job to do. It also means the $0.5m spent since the bipartisan announcement of the convention has been completely wasted, together with the $5m to get us to this point. The issue of confusion does disservice to the intelligence of Territorians. It can be mounted for any calendar year; for example, 2013 is a federal election year and we will see referenda on both regional government recognition and the recognition of Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution. Surely, that can be argued as confusing.
This is a disappointing day because in rejecting a bipartisan agreement on dates, the opposition has rejected the views of Territorians, including the 658 who have registered an interest in being involved in the convention, and more than 400 from across the Territory who want to be delegates. The departure from a bipartisan agreement has turned a day of potential celebration for Territorians into one which is, in many ways, shameful and disappointing. I do not believe this day will be remembered well in history.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, and urge all members to ensure we continue a bipartisan approach to the contribution by Territorians and the future governance of the Northern Territory by supporting this part of the move towards statehood.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is certainly an important debate; there is no doubt about that. I listened carefully to the member for Fannie Bay. I presume that speech was on behalf of the Speaker who is, obviously, a strong supporter of statehood.
I should say at the outset, I am not here to bag anyone, but I am here to put a point of view which I believe needs to be said.
I am on the record on 21 February 2011 as being one of those who was not a great supporter of statehood. The member for Macdonnell and I spoke of our concerns about statehood. I should clarify; it is not that I am opposed to statehood, but I have said many times on the record that this is a luxury item at a time when we have major issues in our society in the Northern Territory, and we need to take that into consideration. I have said before, when there are about 80% of Indigenous people in prison, when there is very low attendance in many remote schools, when the health of many of our Indigenous people is below the standard of non-Indigenous people, when unemployment is very high in communities, then I have a problem getting overly concerned about when statehood will take place.
I put it clearly that I am not opposed to statehood per se; my priorities are not quite the same as other people. In the people I meet from day to day, there is not a momentum pushing this particular issue. Of course, sometimes when you are in a club you can see things through that club which make you feel as if everyone is supporting you; you have heard people say this is a great job. I understand that; it is like being a member of Collingwood or something - it is the greatest team and it will always win, and we love that team, and anyone who speaks against it should be hung out to dry.
The reality is, I have people in my community who are simply not interested; they see other priorities as being more important, or they are simply happy with the status quo. I do not necessarily agree with that. However, out in the community, there is not a great amount of excitement over this process. As one person said recently: ‘We voted against it 10 years ago, so leave it alone’. I am not necessarily saying that is right either because, with time, with evolution - and we know what was wrong with the previous attempt at statehood as I was a member of the Territorians for Democratic Statehood. We believed the convention was set up in a way which was overly political.
Whilst I am a supporter of statehood, I believe many people see other priorities as being higher, at this stage, than statehood. Be that as it may, I also support a convention. Regardless of when statehood comes into being, it is good that the Territory sits down and works out what its constitution would be. I am very much in support of that process. The two are not necessarily connected in time. We could develop a constitution and, when we believe it is right, or when the federal government believes it is right, we could move toward statehood. I do not believe the two are necessarily connected by time, but I do believe it is good that Territorians debate openly what a constitution would look like for the Northern Territory. I very much support that process.
The issue before us today is regarding the bill that would actually set up the mechanism to allow for an election for delegates to a convention. The matter, of course, that is concerning us is that, if this particular bill was passed, then it appears processes that were, I suppose, outside the control of the parliament would come into play automatically; that is, when the election date would be and when the convention would be.
I note the member for Fannie Bay was speaking about the concerns of the Speaker. He said if we allow a local government election and a Territory election in the same year, what is wrong with having an election for the delegates of the convention? However, I am not looking at it from that perspective only. I have developed and thought about this particular matter for quite a number of weeks. The two combined are the problem. We are moving into an election year, and we are looking at both an election on the same day as local government, and we are looking at a convention about 12 weeks out from a Territory government election.
The Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, recommendation 2 said:
- The LCAC appoints a new Advisory Committee, (Northern Territory Convention Committee - NTCCC) to undertake the planning for a Constitutional Convention to be held by the end of 2011 …
That did not happen; that recommendation did not come into place. I probably could have lived with the convention being in 2011, because the gap between there and what is going to happen in the next year would have been sufficient. That recommendation did not take place.
Also, there were a number of other things that concerned me. One was that local government elections were being held. The Local Government Association of the Northern Territory gave me a copy of a letter they had sent to the government, which clearly stated they strongly opposed the holding of the Towards Seven Constitutional Convention elections at the same time as the local government elections on 24 March. I know there has been some discussion about this at the local government conference recently. However, this is the advice I received from the Local Government Association: the Territory government had decided to hold its election on the same day, regardless of what the Local Government Association said.
From my point of view, that sent out the wrong message, because the government is saying we need to have less control from Canberra, we need not to have Canberra telling us what to do, but we are applying the opposite principles to local government, who asked that their election not be held in conjunction with the NT government’s convention election. However, the NT government wanted to go ahead anyway. I believe that would have been a little hypocritical in light of what statehood is all about.
Another issue that concerned me was that, in a debate on 11 February 2009, which was about an electoral amendment bill, I actually raised the issue of having elections at the same time. I quoted some places like the United States and even quoted Zimbabwe, for better or worse, where elections are held on the one day. In response to that, the Chief Minister said:
Member for Nelson mentioned shire and Northern Territory government elections being held on the same day, and talked about the recent US Presidential elections. That is something to have a debate about. I believe the big challenge that we face with the local government elections, as we move forward, is stimulating public debate in those elections to try to create some interest in them, with all due respect. If you went into any of our urban electorates and conducted a street poll, and asked people who their local aldermen were, most people would not know. I am sure that would be the same case with our shires and the newer elections in the shires. If you are trying to attract more attention and debate around local government issues, one thing that may occur by having the election at the same time as the Northern Territory elections is that it may dilute focus even further - that is something I can see.
I agree with the Chief Minister that many people do not know who their local aldermen or councillors are. There would be a danger, by having two elections at the same time, that one would get drowned by the budgetary advantage the other side would have.
Of course, local governments, especially in remote communities, probably are happy to share the cost because these costs, for a local government, will be quite high - mobile polling booths, etcetera. There are some advantages for local government, but that advantage, which is a monetary advantage, is not necessarily about good governance. Good governance is about democracy and it should not necessarily be based on money. That would be a failing in that case.
As an aside, by having the elections during the Wet Season, if we get a Cyclone Carlos in March next year, in your Top End shires - I do not agree with the local government shires being at this time either for the same reason - you will have difficulty reaching out to those people in those communities because you are more or less in the middle of the Wet Season. When I say middle, the Wet Season has been going for some time and you are reaching a time when, if there are problems getting out into the bush, March will be the time you have them. I also see that as a difficulty, especially for people in the Top End.
If this election was held after the next Northern Territory government election you would get into an area which was quieter and away from the argy-bargy of politics. You have to remember this convention was to be in November 2011 and it did not happen. Perhaps someone needs to explain why it did not happen. It would have been at least a reasonable distance away from party politics. I fear, regardless of what people might think in theory, in practice there will be people who see the Statehood Convention as a means of promoting some policy, some person, or whatever, simply because whether you like it or not, there will be people in there with party political affiliations. There is nothing to say you cannot belong to a political party to be on the convention. I would have thought if you took that risk away by having this in the year following the Northern Territory election, you would guarantee a better outcome - not one tainted with party politics - and that would be better for the Territory.
Some people might say we have lost the momentum and there are problems with advertising. However, I had little to say or do with that. That was someone else’s decisions. That is why, for me, statehood is not the be-all and end-all. I would rather a process that went through the development of statehood clearly and untainted by party politics. That was really the problem with the election around 2000. By moving these dates you would avoid that.
My two main reasons for asking that this election and this Constitutional Convention - which I support and believe are very important - are held 12 months or 12 weeks out from a state election, is it will get caught up in the hype of that election. If I needed a more classic example, the opposition brought through enough motions today to, probably, last us until next Christmas. I do not have to be Blind Freddy to know that most of those motions are political. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but they are designed - and I listened to them all - to open up debate on policies. That is not saying it is a bad thing, but what I am seeing is - and I have been through a few elections in this parliament - there is an organised approach coming up for the election year. I do not object to that, I am just saying we are moving into the political time and it would have been an inappropriate time for us to be trying to put in what should be a bipartisan approach to the committee.
My second concern was about having the delegate election at the same time as the local government elections. The Local Government Association gave me three reasons why as well. They said there was the potential for confusion amongst voters, there were different boundaries, and there were 16- to 17-year-olds voting. I do not think we have touched on that enough. The two elections are different: 16- and 17-year-olds can register; it is not compulsory for 16- or 17-year-olds. They will be based on two different electorates - one will be either a ward or a shire boundary and the other will be on a Territory electoral boundary. The second reason is LGANT said there was a possibility of there being a change in local government electoral processes. The third is the disadvantage to councillors seeking election in both the council and the convention. It was mentioned to me that some councillors would like to be on the convention, and they felt it would not be advantageous that they had their name down for the local government election and also for the convention. They are my main two areas of concern.
They were not done in isolation from reality. Obviously, there has been money spent on an advertising campaign. I made my position clear to the Chief Minister some time ago, and I made it independently. For me, in my position, I have to think these things through carefully. These concerns are genuine concerns because I went through all that difficulty of the previous referendum and convention, and I do not want to see that happen again. I would prefer a convention and an election free of the possibility of being used by either party or parties - not even these two parties - to gain electoral advantage at the next election. That would be very sad if that was the case. To avoid that risk is why I am asking the government to move both the election and the convention until sometime after the August Northern Territory elections.
I say again it is important that we go through this process carefully. It is important we do not get blinded because we are in one team and think this is, necessarily, the way to go at a certain speed. I just feel, if we are going to go down the path of statehood, we need to do it carefully. As I said, I regard it as a luxury item because to me – and I remember the Chief Minister made a statement on government priorities in 2011, where he was referring to attendance at school and he said: ‘We will not rest until we have every child attending school at least 90% of the time’.
That is my priority, because that is far more important. When we have 90% of kids going to school and 90% of kids going to Year 12, then we have a population which can participate in things like conventions and elections fully, because they will have the education to be able to participate in these important parts of our growing up as a Territory and, then, into a state.
Madam Acting Speaker, I have said on record I will not be supporting this legislation unless the government guarantees that the dates for the convention and for the election will be held after the next Northern Territory government elections in August.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Acting Speaker, I will not speak long. I had not intended to speak on this today. However, I have listened to the debate intently and there are some important things we need to cover.
This is a day of celebration, because this strengthens statehood. This is another step closer to statehood. What we are doing in this House today, through passing this legislation, strengthens statehood because we are another step closer. From my point of view, I thank everyone who has been involved in this journey. It has been a journey, and it started well before I came into this House.
In my particular circumstance, it was a little like when I was first asked to be on the LCAC, and then the issue of statehood came up, and I learned that my learned colleague for Goyder had been on the Statehood Steering Committee. People like Kezia had invested a great deal of time for many years, as had many other people, on the journey towards statehood. I take my hat off to all those people who have been involved up until this point, because, without you and your effort, it would not have arrived at this point today. For me, it was like jumping on a moving train; jumping off the platform. You jumped on the train and everyone was going in the same direction. It did have bipartisan support. Both sides of this House have a vision of statehood. Both sides of this House support statehood, and we will work towards achieving that same goal.
When we are discussing things at our meetings in the LCAC, and reading reports and so forth, there are times when you do not have your guard up as much as you might do, because you are on a journey which both sides are supporting. In politics, of course, there are many partisan issues we deal with every day, but this was a little different. I enjoyed every meeting of the LCAC, particularly when we were talking about statehood, because it was one of those times where we all seemed to be working with the same goal in mind. In this House, I am sure we all have that same goal in mind about working for Territorians and doing the right thing. However, that can be confused at times because each side of the House has a different approach, has their own way of doing and achieving things, and much mud is thrown at each other.
I suppose that is the nature of politics. It gets close to people’s hearts sometimes. There are terrible things said from both sides of the House; not just in the Northern Territory parliament, but in all parliaments around the country. There are some horrid things said between both sides of politics. It reminds me of school days. I completely understand how the general public, when they listen to the broadcasts, would come to the conclusion that we are a rabble - and that is not one side, but we are all a rabble, like school kids who have never grown up.
Being on the LCAC and being part of the statehood journey was quite an exciting thing for me to be involved in, because we were all working for the same goal. Today, I believe this is a celebration. As I said, it is another step towards statehood, and I sincerely thank everyone who has been involved in the process up until today. Why statehood is particularly important is that I am not sure if I am a Territorian yet; I have only been here since 1985. I was not born here, although my four children were born in Darwin at Royal Darwin Hospital so, in fact, I have four Territorians who live with me. They are Territorians. I suppose one day when I have been here for 40 or 50 years, then I might consider myself a Territorian.
I do not believe the term ‘Territorian’ really should be used for those people who are born here simply because you do not have a choice in where you are born. However, you do have a choice in where you want to live. You do have a choice, because you are the one who makes the decision that you want to put your roots down wherever you might be in this country. Many of us have wanted to call Darwin, Katherine, Tennant, Alice, right across the Northern Territory, their home.
When I first arrived here in 1985 as an 18-year-old police dog handler for the RAAF, I had no idea when I drove across the border that day on the Barkly Highway from Queensland into the Northern Territory that I was taking a step back in time when it came to my constitutional rights; that I was any different to any other Australian. I served in the Air Force and I served as a Defence member, and felt it would not matter where I was posted to in this country, I would be seen as the same, and my voting rights would be exactly the same. How wrong I was to learn a few years later that, in fact, no, I did not. It has been something I have followed with keen interest for many years - more so in recent years being on the LCAC. I completely support the notion of statehood.
One thing I wanted to raise today was, when the member for Fannie Bay read out the 10 recommendations from the LCAC - and the member for Nelson picked up on it today - there was a recommendation to have the first convention in November 2011. I can recall clearly the conversation around why we wanted to have the convention in 2011. It was all around not wanting to interfere with the process, and we knew we had an election in 2012, and that the second convention was going to be set down for 2013. That was the plan.
It was clear from the outset that the recommendation to have the convention in November 2011 was clear; that was, to give in clear air from an election year. You are right, as the member for Fannie Bay pointed out, the LCAC certainly does not have the right to draw funds from Treasury. That would be something Cabinet would have to do. So, the recommendations were put to Cabinet. I can recall the debate we had when it was brought back into the LCAC, where government balked on the cost of $2m to run a standalone election. Being a true conservative, when it was put forward that this was all about saving money, to me at the time, it seemed like a good idea.
I go back to that original statement I made about jumping on a train that is moving in one direction, and everyone is on that train, including me, going in that one direction; that is, towards statehood. I will be the first to admit in the Chamber today that my guard was not up when those dates were first brought down. Perhaps if I had given it some more thought, if I thought there could be something suspicious, I would have said something on the day. However, I did not because my guard was down because - guess what? - I wanted statehood. I could also see there was money to be saved. I could also see opportunities in having two elections on the one day to the point where it could lead to a better voter turnout in support of statehood.
I did not give much thought to any confusion there might be; that there were different boundaries involved in council elections compared to our electorate boundaries, or in regard to people under the age of 18 being able to vote. All I could see were positives because my guard was slightly down. True, I supported those recommendations. However, I have to go back to the point: the original recommendation was November 2011. The reason for that recommendation was based on clear air being required. It was Cabinet that made the decision based on money.
If you want to argue the point about who thinks statehood is important, when you look at a Territory budget of $5bn, to spend $2m on an election where everyone in this Chamber is supportive of statehood, seems a small price to pay to ensure good democracy; for something we all see as extremely important. I do not want to use this debate to go into where I have seen millions and millions of dollars worth of waste by this government and previous governments. However, if you get back to that $2m, if we really want to ensure this is going to work and it is seen as bipartisan, not to be interfered with by any other process on the day, the right thing to do is to amend the dates.
The toughest thing for me, in recent times when dealing with statehood - and the member for Nelson picked up on this quite rightly - there are many things we need to get right in the Northern Territory. The Education minister is working damn hard and he has a focus on lifting attendance rates in the Northern Territory. However, quite frankly, up until today, attendance rates are abysmal. The academic results for many of our remote areas are abysmal. We have had reports in the Northern Territory such as the Little Children are Sacred report, the interventions, and the SIHIP problems - the problems go on and on.
When you are talking to people interstate - particularly political colleagues - talking up statehood for the Northern Territory, unfortunately, we are known more for our failures than our successes. It is pretty damning when we have southern media focusing on failure - and we are talking about statehood.
We have things such as what happened at Mataranka Station. CDU has put a great deal of money into Mataranka Station. I am more than positive after visiting Mataranka recently, that will never happen again. Mataranka Station today is in excellent hands. The member for Katherine and I have seen the changes and the improvements on processes they have made, and they have done an excellent job. However, it was through a tragedy that improvement was made - and we have many tragedies. As the member for Nelson rightly pointed out, many tragedies are occurring each and every day.
We have a government known more for failures. When you say we deserve statehood, we should be a state, it is a pretty hard slog to sell when many interstate people see the number of failures this government has presided over ...
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: I see this day as a celebration, a step toward statehood because we are talking about legislation which will bring us one step closer to that goal. The goal is shared - there are rumblings across there because she never shuts up, she rambles all day ...
Ms Scrymgour: Unlike you.
Mr CHANDLER: We have bipartisan support for statehood ...
Ms Scrymgour: Ramble! I will tell you what you do when I get up.
Mr CHANDLER: There she goes again, Madam Acting Speaker, but that is fine; we will let her ramble ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Mr CHANDLER: I genuinely want to see statehood. People on this side, the Country Liberals, genuinely want to see statehood. I believe the Labor Party genuinely wants to see statehood. However, let us not use politics to get in the way. Let us ensure clear air is provided. Let us ensure we do not let politics get involved as it did last time – and we know what happened last time. Let us give this what it deserves, which is clear air and total bipartisan support to ensure statehood gets off the ground, and that we are all part of what will become history.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Acting Speaker, I am glad I get an opportunity to speak, particularly after hearing the pathetic contribution of the member for Brennan. I stood here the other day and said something quite profound which I have always had a commitment to. I said it when I made my maiden speech in this parliament in 2001; that statehood was unfinished business in the Northern Territory. I said the other day when we were speaking to a condolence motion, you do not have to be born in the Territory - I was listening to the member for Brennan - to be a Territorian but you must have a stake, a commitment, in this place and its future.
I listened to the members for Brennan and Nelson and their reasons for not supporting statehood. They can stand up here and they can bleat all they want that they support statehood; in reality they do not support statehood, and it is just a farce. You are parroting your leader’s words. We, on this side of the House, all know - and it is well known in the whole of this parliament - that you are Terry’s boy, and you will parrot anything you are told to parrot. You certainly parroted that. It makes me a bit cranky, particularly when I have sat in LCAC meetings with you, member for Brennan, and you said the complete opposite. You are a fool and you will say what you have been told to say …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The use of unparliamentary language calling the honourable member ‘a fool’. I ask she withdraw.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, in the interest of moving ahead, could you withdraw, please?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw ‘fool’ ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, you need to withdraw again.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said, Madam Acting Speaker, I withdraw ‘fool’.
The members for Brennan and Nelson both said we have issues with child protection, a number of people in prisons, and it is a failed state. He is parroting again. There is a certain writer for The Australian, for the Murdoch press, who often parrots ‘the failed state’ analysis. This is someone who, if anyone stood with any pride about this place, if you were born in this place - regardless of whether it is CLP or is Labor - it is not about the failures of a state.
I was part of the Kalkarindji and Batchelor Convention. It was actually thought fantastic when the CLP, which did have record numbers of prisoners in the prison system, issues with child protection, bad education outcomes, we had the Learning Lessons report - we had all of those issues. Did that say to the former government: ‘No, you cannot think about statehood. You cannot go forward with statehood because you have all these issues, therefore, it should be put on the back burner’ …
Mr Tollner: That is right. You campaigned against it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I take my hat off to that former government, particularly ex-CLP members such as Steve Hatton who pushed in wanting statehood for the Northern Territory, with Daryl Manzie. There were a number of CLP ministers who supported that …
Mr Tollner: You campaigned against it, didn’t you, Marion.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim. Yes, I did lobby, I did campaign against it. I have no problems with saying why I campaigned against it. I will get to that point. The member for Fong Lim - it is like ‘Come in spinner, lead with your chin’. I welcome that debate. Yes, I was part of that no vote. He probably was not even in the Territory. I joined about - I think it was nearly 58% …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Would you happen to be eating, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Speaker, I have a bit of a thing in my throat.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Very good, because if you are, you are contravening standing orders. What is your point of order, member for Fong Lim?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Speaker, I find this a thrilling speech by the member for Arafura, and I call your attention to the state of the House. More people should be listening to this.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: We have a quorum, thank you. It is actually a naming offence to call quorum when there is a quorum, member for Fong Lim. We have 11 members present, so there will be no ringing of the bells, because there is a quorum. There is no point of order.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. I am glad I am enthralling the member for Fong Lim because he probably was not even in the Territory, because he does not have a commitment to this Territory because, at the end of his parliamentary reign, just like many politicians that come and go in this parliament …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I find them quite offensive remarks and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw, please.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I do not believe they were offensive, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: No, Madam Acting Speaker, I am offended by them. Please ask the member to withdraw.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I will be listening much more closely to the next remarks. Resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I am offended by those remarks.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you. Resume your seat! Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not know which parts he wants me to withdraw, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: And I did not hear it clearly myself so I am uncertain, but if …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said that long after his parliamentary reign …
Mr Tollner: You said I had no commitment to the Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you. Resume your seat.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: He is so sensitive. He can come in here …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and he can be offensive - totally offensive - and he can be insulting, and he can throw all the insults he wants from that side of the Chamber, and he expects us to sit there and listen. Yet, when a bit of it is thrown back at him, he does not like it. Member for Fong Lim, you have a glass jaw. I have accused you of this before. You have a glass jaw; you can throw the insults but you cannot take it.
What I meant to say - and I will rephrase it so the member for Fong Lim is not offended by my words - many politicians in this House - and it has been proven, even politicians who have long gone from this House - will depart the Territory and retire elsewhere ...
Ms Purick: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are many of us, like the member for Goyder - and I listened to the speech of the member for Goyder. I was going to applaud the member for Goyder because I listened to her speech. We are born and bred in this place, and we are going to be here long after members who are in this parliament depart from this Territory. I have a lifelong commitment to the Northern Territory.
I say to the member for Nelson, I do a fair bit of travel throughout the Northern Territory - not just through my electorate, but through many electorates – and, as an Indigenous Territorian, let me tell you one of the biggest issues people are talking about in the bush is the issue of becoming a state. That is a major issue that is discussed and talked about amongst Aboriginal people. For members of parliament to say, hand on heart, they support statehood - bleat all you want and say: ‘We support statehood, we are fully committed to statehood; however, we just want it moved out of the way’. When is the best time? For the member for Brennan to say: ‘I must not have heard when the date was’. Well …
Mr Chandler: I did not say that. Madam Acting Speaker …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Or ‘I did not hear. Maybe I did not hear what the date was’. He said something of that nature, that maybe he did not hear or he got it wrong. I am not going to quote verbatim the member for Brennan, but he said, along those lines, that he did not listen to those dates.
The member for Brennan very well knows. He was part of those committee meetings where those dates and how we move forward was discussed. For people to say not to have it with local government elections - and I was listening to the member for Nelson who was saying it will confuse the issue. When everyone goes to an election now, particularly a federal election, people go into those booths with two pieces of paper. They have one piece of paper which is to vote for the House of Reps and another piece of paper which is to vote for the Senate. This would be no different; you would local government elections and you would also have statehood elections.
I believe that using the dates as a means to kill this - and I agree with the Chief Minister, there is no way we can go forward with statehood unless there is bipartisan support. For the member for Brennan to say this is a day to celebrate - I believe it is a day of great sadness. I do not think it is a date to celebrate. The member for Fong Lim, with his political strategy, saying they will wait until the 11th hour and then they will pull it and kill it, has worked.
The Leader of the Opposition, as we all know, gets rolled constantly by the member for Fong Lim with his schizophrenic strategies and wanting to be the wrecking ball in going forward. The Leader of the Opposition can sit there and laugh, his time is limited; we all know that - the plotting and the planning, the tick, tock, tick, tock. Dead man walking, I believe were the member for Macdonnell’s words once. I reckon the dead man walking is the Leader of the Opposition in this issue. If it is not this issue, it will be another issue. There will be many issues in which he will be …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! This morning we had a debate where we could not range off the topic even slightly and, now, for some reason or other, the member for Arafura seems to think it is okay to range widely off the subject completely. I call your attention to that and ask you to pull her up on relevance please.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, there was actually extraordinary latitude allowed in this morning’s debate, and there has been significant latitude in this debate, so I will not be talking on relevance. However, I remind the member to bring her comments back to the bill before the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. If the member for Fong Lim had been here before, if he had heard the contribution from the member from Brennan, I believe the member for Brennan actually strayed quite widely from the bill we were discussing. There is one rule for these guys over there; it is about what I say, not what I do. It is certainly relevant to them on the other side. The member for Brennan strayed quite widely talking about a failed state, prisoners, child protection and education - all of these things were his justification for not going forward on statehood.
This is the same member who did not mention once - not once did this member mention or bring up - any of these issues during our discussions or deliberations on LCAC. Not once did this member say: ‘I cannot support LCAC or members of this committee going forward to discuss statehood because we have child protection, we are locking people up in prisons. We have all of these issues. There are problems with education, all of these issues, so we cannot talk about statehood. So, let us not talk about statehood’. This is a member who has never raised these issues in LCAC, so I find it a bit cute and a bit rich for the member for Brennan to suddenly stand up here, hand on heart, and say these are important factors for him in contributing to his making up his mind that we cannot go forward on statehood. I find that outrageous, to say the least.
I tend to agree with the minister for Indigenous policy. There are some quite major issues in the Northern Territory that have to be discussed such as the patriation of the Land Rights Act. That it is a major issue, and it will signal the maturity of this state and of Territorians to discuss issues of land rights without it being used as a wedge, as it had been for 26 years by the CLP to keep them in government. They ran the fear campaign ‘if you vote for them they are going to take over your back yard’. That argument soon exhausted itself, because they did not watch the shift in that demographic that people were no longer going to wear that argument.
I think I heard the minister say we need to discuss the issue of uranium. We need to talk about these issues. It is not up to us here in this place. It is not up to parliamentarians to have this discussion, but Territorians out there. Let us put it in their hands, let us trust them enough. However, the problem is there are people in this parliament who do not trust Territorians. They think we cannot get Territorians, the punters out there, to talk about land rights or uranium or anything like that. We cannot get them to talk about it …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Come in spinner, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Mr Tollner: What a joke!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you will be on a warning shortly.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, you are a bit of a joke. On one hand, you say you support this and, on the next hand you flip flop all around. It is just indicative of the Country Liberals under your stewardship in overseeing its political strategy and what should happen, member for Fong Lim. We know, at the end of the day, you are the one who has your hand on the steering wheel. You are the one who is driving the car. It is not the member for Blain, but it is you ...
Mr Knight: Unregistered.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Oh, it is an unregistered car? Well then, he is going to be in big trouble.
With all seriousness, there have been many discussions by Territorians with Territorians to move down this road. Members opposite want to move it out of the way because they do not want to have the discussion or allow Territorians to have discussions about some of the issues that will be part of the statehood convention; that is, about land rights and uranium. However, it is not just those two important issues - sometimes we get caught up with just those two issues.
I recall I went with the member for Goyder, the Speaker, who is the Chair of the LCAC, and the member for Brennan - he went off on his sojourn from Canberra - one of the people we met with was Senator George Brandis. We talked to Labor, Liberal, and The Greens. I actually got a lot out of my discussion with George Brandis, who is a member of the Coalition. I thought it was probably one of the best discussions we had, of all of the federal politicians, when we went to Canberra. Maybe because his background is constitutional law. I stand to be corrected, but I think he is a barrister or he was a barrister before he went into federal parliament …
Mr Knight: QC.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes. He certainly knew his stuff in relation to this, and it was great to be able to get his view. He is certainly pro-statehood and wanting to support federally. So was Nigel Scullion and Senator Trish Crossin. The now member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, also joined that meeting to look at how we could maintain that support from the Territory into that federal area. So, it is a sad day that we get to this point. I know members opposite do not think that.
I will take what time I have left to acknowledge the Department of the Legislative Assembly staff who have worked on this issue - and not just in the last year or two years, but going back over the last five or six years - who have supported the Statehood Steering Committee through all of their discussions going around the Northern Territory and talking to Territorians about this. I thank those staff members who have been involved because I know they have been fully committed to this process and making sure the education process and information gets out to Territorians. To all of those staff members, to Dennis, to Nora, to Michael - to all of them - a big thank. We have certainly seen the efforts you have put in and, hopefully, we can, at some stage, see statehood being realised for the Northern Territory.
