2012-03-27
DEBATES - Tuesday 27 March 2012Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the Commonwealth Day Message 2012 from Her Majesty the Queen, dated 8 March 2012. With the concurrence of honourable members, I will have the Commonwealth Day Message incorporated in the Parliamentary Record. I table the message.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I note there is a song for the Commonwealth. Perhaps we should learn Stronger As One. I have not heard it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): If it assists the House, Madam Speaker, you have the agreement of this side of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5 St Paul’s Catholic Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Lorella Pollon and Mr Alain van Gurp. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I advise that responses to petition Nos 56 and 58 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to the petitioners.
Date presented: 24 November 2011
a ‘Three Strikes’ policy that will categorise the nature and severity of antisocial behaviour incidents involving tenants and/or their visitors in public housing. The third formal warning (Strike 3) will lead to the commencement of legal eviction proceedings; and
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, four General Business Notices previously on the Notice Paper have been withdrawn by Mr Giles and removed from the Notice Paper accordingly. The text of the notices has been circulated to honourable members.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe I understand the process outlined by the Clerk. We know the order of business in this place changes from time to time, for example, today with one of our bills. However, it is quite extraordinary for four items of business to be withdrawn without any explanation. I ask the opposition to give this parliament some explanation of why they have withdrawn four items ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Thank you, Leader of Government Business, resume seat.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): In response, Madam Speaker, that starts to sound like a frivolous point of order ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: You know, that is a good point, good question. Are you going to respond to it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a copy of the letter I sent to all members relating to parliamentary behaviour. I hope each of you has had the opportunity to read that letter.
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the agenda looks pretty light today. Ordinarily, I would like to take up the whole 45 minutes to speak on this bill. We support this bill. We wholeheartedly support this bill, not without some bumps along the way, minister; that is, the location of these two secure care facilities in Alice Springs and the rural area. I know of the great work done by the member for Goyder in championing the concerns of her constituents and having it relocated. Of course, it is the same in Central Australia. All local members in Alice Springs work very hard and listen and comply with the concerns of our constituents who requested a relocation of the facility. With that, we support the bill. We realise these are two very important facilities for Northern Territorians and the Territory and we throw our support wholeheartedly behind it. Let us get on with it; let us get the facilities operational and provide the care these clients require.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I signal at some stage I want to look at clauses 41 and 42 and ask some questions during the committee stage relating to how these operate with each other. I want to get the government on the record on a couple of issues. I indicate there will be a requirement for committee stages.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. This is a very important bill and deserves to be recognised as such. I also thank the department for briefings in relation to this bill and for allowing me to visit the new secure care facility at Holtze which all members, if they have an opportunity, should visit. I have not seen the one in Alice Springs but I imagine it is of similar design. It is certainly a very impressive facility and one that is long overdue, but recognises there needs to be a place for the care of these special people.
It has been mentioned there were some issues in relation to the siting of these facilities when they were first put forward. Some of that was, unfortunately, due to telling people at an early stage what the government was intending to do and asking for comments in relation to the one planned for the Bees Creek area. Unfortunately, for most people, the first time they heard about it was when the yellow sign went up on the road. That is a poor way to conduct a consultation as it caused people to fear what was being proposed. While some of those fears could be well justified, some comments at those meetings demonised some of the people who will be in the secure care facility. That disappointed me because the people in these secure care facilities could be our brother or sister, our daughter or son, our mother or father, for all we know. As my mother would say: ‘But for the grace of God there go I’.
In our discussions about the siting of these facilities, we have to be careful not to demonise the people who will be in them. I found a little disheartening some of the discussion that occurred. I have no problem with people having concerns about the siting of the facility, but to put down those people who would reside in that facility by putting labels on them was shameful. We need to be careful that we distinguish between the people and the facility; they are two different things.