It is with a great fear because whatever this parliament puts in place, it does not mean it can be held or agreed to by the next parliament. For anyone to say we will move it to the next parliament and it will happen - you cannot bind the new parliament to anything that has happened in this parliament. For anyone to stand here and say that is what is going to happen …
A member interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition, and on our side people have said it will happen after the next Territory election. We will wait and see. I just hope, in my lifetime, we see statehood because, like the members for Goyder and Arnhem - like many of us on this side - we are not going to leave. I am not going to retire somewhere else because this is my home. This is where my children and grandchildren are. I have a huge stake in this place, and I want to be able to see statehood realised for the Northern Territory.
Madam Acting Speaker, that is all I will say. As I said in my maiden speech in 2001 and I say again, statehood is unfinished business in the Northern Territory and, hopefully, one day we will see it will be realised.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate today. I state from the outset how quickly the world has changed from when I introduced this legislation into the House in the last sittings, where we did have bipartisan support. We had bipartisan support for the process, and for the time frame.
The work on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had been genuinely bipartisan. Other members of the committee, and the Minister for Statehood, were keeping me up to date after each of those committee meetings about the progress towards the proposed election in March, and the convention in April, and all of the work that was going on to put that timetable into place.
I was absolutely astounded. I have been around for a long time in this parliament; the Leader of the Opposition and I share the honour of being the longest serving members of this parliament, and I thought I had seen it all. However, the member for Fong Lim jumped up in debate – I forget what we were even debating – after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken and, basically, slam dunked six years worth of hard work - slam dunked; I know he is a basketballer - into the rubbish bin. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition knew what was coming. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition knew the member for Fong Lim was going to jump up and do that.
It took everyone on this side of the House by total surprise. It was not just what the member for Fong Lim had to say, it was the way he said it. It was so disparaging of six years worth of hard work, bipartisanship, and work across the Northern Territory. It was not an argument about the finer details of the problems there might be with sharing an election with the local government elections, it was just a total rubbishing of the entire process. It astounds me, the way we have lost a bipartisan position on this particular issue.
I am still struggling to understand what has happened on the other side of this parliament, with all the hard work, the integrity, particularly from the member for Goyder working on that committee - she has been absolutely passionate about that – with our members on the committee. I am not so sure, given the member for Brennan’s comments tonight - I did not hear his comments but some of them have just been relayed to me. He is showing himself to be the shallow politician he is, where you can have one position in one forum and another position - totally the opposite - in here.
At least the member for Goyder has integrity on this issue. In her speech in this parliament, going through the history and why this was important for the Territory, she did not seek to politicise this debate tonight. She put it all on the line about the very long history - particularly the long history of the CLP side of politics on statehood. Then, her partner on that committee rubbished the concept of statehood because the Territory is not fit to become a state just because of articles The Australian writes about the Northern Territory. We all know about the integrity of that particular newspaper and the history of some of those articles. I commend the member for Goyder for her integrity and the bipartisan work she had done on this.
I would also be remiss not to comment on the role Madam Speaker has played. The member for Nightcliff is unable to be here today because of illness. I say for the public record that the member for Nightcliff is – I am not going to pick favourites here - one of the most passionate and dedicated to statehood people I have worked with on our side. She was genuinely upset about the turn of events last week and the way that unfolded, because she has put her heart and soul into this bipartisan move towards a commitment to a process to lead, ultimately, to an election in the Northern Territory on a constitution and a vote for statehood. Madam Speaker was genuinely upset about that. All the time I have been Chief Minister she has worked with other colleagues on this side of the House, and particularly with the member for Goyder. History will show there were good people in this Eleventh parliament who were committed to statehood and a bipartisan position.
There have been other similar teams down the line who have similarly worked well. Steve Hatton, obviously, was very passionate, and worked with other members of our side of the House before Steve Hatton got rolled by Shane Stone and Denis Burke. Unfortunately, what has happened in this parliament today is the bipartisan position, for this term of parliament anyway, has to be abandoned.
I will go through comments from the member for Nelson. I can absolutely accept the member for Nelson’s position on this in his integrity, because he has not been part of this committee. He has not been part of six years worth of hard work in a bipartisan way. He came to his own decision about the timing of this in his own way, as an Independent member of parliament, having consulted, as he does on every issue. Even though I disagree with the rationale from the member for Nelson as to why he would not support an election in March and a convention in April, I accept he has come to that position through integrity and his own reasoning.
I will say, though, as to the chronology of this, yes, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report that recommended to this parliament late last year a pathway forward on statehood, did recommend that the convention be held towards the end of last year. The chronology of that particular recommendation not being endorsed by government is as follows. Obviously, those recommendations came to Cabinet. The Cabinet discussed those recommendations, agreed to them all.
However, in relation to an election in November this year, there were a number of reasons Cabinet had a number of reservations. The first one was if we had accepted that recommendation, the people of the Northern Territory would have been going to the polls in a compulsory vote in November, in March, and in August - three times in one year. We know, and all the studies show, that people do not like turning up to vote in elections. We were really concerned that not only would the people of the Northern Territory ask why we were going to the polls three times in one year but, also, there may be, as a result of people not wanting to vote three times in one year, a low voter turnout, not only for the convention, but also for the local government elections the next year. So, we were concerned about three times. I do not think in Australian political history, it is probably hard to recall anywhere where there has been a compulsory vote three times in less than 12 months.
As my colleague, the member for Arafura very clearly said, Territorians are not stupid, Australians are not stupid. Quite often at elections we vote on two, sometimes three, different things. People are not stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time and have to make different decisions: the House of Reps and the Senate. How many Australians vote differently when they vote in the House of Reps and how they vote in the Senate? Quite a number of Australians - I believe it is around a quarter - vote a different way.
Whenever we have a referendum on the Australian Constitution, it is normally held alongside an election, so people are voting three times. They are voting for the House of Reps, they are voting for the Senate, and then they are voting for a constitutional amendment. So to say that Territorians are going to get confused and are not going to be able to make a decision – well, I do not buy that, because I believe Territorians are smarter than that.
We made a decision on those issues. Of course, cost was a part of it. It certainly was not the biggest part of it, but I believe it cost something like $3m to hold an election. Again, we were thinking the Territory public is going to be pretty annoyed we are spending that amount of money, when we can hold an election together because people can work it out.
Regarding the decision not to hold the convention in November, Cabinet - through me, the Minister for Statehood and the Chair of the Legal Constitutional Committee, the member for Nightcliff - went back to the committee that included the members for Goyder and Brennan, and said: ‘These are the concerns Cabinet has, and this is a path that Cabinet has put forward; that is, to hold the election alongside the local government elections in March and to have the convention in April’. It was not a decision of Cabinet; it was a recommendation that went back to the LCAC. The LCAC strongly and unanimously agreed with the Cabinet position. They agreed there was no way in the world I was going to make, or recommend to this parliament on behalf of government, a process that had not been agreed to - and agreed to enthusiastically, as I understand - by the LCAC. So, that is the history and the chronology as to why we did not have a convention election in November of this year.
For the Leader of the Opposition and for the member for Fong Lim to say that the March date was some arbitrary date, or it is some trick by the government to muddy the waters leading into a Territory election - there had been bipartisan agreement all the way through. On our side of politics, particularly on a really sensitive issue, there is no single minister who has an authority to make that agreement without a discussion amongst the team and people agreeing to that position. So, I do not believe that the member for Goyder, who I think, on this particular issue - acknowledging that she was born in the Territory and her mother’s proud history in this parliament; passionate Territorians - would have agreed to this timetable without a discussion at least with the leader of her parliamentary wing and, assumingly, within the party room to be able to agree to that. I believe there has been agreement all the way through.
Then we come to the media conference on 17 June where we sat in Madam Speaker’s office with Fran Kilgariff, George Williams, and the media. We were all chatting about how exciting it was that at last we had a timetable that was robust. We were all very excited about letting 16- and 17-year-olds participate. We were talking about their future. We are all getting a bit long in the tooth, but we are talking about their future. The Leader of the Opposition strongly supported the process and the timetable.
I suppose we will have all the numbers there for Estimates next year, but off the back of an agreed to bipartisan commitment to the time frame and the process, obviously money started to be spent in the momentum going into March next year. Significant money has been spent in reserving the Convention Centre, recruiting people, paying for staff, putting together material that is being played through the media encouraging people to nominate, and in getting the Statehood champions together. There has been a significant amount of money committed on the back of a bipartisan position.
I notice the CLP has the tried and trusted Waste Watch site. Every opposition does its Waste Watch in the lead-up to the election. They could not even be original in theirs; they had to copy it from Queensland. We saw some of the material. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the police annual report; it was a direct lift out of Queensland. I half feel I should make a submission to their Waste Watch site about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been wasted with a backflip on a previous bipartisan position. I might go on the web and nominate the Leader of the Opposition for wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of taxpayers’ money. My address is probably blocked; I probably will not be able to do that.
I am absolutely astounded we are where we are today. The language has also changed in this debate from really supporting and trusting Territorians to - as my colleague, the member for Arafura said, let us talk about land rights and the patriation of the Land Rights Act. Let us talk about uranium and whether responsibility for the mining of the uranium comes back to the Territory. Let us talk about industrial relations powers for Northern Territory government. Let the people of the Northern Territory, not the politicians of the Northern Territory, have that conversation and make recommendations to their elected parliament for a way forward. Why are we scared of that? Why are we afraid of that? The Leader of the Opposition used the language of ‘contamination’: ‘We cannot trust Territorians to talk about those issues because, somehow, it might contaminate the political process’.
The Leader of the Opposition also said we do not want these issues - whatever these issues are that Territorians might want to talk about of what should or should not be in a future constitution for the Northern Territory – ‘bleeding’ into a Territory election. What extraordinary language on an issue which is all about getting Territorians together in the most democratic way possible, which is through a free plebiscite, with the excitement of allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to cast their vote. They are concerned about ‘contamination; and about issues ‘bleeding’ into a Territory election.
I ask the question: whose needs are being addressed here? Is it the needs of us, as a Territory, to move towards statehood, or is it the needs of a political party facing an election? I believe Territorians are well able to determine the issues totally separately. Yes, we can talk about our future aspirations in the same way Territorians talked about their future aspirations that have been reflected in the Territory 2030 plan. The issues of the day we have to confront in choosing who is going to be the government for the Northern Territory for the next four years - people will differentiate between those issues, people are not silly.
Therefore, to run scared is what we are doing in this Assembly tonight. What we are doing - and I say on the public record - because we now no longer have bipartisan support for an election in March and a convention in April, this parliament is going to have to hand that responsibility over to the next parliament, whatever that parliament looks like post 25 August this year. We have lost bipartisan support here at the 11th hour and at the 59th minute. We have lost that. The stated reason why - and I am not putting the member for Nelson in this bracket because he has not been part of the six-year’s worth of bipartisan work on various committees. The reason why this parliament is no longer charged with the ongoing walk towards statehood is because the opposition has run scared. They are running scared of democracy and of debate - running scared.
I do not believe the member for Goyder has run scared; she is bound by the votes in their party room. I believe it is the member for Fong Lim and others on the other side of the House. I do not believe it was necessarily the Leader of the Opposition; he has been rolled on this. However, there are certain people who have run scared - run scared of the people of the Northern Territory being able to come together in April next year to talk about a future constitution for the Northern Territory, and running scared of the first step. That was not going to be a defining step, that was just going to be the first of two conventions. It was not a defining step, it was a first step of two conventions that would be held before the second convention would hand up its recommendations to the government and parliament to make a decision on. You have run scared of the first step. That is a very sad day for the Northern Territory, and for all those people in the Northern Territory who passionately believe in statehood - and they are on both sides of this parliament.
I know my history of the Northern Territory, and believe many of those people who founded the CLP in Alice Springs all those years ago would be dismayed at what has happened here; that the party which was founded to be the independent and proud Territory party is running scared of Territorians and a debate on a future constitution of the Northern Territory. We have seen that from Marshall Perron in his comments in regard to the member for Solomon not being able to stand up for the Territory in Canberra. We have also seen the comments from Daryl Manzie in regard to what happened in this parliament last week. Regardless of your politics, both Marshall Perron and Daryl Manzie are held in pretty high regard by Territorians, and certainly by many people in the Labor Party as being people of integrity, even if we did disagree with their politics of the day.
I do believe now, as the Chief Minister, I have very sadly had to acknowledge that because the CLP has walked away from a bipartisan position, we are unable to maintain a bipartisan approach to an election in March next year and a convention in April; that this parliament no longer has the ability to take this forward and the next parliament will have to determine what it does in progressing the election to the convention, and the convention that follows and the timing for that. It is very sad. History will be written about statehood one day. We will achieve statehood one day, and other people will comment about the end of this parliament and the way it all collapsed in a heap at the last moment.
If the legislation does pass, and I urge the opposition - I understand they will support the legislation. At least we have the structure that will provide for an election and for a convention, which will be sitting there on the statute book for the next government and parliament of this Territory to take forward. At least, we have salvaged something from the wreckage of six years of bipartisanship. It is with sadness that I conclude my comments on the second reading. It is a very sad day that the CLP ran scared of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
WORK HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BILL
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, seven hours after I expected to be on my feet today, I finally find myself on my feet in relation to this legislative instrument.
I say at the outset, so there is no misunderstanding and the government is utterly clear on this, the principle of national harmonisation of occupational health and safety is supported by the Country Liberals. However, having made that observation, I now want to discuss the legislative package which is before the House today.
The package, of course, is a collection of three bills which we have agreed to take as cognate bills. We take no issue with the intention and the reason these bills are wrapped up together. I will make my comments largely on the national uniform legislation itself. I do not have any great intention to travel to the other two legislative instruments because they are, essentially, sundry to the core element of this legislation.
The Northern Territory government has signed up to a COAG agreement to introduce national uniform legislation in relation to occupational safety in the workplace. The Northern Territory government intends to make the startup date for this legislative instrument on 1 January in accordance with the COAG agreement. However, that then leads us to the first issues we have to deal with here. This legislation, in many of the corresponding jurisdictions, has now hit snags for various reasons. The situation in other jurisdictions means this uniform legislation will not be uniform and, moreover, will not be passed in other jurisdictions. I note the situation in Western Australia, the last time I checked - which was a few days ago - was Western Australia is still in the process of delaying the introduction of their equivalent of this bill for a period of 12 months. Reading between the lines in relation to their objections, it is still conceivable Western Australia may get to the point where they will not pass this bill. It certainly will not pass and be operational in time for the 1 January startup date.
I note that, on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, there was an occupational health and safety alert issued, and the harmonisation trailblazer, South Australia, will also be moving to delay, or has moved to delay, the passage of the bill through their own Upper House. As I understand it, it is the Upper House - I do not much care; the fact is, it has crashed and burned in South Australia, at least for the moment.
That, then, takes us across the border into Victoria. Victoria’s position is now that it is very unlikely to pass the bill on time; in fact, it will not pass the bill on time for the 1 January startup date. In Victoria, they are doing what is called a business impact review. I note there was a regulatory impact review done some time ago in relation to this legislative instrument, and I will return to that shortly. The reason I mention the regulatory impact review at this point is it also attempts to talk about the impact on business, and gives ratings of small, marginal and medium, and whatever high is - I presume there is a category for high; I read it two or three weeks ago. It gives a three- or four-page synopsis as to what the impact is expected to be.
Clearly, the Victorian government has determined the regulatory impact review that was done is insufficient to determine whether or not this legislative instrument will have a substantial effect on business in Victoria. For that reason, they have called on a business impact review. They are currently in the processes of looking at that. It means Victoria will not pass the legislation for the 1 January kick-off date. It also means they may never pass the legislation if the Victorian government determines the impact on business is too substantial for business to shoulder in Victoria.
I now cross Bass Strait and look at Tasmania. The Upper House in Tasmania has, effectively, logjammed the bill, and it is extremely unlikely the bill in Tasmania will successfully pass the Tasmanian legislature for the 1 January startup date. South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania - more than half of the Federation - have determined this legislative instrument must be delayed and, in some of those jurisdictions, those instruments may never ever be passed, despite the COAG agreement. Bearing in mind - I am guessing here as much as anything else - it is my understanding the COAG agreement was reached by exclusively, or largely, Labor governments.
I then come back north and go to New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberal government has indicated support for this legislative instrument, which surprised me until I looked at the existing New South Wales legislative instrument. Essentially, the compulsory finding of guilt for any employer is a situation any Liberal government would like to move away from. This, from their perspective, I imagine, is something they would see as an improvement. Whilst it may be an improvement from their perspective, it does not necessarily follow that in other jurisdictions, particularly in the Northern Territory, it is an improvement from our perspective. Consequently, the New South Wales government, I understand, will pass this legislation in time for the 1 January startup.
I then cross the border north and find myself in Queensland. My understanding is that, similarly in Queensland, the Labor government will pass the legislation in time for the 1 January startup. My understanding is the ACT has, essentially, followed the lead from the New South Wales government.
Consequently, it only takes, realistically, one jurisdiction to not pass this legislation for national harmonisation to have failed. That is simply the truth. National harmonisation, by implication, by definition, by the very suggestion of the title itself, means the legislation across jurisdictions is the same. It is not and it will not be on 1 January. It just cannot be under these circumstances. With half of the Federation walking away from this then, as far as I am concerned, and we on this side of the House are concerned, the national legislation on the 1 January will not be harmonised.
That makes the 1 January startup date, or the urgency on the part of the government, essentially, nonsensical. Even if we pass this legislative instrument here today - and I suspect we will not be passing it today on the 15 minutes left available to us - in the Northern Territory, it will not be national uniform legislation, because it will not accord with other jurisdictions on the 1 January.
Even now, in circulation, there are amendments to remove the concept of national harmonisation from this legislative instrument. The amendments the government will bring into this House during the committee stages of this bill tomorrow will excise the mining industry for two years from the operation of this legislative instrument. The reason the government has to do that is because the national legislative arrangements have been changed to affect the mining industry. Moreover, I also note national harmonisation across industries will not be achieved simply because Safe Work Australia has exempted, I think, the building industry from the operation of this legislation for a period - I think it is until 1 January 2013 - because of concerns flowing from the building industry.
Madam Acting Speaker, I seek leave to table the media release from the Master Builders Association. You can see they congratulate - and I will quote from the leading paragraph:
- Master Builders Australia, the peak body for the building construction industry, today welcomed the government’s announcement that there will be sensible transitional arrangements to give builders extra time to implements OHS harmonisation.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you sought leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I table the document. I will wait for the attendant because, if I lay it on my desk, it will be lost forever.
We then find ourselves in a situation where the mining industry is now exempt, the builders are now exempt, and some industries will be in, some industries will be out, and some codes have not been prepared yet. This is hardly what I would call national harmonisation. This is about as harmonised as crockery in a tumble dryer in how this will be applied into the workplace where these legislative instruments are supposed to work.
It defies common sense to steadfastly continue down this path which the government is trying to take us down today because, simply speaking, even by their own amendment they will be bringing in here tomorrow, they are unpicking the processes of harmonisation in the Northern Territory in comparison with the rest of the nation. Cornering some industries into having to comply with this legislative instrument whilst exempting others is hardly harmonious and, I believe, downright unfair.
Needless to say, the Master Builders nationally have been quite aggressively attacking this legislation, as has the Housing Industry Association and other organisations and organs of various industries.
It is worthwhile to pause here for a moment and remember that we are talking about occupational health and safety. It is something I am very mindful of, but I need to make a couple of observations in relation to matters of occupational health and safety before I proceed.
The first thing is, occupational health and safety, whilst very important, must always strike a balance. If you are to run the line – and I have already heard the emotive line run by the government in the Northern Territory that this is all about workers’ safety and keeping people alive. That is true; I accept that. That is what this bill is about. However, you have to strike a balance in that it is also supposed to keep a workplace going.
If you take, for argument sake, the mining industry, which I have described as hazardous – it is a very hazardous industry – it also has some of the best safety work practices in the world. However, does it follow that, in pursuit of safe work practices, they raise workers’ safety beyond their capacity to remain commercially viable? Of course, they do not. This is about striking a balance between workers’ safety and getting on with the business of whatever the business is, no matter what industry you are in. Surely, if you believe, above all else, workers’ safety, or the safety of people, is paramount above everything else, then you simply do not allow that profession to proceed; you do not mind? ‘That will keep people safe, no one will die in mining’. However, the point is people want to work in mining; mining is a very important part of our community. So, because of the hazardous nature of mining – they use very big trucks, explosives, they move vast amounts of rock; any number of those items can kill people. They also use all sorts of chemicals, yet they have some of the best work safety practices in the world, which is entirely appropriate, but demonstrates the balance which has to be struck between getting the industry up and running and moving, and being able to guarantee workers’ safety.
It would be astonishing if anyone was to say that, in the interest of safety, we will now shut down all 27 industries were people might get hurt, for which we are now writing these codes. It is nonsensical, but the observation has to be made.
Even if you stripped every jurisdiction of legislative instruments in relation to workers’ safety, it will still continue, because the common law through its torts would determine all the standards required in a raft of industries – unfortunately, as a reactive system – but, nevertheless, would demonstrate and demand that employers provide for the duty of care - a common law term - they have to provide when it comes to matters of safety for their employees.
They would hear these matters on a case-for-case basis and, of course, they would only ever be adjudicating on matters referred to them by people already injured. It is for this reason we then contemplate the idea of a proactive legislative instrument to provide for workers’ safety, to cast a net into the future if you like, and hope you catch one particular type of fish. It is for this reason we end up with occupational health and safety legislation, not only in this jurisdiction, but you find it in all jurisdictions.
It is inconvenient for large companies to have occupational health and safety legislation which is substantially different in all jurisdictions; hence, the pressure is on to create harmonised legislation. For that reason, we on this side of the house support the principle. We demand, as members of the Country Liberals, those legislative instruments make sense and are balanced from a reasonable perspective. Unfortunately, the model legislation being promoted by the Northern Territory government, as part of the COAG agreement, is not sufficiently balanced to enjoy the comfort of support from the Country Liberals.
The Northern Territory government has signed up to a regime which is, in their words, not substantially different to the existing regime in the Territory. In part, that is true, but there are some very important differences that need to be pointed out. At the outset, the things we find objectionable in this legislative instrument are also what we found objectionable in the 2007 instrument brought before this place and currently serves as the occupational health and safety legislation of the Northern Territory.
The instrument brought before the House in 2007 had certain elements we objected to and, therefore, did not enjoy the support of the Country Liberals. Since that time, some water has passed under the bridge. I continue to look closely at how this legislation operates, how it is enforced, and I have no comfort that the grounds we found for objection last time have, in any way, been addressed by the legislative instrument currently before the House.
That brings me to the issue of the regulations, codes, and the bill itself. One of the things we are being asked to do by this government today is to not only to support this bill, which will allow for the creation of the regulations, which are now substantially complete, but also the industry codes, which are all complete in various forms but, in fact, are not complete to the extent that you could call them something to rely on.
I pause briefly to ask one question I hope is addressed by the minister in response. Under the current legislation, we apply Australian Standards which are very high and quite demanding. Why is it the minister feels it is now necessary to go over to a series of industry codes, which have not yet been completed? It, essentially, appears to be abandoning the Australian Safety Standards to which the current legislation turns our attention. Is there something wrong with the Australian Standards that are referred to in the existing Northern Territory legislation? If there is not, why are we changing it? However, I am sure I will hear from the minister in relation to his response.
Turning to the regulatory instruments, their final draft I hoped was the document that was circulated amongst jurisdictions in October. I now understand there are still changes being made to the regulations, and it is those changes to the regulations which are prompting the amendments the government is now moving in the committee stages of this bill. I can only assume and read from that, that the regulatory instrument is not yet completed.
Attached to that regulatory instrument are the 27, I believe, industry codes. There were 26, but now it looks like there is going to be one more. I could stand corrected on the number of codes, but those codes are still in various states of incompleteness. That being the case, what the government is asking us to do, is to simply, ‘trust us’. The government walks in here and says: ‘We have the regs; they are not quite finished yet. Just pass the legislation that will enable us to make the regs happen. Trust us, because we will get those regs operational in good time. And do not worry about it, the industry codes are attached to those regulations, mate. That is just perfect. Just trust us on that too; everything will be sweetness and light’.
I cannot bring myself to trust a government to get the regulations and the industry codes right when I find that even Safe Work Australia is now unprepared, or ill-prepared, to start operation on 1 January. It just does not make sense. There is no good reason to continue down this path because of the lack of preparation in the regulations and the industry codes. Now that I have spoken about the regulations and the industry codes briefly, I now am invariably drawn to the legislative instrument itself.
There are elements of the legislative instrument that I believe are simply repugnant to good law. Some of them are reflected in the existing legislative instrument - which is the Northern Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act - which I also believe are repugnant to the concept of good law. One of the first stumbling blocks I run into in the proposed legislative instrument is clause 12B of the current bill before the House. For the information of members, that is known as:
- Offences are offences of strict liability.
Strict liability applies to each physical element of each offence under this Act unless otherwise stated in the section containing the offence.
This means there is a general presumption in the legislative instrument that strict liability applies to a prosecution brought under this act, which means you limit the capacity for a person to appeal to the defences available under the Criminal Code for the physical elements under this act. For somebody charged with a criminal offence of strict liability - regulatory offences, if you like – these are generally offences which should not have a great social impact.
If you look at the history of regulatory offences and strict liability offences, they are the absolute offences. They are, by nature, offences you either commit or you do not. Speeding is a good example, or failing to wear a seat belt. If you look back at the law relating to these sorts of offences, what this refers to is offences which do not carry a large social stigma. Fines of $50 000 for a corporation, or $10 000 for individuals do not strike me as low-level offences. If you are going to seek to fine people at those levels, then it immediately follows that the defences of law should be available for those people. But, no, by this instrument, we will, effectively, not only be creating strict liability offences, but reversing the burden of proof ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I need to interrupt you there. It is 5.30 pm and, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over government business until 9 pm. Of course, you have the opportunity to resume tomorrow.
Mr ELFERINK: I was just warming up, Madam Acting Speaker!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: You will have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes tomorrow, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker.
Debate suspended.
CRIMINAL CODE (UNLAWFUL ASSAULT CAUSING DEATH) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 171)
(Serial 171)
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, this debate was brought on last week by circumstance. This relates to the one-punch legislation. I confess to this House - in fact, I confessed immediately last week to this House - I was filibustering to enable me to get to the point of having the debate shut down and reintroduced at a later date. The reason I did that was to enable one of the strongest proponents of this legislative instrument to witness what is occurring in this House.
To remind honourable members where we were at when this debate was shut down because of time constraints, the government had indicated it would not be supporting the one-punch legislation I introduced into this House. As I related to honourable members during that debate, the intent of the one-punch legislation was to fill a gap between aggravated assault and manslaughter, which we believe exists in our legislative structure in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing in the extreme that government has simply determined to dismiss this honest and genuine attempt to improve the Northern Territory law. It disappoints me in the extreme that the government will continue to hold that position.
I remind honourable members that this matter arose, in part, out of the death of Sergeant Brett Meredith who was unlawfully killed in Katherine in a fight on New Year’s Day last year. The injuries suffered by Sergeant Meredith were substantial in the skull fractures he received. As a consequence of those skull fractures, he died.
It was surprising, as I said last week in this House, that a conviction of manslaughter was secured. Whilst I will never second guess a jury because they are the ones who have seen all of the details in relation to a particular offence, it is my understanding that, in the absence of CCTV footage, a jury may well have been convinced otherwise in the pursuit of a conviction for the death of Sergeant Meredith. Had it turned out otherwise in that particular matter, then what would have occurred was, in every likelihood, the matter would have proceeded as a aggravated assault - if it had proceeded at all, I might add - and no evidence would have been deduced by a court of an actual death occurring as a result of that assault.
The widow of Sergeant Meredith, who was deeply traumatised by the death of her husband, would have been extremely concerned at the potential for a result which was different to the one that was achieved by the prosecution. Had the evidence been even a smidge weaker, the conviction may never have occurred. It would have left the widow feeling as though a great injustice had been done - and with good reason.
Those injustices have occurred in other jurisdictions. It is for this reason other jurisdictions have introduced these forms of legislative instruments to try to plug that same hole. That is what this bill attempts to address. It is not a difficult amendment. Anyone who casts their eye over this amendment realises it takes less than a page of paper to change the law of the Northern Territory.
I am concerned the Northern Territory government, rather than going down this path, has determined it does not want to go down this path for, essentially, what are political reasons: ‘We can never support, or we will not support, a substantive bill from the opposition’. I have indicated to government every step of the way: ‘That is fine; amend my bill. In fact, vote my bill down. But, at least announce you are going to bring your own version of this legislative instrument in’. No such luck, I am afraid. The reason there was no such luck is because this government has determined it will not go down this path. That is disappointing.
I place on the record now, should there be a change of government at the August election next year, this will be one of the priorities for the Country Liberals, and for me, should I be the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory - presuming I am re-elected, I am in government, and all those other things. Should I be the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, it is one of the bills I will be pursuing as a matter of priority, certainly within the first 100 days of forming a government.
I note the widow of Sergeant Meredith is in the gallery. She has expressed to me she wants to see which way people will vote in relation to this issue. It is for that reason I had chosen to filibuster to enable this vote to come on here today. She has indicated to me she is fully aware this does not apply in the circumstances of her husband, but wants to prevent it happening - or anything like it - to other people in the future. She has certainly looked into the crystal ball and realised this will occur in the future, and the justice she has received may not necessarily be afforded to other people who are victims of crime of this nature.
To that end, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am glad I was able to bring this matter back today. I urge, in the most strong terms, government to have an 11th hour change of heart on this, and support what is a good and effective change of law for the people of the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Dr Burns
Mr Bohlin Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mrs Lambley Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Rural Centre Plans in the
Litchfield Council Area
Rural Centre Plans in the
Litchfield Council Area
Continued from 19 October 2011.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, while this government supports in principle the concepts put forward in the rural centre plans developed by the members for Nelson and Goyder, I cannot support this motion.
The government’s Greater Darwin Region Land Use Plan consultation paper was released in February this year. It contains a range of strategies and initiatives to meet demand for residential and commercial land in the greater Darwin region towards 2030. It aims to support the development of interconnected communities through infill developments and greenfield sites. It is about ensuring a range of housing options are available on the market, whether units, townhouses, traditional family homes, or on larger blocks.
Of course, the rural area has a role to play in accommodating the future growth of the greater Darwin region providing options in our market. The Rural Villages Discussion Paper, a subset of the land use plan, has a range of concepts to respond to the demand for Territorians to live in the rural area, with a range of housing options supported by appropriate services, and job and rural lifestyle opportunities. It aims to support the maintenance of a distinct character of each community; what it means to be in Berry Springs, for example, or Howard Springs. It focuses in on existing centres in Humpty Doo, Howard Springs, Coolalinga, and Freds Pass, as well as Noonamah, Berry Springs and Girraween.
Through the discussion paper, government posed the question of a range of housing blocks and styles catering for those who want the traditional rural lifestyle, as well as options for those who may not be able to, or want to, maintain large blocks but want to stay in the rural area.
In order to fully address the member for Nelson’s motion, I take this opportunity to address the development of the Rural Villages Discussion Paper and community response to it in determining where to next. Rural village development reflects on government’s focus to increase the potential contribution of the private sector to the supply of land to accommodate continued population growth, delivered with the appropriate level of infrastructure expected in modern residential developments. The rural village proposal was developed in consultation with Treasury and Power and Water Corporation. It reflects that, as our population grows, there will need to be some new thinking to fund the service infrastructure required and expected to support development.
This is about more than just providing additional housing options for rural residents. It is about establishing a framework for development; a strategic plan for the rural area. It is about minimising the risks associated with uncoordinated or ad hoc development proposals that can arise without a framework in place to reflect the community’s aspirations.
In developing the rural villages concept, extensive work was undertaken to identify appropriate areas of opportunity for residential and rural residential development that included identification of existing power, water, and sewerage infrastructure; roads and drainage and their capacities; options to fund the necessary infrastructure; opportunities for development; and close analysis of the impacts of various lot sizes on economic viability.
Key factors identified for successful development of the rural villages concept include: establishing the economic viability of infrastructure required to service co-located residential, commercial and community uses; improving the sustainability of groundwater resources, which underpin rural living on larger lots; and protecting the amenity of existing large lot size rural living areas.
The Rural Villages Discussion Paper was released for public consideration in April, and was out for comment for two months. Five community meetings were held in the rural area, with more than 100 people attending sessions in Berry Springs, Noonamah, Humpty Doo and Bees Creek. An additional meeting was held for the owners of land directly impacted by the proposals, and this was attended by 26 people. The Litchfield Council was provided with a detailed briefing on the proposals. A display at Freds Pass Show generated some great feedback from interested residents. As a result of the consultation period, 34 responses were received, with a range of comments and suggestions - issues such as the benefits of a range of lot sizes provided with minimal disruption to rural life style, representing a balance between amenity and the need for more options. Much discussion and some concern was generated about the proposed minimum lot size of 4000 m2. More infrastructure to support local business and facilities would make rural living more attractive by reducing the need to travel, but rural residents are generally prepared to travel a bit further. The 10 online responses indicated a desire for a strategic approach, firstly to the protection of rural amenity through a framework for future growth, and secondly, for identification of practical solutions to predicted population growth and the environmental challenge of that growth.
The joint proposal put forward by the members for Nelson and Goyder offers other options for consideration. A review of these alternative plans suggests the major point of difference between the government’s proposals and those presented by the local members is the minimum lot size. The central focus of the alternative plans is that 4000 m2, or one acre lots, are not rural and should only be included within what are identified as rural centres. While this issue of block size proposed in the plan appeared to relate to the scale of future development, the economic viability of such a development framework would need to be carefully considered; that is, would there be enough return for the private sector to generate interest? Further assessment has also been done on the impact the proposed development framework would have on potential population growth in the area, and the flow-on effect on the viability of local employment or community facilities and services.
I thank the members of Nelson and Goyder for the effort put into their carefully considered plans. I thank the other Territorians who have provided their feedback to Rural Villages Discussion Paper. The government, through the Department of Lands and Planning, is now actively evaluating the proposals put forward by Territorians and by the members for Nelson and Goyder, as well as the other submissions we received.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the objective is to identify the common ground and work through the differences. The evaluation of all the submissions will inform future proposals, which will go back to the community. It is not appropriate to move to adopt one or another plan in its entirety as the final planning framework without careful review of all the submissions, whether from individuals or organisations. It is for this reason I have to oppose the member for Nelson’s motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the minister and also the member for Goyder for their contributions. In relation to strategic planning, one also has to take into account that, whilst those types of plans are fine, they have to be taken into consideration with practical outcomes. There was a strategic plan once upon a time to dam the Elizabeth River. Part of that was the development of Weddell. Some of us believed that was too big a price to pay in relation to the environmental effects on Darwin Harbour, so that concept was dropped. However, the idea of Weddell was not dropped. It is a little similar to the plan for the rural area of Darwin.
There is a need to develop the land in that area. At the same time, there is a need to retain that rural amenity. The argument the government is moving down is that more and more people want to live in the rural area to enjoy the rural lifestyle, therefore, what must follow are smaller blocks of land. These are opposing arguments. One would destroy the rural lifestyle if much of that land was cut up into smaller blocks, and the people the government wanted to live in that area, to enjoy the rural lifestyle, would not enjoy a rural lifestyle. They would enjoy a large suburban block lifestyle, which is not the same as a rural lifestyle. That is where the balance has to come. That is why the member for Goyder and I are so opposed to lot sizes being any smaller than 1 ha, and not supporting 0.4 ha, unless it is inside a village centre.
I should also go back a little in history. There is a strategic plan already in existence for Litchfield Shire. There has been one since about 1984. There was one done in 1990, which was in conjunction with the Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan, which is similar to the plan the CLP has brought out now. In fact, it was done by the same author so it has some similarities. Along with that particular document came a series of smaller documents. There were documents for Murrumujuk, Gunn Point, I think Mandorah might have had one, and Litchfield Shire. They were subsets of documents, and they are still available although they are not in print anymore, of course. I imagine the Department of Lands and Planning has them.
More detail was done in 2002, when the then minister, Mr Vatskalis, who was the Planning minister, released the Litchfield Land Use Objectives. That is a document that is still applicable today under the NT Planning Scheme. Within that document, there is a series of villages, as they were called. Those plans are not much different to what the government has released today. There is not actually anything greatly new about the villages that were suggested in 2002, 1990, or what has been released today. The subdivision of Freds Pass District Centre, Humpty Doo District Centre, Berry Springs District Centre, all existed in 1992. If you go back that far, and then look at what we have today, not a huge amount has happened, especially from the point of view of residential development.
The most residential development in the rural area has been done on private land. The Churcher Estate, one of our longest-lasting developments, has been one of the great developments in the Litchfield area, and has subdivided large tracts of land. Laurence Ah Toy, through Hutchinson - I cannot think of the name of the company - has developed land around Benjamin Lagoon and on Redcliffe Road. Frank Morandini has developed land in Virginia. Henry and Walker developed land in one of the earliest subdivisions in Bees Creek. Mr Graham Chrisp is the gentleman who kindly gave us wonderful subdivisions like the Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court subdivision in Herbert - but we will not say too much about that. He has also developed large tracts of land in Howard Springs and Herbert, and out at Dundee. The development we have had has been rural, and not suburban.
Now, there is pressure coming from a number of developers, specifically in the Noonamah area, who cannot accept we have planning guidelines and planning laws. I do not think it is government’s job, necessarily, to fall in line with what developers want. Developers will cut land into the smallest possible blocks to get the maximum amount of profit, with little care about the retention of the lifestyle people live with. People at Noonamah are rural residential people; they do not want to see 4000 m2 blocks alongside the Stuart Highway. They can accept that, over the road, there will be Weddell. Weddell could have some smaller blocks, the 0.4 ha attached, as part of Weddell city. I do not have a problem with that. However, to see plans drawn up which, basically, cut up just about every piece of land from the Elizabeth River to Cox Peninsula Road on the eastern side of the Stuart Highway into 0.4 ha blocks is an indictment of rural living. It shows the pressure of certain developers which is, sometimes, reflected in what the government puts forward. I believe, in this case, that is extremely poor planning.
We - and by ‘we’ I mean the member for Goyder and me - have not said there will be no development. We have not said there should not be any development around Noonamah. We have said there should be a development like a small town and, in that town, you have, as the minister said, variable lot sizes. Therefore, those people who want to stay in the rural area, but not live on a rural block, will have that ability. However, those people who want to live on a rural block, or those young people who would like to come to the rural area and enjoy what is so special about living in the rural area, would have the opportunity.
I do not believe, for one minute, when I hear developers say: ‘Oh, if we cut up the land into small blocks, they will be more affordable’. I could say something, but it would not be parliamentary, Madam Acting Speaker. To put it mildly, it would be a load of rubbish because that is not the case. You only have to go and check on the prices of small blocks of land in the rural area, and you will find they are not affordable. The government has to ensure it does not fall for that particular trick. There is no doubt The Grange Estate - and it is a good estate - is certainly not made for too many first homeowners with a single income. You would be pushing to live there. It is a nice estate - I am not knocking the estate, it is quite nice - however, it is for a certain clientele. I certainly do not think it would be for someone who was on a low income to live there.
There is a need to develop the rural area, minister; there is no doubt about that. There is a need for a choice, but it is where you put that choice. In your speech, before we adjourn, you spoke about those young Territorians from the rural area. The young Territorians from the rural area I have talked to about having choice and options - and I believe there was something about mowing the lawn …
Mr McCarthy: Not mowing the lawn.
Mr WOOD: Not mowing the lawn. I understand lawnmowers are probably a bit foreign to the X generation or the Y generation, and they do not like them ...
Ms Purick: Unless it has a PlayStation in it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. We are not saying they should not be out in the rural area, but if they want to have a place where there is no lawn - I will show you an example: the new subdivision behind Coolalinga. They will be townhouses, some multiple dwelling houses, and some single allotments there. The single allotments will have lawn, so I probably do not recommend the person who does not want to mow their lawn should go there. However, there will be places for people who want to live that lifestyle and be close to the rural area. What I am saying is, yes, we can have those options, but those options are not to be the major goal of the government. The major goal for government is to retain the rural amenity and that should be the overlying and overarching philosophy on which all other decisions are made about choice, options, and development.
In the plans the government has, it simply looked at every piece of vacant land of relatively large size and rezoned it to RR - that is, the newer version of RR, 0.4 ha. Along the Arnhem Highway, every large parcel of land is supposed to have a zone change to allow for 0.4 ha. Every large parcel of land in the Freds Pass District Centre was to go to 0.4 ha - that included the Defence land and Berno’s land. Every large parcel around Noonamah on the western and eastern side was to go to 0.4 ha. In other words, the government’s 2030 plan for developing the rural area was to look at every parcel of land they could promote a subdivision on and change the zone. That meant you had small blocks of land for about 9 km along the Arnhem Highway and that would have destroyed the rural amenity. Small blocks, I have no doubt, will destroy most of the bush because it is simply too small to retain much bush. On 1 ha you can retain some of the bush; on 1 ha, you can feel you are rural.
That is the basic difference between our plan and the government’s plan. We have said 1 ha is the minimum to retain that rural amenity. We can argue about what amenity is until the cows come home, I suppose - they are also rural. I do not think we can get away from the fact that, if you go to 0.4 ha, you will destroy the rural amenity you are hoping people will be able to come and enjoy. The expectations the government has - I think you are starting to look at 35 000 people from memory - for the rural area is too high. You have to balance that with the development of Weddell, and ensure Weddell is the main area of population growth for people who want to live on small blocks of land.
Minister, I note you said you had some feedback. You spoke about 34 people replied, which is not too bad. However, when there are approximately 18 000 to 20 000 people in the rural area, you have to wonder whether the message got out. In the end, the member for Goyder and my plans got out much further than the government’s plans. You mentioned there were people who turned up for meetings. I turned up for a meeting at Humpty Doo and there were three Humpty Doo residents - not a good cross-section if you are looking for feedback. I know you went to the Berry Springs’ meeting but, if someone handed me this document and then started talking about it, if like me, I did not have time to read it, I would have presumed the person talking about it was telling me everything about it.
You said people seem to be excited about it. I only heard one person excited about the Berry Springs District Centre - besides the member for Daly - and that is one of the people who owns a business there and wants to develop that business. I have not had feedback from people in the Berry Springs area saying: ‘Wow, look at this’.
Our version, against the government’s version, is saying there should be a development at Berry Springs, but a smaller development. In fact, our whole plan is an indicative plan. We are not saying it is perfect, but we had to bring out something quickly. Minister, you would have already noticed some people are not happy with their land being subdivided on the eastern side of Humpty Doo. Obviously, there needs to be, even in our plan, some room to amend those plans if they are not practical or they do not have public support.
Minister, you also mentioned economic sustainability. It is an interesting issue, because if you want to have 1 ha blocks, you have to have town water and, naturally, it is more economical if you have 0.4 ha blocks. One of the reasons water is becoming so expensive to take into the rural area is because - from my understanding and meetings I have had - Power and Water is expecting a water main in the rural area to deliver the pressure required to run fire hydrants. It is a rural area. Most people in the rural area live on bores. They expect, if they get a fire - and they might be lucky enough to keep their bore going - they expect a tanker to turn up and try to put the fire out. That is the way the rural area has developed. To put in a water supply that is not just for domestic use, but is required to be used as a means of putting out fires, then no wonder the cost of infrastructure goes through the roof.
To give you an example, a couple of years ago there was a petition or a letter going around from Power and Water asking people on Mahaffey Road, Howard Springs, whether they would be willing to pay $19 500 per block to get the town water on. They got about two or three people to agree out of about 50 houses. To make matters worse, there was then a request to put water on McLeod Road, which is up near the Howard Springs Shopping Centre. They got a quote from Power and Water of $39 000 per block to put the water on a 2 ha block. When we asked them why it was so expensive, they said: ‘Well according the Australian Standards there is a requirement that the pipe size must be of such a size that it would provide enough water at the right pressure to put out a fire’. I spoke to the fire service and they said: ‘We do not use that standard, and it is not something we say is necessary’.
Like a lot of things in this world, you can say we need to put infrastructure in and, to make it viable, we need lots of blocks, but you have to ask what the people who live on 1 ha blocks actually need. Do they simply need a domestic water supply to feed the chooks, the horse, and water a bit of garden and have a shower, or do they need the 5- and 6-star version of infrastructure that someone in Power and Water believes they should have? Living in the rural area does mean that you will not necessarily get the same standard of service and infrastructure as you would in a suburb, simply because it is not necessary.
The argument about economical sustainability is based on smaller blocks, sharing the cost of that infrastructure over the small blocks, making it more viable. I say you can provide that infrastructure at a reasonable price, for the purpose that most people wanted, without having to go to extraordinarily high standards that some people want today that I do not think are necessary. I could give you a classic example, minister. The Howard River Park area, which has been around since about 1983 to 1988, has quite a few 2 ha, 1 ha and 0.4 ha blocks in it. I can bet my bottom dollar the size pipe that went into that subdivision is nowhere near the requirement of today, but it serves the people well. The only time I get concerns about the water in that area is when everyone has the tap turned on in the middle of the Dry Season and their sprinklers do not work because they have all come home at 5.30 pm. Generally speaking, people are satisfied they have a domestic water supply and it has not cost a fortune.
When it comes to infrastructure, I believe we have to keep the philosophy that we are dealing with a rural area, not a suburban area which requires a higher standard. Of course, I have heard that from some of the developers, but I have also definitely heard it come from the department. When we were looking at the possible sewerage connection from Howard Springs to the INPEX sewerage connection to Palmerston, the department came out for the meeting and the first thing they said was, ‘densification’. To get this service in, they said you had to cut up the land into small blocks and, then, there is a possibility of it being paid for.
I do not want to see us be the slaves to infrastructure and, therefore, based on the infrastructure cost, be turned into, basically, a suburban area just to cover those costs. We have to look at other ways of doing that, and a lesser standard than Power and Water requires is the way to go.
I believe there are not going to be many more bores in the rural area in future. Being a member of the Howard Springs Management Group that is looking at the water in the area, it is hard to believe we would allow too many more bores in the rural area. The options are that you either provide town water or you allow people, as has happened out in Dundee and other places, to simply live off rainwater. That is not necessarily the best option because, if you have a family, you certainly need many tanks to live off rainwater for six months. Having lived at the Daly where they just use tanks for drinking water, they only just managed to last the six months. So, using them for showers and toilets would certainly require a large number of tanks to have the ability to last the whole Dry Season.
The issue of water is certainly a key issue. The rural area cannot develop unless the provision of water is sustainable and, of course, the history of the rural area is that we have allowed many bores to be drilled, including Power and Water’s own bores. There was a remarkable increase in the 1980s and 1990s of the number of bores and, of course, that has put pressure on the aquifer. That is why the study is being done now to see if the rural area can expand anymore, or whether it is actually going to have to rely on town water through the region.
Madam Acting Speaker, in summing up, I understand the minister is not going to support our plan, but at least he is having a look at it and they have their plan out. I hope before the government went down the path of releasing their second version that, from the perspective of people who have lived in the rural area, the member for Goyder and I could sit around a table - and I have written to you, minister, about that - to discuss where the government is going. It would be much nicer for us not to have battles every five minutes about the plans and, instead, develop some plan in partnership with the department and the government. That would be a far better outcome for the government because, if it has the support of the two local members - and, I imagine, as the government, it will have the support of the third rural member - it would be a lot easier to sell the concepts they are putting forward.
Yes, there are changes. As I have said before, Litchfield is probably the centre of economic development in the Territory at the moment. It has an abattoir proposed, a prison, opening up of the forestry land with the INPEX village, the expansion of the Lutheran school, 80 blocks at Girraween Lagoon to be developed if the Litchfield Shire can make up its mind about managing that area, the north Coolalinga shopping centre now being built and the housing estate going in. There is an enormous amount of economic activity in the Litchfield area. Of course, do not forget, INPEX is in Litchfield. That represents huge development in that area.
We can have that development and we can retain our rural lifestyle. That is the key to this whole motion; that we are not driven by the whims of developers whose main objective is to make money. I am not saying that is a bad objective, but their main objective, sometimes, is to make money with little concern for the rural amenity. Also, government set a 2030 goal, but is it real, is it realistic? Does it need adjusting for the rural area? Sometimes, that is pushed along by planners as well. I have had a great deal of experience over the years with planners. I am not saying they are bad people but they also have their own agendas.
It really would be a good opportunity, minister, if the member for Goyder and I, before you put out your response in a plan form, can sit down and see whether we can come to some partnership or agreement about the development of the rural area. That would be something well worth doing. It will show everyone we are working together for the benefit of rural Territorians. We are not out picking at one another, we are not always criticising one another, but we are working and showing that, even if we are on different sides of this House, we can work together for a better future for Territorians - especially rural Territorians. As it says on the back of this, we all want to keep the rural area rural.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Alice Springs Law and Order Issues
Alice Springs Law and Order Issues
Continued from 26 October 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Acting Speaker, I am very grateful to the member for Port Darwin - and begrudgingly thank the government too for coming to the party and rearranging the Notice Paper. I really did not think this would come up until way down the track, maybe April or March sittings, because it slips down to orders of the day and there are all these motions.
We have had 17 added to the Notice Paper today. I thought this may not come up. As a result, I did a quasi-closing debate as an adjournment in the previous sittings. Nevertheless, here we are and I will use some of the 20 minutes to officially put it on the record in keeping with this debate now. I will probably repeat some of the things I said.
The motion is regarding law and order issues in Alice Springs and, of course, the disastrous summer of crime in 2010-11. We have debated this and made reference to the 2010-11 summer in Alice ad nauseam throughout the course of the year, to the bane of the government. However, it is something that has to be reinforced. Repetition is not just repetition; it can mean reinforcement also – to reinforce the community anger and, indeed, the frustration and anger of the opposition.
The motion reads:
- That the Northern Territory government recognise its failures to address law and order issues in Alice Springs during the summer of 2010-11 and therefore:
(a) treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spots; and
(b) put in place a comprehensive law and order strategy to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots.
He said the government does not have all the solutions. Well, hello! That is the bleeding obvious. The government does not have all the solutions and, seriously, I wonder whether it is interested in finding the solutions to the law and order issues in Alice Springs, as they have been there for so long. The minister said there is no magic wand - it is all cop-out language – they do not have all the solutions. He went on to say these issues have been around for a long time. It is just not good enough to use that type of language when you are talking about such serious issues as law and order in Central Australia - issues that have such a huge detrimental effect on the fabric of the community.
He said these issues have been around for a long time. He brought up, from memory, the issues were around in 1992. Member for Araluen, you may remember, he mentioned something in 1992 and he said that this goes to show these issues have been around now for nearly 20 years. Minister, you have been part of this problem; this has occurred on your watch for half of that time - for at least 10 of those years. To say they have been around for a long time is not good enough. It is not good enough to say there is no magic wand, and it is certainly not good enough to just say the government does not have all the solutions. The community is desperately looking to the government for solutions.
He also went on to say that Alice Springs is a strong conservative town, with strong conservative seats in Alice Springs, and Labor will never win a seat in Alice Springs, etcetera. That is just ridiculous, and again, a cop-out. It is not good enough to say because people do not vote for you there, how can they expect you to rise to the occasion and solve these issues. You are elected to govern for the whole of the Northern Territory. We all say - some of us mean it, some of us do not; I certainly mean it. In the last two elections I have been elected, I have said I am there representing even those people who did not vote for me. You are there to govern for the whole of the Northern Territory, not just those who vote for you. Maybe Alice Springs does not particularly like Labor and they particularly do not vote for you. They have not really in the past. It does not look like they are going to do it in the future, if your track record is anything to go by.
It is a serious missed opportunity for the Labor government to make inroads into Alice Springs in the last 10 years. You have gone backwards. If there was ever an opportunity - you demolished the Country Liberal Party in 2005 and you had all the resources of government and the departments. You had two members in Alice Springs, and just two members north of Katherine. If there was ever an opportunity in the last six years or so, to win the confidence of Centralians, then that was it. However, you failed; you have gone backwards, and the 2008 election was an indication. The 2010 Araluen by-election reinforced just how on the nose you are, and it is only through your own fault.
As I said, it is not because we are the Country Liberal Party, and we are so fantastic and people love us so much. It is largely because people do not like you that much, and it is because of what you have done, or what you have not done - your complete neglect of Central Australia over the last 10 years. You only have yourself to blame. When the minister says it is a strong conservative town etcetera, I see that as not only a cop-out and an excuse, but also a serious missed opportunity. You had the chance to do it, and you have blown it - or certainly blown it thus far.
Maybe you can turn things around; I do not know. You are running out of big guns over there, and you are going to need some of the heavies to come in and do the heavy lifting. If you leave it in the hands of the members for Arnhem, Stuart, Nhulunbuy, and Arafura - the most irrelevant member of the Northern Territory government; she dealt herself out of the game - if you leave it up to those guys, it is going to be pretty hard. You need some new big guns there to step up to the plate. The member for Johnston is a seasoned performer, the Bobby Simpson of the Australian Labor Party. You need these guys to step up to the plate but, sadly, I think he is going and so are your chances.
You said there are no immediate results. Well, you have had 10 years. You talk about putting plans in action and we have to wait and see the results, etcetera. Well, you have had 10 years to actually look at some of the data and assess the situation of some of the plans you have put into place. We have seen the alcohol stuff roll out over the last seven to eight years or so – you know where we stand on that; we think it is a complete and utter failure. You talk about the Banned Drinker Register and how that has seen immediate results in the first three months.
You do not seem to realise that, in Central Australia, we have told you time and time again that things have quietened right off. I believe they call it the silent policemen, the cool winter nights and days of Alice Springs. There is a real drop in law and order issues and crime in Alice Springs during those winter months, hence that is the reason for this motion. This motion is about the summer of crime, because summer is when it all really starts to unfold before our eyes. However, you are happy to say we have seen some results about the Banned Drinker Register. Well, let us just see how it goes across the course of summer. To say it is such a wonderful program because we have seen these results in the winter months of Alice Springs is misleading at best.
You have had 10 years to address those issues; that is what the minister said. There are not any immediate results. Okay? You can see a pattern here - a pattern of trying to distance himself from the issue. The government does not have the solutions. ‘There is no magic wand’, he said. ‘These issues have been around for a long time’, he said. ‘It is so hard to make inroads into Alice Springs because they are strong conservative seats. We cannot expect any immediate results. Our programs have to have time to unfold and develop’. You can see this sort of pattern of just arm’s length ministerial responsibility from the member for Stuart.
He talked about the Youth Action Plan, which includes ANZAC High, the Youth Hub. I have talked about this a couple of times before, and I will say it again for the purpose of this debate. When I toured it with the member for Araluen, there was not a child in sight. There were many people working in the offices typing away, and lots of staff and people at the Youth Hub, but there was not a kid in sight. It was quite extraordinary.
I use the example of Yes, Minister where he has the most efficient hospital in the United Kingdom - there are people in the laundry, there are nurses walking around, and there are people in the typing pool, but there is not a patient in the whole hospital. Yes, it is the most efficient hospital in all of England, as it does not have a single patient. It is a bit similar to this: this is a youth hub with no kids. The couple of times the member for Araluen and I have been there, we have not really seen too many kids. It does not really go through to the night time when many of those kids really need a service like that, when they are at their most vulnerable. I believe it is a bit rich to hang your whole strategy on the Youth Action Plan.
He has gone on and on with his excuses. I challenged him to try to start this debate without fixating on the CLP. We have seen that sort of thing raise its head again, particularly in these sittings. You could really just see how things are intensifying now as we track towards 25 August 2012. It is all about the CLP and how terrible we were for 27 years. I say to people in Alice Springs, when they ask how the sittings is sittings going: ‘Oh well, I will probably just get told again and again how terrible the Country Liberals were for 27 years, and how the dark clouds dispersed on that day in August 2001 when the Labor Party was elected and the world began, or the Northern Territory began’. That is the way this mob would have you believe it.
I asked him if he could perhaps structure an argument, or develop a conversation, respond to this motion without mentioning the CLP or the Country Liberals. He did pretty well compared to the rest of you. He tried to do it, but he mentioned Adam Giles three times, Matt Conlon three times, Robyn Lambley twice, the opposition four times, did not mention Terry Mills, and he mentioned the CLP once for a grand total of 13. He mentioned us, essentially, 13 times in the space of 15 minutes. That is pretty good considering how obsessed with us you guys really are. The Question Time today was extraordinary. The first thing out of your mouth was: ‘I thank the member for their question, and let me tell you, the CLP this. Let me just start by saying the Country Liberals this, or the CLP that, or the Leader of the Opposition this or that’. It really is extraordinary that you have taken your eyes so far off the ball, so far off the meaningful issues of the Northern Territory, the issues that really need to be addressed, the issues that really do matter to Territorians, and turned your attention squarely on the opposition.
Why are we such a threat to you? If we were so bad, so hopeless, and such a terrible government for 27 years, what do you have to fear? What do you have to fear from us? Why do you not just turn your attention back towards governing, which is what you were elected to do? The people put you there, albeit by 70-odd votes, in 2008, for the third time, the third election in a row, to govern for the Northern Territory. Why do you not just get back to doing that? Many people would probably have an answer to that. Maybe it is that you have run out of ideas, you do not have much else to add, you had a pretty good couple of years, and a good first term.