The amendment presented can be summed up that it is important, when we are dealing with the locking up of people, that we set out the principles. Under section 2A it says:
(a) the treatment and care must be reviewed regularly;
What we are dealing with is removing the rights of a person from having the freedom to move about our society at will. If we are to take those freedoms away, we should only do it in such a way as there are safeguards to ensure those freedoms can be returned to that person at the earliest possible stage, and the reasons for that person’s freedom being restricted are very clear and precise. This act does that. It allows a court to make a decision as to whether a person should be sent to the secure centre. The court must be satisfied there are treatment orders which will be accompanied by a treatment plan, so the court can decide whether the CEO’s argument that this person requires involuntary treatment and care is justified.
This bill is not just about the medical matters that would be required in relation to looking after this person; it is dealing with a fundamental issue of restricting the rights of a person from being able to freely walk around our Territory, and it makes clear the reasons that person should have involuntary treatment and care are justified through a local court. The beginning of this act is very important, so people understand that before anyone is put in care, there are very clear guidelines that have to be attended to before that person can be taken to these particular facilities.
The bill also deals with some basic concepts. It is also important that people understand the basic concepts of why a person would be required to spend time in this secure care facility. That needs to be read out as well:
(a) the person is an adult; and
(i) is likely to cause serious harm to himself or herself or to someone else; or
(f) the person has the capacity to benefit from goal-oriented therapeutic services in a secure care facility; and
(g) the person can participate in treatment and care in a secure care facility; and
(h) there is no less restrictive way of ensuring the person receives the treatment and care.
That is an important part of this bill. In fact, when there was discussion about the siting of these facilities that is what needed to be put before the people so they understood the type of resident who would be living in these facilities. That, at least, would have cleared the air in the debate about the perceived risks associated with the siting of these facilities.
The bill also talks about a treatment plan which, of course, is extremely important. It talks about behaviour support plans in which are included certain restrictive interventions. If you visit the site you will see there is a room which would allow people some space where they could not harm themselves but could quieten down so other residents would not be affected.
That is another area which is clearly defined in the amendment and is important. By having these matters documented not only does the public understand what is happening in these facilities but the staff who will run these centres know exactly what is required of them. It clearly sets out matters about the searching of people, the keeping of records, how a person can be apprehended, the use of reasonable force, and transfers of a resident to another secure care facility. Within this act there is a series of guidelines - they are more than guidelines because they are within the act - but regulations and rules that have to be applied and that is important.
There is also an area for appeals. It says in clause 40, Review of behaviour support plan – review panel:
(1) A resident of a residential facility or someone else consulted on the preparation of the behaviour support plan for the resident may apply for the review panel for the review of the inclusion of the use of a restrictive intervention in the plan.
They have set out in here their functions and their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are really important because you are making sure these people who lose their freedoms we have continually have the opportunity to put forward any issues they have, but also to ensure these people are not being kept within this facility longer than required. That is part of the balance here. There is a balance which is trying to protect a person - as stated in the basic concepts - who could cause harm to themselves or to someone else, or be a substantial risk to the general community, or is likely to suffer serious mental or physical deterioration. On one hand, we are trying to help those people; on the other hand, we are taking away their freedom. It is that balance which is really important. Looking through this bill, there is a series of mechanisms to ensure that balance is retained. That should be looked at in the annual report, to ensure those checks and balances are working. I have no reason to say they would not work, but you would hope an amendment to the act which has in it restrictions on a person’s movement would be constantly monitored to ensure everything is fair for both the community and the person who resides in that facility.
I support this amendment. It is an important amendment because it deals with a small group of people in our community who could easily be discarded, a bit like in times previously where people like this would be have even been locked up in a mental asylum, or would have been left on the street to look after themselves. Today we are showing that we need to care for these people; they are human beings and they have problems.
Building these new facilities reflects the government’s commitment to looking after these people. The government should be praised for that. It may have had some problems in the planning of these particular facilities, but credit should be given where it is due. I believe the people who will reside in these facilities will get the best care possible, which is what the government should be all about.