I have heard mixed reports that the first term was the best, or maybe the second term was the best, the third is an absolute shocker. You have run out of ideas. You have done everything; you have repealed all those terrible laws we introduced; you have introduced all the laws you have been dying to do for 27 years. Now, I suppose, you have nothing else to do, except pick on the poor old CLP. It is pretty poor. We do not care, but I think the Territory cares and those people in Central Australia who are so anxious about the impending summer of crime that may well besiege the town once again, really do care. In fact, I know they do. They are desperately concerned that you are going to drop the ball again.
How can you believe anything the Chief Minister says? He has had his incompetence exposed over the last couple of days, deliberate or otherwise. Has there been in the history of this parliament a situation where a Chief Minister has walked in here with a personal explanation twice on the same day, on the same bill? Has that ever happened before? It is, perhaps, unprecedented. The circumstances surrounding that were quite appalling. So, how can you believe anything he says? Of course he blames his public servants. This is the hallmark of this government when things go pear shaped. When things go sour, what do you do? You wheel out the public servant, get them to front it.
We gave the Health Minister an opportunity this morning to explain the appalling situation surrounding our hospital emergency department and elective surgery waiting times. He did not want to seize on that opportunity. We saw the Chief Minister also not taking responsibility, blaming someone else. We saw the police report, and he blamed the Police Commissioner. What sort of message does that send to the hard-working police? What sort of message is it when the Chief Minister, the minister for Police, says: ‘It was not my fault. It was those incompetent police officers. They are the ones who did it - and that incompetent Police Commissioner’. That is what he was really saying. He was saying he does not have much confidence in his Police Commissioner; his Police Commissioner has dropped the ball; he is the one who has misled those figures in that police report.
It is the same, too, with the Kenbi issue we have seen unfold over the last couple of days. How on earth the Chief Minister, the head of government in a jurisdiction, in an Australian parliament, could possibly not be aware whether he has signed a document that has been signed by federal ministers is beyond me. It is biggest and the longest-running land claim in the history of the Northern Territory, and he does not even know whether he signed it or not. How can you believe anything he says? Well, in my books you cannot. It is very difficult to believe anything this government says – it has had 10 years.
All we get now with regard to this motion is the Minister for Central Australia’s response to these issues confronting his own town - his own home town: ‘Well, the government does not have all the solutions. There is no magic wand. These issues have been around a long time and there is not much we can do, because we never get elected in Alice Springs. And do not expect any immediate results to any of the half-baked programs we introduced anyway’. It is pretty pathetic. The people of Central Australia and Alice Springs think it is pretty pathetic. I believe I am on pretty solid ground when I say the people of the Northern Territory think it is quite pathetic. In the width and breadth of the Northern Territory people are fast losing confidence in your ability to, not only tell the truth but also actually deliver on what you promise. It is a classic example of over-promising and under-delivering.
The people of Central Australia need to hold on to their hats because, if last summer is anything to go by, we can well be in for another atrocious, appalling summer of 2011-12. I hope the Police Commissioner is able to live up to what he has said. I met him; he seems like a pretty good bloke. I believe he is genuinely interested in solving these issues. Whether or not he has the latitude to put resources into a town this government has neglected, does not particularly like, and has no respect for, remains to be seen. He will have his work cut out for him if that is the case. I wish the police well this summer, but I have to say I do not have much confidence in this government to support the police when it comes to pumping resources into Central Australia. You have not shown it for 10 years, I do not think you are going to, all of a sudden, turn around and show it again.
Madam Acting Speaker, with all the broken promises you have saddled the Territory with over the last 10 years, it is nigh impossible to believe anything that comes out of your mouths.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Agricultural Industries in the Northern Territory
Agricultural Industries in the Northern Territory
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly call on the Northern Territory government to:
1. provide full and comprehensive details on the future of the agricultural and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory, with consideration for the areas including Lambells Lagoon, Berry Springs, Acacia Hills, Fox Road area, Florina Road area, Ti Tree, Ali Curung, and Central Australia; and
I have spoken before in this House in regard to the agricultural and horticultural industries, because I am concerned and I want to know from the government what their exact planning is and what they see as the future development and growth of these - let us call them two industries, because it is important not only for the Northern Territory economy, but it is important for regional development, for providing food security to the Northern Territory and also, potentially, could be very important to delivering fresh produce employment opportunities and general wellbeing to many of our remote and rural towns and communities in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory primary industries include the production of farming and cattle, other livestock, horticulture, and mixed farming. These industries are the backbone of the regional economies and provides more than just employment. The primary industries provide a catalyst for development of new industries and infrastructure, responsible for opening up of land and opportunities and, more importantly provides the social and community fabric that holds the Territory together, so that all Territorians can grow and prosper. We saw this only too clearly when we had the banning of the live export trade and how, as a result of that, as harsh and as tragic as it was, it did bring together much of the Northern Territory rural pastoral communities.
Cattle for 2010-11 had an estimated value of $267.3m. Other livestock, which includes buffalo, crocodiles, and goats, had an estimated value of $15.1m for 2010-11. Mixed farming, which is field crops, hay, seed, and forestry, had an estimated value of $19m for 2010-11. Horticulture, which is classified as fruit, vegetables, nursery, and cut flower industries, had an estimated value of $138.7m for the 2010-11 year. Those figures I have sourced from the department’s annual report and from economy documents Treasury puts out. Presumably, they are accurate, although I know it is difficult in some industries, where there are niche industries, to capture what exactly has been grown and sold.
This is what we know now, and what the government agencies have managed to capture. However, imagine what we could have in the near future if there was a greater effort and some sound, solid planning from government. Perhaps there is some sound planning afoot for the future of these industries; however, I have seen no great details of late.
In dealing and addressing this motion, I ask the minister if he could address the following key issues:
a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what is the current state of play in the agricultural and horticultural industries;
The minister will probably have a Question on Notice I sent through in regard to the impact of the bushfires in Central Australia and Alice Springs recently, regarding the impact on the pastoral industry. I will be most interested to see how much damage there was from a financial and social points of view, and what government is doing to try to get those properties in that part of the industry back on their feet. In regard to this industry, what projections, or what work has the government done around employment opportunities and economic growth in the regions associated with this industry? Have they done any work with the departments around Indigenous health to show that, with the setting up of market gardens and associated type industries which can contribute to the health and wellbeing of people in remote and rural Northern Territory?
One of the key issues - well there are many, but one associated with the agricultural and horticultural industries, of course, is transport and the transport corridors, and getting their products to market - whether it be the Northern Territory, the interstate markets, or the overseas markets. We know when there are issues with air transport, many of the producers suffer financially because their goods get offloaded, with the type of goods that have to get on to air-conditioned transport and get to their market as quickly as possible.
What work is the government doing in trying to expand, not only uptake of products in the Northern Territory - and yes, I know it is a great program, for the seafood industry, to buy local? It is a terrific program. What new programs like that has government done, or is looking to do, around getting Territory people to really embrace their own agricultural and horticultural industries, and to actually seek out those products in the supermarkets? That is only going to come through solid and decent marketing, such that when we go into the supermarkets that is the product we are going to seek out, as opposed to a product that comes from South America, Chile, California or somewhere like that.
Another key area of the agriculture and horticulture industries is water sources and water security. Much work has been undertaken with water allocation plans, and many people are not entirely happy. It is a difficult process to work through. It comes back to the previous comment I made about the future of the industry and where the future agricultural precincts are going to be across the Northern Territory. The two essentials in setting up any agricultural precinct are the availability of water and the soil capability. I would like to hear from the minister about water resource planning for the future of the horticultural and agricultural industries.
There is one final area. I do not wish this to be a particularly long notice, because it will come up again, as we saw from motions before the House today. I am concerned - and I want to keep asking the minister questions, as I believe we still have a lot of work to do to keep working with these industries to expand these industries for the benefit of the Northern Territory people. I am interested to hear more about the export and interstate markets. Have any restrictions been identified? What is the government doing to try to make this part of the industry more accessible to the producers on the ground? How are we going to go about increasing our capacity? I fully accept it is government’s job to facilitate development; it is not actually to do the developing on the ground. However, I am interested to know what work it is doing in regard to increasing their capacity.
In closing, Madam Acting Speaker, I would like to hear from the minister exactly what work has been done to develop both the agricultural and horticultural industries in collaboration with the government’s growth town policy - which is what I referred to previously - around the building of these industries in remote or rural parts of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will be providing full and complete details on the future of the agricultural and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory, which has a very bright future indeed.
In 2008, a comprehensive review of the primary industry function of the department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines identified the need for government to articulate a clear future direction for our primary industries. Around the same time, two major policy initiatives were being developed: Territory 2030 and A Working Future. These documents highlight the importance of regional communities. This government recognises that economic development of regional communities is critical to their success, and that the primary industry sector is the backbone of regional economies.
This government’s 2030 strategic plan sets out a vision for the Territory for the next 20 years. It is a long-term plan. It creates a framework for the policies and strategic plans developed by government, with direct relevance to the primary industry sector, including: identification of suitable land for long-term sustainable food production; managing of the Northern Territory’s natural resources; ensuring there is no deterioration to the health of biodiversity to the Northern Territory; the Territory continues to secure new private sector investments to drive economic growth and expansion; and long-term planning for infrastructure.
Northern Australia is one of the few places in Australia where there is a capacity to increase food production. There is ongoing interest from the southern states looking north to expand their industries.
The primary industry sector is a key contributor to regional economies. It continues as a major employer in our regions and provides flow-on benefits to others in regional and rural areas. Associated suppliers, agricultural traders, stock agents, banks, shops, infrastructure, and so many others, are important service providers and are strongly reliant on the sector for their livelihoods. Farmers are central to managing the natural resources on which primary industries and our economy depends.
In recent years, the issue of food security has come to the forefront in public discussion, and we all personally experienced the impacts of the unprecedented series of natural disasters in major food producing regions in Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.
It is for these reasons the Agribusiness Industry Strategy 2011 was formulated to provide a blueprint for the future of the primary industry sector over the next five to 10 years. It is a strategy which represents a departure from the traditional approach of the past - it was developed by the industry itself. It is a road map for its future development of our agribusiness industry.
I take the opportunity again to thank the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association, and the Northern Territory Agricultural Association. What do they have to say about the agribusiness strategy? I quote from the strategy on page 6. Jan Hinze, the President of the Northern Territory Horticultural Association said:
- The Northern Territory Horticultural Association looks forward to working with the Northern Territory government to realise the objective outlined in the Agricultural Business Industry Strategy commencing with the development of a complementary NTHA Strategy.
Rohan Sullivan, of the Cattlemen’s Association said, on page 11:
- The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association applauds the launch of this important strategic agribusiness building initiative, which provides a framework for developing specific actions to reinforce and enhance our pastoral industry standing as a major Territory regional economic and social contributor.
I take great pleasure, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in tabling this important document.
I was somewhat surprised when the opposition spokesperson said, early this year on Country Hour, that she was working hard on developing agriculture policy. There was no mention of such policy in her motion to the parliament today.
The primary industry sector presents considerable opportunities - and there are challenges too - in growing the industry and maintaining a healthy environment for future Territorians. New opportunities are emerging from innovation in science and technology, improved production systems, Indigenous participation, conservation economies, and alternative markets. We are well placed geographically to take advantage of emerging economies in Southeast Asia and Europe.
Regarding climatic change, I am unsure if the member for Goyder is a supporter or denier. I have no idea what the members opposite believe nowadays, as they seem to change like the weather changes around here.
A new focus is on food supply and food security for the growing population worldwide. Our planet has over seven billion people, and while the Northern Territory will not be the food bowl of Asia, there are opportunities for growth and production, including cattle into Asia, horticulture into Top End markets, both nationally and internationally, agro forestry and broad scale agriculture, particularly hay in support of cattle export.
Opportunities do not come without challenges - challenges that we are willing to confront in partnership with industry including:
the availability of suitable land for agriculture and identifying suitable lands and soils throughout the Northern Territory;
environmental protection - balancing growth of the industry while protecting the environment;
climate change, although not an issue that climate change deniers opposite need to worry themselves with, is an issue the industry itself has identified;
livestock welfare standards, particularly for the transport of livestock to the national markets, given the distance to national markets and the community expectations about ensuring appropriate welfare when it comes to international markets;
increasing production costs of fuel, fertiliser, and competing labour demands;
pest, disease and weed incursions - our proximity to international neighbours increases the potential for disease with the grapevine leaf rust a very good example, and also other possibilities of weeds and pests coming to Australia through illegal migration or even illegal fishermen; and
the availability of skilled work labour. We rely on seasonal workers and backpackers, particularly for mangoes and melons, in developing more remote regions throughout the Territory. That will be challenging unless we encourage Indigenous participation.
The Agribusiness Strategy also recognises the work undertaken by the Northern Australian Land and Water Task Force in considering opportunities throughout the Top End.
The member for Goyder seeks advice about the already developed areas of historical interest for expansion: Lambells Lagoon, Berry Springs, Fox Road, Florina Road, Ti Tree and Ali Curung. The suitability of these areas for horticulture is already well known. We have a much broader focus when it comes to our horticulture and agriculture sectors. Our challenge is to identify new production areas to expand production, rather than leaving it to marginal increase in growth. That is why my department of NRETAS is working to collate and critically analyse all available information in the project to identify new priorities for land development.
As members would appreciate, this is a detailed and careful process, considering all factors and taking into account developments suitable at different spatial scales. Factors challenging the expansion of these industries have not changed in recent times, and include areas of suitable land, scattered and variable, from sandy, free-drained soils to heavy clay, and soils that are low in organic carbon and necessary background nutrients requiring a high fertiliser supplement to produce a viable crop.
Territory farmers, with assistance from the Northern Territory government research development and extension work, have developed sophisticated farming systems which utilise cover crops, no till cropping, and rotation with nitrogen fixing legumes. Selected areas of soils are suited to horticulture and irrigated crop production as shown by current production patterns. Mangoes, for example, can grow well in poor soil areas.
Expansion of this industry is critically tied to water planning as a principal factor, and involving ongoing consultation with local communities. Water allocation plans have been developed for the Alice Springs, Ti Tree districts and the Tindal aquifer near Katherine. The plan for the Western Davenport region will shortly be gazetted. This encompasses the Ali Curung region. Water allocation plans for Berry Springs and Howard East aquifer, including Lambells Lagoon and Humpty Doo, have been prepared, and the plan for the Oolloo aquifer from Florina to Douglas Daly is nearing release for public consultation. The Mataranka plan has been released for public consultation. These are other priority areas for water allocation planned development, as there is high competition for water resources in most cases due to the development of irrigated horticulture industries.
Successful agriculture and horticulture industries have developed in the regions listed in the motion through a combination of factors including: subdivision and release of land in the Fox Road/Venn horticultural development south of Katherine by the Northern Territory Land Corporation, developed by private industry investment; a number of private subdivisions of land around Katherine and along the Katherine River including the Florina Road area and the Manbulloo Station pastoral lease by private industry; private subdivision and more intensive development on land in the Berry Springs region and Acacia Hills; development of freehold land in the Oolloo and Douglas pastoral leases and, more recently, the Stray Creek area has successfully mixed farming through considerable private investment and development of these holdings; effective research and demonstration of programs by my Department of Resources and its predecessors, to adapt and improve sustainable farming systems to suit the Territory’s conditions; and the effective extension of services to support adoption of new technologies needed to operate in our conditions.
Prospective areas for future industry expansion in the Territory include Katherine, Mataranka and Douglas Daly areas including land at Manbulloo, Douglas, Tipperary, Claravale and Jindare Stations. In Central Australia, there are a number of sites with suitable soils, water, and climate for future horticultural development. Development will be constrained by isolation, increased production costs, but opportunities for niche out-of-season production markets. So far, the Territory producers have achieved successful table grape production at Rocky Hill near Alice Springs, mango production at Ti Tree, and melons at Ali Curung.
In the Alice Springs region, potential areas are: Undoolya Station and Rocky Hill, about 25 km southeast of Alice Springs; the Deep Well area where there is potential for 200 ha-plus with water; Orange Creek, with potential for up to 200 ha to 400 ha with water; and the Finke (Aputula), 200 ha to 400 ha with appropriate water resources.
In the Ti Tree region: Ti Tree Farms has 180 ha of planted table grapes; Pine Hill, 80 km south of Ti Tree, has three blocks of 100 ha each; Woodgreen has potential for more than 200 ha of horticulture production; Utopia has potential for more than 200 ha, but it is very isolated; and Ahakeye Land Trust has 200 ha in the Ti Tree region.
In Ali Curung, Centrefarm has developed land and water opportunities over a number of years after negotiating with the traditional owners of the local community. A melon producer, PMG Agriculture, is growing seedless water melons on its 1000 ha lease, and has additional plans to expand its pomegranate production to 400 ha.
When it comes to key crops grown in the Territory, the first major mango farm was established in Manbulloo Station in 1981. The industry has grown to a point where, this year, production is forecast to be around $50m mark. The future projection is that, within five years, the total volume of fruit produced out of the Northern Territory will double as new plantings mature. The volume of exports will correspondingly increase.
Melon production in the Northern Territory is one of the recent success stories. Production starts in Mataranka in mid-April and extends to mid-November after which supplies out of Ali Curung extend to February. Melon production in the Territory in 2011 is forecast to nearly double this year, increasing by 90.3% to $46.4m. This growth reflects additional plantings in the Darwin, Katherine, and Ali Curung regions. While there is a capacity to produce more melons in the Territory due to suitable land and water availability, production will be driven by market demand and overcoming wilt issues experienced nationally.
The Asian vegetable industry has steadily increased with major commodities such as snake beans and cucumbers having been supplied to the Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne markets for nearly eight years. The value of production of cucumbers has increased nearly 14 times since 2001.
As members would appreciate, the Territory’s plant industries, in particular, are very diverse and several new crops have emerged in this decade. The Top End and Katherine regions are the major production areas and aim to produce traditional summer vegetables and some fruits during the Dry Season and supply southern markets.
The value of horticulture production is millions of dollars - in 2001-02, it was $92m; in 2009-10, it has increased to $117.7m.
The mango industry continues to grow steadily. As well as a growth in value of production, production volumes in tonnes have almost doubled since 2001. In 2001, the mango industry was predominantly based on the variety, Kensington Pride. Early plantings of the new variety, Calypso, has just commenced in Acacia and near Katherine. Over the following years, its contribution to the industry significantly increased to reach 12% production in 2009. Over the same period, the number of Kensington Pride trees declined because of its poorer production. My department has been actively involved in the national mango breeding program during this period to provide industry with improved yield and eating quality varieties.
Due to local production issues and interstate competition, table grape production in Central Australia has declined significantly when compared to the peak year in 2001. Notwithstanding these challenges, departmental officers continue to work with producers to increase further activity.
In 2001, the banana industry had already begun to decline from the impact of Panama disease. The decline has continued as growers withdrew from the industry. There is now currently only one major banana grower who is adopting research findings from my department, as well as other Australian and international research agencies, and beginning to increase production. This activity is strongly supported by Woolworths and the peak industry body following the devastation from Cyclone Larry in north Queensland in 2007.
Melons are the stand-out success, with the industry having grown significantly to around six times what it was in 2001. The expansion has been driven by a number of very large nationally-based businesses utilising the excellent soil, water, and climatic conditions in the major growing areas around Katherine and Mataranka. Some melons are also grown near Alice Springs and Darwin.
New fruits, such as dragon fruit, have emerged in recent years. Rambutan continues to be a significant tropical fruit line. Vegetables, particularly Asian vegetables, have expanded significantly. Most of this growth has been in the Darwin region, with smaller areas around Katherine and Alice Springs.
The value of nursery, cut flowers, and turf production has nearly doubled since 2001. Forestry is in its establishment phase on Melville Island and the Douglas Daly region. This forestry industry will take a number of years to reach full production.
Field crops have grown significantly. Members opposite will be aware of the work my department did with the Peanut Company of Australia near Katherine to develop a successful peanut/maize rotation system.
In Territory growth towns, my Department of Resources is working with local people in the towns of Yirrkala, Tiwi Islands, Borroloola, and Gunbalanya to identify opportunities for economic development in cattle production and processing, commercial horticulture, and small-scale market garden development.
Consideration has been given to partnering with relevant agencies and organisations to develop a fresh food plan for Borroloola and growing native bush fruits at the AZRI irrigation area. My department has provided specific, targeted information to the Yirrkala banana farm with information, advice, and access to Tropical Race 4 resistant banana varieties. It has also provided the Yolngu Business Enterprise nursery in Nhulunbuy with assistance in achieving Nursery Industry Accreditation Scheme Australia accreditation.
My department is also working with relevant Aboriginal corporations to investigate the possibility of developing new, small-scale slaughter facilities in strategic locations across the Territory such as East Arnhem Land, Borroloola, and Central Australia. By working with people in Gunbalanya and Warrumiyanga, my department is making inroads into how it can assist providing and improving community gardens, and also the commercial opportunities with pineapple and sweet potatoes.
The Grown on Country initiative is a platform to engage with Indigenous enterprises, attract additional funding, and corporate partnerships. The concept was presented at the fifth Indigenous Economic Development forum on 13 and 14 October 2011. Staff in Katherine have been working with Kalano community to help reduce chemical inputs into the commercial crops of tomatoes and corn, and to assist and expand their production scope to include bananas. A set of templates has been developed for use in communities to assist in the production of watermelons, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, and bananas. These templates can be modified to include local language design elements.
A deal has been finalised with Aboriginal Bush Traders to use part of the Coastal Plains Research Station to develop 10 bush foods. The knowledge obtained will be taken back to country to develop local production methods and ensure sustainability of bush harvests.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in closing, our horticulture and agriculture industry sectors have a very bright outlook. We have developed a blueprint for the future development of the industry and, importantly, developed the plan in partnership with industry.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I need a speech writer who can fill that much detail out - it would be good. That was a fairly comprehensive response to the member for Goyder’s motion she has before the parliament. Some of those bigger issues the minister was talking about need to be investigated more. We certainly have the ability to develop these industries further in the Northern Territory. Of course, the key issues are the identification of water, soils and markets. The minister did mention that.
The one area where I believe he could have probably also identified - he spoke about Mataranka, the Douglas Daly, and the member for Goyder has mentioned some of the more established areas for horticulture in the Territory – is the Ord River Stage 3. If you go out to the Ord now, you see the development of a range of crops. Ord River Stage 3 is the section that will be inside the Northern Territory. That is an area we need to be kept up-to-date with. I did not hear anything in the minister’s response as to where that is up to at this stage. It is certainly a potentially major area for horticultural and agricultural development.
The issue of disease is one of the big sleeping giants in the Northern Territory. Already, with Panama disease in bananas, you can see what a major effect disease has on the potential for destroying economic development in horticulture. We had an extremely large banana industry in the Top End and, because of Panama disease, it has become a minor industry. It was disappointing, when I was at Yirrkala, to find out that Panama disease has reached there. The minister spoke about how his department is working with the community to look at resistant varieties. The reality is, at the present time, we do not have those varieties in a commercial way. Yirrkala has been famous for its banana plantation; it has nearly been a tourist attraction, it is so big. Unfortunately, that disease has spread there.
The minister spoke about Asian vegetables. I am not sure whether I would call a snake bean an Asian vegetable, it has been around the Territory for a long, long time. It has wilt. It has Fusarium wilt, which has caused major problems. I am not sure what stage development of resistant species of the snake bean are at, or whether it can be grown by some means which avoids the wilt. I do not know. However, snake beans have been one of those core Asian vegetables that has been around a long time, and it would be interesting to see whether there is any control of that particular pest.
Watermelons: I raised the question in parliament the other day. It was only because I ran into one of the growers out at Lambells Lagoon and he told me he is grafting watermelons. I asked him why he was grafting watermelons. You would normally put seeds in the ground and it is a much cheaper way of doing things. He said it was because we now have Fusarium wilt. It has been introduced through seedlings into the Northern Territory. So, if we do not have a department that is up there making sure we are not getting the introduction of more diseases, we are at risk of having a great horticultural industry being continually restricted by diseases. It would be good to hear how much work is being done in this area.
One of the brighter spots, I believe, is the development of bush tucker crops. I must admit, when I was at Bathurst Island, one of my great plans for the future - which never came to fruition - was to see whether some bush crops could be grown in a more conventional manner, in the same way as you grow watermelons, capsicums, or tomatoes, and to see if you could fertilise the crops and get more fruit off those crops. Unfortunately, I left before those trials could begin.
A gentleman spoke to me the other day - his name escapes me. He is interested in growing 200 ha of what I call billygoat plum. The commercial people like to call them Kakadu plum. He was telling me not only does this particular species have high value from the point of view of vitamin C, but they believe it has high medicinal values relating to antibiotic qualities. He would like to grow large quantities in the Litchfield area. I have told him he needs to see the Department of Lands and Planning. I do not know whether he has been to see the minister, but he certainly is interested in trying to find a large portion of land where he can develop this industry. It would certainly be a great development if we could get that going.
The area that also needs to be looked at is the draft native vegetation clearing plan the government is proposing. I have some concerns about the legislation, not just because I think we should not have controls over land clearing, but over the processes. I also want to see we have an even playing field when it comes to development of agricultural and horticultural crops and the retention of our native vegetation.
There can be groups out there that do not believe in too much development, and that retaining the Territory as a pseudo national park is, for them, the way to go. However, the reality is the population of the world is increasing at a rapid rate and there will be pressures on places like the Northern Territory to become part of a larger food industry to supply food to Asia and, of course, to the rest of Australia.
Another issue will be native title. In the Mataranka area which is, potentially, one of the big areas for horticulture and irrigated agriculture, many of those blocks of land are on pastoral leases. To change those leases over to allow for a different type of development will require negotiations in that area. That is certainly an area government should be working towards so development in the horticultural and agricultural areas can grow.
I also congratulate the Kalano community in Katherine. When I was down there a few weeks ago, there certainly were lots of vegetables from the Kalano community - tomato and corn which the minister mentioned. It was good see that community, which has had a garden for many years, but it goes up and down like the weather. A couple of months ago, they were producing good quality fruit and vegies for Woolworths in Katherine. That local market is something that is still important, and the more we can develop that, the more people will appreciate local fresh produce.
Years ago, it was very difficult to sell local produce. It appeared to be sold, under duress, to some of the shops. People regarded it as second-class because, for some reason, it was not marketed as good as produce from down south. But, nowadays, with the expansion of the markets in places such as Mindil Beach, Parap, Nightcliff, Coolalinga - those local markets - there is a greater respect for local crops, and that is really good.
The minister spoke about growth towns, and market gardens in growth towns. When the shires were being developed, one of the core functions for quite a few shires was to develop gardens. That was probably the wrong way to go. I do not think the shires are, necessarily, the people to be looking after vegetable gardens; they are meant to be looking after roads and reserves. It is a more a commercial concept that needs to be applied.
If you look at the so-called growth towns today, most of them were either government settlements or missions. I am just looking back to about 40 years ago when I was on the Tiwi Islands, and it was about that period when these gardens disappeared. I travel around a fair bit in the Territory, and I rarely see a commercial vegetable and fruit garden operating in these communities. I mentioned recently Robinson River. They have a small garden there. It was being run by a person with some qualifications who, unfortunately, was leaving about the same time I was there.
There is too much airy-fairy debate about gardens in these growth towns. A commercial garden to supply fresh fruit and vegies requires a person with qualifications. There are people who talk about permaculture and this and that. That is nice; I am not knocking that in any way. However, it is not the type of agriculture and horticulture development that is required if you want to feed 400, 500 or 1000 people. You need well-qualified people who are willing to work seven days a week, 365 days a year. The biggest problem in developing a community garden is the desire in that community for people to work seven days a week, 365 days a year. Watermelons need watering, tomatoes need picking, bananas need picking and fertilising - all these things require constant attention. A successful garden is hard work. If there is not the will of people to do that, then do not waste your time with a commercial garden on a community.
If you want to, but are not willing to participate in the employment opportunities that a garden would provide, then just bring in a group of people from outside and pay them to do it. Then, the benefits are the production of quality fruit and vegetables for that community. That, at least, would be a good benefit. I know it is difficult to get people to work seven days a week. When I ran a garden at Nguiu, I had to get schoolkids to come out and help me harvest the crop because either the footy was on or the pub was open. There are real difficulties in having a successful garden on these communities. Growth towns are only a new terminology for what were the Aboriginal communities in the past.
If you want to have successful gardens in these communities that are run by locals, you also have to have educated and qualified people. It is not simply a case of putting a seed in the ground and hoping for the best. It is a matter of good planning, good knowledge of water, fertilisers, insects, crops, soils, and soil husbandry, which is the way to manage soil to improve soil. There are many things that need to be understood if one is to be a successful grower or farmer. If we are to be really fair dinkum about having horticultural development in growth towns, then we need to put more effort into getting young people to go to university or agricultural college and get the required qualifications to do it.
I have seen, in the last 40 years, many attempts at starting vegetable gardens. I have not seen any that have been successful. I saw one at Gunbalanya a few years back, and I had a look at it recently. It has not really advanced. It shows there is not that seven-days-a-week, 365-days-a-year application, because that is what you need if you want to develop gardens in these communities. People want fresh fruit and vegies. People want them at a good price, and that is all part of developing good healthy communities. It is nice to talk about market gardens in growth towns, but you need to keep your feet on the ground. If there are not the people willing to do the work, either you bring in outsiders to do it, or you do not do it, or you wait a while until there is a movement from the community that they are willing to get people educated in this area and, hopefully, bring that knowledge back and develop these gardens themselves.
That is not to say that in some of the outstations, there are not little gardens. When I travelled around East Arnhem, some people had nice little gardens. They were probably feeding 20 or 30 people. That is fine but, when it comes to growth towns, you need to be bigger, more efficient, and more scientific than you would for some of those little communities.
I thank the member for Goyder for bringing this matter to our attention. It is always good to get a chance to talk about agriculture and horticulture in the Territory. I have not seen a statement from the government for quite a while. They do occasionally bring out statements on primary industry in the Northern Territory. I have always believed it is the poor cousin of the government departments. I reckon it is no better seen than by its title: Department of Resources. What was wrong with the Department of Agriculture? What was wrong with the Department of Primary Industry? That signifies that you believe this is an important part of the Northern Territory’s development. Department of Resources could mean anything – such as I have plenty of bandaids in the cupboard, or plenty of biros in the stationery supplies. The Department of Resources does not really mean much to people who see that name, but everyone knows what Department of Agriculture and Department of Primary Industry is. I believe its name should be changed. We used to talk about the DPI; I think it has a different name today. It was always known as the Department of Primary Industry and I was always proud of the Northern Territory DPI.
When I first came to the Territory, my first connection with the department was through a gentleman called Clem Benson. His wife and daughter are still alive. They used to live in Knuckey Lagoon. He was an extension officer for the department of Primary Industry. I was a new boy from Melbourne who had studied horticulture in Melbourne. That is fine, but bananas do not grow in Melbourne and neither do pawpaws. He was the hands-on extension officer. Unfortunately, they have disappeared a bit today - stock inspectors are about the closest to it. He would come around and tell you what you are doing wrong or tell you how to do it. He was a great person - a really top person. He travelled all over the Northern Territory to communities and farms, and he had that common touch. He died 20 or 30 years ago. He was well known around the Northern Territory for his expertise and knowledge he brought to people in the rural area. Some of that, unfortunately, is not quite the way it is today. It is done over the Internet, or it is done by fact sheets. It is not quite the same personal touch as it once was. However, I reminisce.
I thank the minister for his response to the member for Goyder’s motion. I believe there are times when we should see more discussion on more motions coming forward. The minister mentioned seafood. There is plenty of room for a good debate on the seafood industry, on aquaculture, and those types of things. It would be good to see government departments and government ministers get down to more nitty-gritty stuff in some of their statements so we can (1) find out what is happening, and (2) debate whether we agree with those statements or not.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. He is, and always has been, an active supporter and participant in the agricultural and horticultural industries, not because of the location of his electorate and where he lives, but through his background.
I also thank the minister for his response to this motion. It was done simply because I am concerned and keenly interested in the future, as well as the current state of play, in regard to the agricultural and horticultural industries. They sometimes do not get the focus and attention I believe they should.
As I mentioned in my brief speech, they provide more than just a food source for the population of the Territory and markets interstate and overseas. They provide employment opportunities, great scope for economic opportunities in remote and rural regions. Plus they also bring together communities, because many of them are often family-based businesses, particularly in some of the larger farms in the Top End and Central Australia. We need to bear in mind that the future of these industries often relies on family-based businesses. One is the economic and financial advantages, but also the community and social advantages.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and also the member for Nelson for their contributions.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Second Commonwealth Intervention
Second Commonwealth Intervention
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Northern Territory government condemns the Gillard government for their second intervention which overturns Territory rights and removes responsibility from the duly-elected Northern Territory government and disenfranchises the people of the Northern Territory.
I stand by that. On reflection, I would have liked to have rewritten that motion slightly differently. For the benefit of Hansard, I will try not to scream too loudly into the microphone tonight. I will not be moving an amendment, but I would like to go through a few areas of concern I have.
I spoke in the Chamber the other day about some concerns we have with the legislation that has been introduced into the House of Representatives in Canberra, particularly around the ability of southern bureaucrats to be able to come into the Northern Territory and close down any licensed premises it sees fit. Also, there is the concerns around the legislation that will see the licensing of any store in the Northern Territory, and the potential for southern bureaucrats to be able to close down any store in the Northern Territory.
While I believe there are positive motivations around some of these initiatives, I believe the third element, which is the proposed change to land tenure on town camps - also including community living areas, but particularly around town camps - is a positive move.
While in this parliamentary sittings, last week we saw a puff piece by this government parading its political opportunism on Territory rights, and today we saw debate about statehood, I believe it is very important we reflect on the federal government’s role in stamping on the rights of Territorians. While there are positive motivations by the federal government in trying to alleviate disadvantage and social misfortune for Indigenous Territorians, it has to be remembered the only reason Labor announced their second intervention - which is stronger than the first intervention, which the Howard government had for four months and federal Labor had for four years - is because the Territory government has failed to act in so many areas.
Aside from those legislative concerns, there is a whole range of other measures which have been put in place by the federal government, not least in regard to welfare quarantining and its relationship to school attendance. We know from Jenny Macklin’s statement that she has put a big cross on the Northern Territory’s performance in education. The Intervention, in its first phase, which was announced mid-2007, was about children. One of those large factors was about education. All we hear from the Territory and federal governments and commentators is ‘Education is the key to the future of Indigenous Territorians’. However, in Jenny Macklin’s statement, she said:
- … there has been no overall improvement in school attendance …
That is a fundamental statement for Jenny Macklin to make, and a real kick in the backside of the Northern Territory government, particularly around the implementation of policies and programs they continue with. Fundamentally, there are flaws through the process. A large part of that is around the consultative approach and the relationship that Labor has misplaced with Indigenous Territorians. That is why people are not turning up to school. You could break that down into many areas but, fundamentally, that is it in a nutshell.
You only have to turn to Budget Paper No 3 of the most recent budget by the Northern Territory government, at page 102, to see the estimate for school attendance for Indigenous students in middle years, which is at 15%. When you say that education is the most important element - and I have said before the minister for Education likes to talk about how every 17-year-old will either earn or learn, work or study - but when you only have 15% of middle year Indigenous children going to school, that is not a bright future.
I am not just condemning the federal government for its stampede on Territory rights once again but, more importantly, condemning the Territory government for its failure to act, its inability to garner up the muscle to take on the important challenges for the Northern Territory for Indigenous Territorians, particularly when it knows many of the measures which need to be put in place are politically tasteful for the Country Liberals to support, to drive that change and endeavours in the Northern Territory.
What has been concerning over the last 11 years of Labor, and continues through Labor since the announcement of the first Intervention - and the continuation by Labor of that first Intervention - and now in the second Intervention, has been the lack of any economic progress and interventions.
Fundamentally, the problem for Labor in not addressing any economic issues is that Aboriginal affairs for Labor is always controlled by the left of the political debate. The left likes to put in place socialist- and communist-based agendas that want to control people’s lives. There are certain areas where people’s lives need positive support to provide change. However, this control by the left in welfare quarantining and the punitive measures, have put in place an incorrect balance in the interventions that need to be put in place. They need to be re-balanced with economic intervention that looks on positive outcomes produced in other jurisdictions around Australia and around the world, particularly. They are positive interventions that think outside the square and look for alternate approaches.
I have had a look at many different opportunities and interventions and new ideas that can be put into place. The concept of strategic economic zones play a major part in Chinese regions in building a middle class and advancing people to the upper class from the lower socioeconomic areas. Strategic economic zones can contain a range of measures that seek to advance economic opportunities. Whether that includes taxation incentives, land tenure reform, measures to increase private sector investments to support business establishments and intern employment growth, these are areas we should be looking at.
I have spoken before about Building the Economic Revolution, the BER stimulus package Kevin Rudd put in place when he was Prime Minister, and some of the work they did around the schools. I have said before there were some positive measures put in place in longevity of infrastructure to support childhood education. However, it is no good if the kids are not going to school.
There could have been other beneficial measures put in place in long-term infrastructure that would have seen legacies for the future. That includes things such as road infrastructure that would have given greater accessibility for Indigenous people to access market, but also to support economic growth and common user facilities to support the establishments of mines or new national parks or tourism ventures. These are the fundamentals that will build the Northern Territory. On a day when we have passed a bill around statehood, building the economic infrastructure of the Northern Territory is important - whether that be a new port to ensure we have a clean harbour in Darwin, or we support the building and construction of the outback highway.
There has been much conjecture and speculation about the poor administration by Labor of SIHIP. I note the general comments the Chief Minister made at the recent Transport and Infrastructure Summit held in Darwin, when he referred to the ‘need for a great capital injection by the Commonwealth on roads’. I support that call. There was an application to Infrastructure Australia by the Northern Territory government for a large contribution in roads funding. Federal Labor knocked that back like they knock back any economic measure that will support growth in the Northern Territory. That, fundamentally, would have meant a huge difference to the Northern Territory.
Madam Acting Speaker, in your electorate at Nhulunbuy, there is the opportunity to seal the Central Arnhem Highway, to upgrade the top road out through to Maningrida and Ramingining through the electorates of Arnhem and Arafura. Sealing the road out to Wadeye and putting in the necessary culverts and bridges to support the people at Wadeye, in turn, is supporting the opportunities around tourism, horticulture, agriculture, and other industries that could take place. These are the fundamentals of what we require.
I believe a multibillion dollar investment by the federal government in some form of a SIHIP roads program is what is required in the Territory to support our growth into the future. We cannot do it with our economic base we currently have. I recognise that. I do not beat the government up over that; I beat them up over failure to manage their infrastructure spending properly. I believe a multibillion federal government initiative around a SIHIP-type concept - not necessarily alliance contracting, but something that sees a great injection over a period of time that supports longevity of jobs - will provide great legacy issues for the Northern Territory in a positive step, where people have that access to market, and access to the Territory. Those common user facilities - whether they be roads, telecommunications infrastructure, or otherwise - are fundamentals to building the Territory to support the growth in our economy.
When I say we should be condemning the Gillard government for their second intervention, much of that condemnation comes through its lack of hindsight, vision and of application around economic measures to drive the Territory’s economy in the bush. Let us face it, the Territory is built on regions; it is about the regions. Unfortunately for Labor, their socialist communist approach runs a social engineering model that drives everyone to urban centres, mainly Darwin. That is the negative approach. It should be about the regions and, to build the regions, you have to support the economic infrastructure in those regions. That is what that is about.
A part of these measures the federal government has put in place is around Centrelink and bringing more Commonwealth employees to the Territory to manage people’s income. The real challenge in this debate - and I know my colleagues and the member for Nelson talk about this - is welfare reform. Whether it is actually welfare reform, or whether it is application of the rules that are available to be utilised now is a good question, because the principles of mutual obligation are not applied in the Northern Territory to the extent they are applied in other parts of the country. The reason they are not applied is because of this continual agenda-grabbing hold by the left of Labor which believes Aboriginal people should be kept in cultural institutions as some sort of museum artefact where culture is preserved, and it is all locked away, and Aboriginal people should not work. That is why the mutual obligation principles are not applied.
If you are on the dole, you should be looking for a job. I acknowledge there are not jobs in every location, and this has to be a process of action that is simultaneously operating as economic opportunities open up. By that, I mean jobs are created so when you tighten welfare, people can take up those jobs.
A case in point is Ali Curung. There are melons and pomegranates and all those types of crops they grow at Ali Curung at the farm, administered in part by Centrefarm. Right next door, you have a community of significant numbers where a large proportion of people are on the dole, on Newstart Allowance, some are on disability, some are on aged pensions, and some are still at school or supposed to be at school. There is a large population of working able-bodied people, men and women, who have the capacity to work at the Centrefarm produce centre. I understand there are nearly 30 people working there and only one of them is Indigenous. Surely, when you have a potential workforce, you should be applying the principles of mutual obligation to try to get people working on that farm. The traditional owners of that land are benefiting from that through a royalty or leasing arrangement, but we cannot get the local people working there. That is where the federal government should be condemned for its failures to operate there.
As I said earlier, the federal government is not alone in holding this condemnation. It should also be reflected to the Northern Territory government which has not acted. It has not acted on land tenure reform for town camps, despite our pleading, so now the feds have to come in and do it. I thank the feds for trying, but they still should be condemned for trampling over the rights of the Northern Territory.
We find ourselves in this funny situation where we are actively pursuing statehood in the Northern Territory but, because the Northern Territory government gets so many things so wrong, the feds have to continually step in. While I did not contribute to the statehood debate, my colleagues actively contributed. I see statehood as a process akin to handing the keys to the family car to a prepubescent teen and asking them to take control. In some ways, that is how it is in the Northern Territory. We have an inexperienced, incompetent government trying to manage Indigenous affairs which is probably the biggest challenge there is in the Northern Territory. They do not have the capacity to do it, yet they are asking for the keys to the car. Sure, they should get the keys to the car but, at some point in time, they have to step up to the plate and be able to manage and provide advances in Indigenous affairs.
That is going to be a key challenge for the statehood debate when it gets up, and the conventions are run because there are many Territorians who feel the same way. I say that with the mindset that I am a full supporter of statehood. However, you have to ask some serious questions when the Northern Territory government gets everything so wrong. How can Australians feel confident that you can do your job when the opposition here understand fully that you cannot do your job? That has been reflected many times over, whether it is administration of SIHIP, child school attendance, not responding to the Little Children are Sacred report - all of those things are prime examples of how you cannot do your job. So, it is going to be an ongoing challenge.
The light at the end of the tunnel comes on 25 August next year, 2012, when Territorians have an opportunity to use their democratic voices. I anticipate - and I hope and I will be driving for, with my colleagues - the Country Liberals are in a position where we provide a solid platform, a vision and direction for the Northern Territory, something that gives people confidence and that tells Territorians that, in Indigenous affairs as a policy point, we have the capacity to drive this reform and we will be willing to drive it, so the rest of Australia will feel confident we have the ability to manage as a state and get outcomes in this area. In the future, we hope there needs to be no federal intervention in this area again. However, on the current base, the feds will keep intervening - I see it - while this Northern Territory Labor government is in charge.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to my colleagues and to the House. I know my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs, the member for Macdonnell, will be speaking next and will be following up on some of my comments. The member for Fong Lim, the man who was inspirational in setting forward the response to the Little Children are Sacred report, had a heavy role to play when this current Labor government did nothing, sat on its hands, with those terrible stories that were written in the Little Children are Sacred report. He will talk about the alcohol reforms, and the store and licensing reforms that are proposed in the legislation that is being submitted to the House of Representatives and, now, is at a Senate Committee. I am very interested to hear what my colleagues have to say. I imagine the member for Port Darwin may even contribute as well. I am also interested to hear what the minister for Indigenous affairs, the member for Arnhem, has to say. We saw the hand wringing on display at the announcement of the first intervention, and we will see how she responds now.
At the moment, all they have done is welcome this second intervention by Labor with open arms, in the same way they have welcomed the carbon tax, the mining resources rent tax, the ban on the live cattle trade when Julia Gillard and the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, stood in Nhulunbuy indicating how positive it was to shut down one of our biggest industries in the Territory - with not even a stroke of the pen, just with an announcement in front of a camera. I will be very interested to hear what they have to say. I look forward to the contribution of my colleagues and the response by the minister.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Speaker, I support this motion my colleague, the member for Braitling, brought to this House this evening. As a person born and bred in an Aboriginal community, I lived through the assimilation policies and have actually seen the changes, which go back decades, of not just this government, but the previous government. We have all seen the changes. I believe it is very unfair when we get into this House that we use Indigenous issues as a political football - to say one side did not do anything and the other side did not do anything.
I grew up at Haasts Bluff, taking water from the soakage in the creek, living in a humpy. When we moved to Papunya, we still lived in humpies and still got water from soakage. We lived on rations. But there were changes. After the assimilation policies of us lining up for rations, we then got houses. There was staged housing. The intentions of governments of the past have always been to improve Indigenous disadvantage. They have seen that. I tend to agree with the minister for Indigenous policy that we do not need to come into this House and use Indigenous disadvantage as a political football. In the past, today, and in the future, governments will always do things for Aboriginal people in the remote Aboriginal communities. Certainly in my lifetime, I have seen those changes – lining up for rations, going down the creek and getting the water out of the soakage, then, all of a sudden, things changed and we children were amazed that the water actually came out of a tap.
We saw the surveyors going out and putting all the bores in the remote Aboriginal communities everywhere. Suddenly, we knew the language of non-Indigenous people. There was an aquifer. We did not know what an aquifer was and we did not know the windmills and the bores they were putting in were actually to draw the water out of the aquifers. It was just amazing to see all that technology being put out into remote Aboriginal communities many years ago.
As I said, we lived in staged housing. If you have a look at the very old housing they used in Papunya, it was like the South African-style housing where there was just one bedroom with a verandah on the house where the sun rose and the sun set. The family was expected to live inside that small housing. However, that was staged housing. We had come from a humpy to that and we thought we were living in paradise. Then we got a two-bedroom tin shack and we thought that was even better. The intention of governments is always to help people who are struggling.
What we have seen in Indigenous affairs over many decades is not just a failure of government but the failure of our own people to come half way, 50:50. There is always a crossroad in anyone’s life - whether you are dealing with the northern suburbs of Darwin, non-Indigenous people living in poverty, Aboriginal people living in poverty in a remote Aboriginal community, there is always a crossroad. The road is in the middle. It is how we come to the middle of the road, and it is how the other party comes to the middle of the road. We get a consensus of the journey we all need to travel down to make our lives better, to ensure our children have employment opportunities.
The first thing is to make sure our children go to school. I believe we have all said in this House, education is the main thing for all our children. It is not just for Indigenous children, it is for non-Indigenous people who live in the northern suburbs or in Alice Springs, Katherine, or Tennant Creek. It is human nature. If a child does not go to school - whether they be black, white, Chinese, Greek or whatever - they are not going to have the opportunities. I believe every single one of us sitting inside this House have been given the encouragement from our parents, our families, and we are only here because we had a good quality education and we have had the backbone of our families and our parents to keep pushing us on.
When I first left Papunya and went to Alice Springs, I used to wag school. I used to go and sit down the creek and go out to Amoonguna. I thought it was fun until someone said to me: ‘You really have to knuckle down and go to school, otherwise you are not going to achieve anything’. So I started cracking down. I went to Traeger Park Primary School with many Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. We became, at Traeger Park, like one big family, messing round at recess time, lunchtime, speaking language, speaking English. Some of us struggled with English. However, the fact that we interacted with non-Indigenous people in the yard at recess time and lunchtime is what gave us the ability and education as well. Education does not just happen in a classroom. It actually happens outside when you are with your friends as well. When you are talking, playing softball, playing hockey, or basketball - all that interaction actually is part of your education and your journey that makes you into who you are.
What we have to do is ensure we tell the wider world we do not want to live in the Stone Age. We have our law, language, culture, our songs, and our ceremonies, but we do not want to be objects in a museum. We want to move with the 21st century. We want to ensure our children have the ability to get a good education to get the jobs so, if they want to move they can move. Some of them maybe do not want to move. They are going to stay at home, but they are going to be the resource that community will have once they have an education. Whether you educate 20, 30, 40 kids and five decide to leave, say, Papunya, Ngukurr, Hermannsburg, or Groote, you are going to have the rest who stay behind and become the resource for the community so that, when government agencies are going into the community, you have those educated kids standing up and saying, ‘I have been educated through your system and I know exactly what you talking about’, and maybe bring the whole community forward.
On the crossroad of any journey we have, travelling to the future in the Northern Territory, it is important, it is vital, we get our families - brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews - to make sure their children go to school; that they start going to kindy and, from kindy, to primary school. We have that ability. There are all the right things going on at the moment where people in remote Aboriginal communities can access secondary education - not just in the Northern Territory at St John’s, Kormilda, or Yirara, but they can actually go to Wiltja in South Australia, or a college in Victoria. Those are the opportunities we need to give to our children, to ensure, through a good, quality education, they have the ability to bring all those resources back to the community.
We must see other ways of engaging with our people to ensure - okay, we are all saying education is important. How do we get our mums and dads, aunties and uncles, nieces and nephews, back inside the school grounds? That is really important. What has happened over, maybe the last 10, 12, or 13 years is we have seen disengagement from the education building, the school grounds, by people who used to interact with school all the time. We need to get those people back. If there are people in the communities who can read, we need to get those people inside the classrooms so they are reading to their kids. The grannies are sitting inside the childcare centre and the classroom helping the teacher, not necessarily in a way the teacher would expect them, but disciplining their children, making sure they are sitting down, making sure if a child arrives at school with a boil or runny ears, that child is taken by the family to the clinic, then brought back to the school. We have to make sure that the community - 100% at all times - is engaged with the activities for the whole six hours inside the classroom.
I said before in this House we have many community sporting events. What are we going to do about that? We have all said in this House - the member for Stuart said it many times and the member for Braitling has also brought this up - football sports weekends, when our communities all go into want community. They leave on Monday and they are never back in the community on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. This Papunya sports weekend just gone - the long weekend on the Queen’s birthday weekend - I rang up the teacher. I think we had parliament that same week, and I rang the principal from here and I said: ‘How you going? Any kids at school?’ ‘Yes, five’. Five kids at school! They are the kinds of decisions we are going to have to make - really hard decisions. We are going to have to come down on these communities. That is for the Education minister. I asked this the last time I spoke, of the Education minister and the Local Government minister: how can we get sports weekends happening between Friday and Monday so the kids can go to school? We have to ensure we have education strategies to put on radio, put on television, to tell these people it is important they go back to school.
I have certainly done it as a local member, where I have been on a community and the kids are still at the sports weekend, rather than at the school. I got people to make announcements saying: ‘The kids should all go back to school’. If we can all have our 10 worth talking about these issues in communities, we can change it.
This is going to be a long haul. When we are talking about economic development, we have to have a look at the viability of the economic opportunities Aboriginal people have in communities. Hermannsburg for example, yes, 100%. You have tourism, you have the precinct centre, and all sorts of opportunities because the bitumen road goes all the way to Hermannsburg, through to Kings Canyon, all the way to Ayers Rock. Those opportunities are there. We have to analyse and have a look at the economic benefits these communities will have.
However, we have to understand it is not going to employ the 160 or 170 adolescents or young people in that community in those two industries. We have to find other industries. The member for Nelson was talking about the farms we had in these communities, and everyone who lived on these communities had a farm. We had two farms at Papunya; we had one 4 km out and one where the current football ground is - beautiful farms, and people worked there. We had butchers, bakers, and teachers. We could see, as children growing up in those communities, the interaction at the preschool, at the primary school, and there was interest for us to graduate from the preschool to the big school, because we wanted to be the big people inside the school.
How can we get all those good things happening again back inside the communities - have the farms, the bakeries, and the butchers? Maybe one of the things the Northern Territory government can do is talk to the Immigration Department. We have so many migrant farmers coming into Australia, but Aboriginal people have all the land mass. Why is it that we have not been able to negotiate to get some of these migrant farmers out on our lands, give them a lease, and get them to farm and train Aboriginal people at the same time? They become farmers as well, and they become partners, and they become friends. Consider, say, a big farm in the middle of Papunya, Haasts Bluff, Mt Liebig, or Kintore. Those four communities could have fresh vegetables and fruit every day inside their shops because of this. We need to go out of the box when we are thinking. Go and see the Immigration Department and say: ‘Can we have a couple of these migrant farmers and put them out on our communities?’ That is really important.
With those opportunities come the sealing of the roads. What we are seeing now is two generations where, through a lack of education, they have slipped back down the slippery dip. We need to get them back up the slippery dip. There are many challenges for all of us there, but let us start thinking out of the square. Let us start being imaginative and going to places where nobody has ever gone to. Let us start creating all these opportunities and stop doing the same things all the time - just revolving around the same policies. Let us give these people hope. We can do that.
As I said, I would like to go back to the very beginning. Things changed. I came from a humpy, lived in a humpy, and got water out of a soakage in a creek. Then I went to a little one-bedroom house with water coming out of a tap. I was absolutely amazed to see that water come out of a tap. Then, we went on to a two-bedroom house. I said before, because my mum was working as a preschool teacher, we got one of the upstairs houses at Papunya, and us kids thought we could be like little monkeys and slide down the stairs. My mum had to warn us: ‘We will soon get kicked out of these houses if you kids do not behave’. It is about boundaries we set for our children ourselves, so they can strive for the things we all want.
They have to be hungry for change, and I believe they have lost the hunger. What we need to do, as partners in that journey on the crossroad, is both be hungry. We have to be hungry as a government. Anyone who rules inside this House has to be hungry for change, and people on the other side of the crossroad also have to be hungry for change in their lives.
I commend this motion, Madam Acting Speaker, and thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Acting Speaker, I give the government’s side in this motion. If there is one thing we need to always recognise - and I have said it in this House on many occasions - is we are a Territory. Irrespective of who is in government, there will always be the very real constitutional understanding that the federal government can always intervene in the Northern Territory. We saw this very clearly in 2007 when the then federal government, under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, John Howard, intervened incredibly and dramatically into the Northern Territory. Yes, it had a profound impact, not only on members of this parliament but, most importantly, on the lives of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
Over the last four years, many people across Australia, but especially in the Northern Territory, have wrestled with the very meaning of that intervention. For many men and women, they have seen it as a very important and good thing that has happened in their lives. For many others, they have seen it as perhaps one of the worst things that could happen in their lives. For us, as a parliament, whether we can say yes or no to this kind of intervention, the very reality is, we are powerless to stop it.
On this occasion, it happened with Indigenous people. It can happen to any people in the Northern Territory; on any issue in the Northern Territory. As much as this parliament may wish to condemn any action by the federal parliament, we always know, constitutionally, we are incredibly vulnerable. We spoke in this House today about the move towards becoming the seventh state. For many people across the Territory, especially Aboriginal people, if there was ever a time Aboriginal people in this country recognised the constitutional vulnerability of our position as Australians, it was most certainly when the intervention came in, in 2007. We need to really reflect on this in a very fair and considered way.
The images of Army tanks and trucks rolling into a community ...
Mr Giles: Army tanks never rolled into any community!
Ms McCARTHY: … had an impact which again comes back to the issue of why …
Mr Giles: Tell me one community where a tank rolled in.
Ms McCARTHY: … why the intervention should occur, and under which ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! She is misleading parliament. There was never a tank rolled into any community.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Braitling.
Mr Giles: Well, correct the record.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: You can put …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you wish, you can approach me about a personal explanation, but there is no point of order, as you well know.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Acting Speaker, I believe it is important for the record that this is about identifying the fact that Defence was used to go into communities ...
Mr Giles: Engineers!
Ms McCARTHY: ... and certainly ...
Mr Giles: Fixing up their water and houses.
Ms McCARTHY: ... in many of the responses that came through ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms McCARTHY: ... from Indigenous people at the time, and the fear and the despair that occurred at that time ...
Mr Giles: Not by you …
Ms McCARTHY: ... was very real ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you will be on a warning shortly!
Ms McCARTHY: The opposition laughs at this. That ...
Mr Giles interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: ... is what makes this, again ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you are on a warning!
Mr Giles: Thank you.
Ms McCARTHY: … a mockery. I am more than happy to stand in this House to debate in a very mature and responsible way how this parliament is trying to advance the lives of the most disadvantaged people in this country …
Mr Giles interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling! I ask you to cease interjecting, thank you. You are on a warning.
Mr Tollner: Did they drop missiles as well?
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you will be on a warning shortly as well. Continue, minister.
Ms McCARTHY: They are not interested, and that is the really disheartening thing here; that we cannot look at this in a responsible way. We cannot reflect on this and allow each other the courtesy and respect to be able to speak in the time we have in an important debate on a motion the member for Braitling has put to the parliament. I have respectfully listened to all those who have spoken so far. This shows the sincerity, especially from the member for Fong Lim.
I will look at this in terms of where I am going, the situation of our parliament, and the constitutional reality of our situation with the federal parliament. The federal government - whoever is in power - has the power, because we are a Territory, to do what it wishes at any particular time. That is why, when we stand in this House to discuss our future forward, we recognise these are very real hurdles, very real obstacles, that impact on the lives of ordinary Australians.
When decisions are made like that, we have to take it very seriously. Here we are, four years on, recognising the whole of the Northern Territory has wrestled with the intervention, and there have been dramatic objections to the intervention for very real reasons. We also recognise, as a parliament, that there has been considerable investment that has come with that intervention. The absolute dilemma here, for this parliament, is to recognise, with that financial investment from the federal government, there are police stations in places where there were none.