I believe the siting of the facility at Holtze is excellent. When the government is thinking of doing something in the rural area it should occasionally be brave enough to talk to local members - not necessarily that the local members want to be negative but the local members have a great deal of knowledge on the ground. In regard to this particular site, I asked the department why it did not look at the site near where the white truck selling the fruit, vegies and fish goes. That was Commonwealth land. They had a look and then realised that just across the other side of the bicycle path they owned the land there, which is next to a lovely wetland. It is away from residential areas and is halfway between Palmerston and Darwin which, I believe, was a requirement of this facility. It is close to the bus service and is near some shops if people want to get food and drink.
I believe we ended up with a really good site. However, in the beginning, I do not know whether people trusted us. Sometimes, you should go out and talk to people and say you are considering that. The member for Goyder has been around since she was born in the rural area, and I have probably been around as long as she was born in the rural area, but we have local knowledge about our areas. Just because we are not in government does not mean we would not want to assist the government in trying to find a suitable site for a facility like this. I believe there can be some lessons learnt.
This is an area that should not be political at all; we should be working together. Any time the government wants to consider some other proposal in the rural area, I am happy to talk to the member for Goyder about that. We would share our local knowledge with government about the siting of some facility if they required it. That way you would get a better outcome. This started off on the wrong foot, unfortunately, and that caused a delay in coming to fruition.
Madam Speaker, in summing up, I believe the bill is excellent. It covers many of the issues I have spoken about: the controls and the checks and balances. I thank the department for allowing me to visit the site at Holtze. It really is a top-class facility. If other people would like to look at it before it is officially opened - because it cannot be opened until this legislation is enacted - I am sure the minister would be happy for people to have a look at it, because it is a bit of an eye opener when it comes to caring for these people. As I said before, many times these people were put on the rubbish heap, or just ignored or put into an asylum, or left to their own devices. This facility totally turns that around and will be something the Territory should be proud of in the way it cares for people with cognitive impairment.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their contribution. It is not often the opposition and the government agree, especially on legislation. This is very important legislation. We know we deal with people with mental illness, but this is how to deal with people with cognitive impairment, which is sometimes very complex and could be a result of an accident, alcohol, or drugs.
Two facilities have been built; the one in Darwin is finished and the other, in Alice Springs, is near completion. I agree with both members that the selection of the sites at the beginning was probably not done very well. I agree that you inform people about what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. When people have the information, they do not object. Half information is dangerous. It is better to provide people with all the information so they understand what you are doing.
The member for Stuart approached me when a selection of sites took place in Alice Springs and discussed it with me. I went to Alice Springs and looked at the site and found it was totally inappropriate. I had to fight the bureaucrats to put the facility at the site it is now. There were objections from bureaucrats and organisations who said the site in Alice Springs was very inappropriate as it was very close to the prison. The fact the prison is about 2 km away makes their concern irrelevant. We selected the site and advised the facility would be independent of the prison and would be a suitable facility for people with cognitive impairment.
The same thing applied in Darwin. The department selected a very inappropriate site, and I had e-mails to my personal and government e-mail addresses. I took the time to look at it and I insisted that site be abandoned and a new one found. Quite rightly, as the member for Nelson pointed out, the site is appropriate - halfway between Darwin and Palmerston, close to the bus route, and we did not have to pay for the land because we owned it. I took the time to visit the site with the member for Nelson and was impressed by the quality of the site.
It is a difficult situation when you have to restrict the personal freedom and the rights of a person because that person will either harm others or themselves. Unfortunately, things have to be done that way. I do not know how many of you have had personal experience with people who cannot control themselves; I have had that personal experience. My first wife was manic depressive and had to be admitted, forcibly, to a mental institution. I will never forget the way the police had to manhandle her to put her into the police car to take her to Heathcote in Perth. I will also never forget that she was a lovely woman - excellent, loved people - but at the time she had no control of her senses; she was somewhere else. I remember when she grabbed my glasses and just smashed them and had to be restrained. It had to be done and it was not a very nice experience.