I remember writing numerous letters and, on occasions, asking to see police stations in many of my communities in Arnhem. It is a very real fact that there are women and children who felt incredibly vulnerable on a physical level, for their welfare and safety. Those very communities I spoke about to previous Police ministers when I was a backbencher now have police stations, and those women and children feel safe. There is no way any parliamentarian can say that is not a good thing. What we have to do here is examine this very closely in where we are going forward. This side of the House has always made it clear to the incoming government - when Prime Minister Rudd came in, when Jenny Macklin came in, when Julia Gillard came in - that we do not want an intervention on the lives of people in the Northern Territory. We have said that consistently, especially in these recent months when consultations were taking place across the Northern Territory. That, again, is a very real difference here.
This federal government, under Julia Gillard, has been trying to work with the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. Our side of the House has said we do not wish to see this intervention continue into legislation. We know constitutionally we are powerless to stop whatever is said and done through the federal parliament - we know that. The fact that we hit ourselves over the head trying to think there is some miraculous thing we can do to change that is really quite wrong, but we still debate it, because it is important to talk about it. That is why we want to pursue becoming the seventh state in the Federation. We recognise we do not have the constitutional status to be able to do exactly what we think we should; that is, to speak for ourselves, determine our future, make our own mistakes, and find a way forward that provides a vision for the people of the Northern Territory on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. We cannot do that in its entirety under the constitution as it currently exists, and as we stand here in the Legislative Assembly under the Territory status.
So, why do we beat ourselves up over what is happening now? The federal government made an announcement about what it chooses to do over the next couple of years. I have said in this House, only as recently as last week, we are going to examine very closely every aspect of that legislation. We will also be making sure the committee that is set aside to examine that process and that legislation also hears from this side of the House.
When we look at what we are trying to do as government, within the powers of the Northern Territory self-governing act, we are doing everything we can to invest, with almost a $1bn from the previous budget, to the regions - a historic step for any Territory budget to recognise the need in the bush is so great and to invest where we should.
We have been criticised, constantly laughed at and pilloried for that. But, do you know what? We know this is what we should be doing. We will continue to invest in these regions to the best of our ability to ensure those monies are being spent as wisely and effectively as they can be. It is important it is not only about government trying to do the best we can to improve the lives for the most disadvantaged in this country; it is also for the very people themselves to stand up and take responsibility and determine their future the best way they know how.
We have seen, over the past number of years, an increased number of Indigenous employees in the Northern Territory Public Sector as a whole; 118 new businesses funded by the Indigenous Business Development program; 137 Indigenous essential services workers on homelands transition from CDEP to regular employment; over 1100 Indigenous employees employed across the Territory under SIHIP; 324 new houses, 1272 refurbishments and 320 rebuilds; a 590% increase in Aboriginal interpretative service delivery since 2001; hundreds of new non-CDEP Indigenous jobs delivered through local government reforms; and the establishment of 22 safe houses in 17 communities.
The focus for our government, within the very powers we have under the self-governing act, is to grow our regions in a transparent, equitable, and fair way - a way that should have occurred a very long time ago. This is not about apportioning blame, because I believe members of this House want to see the improvements in Indigenous affairs and Indigenous people’s lives. I believe, despite the political football it becomes on occasions in this House, I also know this is too important to people whose lives we are all trying to improve. Our government is focused very much on A Working Future, the hub-and-spoke model, to ensure we are investing where we should, and we are growing not only these regions, but the very capability of the people who live there - the ability to be able to live in their own homes with their families without being overcrowded, to know they have access to a good school, with good teachers who are there to provide that education for them.
At the same time, the responsibility has to be reciprocal. It has to be about those families taking the responsibility to acknowledge there are new school buildings that are being built across many of these regions - federal government dollars, Building the Education Revolution. That has been of an enormous benefit to our regions across the Northern Territory: opening those classrooms, seeing those science labs, those home rooms, those young men and women cooking in those home economic classes, and the Year 12s who are graduating.
We know we have a long way to go, but we also recognise there is a weakness in our constitutional venerability if we remain a territory,. I say to the House regarding the federal government’s Stronger Futures legislation, we will be examining closely that legislation. We will certainly want to ensure existing policies - which are working across the Northern Territory in regard to our relationship with the Commonwealth - are strengthened and tightened. It is about effective use of taxpayers’ money, and also effective use of money that comes into these regions for investment in ways that provide a future for those very families living there and who choose to live where they wish.
With the growth towns we have across the regions, the homelands are of paramount importance. One issue that has polarised us - certainly in the last couple of years in many of the discussions we have had in this House, and many of the concerns for people across the Northern Territory - is the future for homelands. I cannot stress enough to this House that the vision for the Northern Territory is for Territorians – black, white, young, or old – to live where they wish to live. As our government is very focused on wanting to strengthen those regions, we are doing so, knowing we have to keep pursuing the financial support for those homelands and outstation development.
We also recognise it has to be about the security of land tenure. It has to be about how we encourage private enterprise into these regions. In order to do this - and I have said this on a number of occasions to the Indigenous Economic Development Taskforce I have within my portfolio - while we are growing these regions and the capability and capacity of Indigenous people in these areas - traditional owners, or anyone who lives in these places, who are a part of this - it is about them determining the way they wish to see their places grow. But, it is also about private investment being very much a part of that. Governments cannot, and should not, be paying for everything. What we are about is encouraging private investment in these places, and we are seeing very strong inroads.
We already have the mining sector. The mining sector has had to work, mind you - had to work - on what it means to employ Indigenous people. That has not been an easy feat, believe me. I have had my share of stoushes with mining companies, and I am sure I will continue to have them with certain private companies around the country. One thing we have to be sure of is we all stay at the table, no matter how difficult it gets, to improve the lives of Indigenous people. We stay at the table and we keep working on these issues.
When I was at Uluru to see the result of $300 000 000 which has been invested into Yulara Resort, and to hear the company and those involved very proud of the fact they have so many Indigenous employees. They said: ‘This is how many we have’. I said: ‘Hey, that is fantastic. That is great. But, that is not the challenge. The challenge for you is keeping them’. We see so many programs start with a terrific number of Indigenous employees, then we lose them over a period of time - some a week later, some a month later, some two months later. The fact is we cannot have a success rate at the end: what is the output, where is the achievement?
The real challenge for private enterprise, government, and Indigenous people is staying the course, holding the line, and getting up from the mistakes that are made and keeping on going: perseverance, persistence, endurance. That is what our government is about, because we know there has been decades of neglect, and we are building firm foundations for decades of prosperity.
Madam Acting Speaker, we need the financial investment from the federal government, and we will take that federal investment, but we will also be scrutinising very closely what it means for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the member for Braitling, my good friend and colleague, for the fantastic way he has brought this motion to the Chamber and, in particular, for the wonderful effort he has made with crafting such a good motion. He has done a fantastic job because not in that whole, entire speech by the minister for Indigenous affairs did I hear her deny the government would be supporting it. So, fingers are crossed; they may well stand up for Territorians for a change and support this motion. Wouldn’t that be a marvellous thing? That is something we could celebrate today.
I have to say, though, I was very disappointed, as always, with the minister for Indigenous affairs. It is a shame Labor sees Indigenous affairs and matters relating to statehood to be of such insignificance that they give the portfolio to such a lightweight as the minister. While I like her personally - she is a wonderful lady – clearly, she is not up to the job. She is just not up to the job at all. She does not seem to have a clue about what needs to be done, or what needs to be said in this place. I have been stunned by events today, seeing the crocodile tears of the minister, the way she lamented the fact that her dates were not chosen for the election for the statehood convention and the like.
I do say it was crocodile tears, because she talked about the years in the making of this legislation that came before the Chamber today, and she seemed to disregard completely the fact that this statehood campaign has been going on for a long time - a lot longer than she has been in this place, and by many more significant people than her. It seemed to be almost a personal slight on her that her dates were not supported. I believe the parliament made the right decision today, by the way. The last thing we needed was statehood to fail a second time, and it should be given every chance. In that regard it was a good result.
As I say, it is all about them: ‘We have worked so hard. We have been involved for so long. We have spent all this money’. I almost fell off my chair today when they started complaining about the money they have spent. That is the Labor way, is it not? Get out there and spend money, throw money around everywhere. At the end of the day, that is the achievement as far as these people are concerned: ‘We go out and throw money around’. Goodness me, what other political party could possibly support throwing $43bn around a few years ago; sending $900 cheques to dead people, as Kevin Rudd and his government did federally - $900 cheques went all over Australia? ‘We had to get out there and spend money as hard as we could, to the point where our government sent off $900 cheques to dead people’. Here we find in the Northern Territory, Territory Labor welcomed that. They think that is a good use of money.
For some reason or other, the price of democracy and statehood in the Northern Territory has limits, though, as far as this government is concerned. They do not have the same priority on it as they did throwing $900 cheques all over the place. All right, they will say: ‘Oh well, that is federal Labor, that is not us here’. But have a look at the sort of things they throw their money around on: $10m on the Banned Drinker Register. What a ludicrous waste of money that has turned out to be. We put an impost on all Territorians. Every time they want to go to The Bottle-O and buy a bottle of wine or a half-a-dozen beers to take home and have a cool drink, they all now have to front up and show their licence. Cost of that package, $10m from the government. They reckon that is great.
The minister, who happens to be the Treasurer as well, said: ‘Oh no, we have turned off the tap’. Well, I do not know. You get the impression from the Treasurer that she has spent a bit of time in pubs and understands a bit about the alcohol industry. However, clearly, if she is saying she has turned off the tap to problem drunks she does not know what she is talking about, because this is not turning off any taps at all. The best they can hope to achieve from the Banned Drinker Register is people stop going to bottle shops and takeaways. The option people have is to go in the pub, where you can turn on the tap!
It is all about turning on the tap for problem drunks, because the only way they can go and get a drink now is inside a bar, if they are doing it legally, where you pour a drink from ‘the tap’. You do not buy anything from ‘the tap’ at The Bottle-O or a takeaway. That just does not happen. Irrespective of that, the Treasurer said: ‘This is a great use of funds in the Northern Territory. We will spend $10m. We are a small jurisdiction; $10m is a lot of money; we have many problems with public drunks and public drunkenness’. The best the Treasurer could come up with is throwing $10m to make sure that all Territorians, when they go to The Bottle-O, now have to produce a licence.
I was at a takeaway the other day and I saw a guy turn up at a place in Cavenagh Street. I will not name it, but it is a well-known liquor warehouse. There was a guy there trying to purchase a bottle of wine. It was demanded that he show his licence. He did not have the licence, so he was denied the sale of this bottle of wine. I watched him walk out and jump into a Commonwealth or diplomatic car. He was, obviously, from somewhere else in the country, part of the diplomatic corps, and he could not buy a drink, a bottle of wine, in the Northern Territory. I had half a mind to go over to the guy in the liquor wholesale and buy the bottle of wine for this diplomat. But, then, of course, that would have been illegal, and we would not want to act illegally - would we? - when it comes to alcohol in the Northern Territory with this government?
They come in here and cry crocodile tears about statehood. All we have done is deferred it so we can have some clean air around that discussion. I believe it has been a great result for the Northern Territory in that regard. But, no, this mob say: ‘It is a terrible thing because we have our nose out of joint’. I understand that the Speaker has her nose out of joint. She wrote a speech, and it was read out by the member for Fannie Bay, and the Chief Minister waxed lyrical about how the Speaker had her nose out of joint and was very upset. It has been very upsetting for many people for a long time that we are still a territory and not a state. However, it is all about them in this regard.
The other thing the minister said in relation to this second intervention was: ‘You have to understand we are powerless to stop this stuff. We are only a territory, we are not a state. Of course, Canberra can come in here and take over any laws they like; that is just the nature of being a territory’. That is true, but Territory governments in the past have generally kicked up a bit of a stink when that sort of stuff happened.
But - lo and behold! - we find out tonight that this second intervention, this second takeover of the Northern Territory has not been foisted on this Northern Territory Labor government. In actual fact, as the minister pointed out tonight, they have asked for it! They have said, ‘We negotiate with the current federal Labor government, which is something that never happened with John Howard. We did not negotiate for any of that; they just foisted it on us’. In this particular case: ‘We have negotiated that out with federal Labor’. From that, you can take it that this minister and this government have requested this takeover of Northern Territory government responsibility.
It takes me back to that old uranium mining issue, when the Northern Territory government did not really want to make a decision about uranium mines, so they simply abdicated responsibility for those decisions to the federal government. I remember the day well; Ian Macfarlane was in town. He went and had a chat with the mines minister at the time - same one we have now, Kon Vatskalis, the member for Casuarina. He had a quick chat to him; 15 minutes later they both walked out and announced the Northern Territory government was abdicating responsibility on uranium mining.
A little like what is going on now. We found out the Northern Territory government is abdicating responsibility on shops, on liquor outlets, on a whole range of things that the federal government now says they are going to step in and take responsibility for. I find that absolutely appalling, particularly when you say you want to be a state. Why do we want to be taken over? These guys seem to be able to pick their games: ‘We did not want Muckaty Station; that was forced on us by the Commonwealth government’. That is not exactly correct, we all know that. Muckaty Station was volunteered. It was not forced on anyone; it was volunteered. If we go through and have a look at a little history, we will see the federal government named three Defence sites as possible locations for a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
What happened then was the former federal member for Solomon, yours truly, and the Northern Territory Senator, one Nigel Scullion, got together and put forward private members’ bills that were accepted by the Commonwealth parliament, that allowed either the Northern Territory government or other landowning bodies in the Northern Territory to nominate sites. Of course, Clare Martin was so anti-uranium, anti-nuclear, and anti-nuclear waste that she was just not going to have a bar of it. She buried her head in the sand and spent $1.5m of taxpayers’ money on a campaign to try to oust the then member for Solomon. No dramas with doing that sort of stuff, of course. But - lo and behold! - the Northern Land Council, on behalf of traditional owners, nominated a site.
I remember it well. At the time, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the father of land rights in the Northern Territory, stuck his hand up and said he wanted the nuclear waste site to be in Nhulunbuy. That was deemed not appropriate by the Northern Land Council but, interestingly enough, Muckaty Station was. The traditional owners of Muckaty all went to Lucas Heights, they got to understand what was going on, and they volunteered their site. This is the only place in Australia that has been volunteered. However, because it suited their political ambitions at the time, the government here tried to portray this as some sort of takeover of the Northern Territory by the Australian government. It was foisted on the Northern Territory because they did not want, irrespective that a bunch of traditional owners said they wanted it.
State’s rights? For this mob, you can take it or you leave it. They do not really seem to be wedded to the whole thing. They are not wedded to do it in any particular way. It is all fine, providing Canberra looks after Aborigines, half the Northern Territory land mass, and uranium mining. Those sorts of things they are quite happy to have Canberra taking control of, even to the point where any hotel, pub, or club that sells alcohol that may have one or two Indigenous customers, now is going to be regulated, to some extent, by Canberra. They seem to think that is okay. Obviously, the alcohol problem has become far too out of hand for this government, so they said: ‘Oh, well, we cannot quite handle it all; we will give it to Canberra’. That is what they have negotiated, I take it. That is what they have negotiated ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: All right. They are all having a bit of fun with me at the moment, Madam Acting Speaker.
It is a bizarre situation, indeed, where you have a government - now we find out – which has requested this second intervention. The first one occurred because the Territory government refused to enter into any discussions or work collaboratively with the federal government. As the member for Brailing said in his speech, when the Little Children are Sacred report was completed, the Chief Minister of the day, Clare Martin, swept it under the carpet and hid it from the eyes of the public and anyone else who wanted to look at it. It was literally months before the federal Indigenous affairs minister of the day, Mal Brough, happened to find it on the Internet because it, clearly, was not provided to him by Clare Martin and the Labor government of the day; they wanted to sweep the issue under the carpet, deny there was any problems at all.
When the minister, Mal Brough, was made aware of it, he tried to fix things; tried to work with the Northern Territory government; wanted a summit to occur. The Chief Minister refused to attend that summit, so the message coming out of the Northern Territory to Canberra was: ‘We do not believe we have a problem up here, mind your own business, we are not going to go to any summits you organise, you are a pack of Tories’. Whatever it was, they did not want a damn thing to do with the federal government. The thing they underestimated was the sentiment of the Australian people and the will of the Commonwealth government of the day, which was not prepared to sweep a problem like that under the table, under the carpet - and they acted.
I thought it was a terrible day for the Northern Territory. I felt ashamed of being a Northern Territorian, of having an elected government in the Northern Territory which treated Indigenous kids, in particular, and Indigenous people in general, with such complete disregard. I felt very embarrassed about that. I also felt very embarrassed about the fact that the Commonwealth government had to intervene to get any action happening at all because, quite clearly, the Territory government was not up to doing anything.
Four years down the track, to hear our Indigenous affairs minister jump up and talk about the Commonwealth government having the tanks rolling in - the Army and the tanks rolling in - took me back to Q&A the other night with Rosalie Kunoth-Monks when she said: ‘They sent in the police and the Army, and they hunted us like dogs’. They sent in the police and the Army and they hunted you like dogs? This is the rhetoric we are getting from our own Indigenous affairs minister: ‘They sent in the tanks, they sent in the tanks’. Goodness me, the reality was, one of the things found in the Little Children are Sacred report was that lawlessness was rife in these communities, that the rule of law was completely being disregarded. That was why the police were sent in. There were an extra 60-odd coppers to go into communities that had never had a police presence before; that had never had the rule of law enforced.
For some reason or other, the Indigenous affairs minister thinks that is a bad thing. We had the Army go in, not with tanks, not dropping ballistic missiles on communities, not sending in the snipers, or the Black Hawk helicopters. It was the engineers who went in …
A member: The builders.
Mr TOLLNER: It was the engineers, the builders, the plumbers, the electricians, the people who fixed the sewerage …
Ms Scrymgour: You are misleading parliament!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh right, so they went in shooting people did they, member for Arafura? You believe they rolled in the tanks as well? Goodness me! These people make it up as they go along.
The fact is they sent in Dave Chalmers and the Australian Defence Force to fix some of the major problems with infrastructure they had in those communities ...
A member: That was APAC.
Mr TOLLNER: APAC was part of it, too. I was part of it myself. I went out to Borroloola and listened to the nonsense that was being ranted by the member for Arnhem at a meeting of the miners, where she was talking about nuclear waste - scaring locals - being processed at the McArthur River Mine. These guys have no dramas plumbing the depth …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I move the member for Fong Lim be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker, and thank you to all for your indulgence on this matter. I did not realise I was running out of time so quickly.
As I was saying, to infer in this place that the tanks were sent in, and were somehow bombing Aboriginal people or, as Rosalie Kunoth-Monks said: ‘We hunted them like dogs’, is just complete and utter fiction! To sit there and say: ‘Oh, these things happened’, is just a denial. It is a complete denial and a fabrication of the truth. It is absolutely appalling.
The Chief Minister and the member for Braitling said that education is the key. To some extent, I believe that education is the key. It does have a very fundamental role to play in assisting people out of poverty and, in a many regards, Indigenous people. Through my travels around the Territory, I have come to understand that there is a huge connection to land for Indigenous people, probably greater than most people on the face of the planet. I grew up in the country, and I have a connection to this land as well, but I do not think it rates likes the Indigenous people’s connection to land. The idea is, for most Indigenous people, they want to stay on their country.
I believe it is worthwhile encouraging people off country, to go and look at the world, to see what the great big world has to offer, to look for employment opportunities in other parts of the world, particularly where there are jobs.
Obviously, there are going to be people who want to stay in their own communities, and who feel destined to stay in their own communities, and that is a good thing too. However, the thing is, if you are going to stay in your community, what is the point of getting an education at all if there are no jobs? What is the point? There is no point in being able to read and write and add up if you are just going to sit there and live on welfare for the rest of your life. If everyone you know does not have a job - if your father and your mother, and your aunt and your uncles, and all the people around you do not have a job - why would you go to school to be told that you have to get a job when you do not even know what one is?
Jobs are needed in many of these communities, and the best way to create jobs is to allow businesses to establish. The minister said: ‘We will grow the regions in equitable, fair, and transparent ways’. Which all sounds great – they are wonderful, soft and cuddly words, make us all feel good: ‘We are going to grow the regions in equitable, fair, and transparent ways’. Quite often, commerce and commercial life is neither equitable nor fair. It comes down to who works the hardest, who is best located, and where the resources are, and the like. Quite often, that is done by enterprising people. The best thing we can do is encourage enterprising people to get into these communities and start businesses. The best thing government can do to start businesses is get out of the way. It has, quite often, been said the greatest thing government can do to assist business in establishing and running is to get out of the way. Do not put road blocks in front of them. Do not put artificial barriers in front of them.
Now, we find out we have a federal government that is going to put another level of regulation on to businesses that exist in remote communities - a place where it is so hard to get businesses to establish, that we are now going to put another level of regulation and licensing in place on these businesses; put up another roadblock. As my friend, the member for Braitling, often says, you get off the Stuart Highway and you could count the number of businesses on one hand as you drive up the track. There are no hairdressers, no butchers, no bakers, no market gardens, no McDonalds, no Red Rooster in all of these remote communities. There is no movie theatre, restaurants, shoe shops, or rubbish collection businesses. There is a complete void of anything. The best way we can encourage businesses is to get out of the way, and that means reforming some of those areas that need reforming.
Access to long-term and certain tenures or leases on land would be a good step. Access to decent services would be a good step. Not having miles of bureaucracy and red tape to contend with would be a good step. The minister talked about mining and said she has had plenty of run-ins with mining companies. I know! I was there to witness one of them and she talked absolutely gobbledegook and misled a whole township full of people. She tried to convince them that nuclear waste was being stored on McArthur River mining lease. I could not believe it. I was blown away. But, there you had it.
The reality is we have to get into these communities and establish long-term leases that give businesses the security they need to set up. I note there are a number of long-term leases that have been set up under the intervention. Oddly enough, they all happened in the four months when Mal Brough had control of the intervention. There has not been another 99-year town lease anywhere in the Northern Territory in the entire four years that Labor has had this intervention. Now, we find we are getting a second one. But it is not one to say: ‘We are going to get in there and we are actually going to reform land tenure’. It is not one to say: ‘We are going to get in there and make it easier for cattle businesses to set up in these communities, or for tourism businesses to set up in these communities, or mining businesses - for goodness sake! - to set up in these businesses’.
A few years ago, I was part of an inquiry into the feasibility of exploration of Australia’s minerals. Worldwide, at the time - certainly not the case anymore - we were rated the best country in the world to explore. However, the same mob that gave us that rating also rated us the worst country in the world for land access and for green tape. We are the worst in the world for creating bureaucracy around land access and green tape. I can tell you, if you want to give mining a shot in the arm, the best thing you can do is get out of the way in relation to land access and green tape.
The minister jumped in and said: ‘Oh, everything is great in mining’. Well, have a look around the Northern Territory and see how many mines have been established and set up in the Northern Territory. The minerals do not end at the borders. We see what is going on in Queensland. We see what is going on in Western Australia. I do not think the minerals decided: ‘Oh well, hang on, we are going to stop at these lines’. There is another greater problem here, and that is government.
Madam Acting Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the member for Braitling. It is a very well-crafted, well-written motion. It makes a lot of sense to me. I encourage members in this place to support this motion because Canberra needs to be told from time to time, by the elected government in the Northern Territory: ‘Hey, back off. You got it wrong. Do not step into our Northern Territory thinking you are going to regulate our businesses. Do not step into the Northern Territory thinking you are going to shut down our pubs and clubs. That is a job we do in the Northern Territory. That is our responsibility. Back off, Ms Gillard. Back off, Ms Macklin’.
The fact is these guys need a good kick in the head every now and again, and we need a government that is prepared to do it. Unfortunately, these guys we have in government in the Northern Territory have shown themselves to be nothing but apologists and puppets to the Gillard Labor government.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I remind you that at 9 pm …
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Acting Speaker, I understand that. I thought I had quite a number of significant things to contribute to this debate but, to some degree, it will have to wait until a later date. However, I will use …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I inform the minister we are more than prepared to suspend standing orders and give him the full allotted 20 minutes if he would like ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat. There is no point of order, thank you.
Mr Conlan: We are more than happy to stick around …
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Greatorex, thank you!
Dr BURNS: I was saying I am more than prepared to resume the debate at a later date. However, I will use the time that remains to talk about, principally, the member for Macdonnell. The member for Macdonnell said some very interesting things here this evening, and I would like to develop some arguments around them. However, that will require a little more than five minutes.
What I will do is commend the member from Braitling for bringing this motion forward. Whilst I will not be supporting this motion, I listened carefully to what the member for Braitling had to say on a number of issues. I do not always see eye to eye with the member from Braitling. From my perspective, he often spins issues and ‘facts’ in a certain way. He and I have had discussions about that. I have a little file full of such things, but I am not going to bring it out right now.
What I am going to say is I thought you raised some very important issues in relation to policy and policy debate. You raised issues in relation to taxation, land tenure, the private sector investment, etcetera. They are crucial, and they are crucially important to the debate on Indigenous affairs and the way forward. I am very interested in what you bring forward. You have, obviously, thought quite a deal about these issues. I commend you, member for Braitling; you are a very hard-working member. You are a very hard-working shadow. You are out across the Territory, obviously, visiting many places, getting a lot of information and views, and you make a significant contribution to the debate.
Essentially, this motion says that we, the Northern Territory government, should condemn the Gillard government for its second intervention which overturns Territory rights and removes responsibility from the duly-elected Northern Territory government, and disenfranchises the people of the Northern Territory. That would be a reasonable argument, except it is inconsistent.
As the member for Fong Lim - formerly the member for Solomon - clearly said, he was right behind the first intervention where Mal Brough, without any consultation whatsoever, completely slapped his intervention on the Northern Territory. That permeated quite a number of areas. We have talked about some of the positive things regarding police, teachers, and infrastructure. I acknowledge those things were quite positive.
What you did not mention was some of the effects on Territory businesses. You mentioned licences and their interference in licensing matters. Well, you conveniently forget the silly register that was compulsory for anyone who bought $100 or more of grog! You had to fill out a book …
Mr Tollner: It was silly. I agree with you.
Dr BURNS: I did not really hear you come out publicly and say that, former member for Solomon …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! For the clarification of the minister, he should do a bit of research because I did come out and publicly say that.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Resume your seat. It is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: It must have been at the Nightcliff Sports Club just before closing time, because I certainly did not hear it in the media, and I think I was Licensing minister at the time. I also remember the effect it had on the tourism industry, by the way he wanted to gazette areas, including the Daly River – its effect on anglers. People would not have been able to get on the Daly River and have a beer! You were nowhere to be seen with that. You were talking about intrusions into Territorians’ lives, but you toed the line. You toed the Mal Brough line, the John Howard line. You did not stick up for Territorians. Where were you, former member for Solomon …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! The minister should know to direct his comments through the Chair.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Katherine. Resume your seat, please.
Dr BURNS: Where were you, former member for Solomon, when a great number of businesses in regional areas were disadvantaged by the Basics Card? People are still upset about that in small businesses, including some of your core supporters, I would say, in places like Katherine and Alice Springs, who put their concerns to me. Would Mal Brough listen? Would you advocate for them? Not publicly, you did not. You might have been doing it behind closed doors. You might have been doing that, member for Fong Lim, but you certainly were not doing it publicly. The difference between the two measures, the two governments, is there has been consultation …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! It is 9 pm.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I am aware of that, and was about to ask the minister if he would like to extend for a few more minutes, or if he intends to continue this debate at a later time?
Dr BURNS: I will resume, Madam Acting Speaker. The House is in adjournment, is it?
ADJOURNMENT
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Speaker, I came into this House in 2001, and we have been talking about statehood in the last little while in this parliament and there has been debate here in this parliament and in the media. I was amazed when the member for Fong Lim got up last week and completely undermined his leader on this issue. As the Chief Minister said, it was a complete shock to the Leader of the Opposition; it was obvious to me sitting here, I watch people, I notice things - it came out of the blue.
I reflected on a similar situation that occurred in 2004 and it was around statehood, and some of the players were very similar. It was on 25 June 2004 and this was the motion: Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - Adopt Terms of Reference. This was a step towards statehood. Elliot McAdam was the Chair of that committee, and on that committee was: Mr Elferink, Mr Burke, Mr Henderson, Mr Mills, the Speaker at the time, Mr Dunham, Mr Wood, and Mr Kiely. There was a motion to endorse the terms of reference of the Northern Territory statehood committee moved by Mr McAdam. Then Mr Elferink, the then member for Macdonnell says:
- Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that I will not be opposing this motion. This motion brings before the parliament an outline of a set of terms of reference for a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee to pursue what has been a long-held passion of mine and many other members and former members of this House.
So far, so good. Everything is going along, there is bipartisan agreement. Then - I am more than happy to table the Hansard - the then member for Macdonnell goes into a lot of constitutional stuff; we know he is a constitutional lawyer of high degree. Then the former member for Brennan gets up. Now, this is when the member for Blain was Opposition Leader, he had knocked off the member for Brennan, the member for Brennan was sitting somewhere around where the member for Fong Lim is sitting now; and he was very complimentary. This is Mr Burke, about the Chair, Mr McAdam: ‘I am sure he will do his utmost, he is a man of high integrity’. Then he says:
- To come in now and expect this parliament to pass those terms of reference with the amount of notice that certainly I have received - I have received some briefings from members of the committee to me that things are moving along - but I have never seen these terms of reference before.