I was impressed by the facility in Darwin. It was very suitable and in a very nice environment for people. You just do not shove people into blocks and concrete bunkers. That facility has nice, landscaped surroundings and protection for those who are inside and those who are outside. Even in the case where people have to be restrained in a room, that particular room is suitable so people cannot harm themselves. The accommodation was done in such a way there were no hanging points - people could not hang themselves, could not smash a window, could not smash a mirror and harm themselves, or others. It is, unfortunately, a necessary evil that we sometimes have to protect people from themselves, and everything is taken into account and consideration.
Again, human rights are paramount. That is the reason this legislation prescribes exactly the way people can be admitted, how long they will be admitted, and there will be constant review of their condition. People are not locked up somewhere, the key thrown away and forgotten. People have rights, and their rights are respected. Of course, the ultimate decision will be made by suitably qualified personnel who are familiar with the situation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and thank members for their support. If there are any questions, I am happy to answer them.
Motion agreed to: bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I already know what the answer to this question is going to be. I received this inquiry at the 11th hour, walking in here, and would like the minister to place it on the record, basically. It deals with the relationship between clauses 41 and 42 of the proposed bill. I draw the minister’s attention to clause 41(2)(d).
You will note there are eight paragraphs under that with Roman numerals which deal with the requirements for the provision of a certain standard where a person is the subject of a restrictive intervention.
Clause 42 of the proposed legislation then outlines the use of restraint and seclusion in emergency cases. There is an absence, if you like, of the provisions of clause 41(2)(d). The only thing I seek from the minister is reassurance that, as far as possible, the provisions which are made for a person under clause 41 will also be extended, as far as possible, to a person who is subject of an emergency restraint or seclusion under clause 42.
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely, they will apply.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That is it.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the Care and Protection of Children (Information Sharing) Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 194) was introduced on 16 February 2012 by Mr Vatskalis as the Minister for Health. The purpose of this bill is to enable government agencies to request and share information relating to the wellbeing of a child or group of children that would otherwise be restricted under provisions of privacy and confidentiality.
The opposition supports this legislation. Of course, we do. In 2009, we introduced a private member’s bill to amend the Information Act to allow interagency information sharing and collaboration. This bill sought to amend the Information Act to allow a general provision permitting a public sector entity to request or provide information that was otherwise restricted under provisions of confidentiality. That was two years ago, in May 2010, and it has taken this long for the government to come up with similar legislation allowing information sharing to improve the quality of care we provide children who come to the attention of the Department of Children and Families. So, we have no problems with this bill at all.
We definitely support better coordination of delivery of services to children. We support the removal of obstructions to information flow between government entities, and government and non-government entities, and people who are on the same page when it comes to wanting good outcomes for children who come to the attention of the department because they are possibly being abused or neglected. Everyone in the child protection industry will be supportive of this legislation.
In 2009, COAG released a report Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business in which Strategy 2.2 aimed to develop new information sharing provisions between Commonwealth agencies, state and territory agencies, and NGOs dealing with vulnerable families. Appendix A of the report details the current initiatives and reforms being undertaken by each state and territory to address failings in child protection. On page 51, the report states that in the Northern Territory the Care and Protection of Children Act provides the legislative basis for increased interagency collaboration in child protection by supporting the sharing of information between agencies. This legislation comes about, at least in part, due to Recommendation 113 of the Growing them strong, together report released in October 2010 which dedicated a chapter to the subject of interagency collaboration. So this has been on the agenda for quite some time.
I feel the government has certainly dragged its heels, once again, in implementing this very simple, innocuous legislation which has very powerful and meaningful implications to the quality of care provided to children in the Northern Territory.