What it showed was a lack of communication within the team for a start and, second, it was an opportunity for the former member for Brennan, Mr Burke, to get up there and assert his leadership credentials. He was actually a very good performer in this parliament; he was very good on his feet. The member for Blain continues to be a very weak performer in this parliament.
After all of this, what did the member for Blain do? I will read what Mr Henderson, Leader of Government Business, said:
- Madam Speaker, this is an amazing turnaround at the 11th hour in regards to the genuine bipartisan way that this committee has been working through this issue for some months now.
…
- Until this extraordinary turnaround, to my understanding, 15 minutes before the bells were ringing for the commencement of the session this afternoon we had bipartisan support for this motion. The extraordinary thing that has emerged this afternoon is that the Leader of the Opposition is actually on this committee. The Leader of the Opposition has been consulted at great length in a bipartisan way to come to these terms of reference that are here
- He is dissenting from the position of the Leader of the Opposition who has signed up to the terms of reference in a bipartisan way and is now, at the last minute, seeking to exert his authority back on the leadership of the parliamentary wing. It is absolutely outrageous.
My goodness, Madam Deputy Speaker! History repeats itself. And here is the member for Blain, the then Opposition Leader; then does a backflip on the floor of this parliament after the member for Brennan had come out against him and said:
- Madam Speaker, it is very important we understand exactly what is going on with this issue. We are talking about statehood …
Waffle, waffle, waffle:
- For the member opposite to assert that there was an agreed position within the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is overstating the fact. The issue here that was established was that the terms of reference would be presented to this Chamber today and would not be put on the paper, removed from the paper.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
What happened? Within weeks, the member for Brennan had moved from that area, I am not sure whether he was in the front seat or the back seat, he then started sitting where the member for Port Darwin sits. That was about mid-year and, by early next year, I noted down here, officially in the parliament by February 2005; in eight months he had unseated the member for Blain …
A member: You need to find out what really happened.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! I am genuinely listening very carefully. I would like the minister to say what he is talking about. I do not have a clue what you are banging on about.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin, thank you.
Dr BURNS: What are we talking about? You are a professor of history, and what I am saying here, member for Port Darwin, if you are not getting it, is here is history repeating itself. We have a situation repeating itself where the member for Blain was a weak leader and he could not control the member for Brennan. The member for Brennan stood up, asserted his authority; the member for Blain had come to a bipartisan position, but he completely backflipped, gave way to the member for Brennan, and within months he had lost the leadership.
One difference in this whole equation is the member for Port Darwin. I do not believe he will be giving up his little seat there as the Leader of Opposition Business very quickly - you are the only obstacle, really, standing between the member for Fong Lim and that seat there. It will be interesting to see. I will be observing.
Once again, this demonstrates the recurrent problems within the CLP over a long period of time, from 2004 onwards. It illustrates again the very weak leadership of the member for Blain who cannot control his troops on important issues like statehood; moreover, he cannot communicate with them. I believe the member for Brennan, genuinely, at one level, had not been spoken to or brought through the process, so he exercised his right as a member of this Assembly to stand up and say: ‘I am not comfortable with this’. But, it is just a recurrent theme.
Here is a man who allegedly took the CLP from the brink of extinction to the brink of victory, but since then, as before, it has been an unravelling strand for him because I do not believe he has what it takes. I do not believe he has what it takes to form a team and to exert leadership and discipline, because this is essential in politics. It is essential in this parliament to have discipline within the team, and you do not have it. Although you are lining up for the next election, the biggest challenge for you is your leadership and the lack of discipline.
I tell you what, if you were to flop over the line and get into power, it would be a real problem in your Cabinet, and it would be completely dysfunctional. That is all I have to say about it, and will I table it. People can read it for themselves.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Could we have Hansard record that under the science fiction category, please?
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order, resume your seat, thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Speaker, tonight I wish to compliment and congratulate various students and various young people in my electorate for their achievements over the last few months. There have been many students over the last year who have done wonderful things in sporting, arts, theatre and other recreational activities. I would like to acknowledge some recent ones that have come to my attention, and come to me for various forms of support.
The first person, I would like to compliment for his selection is Dean Fry. Dean has been chosen to represent the Northern Territory in the school sports Under 13 cricket team, and he is going to be travelling to Cobram and Barooga in January next year. He is a Grade 6 student at the Sattler Christian College and, apart from coming to my office, he has also undertaken various fundraising activities because it is a big excursion down south, and a big cost impost to the families. I congratulate him for his selection to that team. I know the young cricketers who go from the Northern Territory do well, and I have wished him well, and I also wish him well now - and his team, of course, and I hope they do succeed and bring back many trophies, if not, many memories.
The second person I acknowledge and offer my congratulations to is a young girl, Stevie Kyriacou. She recently undertook what was called a camel trek. It was just an extraordinary adventure, and she sent me a letter and also various photographs. I will read into Hansard the letter she sent me, because it was very nice of her to come back to me and tell me how her trip went:
- The camel trek was brilliant. I learnt so much, I know I am capable of so much more than I thought. We left for Adelaide at 2 am …
Which is pretty tough, given her age:
- … and arrived there at 6 am. We spent a day and a night in a scout hall accommodation, then hopped onto a bus to the Flinders Ranges. The bus driver was very nice and let us eat, drink and play our music on the bus.
There were three cameleers, John, Steve and AJ. Bob was our teacher. I thought we would be walking up to 12 km a day. I was wrong. We walked an average of 15 km a day, and a maximum of 17 km. We walked alongside the camels, and we had half hour rides after lunch. Three children at the same time on different camels. The camels were much bigger than riding ones in Broome.
Clearly, she had also done an excursion to Broome in Western Australia:
- We camped in river beds mostly. A big tarp was laid down for the children to sleep on and the adults and the cameleers went to sleep near the fire. Every night the camels had to be unpacked, hobbled and packed up again in the morning. It was extremely cold at night and in the morning. I would say it got down to 5 degrees at night and 20 during the day.
Bob, our teacher, was awesome. He pointed out the constellation of the stars and many geological facts.
Which is good, because apart from having fun they obviously learnt many things along the way, which I know was part of the overall plan of such an excursion.
We learnt to handle the camels, and how to pack and unpack camp. Once we lost one of the cameleers, who could not find his way back to us, and we were low on water. So the children had to dig a well at the campsite, while the adults sent smoke signals and blew on whistles, in the hope that Steve would find his way back, which he soon did …
We were so amazed when we got back to civilization, but unfortunately our first shower was three minutes long and had to be paid for. We took the bus back to Adelaide. The second bus driver was so nice, as the first.
We ate dinner in Adelaide and took the 10 pm flight back to Darwin. I learnt so much from the camel trek, and would do the whole thing any day.
Yours sincerely
Stevie Kyriacou
The photos, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, are great, and clearly, they had a lot of fun. Young Stevie and her mum did come into my office, and gave me the letter and photographs, and I say good on them. I hope she has the opportunity to do further trips like that in the future because it really does embrace life for them, and also expands their extracurricular activities in regards to what they learn in the normal school.
I also compliment and congratulation two students. I feel for families when they have children who are really talented, such as this family - Andrew and Chris, and Alison Heinz, their mum. Andrew and Chris have both been selected to play in soccer championships at Coffs Harbour; and they are going down for the Australian Youth Championships, in their respective age groups. I know they have done well in past years, and I know they will do well again. They are both very talented; they play for the Litchfield Football Club, and have done since they were young fellows, about six or seven-years old.
It is good they are involved in a recreational and sporting activity, and the parents and the family support them and, of course, the club supports them. Congratulations to them, as well. That is all I have to say at this point in time for those families. There is much more, but I will leave it at that for now.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start off tonight with acknowledgement of a recent, incredible production from Alice Springs called Close to Me. This is a real acknowledgement of the students and staff from the Acacia Hill School.
The performance was at the Araluen Arts Centre to a packed house. The students of Acacia Hill, combined with other community members, represented performers in an outstanding show, Close to Me. There was an incredible level of support from families and carers of all the performers in the show. A special mention goes to Insight Youth Arts manager, Virginia Hayward, for the production and the creative input into something that really worked, not only for the students of Acacia Hill, but for all the people involved, and the audiences.
One anecdote from Alice Springs was quite a number of schools attended the performance, and the behaviour of those schoolchildren was exemplary. That was noted by the staff at Araluen Arts Centre who have had a few challenging moments with school students in audiences in the past. They did notice, at this particular performance, those schoolkids were outstanding in their behaviour, their focus, their support, and their celebration of what was a fantastic show.
Arts Access Central Australia, an unincorporated group working in arts and disability, also need to be acknowledged for their incredible role in the production Close to Me.
The Acacia Hill School Principal, Mr Mark Killen, and all the staff of Acacia Hill School, congratulations and well done on an exciting arts and education project which shows the benefits of fusion in curriculum delivery when you put arts thoroughly into education.
The broader Alice Springs disability community need to be acknowledged as well for their support, as well as the dance director and the team of 10 dancers. The director, Ms Kat Worth, was a great mentor who led the students in the production, and they certainly would be celebrating the results. The musicians, representing local identities, were Stephanie Harrison and Danila Rainbow - apparently the music was sensational and supported the show. And I acknowledge Greg Thompson, the Araluen Technical Manager, for his work.
The community have sent me some absolutely beautiful photos, and I am going to table those with the adjournment notes, because they really do need to be put on the public record to show just what a wonderful performance it was – not only a wonderful production, but a wonderful project - where Acacia Hill School Principal, staff, parents, and students got together and pulled off what is an incredible arts and education initiative.
At the bottom, it says Insight would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Department of Natural Resources, Environments, the Arts and Sport and, in particular, Arts NT, for their generous support of this project, which is a great acknowledgement, as well. I will table that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Tonight I acknowledge and thank another of the Territory’s long-term public servants, Mr Phil Scholz who retired from the Northern Territory Public Service today after 32 years of service.
Phil began working with the Northern Territory Public Service on 26 November 1979 as a fleet mechanic with the Department of Education. In July 1988, Phil transferred to the then Department of Transport and Works in Darwin to take on the role of Transport Inspector, carrying out vehicle inspections and on-road heavy vehicle enforcement activity. In 1994, Phil was permanently appointed to position of Vehicle Compliance Officer - Authorised Inspectors. Phil has since held this position with the Department of Lands and Planning, and has provided technical support and monitored the activities of some 360 authorised inspectors across the Territory.
Phil is highly regarded by his colleagues and those in the automotive industry as one who always carried out his duties in a professional manner, focusing on getting the job done. I thank Phil for his valued service and commitment to the Northern Territory and, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, I wish him all the best in the future.
I acknowledge the departments I work with as a minister in the Henderson government, starting with the Department of Lands and Planning: the Chief Executive, David Ritchie; and the Executive team - Executive Directors: Business Services - Tracey Scott; Lands - Leah Croke; Planning - David Malone; Transport - Sharron Noske; Acting Executive Director Regions - Ann Jacobs; and Land Development Corporation - John Coleman.
I was looking at a summary of the work which has been completed in the last 12 months by the Department of Lands and Planning and it truly is an incredible body of work when you start to aggregate the innovative and dynamic projects that have been undertaken and worked through by an excellent department of the Northern Territory Public Service. I mentioned the executive team, but also all those hard working members of the Department of Land and Planning who support their executives and support me and government. It truly is an outstanding effort.
David Ritchie is an incredible Territorian who not only comes with this amazing level of intelligence to the job, but is a dynamic Territory guy with a heap of experience. I love swapping yarns with him whenever we get the chance, sometimes taking over the meeting, but it always seems to be of interest because people do not complain; they actually enjoy the yarns.
At the Department of Construction and Infrastructure: Chief Executive, Al Wagner, and Deputy Chief Executive, Mike Chiodo, and the Executive team - Executive Directors: Corporate Services - Lisa Watson; Infrastructure Services - Cate Lawrence; Regions - Don Dowling; Professional Services - Graham Coles; and Construction - Bob Pemble. They are an incredible mob. They are basically building the Territory with record infrastructure budgets, and are a delight to work with. There are some incredible people there. I acknowledge all those public servants who support the executive team, and big Al, the Chief Executive. It is a pleasure to be able to watch infrastructure rising out of the ground with the firm hand and guidance of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure.
I would just like to mention that I do travel a great deal, I do make many comments, and I know the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s Chief Executive and the staff take those in good faith. I am sure I am discussed around the water cooler and in the lunchrooms as ‘that politician out there again and his e-mail reports’, but it is all working as a team - it is a great team, and they do a great job.
The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport: I really enjoy working with the minister, the Honourable Karl Hampton, and I get to work in that incredible Arts area with Chief Executive, Mr Jim Grant, and the executive team: Executive Directors: Libraries, Dr Diana Leeder; Arts and Culture; Mr Hugo Leschen; and Business Services - Susan Kirkman. What a team that is, and we do a lot of work. There are many great things happening in arts and culture across the Northern Territory. We also have big plans. We certainly have the support of the arts community and the wider community. I thank all the members of Arts NT and all those hard-working public servants who support our work.
The Department of Justice: I acknowledge the Chief Executive Officer, Greg Shanahan; Deputy Chief Executive Officer - Business Strategy and Performance - Anne Bradford; and Executive Director NT Correctional Services - Ken Middlebrook. What a great team they are to work with. The work we do there is incredible, because it is working with the disadvantaged of the Territory; it is about turning lives around. I acknowledge the incredible work Ken Middlebrook has done over a long time.
Darwin Port Corporation: Acting Chief Executive Officer, Terry O’Connor, and Executive team: General Manager Corporate Services - Melissa Reiter; Chief Financial Officer - Anne Coulter; Acting General Manager Landside Operations - Matthew Phillips; Engineering Manager - Alastair Black; General Manager Marine Services - Captain John Ellyett; General Manager City Wharves - Peter Raines; and Outsourced Legal Counsel - Tanya Ling.
To all those hard working port workers as well, because this is an exciting part of the Territory’s growth and those guys are down there on the front line, the real gateway to Asia. They are accepting the resources from inland areas of the Northern Territory, and sending them out, as well as taking the incoming - they are a very important link in the future of this place. They do a fantastic job on the waterfront.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to work with these public sector employees throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, after hearing the member for Johnston provide some unusual and quite disturbing analyses, it shows the mind and the attention of the minster - and the minds of too many members opposite - as we have seen in the last couple of days, is in the wrong place.
Sitting in the gallery this evening is a man who I am proud to stand and give a representation to, and his story. This is a man who has made appeals to members of the Labor government to get his message heard. This is a man who took the government to court and won. This government has many members who have had the opportunity to respond and do the right thing, and have turned their backs. They have been given plenty of opportunity.
When it comes to issues of natural justice, these are matters of great importance, and I would have thought the member for Johnston who has particular responsibility here, rather than spend his time with nonsense that produces nothing but perhaps some strange delight for that unusual man, his attention should be turned towards things that actually matter or make a difference to people who have been hurt by the inaction and the careless approach taken by members who have been approached.
I give reference specifically to the member for Karama, then the Attorney-General, who was directly approached with a matter of serious concern - and washed her hands. The member for Casuarina, hail-fellow-well-met, has been approached on a number of occasions on this matter, which I will refer to in a moment, but once the acid is on, he is missing in action. There is an e-mail stream of dialogue that dries up once the pressure is on and responsibility is sought to do something more than say: ‘G’day, how are things going, and what can I do to help?’ Once a serious matter is lodged - gone.
The member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister, has also been involved in this, not directly, but through an advisor, and that is usually the way things operate with the Chief Minister and, as I said, the member for Johnston.
This is a story of a man, and I am pleased to hear that the previous speaker spoke about the public service – this is about the public service. This is a man who served in the public service, in the Fire Service, who applied for a position and won that position lawfully; and then had that position which had been won, appealed against. That appeal was successful. However, it was thought this was not the appropriate action, having won it lawfully in the first place. Now, there is the opportunity for some recourse.
Then, the person who held the position initially sought a solution, feeling something wrong had occurred. So a solution was sought, and this is why I am happy to stand for this man, because this is a man who I can discern has tried to do the right thing every step of the way, and I am prepared to stand up for people like that. He sought a practical solution which did not involve the litigious approach, it involved trying to get this matter of injustice, the overturning of a position that had been lawfully won, redressed, one way or another.
There was no request for money. There was a request for an intervention and a solution to a problem. The problem not being dealt with obviously has a compounding effect in the public service, in this case, the Fire Service. When you have two members who, for one reason or another, are put at odds with each other, you need another party to come in and assist. This man sought to have the matter resolved because, one, natural justice had to be served; and two, a process needed to be restored so people could have confidence in the process but, more importantly, it affects members of the service itself and it places stress on those who work in the service.
What is their core business? It is providing safety in our community. They do not need to have their energy consumed with such matters. Having sought some solution and none was found, a letter was written to then Attorney-General who said: ‘I cannot do anything’. No! You could do something if you had taken the time to weigh this up and respond as you should have. But no. Then there was no choice other than the member to take, not the OCPE to court, but the Territory government to court, to the Supreme Court, to appeal this matter.
The good member of the public service warned the government there was a likelihood of it losing. Who pays for legal actions that are funded by the Labor government, or any government? It is the taxpayer, ultimately. It is taxpayers’ money that is being put at risk. There was a very good sense that the government could well lose, and they were warned of this. They lost; and there has been a significant cost incurred as a result of that. They were warned, but they did not care. It appears to me that the members who had been approached, including the now Attorney-General, could not care less having greater care for the system, they want to protect the system, rather than to do the right thing, and we foot the bill.
This whole process has resulted in a cost somewhere in the order of $200 000 and, as a consequence, no natural justice served.
The people involved are still tied up in a process that has served them poorly, that the Supreme Court has judged to be flawed and needs to be addressed; and the lack of leadership and intervention by the Territory government has resulted in compounding stress and problems within the service because member is against member. Members of the Fire Service have had to go to court to speak on this matter. You can only imagine what that does.
There has been the opportunity provided for the government to respond to this, including the current Attorney-General, but there has been no adequate response, So, we now have a citizen who has no other place to go than have his message spoken of in the Territory parliament, and I hope there will be good officers of the media who will now be able to take this matter up so the right thing can be done.
What we now have are the Supreme Court judges say the process was flawed, took the government to court, government lost, and the person who held the position originally now has been reinstated to that position. However, in the three intervening years, whilst this process went backwards and forwards and every effort was made to try to fix it, the other person who appealed and won the position held that position for three years. The Supreme Court says: ‘No, the original decision was wrong, we need to revert.’
But the person who held that position for three years now has the opportunity to appeal the decision and use the experience gained in those three years to mount an appeal based on their capacity to hold the position because of the experience gained in the three years they should not have held that position, because the Supreme Court judged the original process was incorrect, and we now have a compounding problem.
All could have been dealt with by a genuine response from the members opposite who had been approached respectfully and there had been no intent, from every assessment I have made, to find a litigious solution to this, of trying to find a way money could be gained due to some broken system. No, those calls had been ignored, no intervention, no response, a washing of the hands, a turning of the back, the protection of the system, and a denial of natural justice at great expense to Territorians - $200 000 plus in legal fees, and the dust still has not settled on that.
I am now calling upon the member for Johnston, who has time on his hands to go trawling back to 2004 and do his own strange analysis of things in the past and project them onto the present, and give us the benefit of his assessment, to spend some time considering the matters I raise and ask for a genuine response to these matters, of which he is well aware. If he is unaware of them - find out.
He could find out from the former Attorney-General, he could find out from the current Attorney-General, he could find out from the Chief Minister, who has had dealings through one of his advisors, he could find out from the member for Casuarina who has been approached a number of times on this matter. He could find out from any one of them.
There should be, and there must be, a genuine response to this case, not only because of the denial of natural justice; the failure to show adequate care by members of this government; the cost it has incurred, which still has not been settled; but also because the lack of leadership has caused damage to the service. Because, as a result of this inadequate response to the situation, members of the service are at enmity with one another because the process the Supreme Court identified as being the problem, and caused them to decide against the government, is still in existence. We still have the problem.
I am calling upon any member, but particularly the member responsible for the public service, to give a response tomorrow. Do not tell me it is just a technicality, you know darn well it is not a technicality ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about two reports that were tabled in parliament today: the Annual Report 2010-11 of the Northern Territory Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee, and the Annual Report 2010-11 by the Children’s Commissioner of the Northern Territory.
First, the Northern Territory Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee. This report was very interesting and it highlights there were 44 child deaths in the Northern Territory in the last year. Children are defined between the ages of zero and 17 years. A total of 53% of these deaths were of infants - that is, children below the age of 12 months – and 66% of these children were Aboriginal. This, believe it or not, was a slight improvement from last year.
Three deaths in the last year were caused by intentional self-harm or suicide, which is a very alarming figure. This situation where children are committing suicide is something this parliament has touched on briefly. We have certainly talked about youth suicide. However, this raises the need to look at suicide in children - defined as people below the age of 17 years - 17 years and under.
This report illustrates we still have very high infant mortality rates in the Northern Territory; it is dropping slightly, over the last four years it has gone from 30 per year, to 31, to 29, to 29 and last year it was at 24. This is a very interesting report, which gives some insight into child deaths in the Northern Territory.
I pay tribute to the Children’s Commissioner for his Annual Report 2010–11. This report documents the business of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner; some of his duties involve the monitoring of government decisions arising from the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, and he also monitors the administration of the Care and Protection of Children Act insofar as it pertains to protected children. He conducts practice reviews, and he manages complains that come to him regarding vulnerable children in the Northern Territory.
I highlight some interesting points the Children’s Commissioner raised in this report; there are quite a few in here. Some of the things that stood out to me include the Children’s Commissioner has now been monitoring the Little Children are Sacred report recommendations for the last four years. In the last year, the 2009–10 year period, he monitored 42 of the recommendations and, last year, 2010-11, he monitored 55 of those recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report. Interestingly enough, he highlighted that some areas rated lower this year than in the previous year.
One of those areas he highlighted is the rehabilitation for serious sexual offenders. He said services provided in this area have actually suffered a decline which would indicate, as competition for resources within the child protection sector increases, competing policy priorities emerge and some areas may suffer as a result. He suggests treatment for sexual offenders has, in the last year, suffered as a result.
He also talks about care plans for children remain far below acceptable standards and required levels under the legislation and the policies and procedures of the Department of Children and Families. Less than half of the sampled care plans did not comply with the provisions in the act, or the Department of Children and Families’ policies and procedures. The government is really dragging its heels when it comes to care plans for children in the care of the department. He highlights the need for better family support services, which have also been highlighted in several independent inquiries into child protection over the last few years.
Interestingly, too, he talks about the Northern Territory Emergency Response, particularly the income-management provision. The child protection measure of income-management involves authorised child protection officers referring individuals for income-management; for compulsory management of their Centrelink payments, in some cases.
He assesses, and I quote: ‘Child protection measure of income-management will not have negative consequences, but will enhance the person’s management of their Centrelink benefits and that that individual has been consulted and understands the nature of the child protection measure of income management’. This report is suggesting that income-management, when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory, does not have negative consequences. This should be of interest to all Territorians, given the debate about income-management over the last few years.
I applaud the Children’s Commissioner and his office for this excellent report. He is a lone soldier when it comes to assessing and monitoring the implementation of the Little Children are Sacred report recommendations. He is a lone soldier because, as we know, the Ombudsman was taken out of the equation this year by the government; the Ombudsman’s office no longer investigates complaints regarding child protection. She was cut off at the knees and marginalised and told that she is no longer required to do that.
Contrary to the undertaking by the government, they did not give the Children’s Commissioner the job of monitoring the implementation of the growing them strong, together report recommendations - the 147 recommendations that came out of that report - that was given to a new body the government set up called the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. This committee has not undertaken any type of formal assessment of how the government is implementing the recommendations of that report.
This Children’s Commissioner report does a splendid job of identifying the recommendations, identifying the Northern Territory government’s response; it gives a progress report, and it gives an assessment of the outcome – how they are travelling. It is a very clear and concise report written in an impartial and fair manner, and it is undertaken in a fairly scientific manner.
It has its limitations, which are listed very clearly, but I think it is fantastic that the Children’s Commissioner is still able to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report. It is a failing of this government that the Children’s Commissioner is not monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the growing them strong, together report. It shows a great lack of judgement and an inclination by the government to avoid accountability of how it goes about reforming the child protection system.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend these two reports to the parliament. I believe the Children’s Commissioner and his office, his staff, are doing an excellent job. This report is really a great indication of what can be done in terms of honest, impartial and scientific reporting when it comes to child protection. I believe the government should be using this as an example of how they should move forward, and they should expect the same requirements from the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. However, I fear that this government is too paralysed with its own mission to cover-up and to hide from the honest truth when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on record my thanks to people around my electorate, and also recognise contributions of some people who have done some great things throughout the year.
The first person I acknowledge is a fantastic Catholic nun in my electorate who was my teacher and my mentor, and she is still my teacher and my mentor. She has been on the Tiwi Islands for 57 years. Recently, on 19 October, there was recognition of the support of the Diocese of Darwin, and there was a dedication in Rome which was officially opened on 22 October. Bishop Eugene Hurley, the Bishop of the Diocese of Darwin, was delighted with the dedication of Sister Anne Gardiner, who was appointed to Bathurst Island in 1953 and has served there for 57 years.
I know Sister Anne is greatly loved by the Tiwi Islanders and has led a lifetime of dedication and living out the motto of the Sisters: ‘May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be everywhere loved’. For me and many of the Tiwis, I call her Maningo in Tiwi, which is like grandmother, and for me she is an inspiration. I have been ticked off, or growled at, or been disciplined by Sister Anne a couple of times. Recently, when my name was in the NT News and I went to the island, she told me what she thought of my bad behaviour in parliament!
I join with Bishop Eugene Hurley in congratulating Sister Anne for her invaluable contribution to the community of the Tiwi Islands, and her dedication to the people over there. She has given them great love, and I have seen over many years when she has opened, not just her heart, but her home. Everyone on the Tiwi Islands feels a sense of closeness and gratitude with Sister Anne. So I do congratulate her.
I also put on record that I rang the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council today to express my condolences on his loss of his eldest daughter who has been sick for some time. I do not always agree with my leaders on the Tiwi Land Council, but it is true that we are always united by grief. We have to get beyond that, and be able to sit down and have a mature discussion. I rang Robert today to express my condolences, and to wish him all the best for Christmas.
I will be going to the Tiwi Islands after these sittings, and when I get the youth suicide meetings out of the way, before Christmas to wish everyone well for Christmas, and that we all go into the Christmas period and the New Year together because when I look at the Tiwi Islands, and around my electorate, there has been just so much grief amongst our families.
Every year as we head towards Christmas and the New Year I always hope and pray that we are going to start the year off and not see the deaths and the grief and the funerals that often become a normal part of the process in the community; that this will not be the case.
I am looking forward to getting out of here, finishing off the meetings and getting around to my fantastic electorate, starting off with the Tiwi Islands.
I acknowledge Stuart Dwyer, Principal of Maningrida CEC, and all the teachers and the hard working staff. Despite a lot of carping and people saying there have not been results, I have watched Maningrida CEC going from around 30% to 40% attendance rates to this year where Stuart and the staff have got the attendance rates up to 70%. It is still not ideal, but up to 70% shows there are some small steps being made. Of the leaders in the community, I acknowledge Reggie Wurridjal and others, as well as the government Business Manager, Mr Chris Davies, and many of the organisations in Maningrida starting to work with families and others to look at the issue and tell parents they have to take some responsibility.
I was listening to the member for Macdonnell, and I agree, governments can throw money and we can put all the infrastructure there but, at the end of the day, much of that responsibility has to be taken by our families. I acknowledge there are some hard-working and fantastic families in Maningrida and there are some parents who do want to turn this around.
At Croker Island I want to put on record Auntie Mary Yamirr and Daisy Yamirr, and all the school community. I was there two weeks ago with the federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, opening the cyclone shelter and the extension to the school at Croker Island, which was constructed under the BER. It was also good to see the commitment the Northern Territory government had made to the airstrip. For many years that community did not have a sealed airstrip. Now it has a sealed airstrip and lighting. Every year, in the Wet Season, medical evacuations could not be done from that community, and people’s lives were put at risk. Deaths did happen in that community where people could not be evacuated in time because of the nature of the airstrip. So it was great to see that airstrip sealed.
To Bunung Galaminda and Jenny Umaggulla, and all my constituents at Warruwi, it will be good to get out there and have a look at the SIHIP refurbishments that have taken place.
The community I have left for last is Gunbalanya. I have a very soft spot for Gunbalanya, particularly the Principal, Esther Djayhgurrnga, who the member for Macdonnell knows - I took the woman from the desert out to Gunbalanya. It was interesting to see the photo on the front page of the NT News the other day where the car went off Cahills Crossing. I go across that crossing all the time and that can happen if you are inexperienced and do not know the crossing. I took the member for Macdonnell across there, and the crocodiles were snapping at that time. I acknowledge Esther Djayhgurrnga and, Sue Trimble, and all the staff at Gunbalanya CEC, who have done a fantastic job.
I absolutely worship Esther; she does a great job, a local Aboriginal woman from that community who has to carry so much of the burden for that community. I cannot wait to see her; I will be out there for the school Christmas function on 12 December, and I look forward to handing out, right across my electorate, my local member prizes for school attendance, and giving vouchers to kids who have attended; and there are many who have attended consistently. I am looking forward to rewarding those young people who have stuck it out all year and are looking forward to progressing another year forward next year. So, good luck.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a number of things; first, about restitution orders and their importance for the Northern Territory, particularly the victims of crime who are continuing to increase in numbers.
From what we have seen in the six monthly crime figures, on a comparison basis between the 2005 to 2011 figures for Alice Springs, there is a 307% increase in property crime. These property crimes are shared across many victims, including residents of houses, and business owners alike.
Many people would be unaware that the court has the ability and, on many occasions, actually makes an order for restitution for victims of crime by those offenders. I encourage the courts to continue to make more and more orders. Recent legislative changes have now put in place a process that allows the Territory’s Fines Recovery Unit to process those restitution orders. However, one of the concerns I have about this process is, while prosecutors may be asking for restitution orders to be made, the victims of these crimes - whether they are business property owners, or other victims of crime - are not always advised that these orders are made. In many cases where these restitution orders are made, and the victims are made aware of those orders, it is a costly exercise to recover the order of restitution. So, I believe the process of the Fines Recovery Unit being able to recover the fines for the victim appears to be a good measure to put in place.
I encourage the courts to request, advise, or otherwise, prosecutors to inform the victims of crime what the restitution orders are, and the process of recovering the financial component of those orders.
The reason I raise this is because there are too many victims of crime who are receiving no compensation, or no value back from those people who commit those crimes, whether it is a smashed window, a torn off roof, a smashed wall, or whatever it may be, the business or property owner, household or otherwise, is continuing to spend, hand over fist, money for repairs of the criminal damage that has taken place.
I encourage the courts to put in place more restitution orders. I encourage the courts, when placing those restitution orders, to encourage the prosecutors to advise the victims that those orders have been made. I also encourage the Fines Recovery Unit to seek recovery of those funds and give them back to the victims of the crimes.
Second, I will briefly talk about the response to a question by the member for Nelson to the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing, particularly about SIHIP refurbishments being undertaken on Aboriginal communities where there are five-year leases in place. I understand the five-year leases will be finalised, or coming to an end, in August next year.
That represents a challenge for both the Territory and federal governments because a large part of their platform, particularly as part of the growth town policy, that no resources for capital expenditure will go anywhere there is no lease in place. When that lease term expires, there is a real question hanging over the head of government about what it does with those assets on communities.
We know there has been a stalling process by some land councils not wanting to venture into further lease negotiations, and that raises particular concerns for those communities, and more so for both the Territory and federal Labor governments, because a large part of their platform for the future of Indigenous communities and investment in those communities has been about security of tenure, and part of that has been about leasing arrangements, five-year or otherwise.
I have significant concerns that the government’s Indigenous affairs policy will unravel come August next year when those leases are possibly not renewed, and there have been no overarching leases put in place. What the future for investment in Indigenous communities is with those leases under question remains in doubt, and I would encourage the land councils, and the Territory and federal governments to work on a resolution to this issue; whether that be leasing or policy resolution into the future. Otherwise, we are going to see a lack of management of those assets, and a clear lack of direction on the long-term policy objectives.
Finally, a couple of people I would like to thank coming up to Christmas time. First, I would like to thank my wife, Tamara, and Tahlia for all the support they have given me in the family confines in my job that I have. I believe I am the most travelled member of the Country Liberals, because I am from Alice Springs, and that has a big impact on my family, being away for parliamentary, party, and shadow ministry obligations. So, I thank Tamara and Tahlia.
I thank Tanya Turner, my electorate officer, and Karen Jones, my temporary electorate officer, for doing a fantastic job in supporting me on a regular basis.
I thank Terry Mills and his office. His office staff: Karen Gutteridge, Bonnie Hageman, Belinda Dukic, Col Fuller, Lawson Broad, Mike Delosa, Paul McLaughlin, Francine Tomsen, Cam Smith, and Leanne Britton for all the support they provide to me and my colleagues.
I thank my colleagues from the Country Liberals, and I welcome the member for Macdonnell, Alison Anderson. It is great to have Alison as a friend, first of all, and a colleague, to be part of our team.
I also thank the members for Sanderson and Goyder, in particular, for their strong personal support over the last 12 months and the member for Fong Lim who has become more than a political colleague, but someone I call a friend - which is very hard to find in politics. As John Howard said: ‘If you want a friend in politics, get a dog.’ Dave has been a fantastic mate of mine.
I also thank the member for Nelson. We do not always see eye-to-eye on many issues and I have been critical of his position on a couple of things in the past, and that will continue, but he is a bloke who has good principles and values for the party, and supports the Territory, like the rest of us.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues on the other side. Some of them, I have a great deal of respect for, and I really enjoy working in this fiery environment at certain times. I had a chat to some people in Tennant Creek recently and they spoke about some failures of the Labor government and they asked what has been going wrong. I said: ‘For a period of time we did not have a very strong opposition to hold government to account, and I think we are in that position now’. No matter who wins the next Territory election, strong opposition demands strong government, and that is the position we are in now.
I thank all the people who work in Hansard for the hard work they do, their tenacious efforts in writing up what we say. I apologise for the times when I yell into the microphone too loudly. I thank the library, particularly Di Sinclair, who has been a tower of strength for me. I thank those in the Legislative Assembly administrative component, particularly Vicki Long, Corinna, and Mary-Anne who help me greatly.
I thank the constituents of the electorate of Braitling who provide me with a great amount of support, and also the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia more broadly, who spend time talking to me and supporting me and, I, in turn support those people.
I thank the Country Liberals Alice Springs branch, the executive committee and all the members. I will not name those people. I also thank the Country Liberals Party: President, Sue Fraser-Adams; and Director, Peter Allen; and the management committee that do a great job.
To all those people in the media who hold us to account and also provide us support, thank you very much for your time; no matter who they are but, particularly, people like Anna Henderson and Alyson Horn from the ABC; Alyssa Betts from the NT News; Erin Jones from the Centralian Advocate; Erwin Chlanda from the Alice Springs News; Daryl Manzie from Territory FM; Pete Davies from 104.9, and the list goes on.
I also thank the staff from the Sub Leg Committee that supports me and the member for Drysdale, Ross Bohlin, for the hard work they do. In particular, I thank Michael White and the Alice Springs Police, the Fire Services and volunteers, the ambulance officers and the prisoner officers. Being based in Alice Springs, being part of the community, is a very tough environment. Crime and law and order are a continuing concern, and those staff on the front line does a fantastic job of protecting and serving the people of Alice Springs.
I wish everyone a good Christmas, safe and prosperous travels, and a happy New Year.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to very quickly reiterate some of the comments made by the member for Braitling.
I place on the record my thanks to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s office: Paul McLaughlin, Cam Smith, Mike Delosa, Lawson Broad, Bonnie Hageman, Leanne Britton, Karen Gutteridge, Belinda Dukic, Francine ‘Frankenstein’ Tomsen and Col Fuller. Thank you all for your help; I am very much obliged and indebted to you. Without you, my job and the job of the opposition as a whole would become much more difficult.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to celebrate a new book by John Strehlow, called The Tale of Frieda Keysser, which will be launched tomorrow evening at the Strehlow Research Centre in Alice Springs.
The author, John Strehlow, was born in Adelaide in 1946 and lived in the Northern Territory from 1972 to 1975. He is the son of Ted Strehlow, and the grandson of Carl Strehlow. His own personal histories, merged with the history of Hermannsburg Mission, ensured this book is a historical biography about the author’s grandfather and grandmother, Carl Strehlow and Frieda Keysser. I quote here from the summary of the book:
- Late in the afternoon of 2 July 1894, the Horn Scientific Expedition had reached the abandoned Mission Station of Hermannsburg eighty miles west of Alice Spring and Oxford educated Baldwin Spencer, professor of biology at Melbourne University - later author and world expert on the Aranda tribe - looked at its collapsing buildings and population ravaged by syphilis and dismissed the work of the mission as a mistake. The Aranda would be extinct within a hundred years, he predicted. Darwin’s theories made this a foregone conclusion. The Australian aborigine was fated to vanish off the face off the earth.
Three months later, Carl (now aged 22) arrived to revitalise Hermannsburg - and proved Spencer wrong.
This is the story of Carl and Frieda’s life together, their travels, their triumphs, their sorrows and their joys; the tale of a man and a woman who set out to make the impossible come true - and succeeded where others had failed, regenerating this broken community despite the turbulence of the period, while bringing up six healthy children themselves.
This is also a tale of strange experiences for life was hard and often short, and sometimes there was bloodshed. The frontier age was passing, but the Mission Station remained cut off from the rest of the world. The railhead at Oodnadatta was a two week buggy ride away and medical help non-existent, so they sent five of their children to Germany for the sake of their education. Although the drift to the telegraph station, the cattle stations and the railway line had begun, the aborigines were still largely nomadic. Blood-feud killings were normal, and fights. The ancient tribal ceremonies lived on; and even those who converted had strange visions, receiving hymns from angels, they said, and much else they refused to disclose.
Through it all, Carl was opposed at every turn by Spencer, who did everything in his power to discredit him being consumed with professional jealousy, to further his understanding of the people he worked with. Carl had exhaustedly researched every aspect of their lives and, in the process, came up with findings different from Spencer. These were published, causing a furore in anthropological circles in London. Yet no matter how hard Spencer tried to destroy Carl, he continued from strength to strength. Most annoying of all, the aboriginal population of the Mission was increasing: Spencer’s ‘doomed race’ thesis was wrong.
People who have only lived with Arrernte for a few years cannot understand the connection between the Arrernte and the missionaries. For those of us who grew up with missionary history in Central Australia, there is never a bad word said about the missionaries. We are still grateful for the opportunities they gave us.
This book provides a lesson for anthropologists, past and present. Anthropologists always need to be careful about the assumptions they make, especially since there is often no one except their peers to check their work. This book calls into question some things that have been written earlier about Hermannsburg. I hope that many Arrernte people show up for the launch tomorrow evening, and give John Strehlow encouragement.
I congratulate Mr Strehlow on the completion of a thorough documentation of a piece of our shared history in Central Australia. I hope and pray that this book helps correct the negative portrayals of the Lutheran missionaries put forward over the years.
I take this opportunity also to wish my electorate a safe and happy Christmas, and I hope that everyone looks after each other. It is a time to spend with families, look after the children, look after the oldies, and have fun, but do not consume too much alcohol, and do not drive while you are drinking. Make sure you go to all the lovely waterholes we have in the countryside, and take your families out there and look after them. Respect your country, and make sure this is a time of giving, and a time of sharing with your family.
I take this opportunity to thank the Legislative Assembly, our Hansard staff, and the library. I take this opportunity now to thank my new colleagues, the Country Liberals, and thank Terry Mills; and also take this opportunity to thank the government. As the member for Braitling said, we can throw rubbish across at each other while we are inside this House, but there are times when we need to acknowledge each other and respect each other. The member for Johnston always says this is a place where we act, and pass legislation, but we need to respect each other; and I certainly do.
I say thank you to my electorate officer Kathy McConnell, and thank Kathy for the things she does for me, and the friendship we have, and that it will continue.
I also take this opportunity to send a message to the people in Alice Springs, because there are so many people coming in from my electorate, and other electorates, to access services in Alice Springs. We need to have common courtesy for each other, common respect, and make sure that we look after the town, where we all access services.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, before I start I would like to agree with the member for Braitling about his comments on restitution orders.
For some time over the years there has been much debate about mandatory sentencing, something which I do not support, but I do support mandatory punishment which is an area that fits in nicely with restitution. So, if someone damages something, in many cases it is not worth sending that person to prison, it costs a great deal of money, but the real punishment is for that person to repay the damage they have done, perhaps with interest.
It can be difficult, because people may be young; they might be unemployed, but I believe the cost to the person who has suffered the damage is not always covered by someone going to prison. Their insurance goes up, they have the inconvenience of the damage to their property and I believe restitution orders are something that should be used more and more, because what it says to someone is: if you do something wrong, then you will have to be responsible for your actions. Which restitution is about.
I thank also my constituency, the electorate of Nelson. First of all, I wish all the soldiers in my electorate, whether they are in Robertson Barracks or overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Timor, a very happy Christmas and a safe New Year. I have a very special electorate because of the large number of soldiers within it and, although it is very hard to have personal contact with many of those soldiers, because they get moved fairly regularly, I do my best to at least acknowledge the dangerous work they do. I believe Territorians support our Defence Forces. Occasionally, you hear bad comments, but you can hear bad comments about anyone in society; I do not know why people pick on our soldiers sometimes. We have to recognise they have a very dangerous job, and we know that by the number of soldiers who have not returned. We need to ensure we wish them a happy Christmas, as a community, supporting what they are doing in trying to bring peace. As we know, Christmas is about peace on this earth.
There are also large numbers of community people in my electorate. One of the great things about Nelson, it has so many sporting groups, so many community groups, and I wish all those people who volunteer their time for committees - and that is not always easy, because it is sometimes very hard to get people to volunteer. They are part of the fabric of our society, our community and if we did not have these groups and volunteers, we would not have a community. Those are the things that bring our community together - whether it is the school councils, the Scouts, teachers, the Garden Club, the Fibre Craft Guild, the Old Timers, all the sporting clubs, members of the council - they are all part of the community. I wish them a happy Christmas, and also thank them for all the hard work they do during the year.
I also thank all the other MLAs. Yes, there are times here when I despair. I am on record as saying I do not believe the behaviour here is always the best. When you consider we wish everyone a happy Christmas, which is about peace on earth and goodwill to all men - and women - I hope that is not just for Christmas; that we treat one another with respect, we are tolerant of different points of view, and we are able to give our points of view with passion, with fervour, but we respect the people we are talking to. There is no need to insult other people.
We say how young people should behave - and we talk about that on a regular basis, we are concerned about young people misbehaving out in the streets - but we have to look at ourselves and see whether our example would encourage kids to go down that path, because they can say: ‘Oh, I heard our parliamentarians throwing insults at one another across the floor, so what is wrong with me doing something similar?’. We have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, not to avoid good debate, not to avoid the passion that goes with that debate, but we have to recognise there are people out there who expect the behaviour in here to be something people can look up to. It would be fair to say there are times when even I have to shake my head at what goes on.
However, Christmas is a time to reflect on the year that has gone before us; it is a chance to talk to one another as members of parliament, and a time to get away from all the argy-bargy we have during most of the year.
I thank the members of the Legislative Assembly, our Clerks, and all the people here who have to listen to us - I believe that is punishment sometimes. Hansard, I know, has great difficulty putting my speeches into a form of English that can be read at a later stage, and I thank them for the hard work they do. All the administration people who look after me when my car blows up, as it did the other day. The parliamentary education unit does a wonderful job; you see them here with the teachers and the schoolchildren, that is a handful in itself, and they also get out to communities. I thank the Speaker and her staff as well. I wish the Speaker all the best; it is very sad to hear she is not well and I hope she has a speedy recovery and can enjoy Christmas with her family.
I also thank the CTC, the staff of the Council of Territory Cooperation - Helen, Jan, Alison, and Amanda, who do such a wonderful job dealing with a range of issues the Council of Territory Cooperation is committed to looking at. There is the committee Russell looks after, the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee; and there are a couple of other committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot remember the names of all the staff, but I do thank them for all the hard work they do, as well. Without those staff, those committees would not exist, because when we pack up and leave the meetings, they get stuck into the work of trying to bring what has been said at those meetings into some form that can be of use in making our determinations.
I thank my wife, Imelda. She rarely sees me, and we have our ups downs at times, like any marriage, but we manage to survive and, without her support, life would certainly not be the same. She has a great deal of other work to do; she looks after our grandchildren, and it is good to see that she has taken on another project now - she has taken up painting, and if anyone wants to see what I call one of the best Aboriginal paintings, you can pop into my office, it probably will not be there for more than one more day. It is a beautiful painting; her very first painting, and it was to be sold in an Alice Springs art gallery at a fairly substantial price, but I rang up and asked if we could have it back, because it is her first painting and I really needed to ensure it was kept in the family. It is a wonderful painting. I am glad she is doing that instead of hanging around waiting for me to come home. She shows her natural talent in art.
Two other people I need to thank are the two people who work with me. Kim, who works in my office is a fantastic lady, a down-to-earth woman who knows how to look after people who come into my office. She is a fantastic lady, she does so much hard work, and I wish her all the best for Christmas and thank her very much.
Of course, there is Michelle who works in the office here. She is just the No 1 person from my perspective when it comes to helping me in this job. She works hard, she has learned from the ground up, she had no idea what this job was about when she took it on, and now she is someone who is a stalwart. I lean on her for advice, and she gives advice and keeps me on the right path; I really appreciate everything she does. She is a fantastic lady, and I wish her a happy Christmas. I hope she has time to see her family, because they need her at this time. I wish her all the best and hope her family is well. I thank everyone else and wish them all a happy Christmas.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to do what many of us do at this time of the year, that is to thank the people who count, those who matter to us, and those who are close to us and support us.
The first group of people I would like to thank are my constituents, who regularly drop into my office. They are people from different areas of politics and beliefs who come in and talk to me about various issues. It is very encouraging, as a local member, to know you can look after both sides of politics, and those who are in-between the major parties. It is very rewarding when they come in and tell you they vote for the other side, but they thank you for looking after them. We are, of course, there for all of our constituents, and I wish those who are Christians a very Merry Christmas; those who are not, enjoy what is a festive season in our community and I wish all a happy New Year.
The next group is my branch, the North Darwin Branch of the Country Liberal Party, and a special thanks to the Chair of my branch, a young lady Rhianna Harker, who is a very capable and able Chair of our branch, in fact, one of our youth members of our branch, but doing a very good job in running it. There are many people in that branch; the ones on the executive who work tirelessly to ensure that our side of politics is well represented out in the northern suburbs. I thank the party members in the Secretariat: the President, Sue Fraser-Adams; the Director, Peter Allen and, of course Connie, who keeps the office going day by day.
There are a couple of people who I would like to point out on a special note, the first being a gentleman by the name of John Moyle, who is a tireless community volunteer. He spends many of his days in the mall outside my office raising money for a wide variety of charities. He has quite a following now; he has been there since I was elected three years ago, and there are probably about half-a-dozen charities he is raising money for at the moment. We are not just talking a couple of chook raffles, we are talking about some serious money that John, by giving his time to the community, raises for some very worthwhile charities. Especially at this time of the year, it is good to know there are people out there who give their time to help others by raising money so others can enjoy what most of us will be enjoying, that is a very happy and safe festive season.
I thank Dee Davies, my Electorate Officer. We have been together for nearly 12 months, and I believe I have the best electorate officer in the Northern Territory. She comes with an enormous amount of experience, and that showed when she came as a temp, and then decided to stay. It is fabulous to have her on board, and I am hoping we will be together there for a long time. She works tirelessly on all types of projects; nothing is too difficult, and even when the pressure is on, you would not know it because of her temperament and her nature.
To Dee, I say thank you very much for your efforts, your hard work and your dedication to what you do so very well. There are a number of people who know Dee, it does not matter who you are, she will make sure that you get looked after to the very best of her ability, irrespective of whether you are a constituent from the Sanderson electorate or wherever you come from.
I thank Terry Mills and his staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. Being in opposition, you do not have a lot of resources, they are scarce, and Terry shares those resources with all of us. It is great to have a dedicated and competent group of people up there who, when you pick the phone up, they bend over backwards to help you and to get whatever they can to help add to the democratic process we enjoy in this House.
The staff in the Chamber, in the Tabled Papers Office - Gaddy, Steve and Annette - are extremely professional and helpful. Whenever you have an issue, you can go to them and they will help you and guide you and, in many cases, teach you what you should or should not be doing.
There are the other members of the Legislative Assembly; there are 25 of us and I enjoy the banter that goes on here. It is a necessary form to keep people on their toes, to ensure when you do speak in this House that people keep you focused and on your toes so you give the very best you can to the process of democracy. It is a very important element of what we do.
I say to the staff in the Tabled Papers Office, and also to our IT people, thank you for your assistance and your guidance. The people in the Tabled Papers Office make sure the computers are working and our communications system is working - a very important aspect of what we do. I say thank you and I look forward to seeing you all in the New Year.
I move on to some other people in the electorate, the schools, the school councils, the principals. I am very fortunate to have four fantastic schools with excellent principals, and I share a quarter of a school, that being Malak, with the member of Karama, as I have a number of people from my electorate who attend that school. School councils do a fantastic job and voluntary organisations provide guidance to the school and assistance to principals in maintaining a healthy environment in the schools in so many aspects.
A group that started recently was the Heart Foundation Walks. We run walks at the fantastic late morning start of 6 am - rain, hail or shine. And there is a gentleman by the name of John Lear, a fantastic community person, who has been giving to his community for many years. John coordinates those walks and does the hard work, and I believe one should give credit where credit is due, and I acknowledge that John, over the years, has done an enormous amount of work and I congratulate him. Even though his knees are going, he still turns up there at 6 am and still comes for a walk with us.
To my federal colleagues, Natasha Griggs and Nigel Scullion and their staff, it is great to have those people. You are always looking for advice on a range of different issues, and they are always very quick to come out and give you whatever advice and assistance they can to help us to do our jobs locally.
I move on to another gentleman, by the name of Ronnie Baker. Ron Baker is basically my right arm. Whenever something needs to be done in my electorate, Ron is there. Recently he did some graffiti cleaning up and helped to organise a guy by the name of Merv Doyle to clean up graffiti in the Northlakes area. Ron did a very able job, and that is just one of the numerous things he does around the community to assist me and the Sanderson electorate and constituents in general.
I move on to my family. My children, Kristy, Adam and Damien, and their partners, Jorge, Cassandra and Maree, and their relative kids, and my grandkids, Telicia and Dakota. There are a couple more out there and I am trying to hurry. I am going to have to go, because I am going to thank the most important person, that being my partner, Linda. Her undying love and support is just a tower of strength for me. Without her, I am sure that I would not be able to do my job as an elected member anywhere near as well as I do. So, to Linda, I say again, as I did last year, my sincere thanks.
May you all have a very merry Christmas and happy New Year, and I look forward to seeing you all back here next year.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Speaker, tonight I wish to speak on one of the two favourite causes I support as the member for Drysdale. For personal reasons I have chosen particularly to support them. One of them is the National Breast Cancer Foundation. Very briefly, I have had a couple of friends who are breast cancer survivors and sufferers; plus my ex, who is my daughter’s mother, is a breast cancer sufferer. So that is one cause I particularly support.
However, not today; today I am talking about the Leukaemia Foundation. Some people may have fun and jest at the fact that I still race off-road, and I happen to be Northern Territory No 1 in my class. My navigator, the silly man who sits next to me, is a long-term friend. We keep losing track, it is 17 or 18 years - we are not sure how long we have known each other. He is a leukaemia sufferer and it is the cause I talk about tonight …
Ms Scrymgour: To have you as a friend!
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you. I have sought permission from Shelley Ryan, the Community Relations Manager in Darwin for the Leukaemia Foundation, to read directly from an e-mail she sent to many people on Monday, 31 October, to highlight successes:
- Dear friends,
As many of you know, a disappointing fundraising result from our Light the Night event and abundance of leftover lanterns inspired me to get involved in Darwin’s gorgeous night markets this year. Last week marked the official end of the night market season and I am delighted to share the final fundraising results as follows.
Mindil Beach Markets - they attended nine nights - 509 lanterns sold, a total fundraising of $3048 from the Mindil Beach Markets.
The Palmerston Markets - attended only five nights - 306 lanterns sold and a total $2063.55 raised.
The Pan Hellenic Games - attended only two nights - 120 lanterns sold, $1181.90 raised.
Being 16 night events attended, 935 lanterns sold in total, raising a total of $6293.45.
This total equates to more than 20% of the current fundraising total for the Light the Night campaign. In addition to this fundraising, we avoided the additional cost of disassembly, transporting, and storing of the lanterns. As always, we cannot do it alone and, once again, we had several volunteers to help out.
I would like to acknowledge some very special people who are instrumental in these efforts.
In late 2010, Kalotina Halkitis lost her beloved father to blood cancer and, since then, has been dedicating her valued spare time to our cause. From this day forward, she will be known as the Queen of Mindil. Her passion for helping the foundation was shining bright at the closing night at Mindil last Thursday, where she sold a record 144 lanterns and raised $848.20 - amazing. The first anniversary of her father’s passing is approaching and I know you will join me in wishing her our thoughts and prayers.
Ross Bohlin MLA, member for the Palmerston seat of Drysdale, has been a strong supporter of the foundation for many years. This year, Ross kindly offered to assist us by sharing their space and assistance at the Palmerston Markets. What a champion effort from Ross and the Country Liberals’ team. At the final Palmerston Markets on Friday night, we sold the final 80 lanterns and raised $589.65. A huge thanks to Ross, once again. He has already booked in for his annual hair cut in March.
Some might say I have been storing that up lately. I continue:
Our new neighbours and friends, Lianna Georges of Colliers International is also a committee member of the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia. In addition to volunteering at our Darwin Light the Night event, Liana extended to us the opportunity to attend the fundraiser at the Pan Hellenic Games. As always, the local Greek community showed outstanding generosity with an enormous $1180.90 raised in just two nights, the opening and closing ceremonies of the games; blue and white was the lantern colour of choice, of course.
A huge thanks to Matthew, Alex, and all our volunteers and supporters. We certainly look forward to participating in the market season next year. Until then, my Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights are free.
Shelley.
That is from Shelley Ryan, the Community Relations Manager of the Leukaemia Foundation of the Northern Territory. I thank Shelley, an absolute dynamo of energy; when she was on the stand at the Palmerston markets she was not afraid to ask anyone a million questions, and she will understand this when she reads it. She comes up to you and she will ask you a question, and then another question, and another question, and she will keep going; she is just fantastic in engaging people. The way she sold lanterns there - for only five nights at the Palmerston markets to raise over $2000, it was an amazing effort from Palmerston, such a small area; and amazing to see at the Mindil Markets, another $3000; and the Pan Hellenic Games, fantastic, $1181. And a fantastic effort by all those people who helped out.
On Saturday, 26 November, a part of the second phase of the Leukaemia Foundation is the Ugly Bartender event and schedule, and many of you would have seen in pretty much all our pubs in the Northern Territory, the Ugly Bartenders. This is another form of fundraising and Belinda Marshall and her partner, Dallas Hoppe, at Emerald Springs, a beautiful wayside inn just beyond Adelaide River, closer to Pine Creek in fact, ran a magnificent night down there; there was live music and, more importantly, it was a real community event and some 250-odd people turned up to it. The member for Katherine, Mr Willem Westra van Holthe, he was there with his partner; me, and the member for Drysdale were there, and 250 fantastic people. There were people from Katherine, people from the bush, people from Darwin and Palmerston - an amazing event.
I will quickly mention the sponsors of this event because they really did not have to shell much out, which meant there was a great deal of profits made for the Leukaemia Foundation. Kosmos Foods, CUB, Aussie Signs, Reward Hospitality Cleaning, ShadeTech, Fresh Produce Market, Wright’s Machinery, Equinox Fishing Charters, Total Events Services, Coopers, Wicked NRG Supplements and Nutrition from Stuart Park, Holco Fine Meats, Mr Prawn, Wolpers Grahl, Grey Nomads, Oz North Food and Liquor Wholesales, and Ross Bohlin, member for Drysdale.
Further to that, Belinda, the organiser - and Belinda has been a sufferer of leukaemia herself - came up with another idea amongst the team who were putting together this whole event, to sell teddy bears for $25. The teddy bear would then be put up on a massive Christmas tree inside the pub of the Wayside Inn and that teddy bear would then go on to the Salvation Army in Katherine to give away at Christmas. The $25 goes back to the Leukaemia Foundation, so a person buying one of those teddy bears was a give/give, no matter where you went. That was amazing.
What is amazing though is that Belinda Marshall raised over $35 000 on Saturday night - the highest fundraiser in the Northern Territory this year; the highest fundraiser in the Australian campaign this year, and the highest individual Ugly Bartender fundraiser in the history of Australia.
This Saturday night, one of our little wayside inns in Australia, in the Northern Territory, should be proud to be marked right up there with the highest on the map, doing their bit - the Territory community really coming together from all different ends to come and camp there. Katherine people had buses and it was just great.
Belinda Marshall, you are a darling.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016