When we put out private member’s bill to parliament in May 2010, ironically the government opposed this bill on the grounds that it was technically flawed. The Attorney-General at the time was of the opinion that the issue of sharing of information should be considered in the context of the specific legislation and, although this may seem more inefficient than a general provision, it would allow more specific consideration to be given to the circumstances in which confidential information should be shared. It is interesting that the government has now chosen to implement Recommendation 113 of the Growing them strong, together report with a general provision. However, nothing this government does really surprises me, particularly when it comes to child protection.
The positive outcome of this legislation is that it will enhance collaboration between workers from all different agencies and assist them in working together. It will enable information sharing.
I came into my profession as a social worker in the early 1980s. In those days, there were very few restrictions placed on the ability of practitioners to share information, state to state, governments to governments, and agencies to agencies. As time crept on, in about the mid-1990s, laws and restrictions were placed on this. I could never really understand why, when clearly, 99.9% of us as practitioners, as carers, as workers, were all on the same page. We all wanted positive outcomes for the people we were working with. To me, this has come the full circle. From a global perspective we are now about breaking down the barriers, putting away the red tape, holding off the bureaucracy, and just allowing people to talk about cases in a very constructive and measured way.
That was taken from the minister’s speech in February this year.
I support the safeguards put in place that will stop any misuse of information about children. While the bill removes the legal barriers to information sharing when it is for the safety and wellbeing of a child, it does leave some opportunity for information sharing authorities to refuse a request for information for reasons other than irrelevance. So, yes, the opposition supports the legislation as it stands.
It is interesting that we are coming up to the 18 months’ mark since the Growing them strong, together report was released in October 2010. The government is obviously working hard to account for its commitment to implementing all of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry report. The Chief Minister accepted every one of those recommendations as they were written, and undertook to implement each and every one of them. I am told, from circles inside the department, that it is the board of inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report which is actually driving the Department of Children and Families at the moment; it is not about unique and positive mission statements and strategic planning. The Department of Children and Families should be renamed the Growing Them Strong Together Department because that is, in fact, what is solely driving this department at the moment. This is very sad because it really says that this government has no initiative and no great plan or vision for child protection; it is simply doing what the board of inquiry report says. On one hand, that is not such a bad thing, but it also says they really have been unable to come up with a unique, modified and relevant interpretation of the report. They just have to blindly implement each and every one of those recommendations.
Talking about the child protection system and the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations, I refer to July of last year when there was quite a feature in the Northern Territory News about a broken system that will take years to fix. This was a four-page spread in the Northern Territory News: ‘Territory’s failure to save kids’. That was printed nine months ago and, from my perspective and the perspective of many people I talk to within the industry, things are still very much in their infancy in reform and change. The Northern Territory government is still struggling to get on top of this diabolical situation; the tsunami of need that we heard about just 18 months ago. This government has shown very little imagination or enthusiasm when it comes to getting themselves out of this mire.
In reading the response to the 107 recommendations labelled as semi-urgent that are in the Growing them strong, together report, the government has just a few weeks to prove they have commenced the implementation of these 107 semi-urgent recommendations. They are on the ball, because we all know that is really the sole driver of the department at the moment. What surprised me was reading this document they released to the public called Major Review of the Care and Protection of Children Act Issues Paper. What they are saying is:
The third one, to which this issues paper pertains - I do not know, probably 30 or 40 of the semi-urgent recommendations. This paper is quite lengthy; it goes on for 27 pages. It is asking the community to comment on some of the recommendations, and to advise the government on exactly how it should implement these urgent recommendations involving amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. After all these years, after six independent inquiries into child protection in the Northern Territory, we now have the government asking, once again, the people of the Northern Territory to come up with answers for it; to come up with solutions and ways in which it can address the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
When is this government going to start governing? When are you going to start making some decisions? When are you going to start doing the work required of a government when it comes to child protection? I cannot believe, after everything that has happened over the last 11 years, particularly climaxing over the last two, you would start asking people to make decisions for you - asking the child protection industry to come up with the answers. The answers are in the board of inquiry report. The answers should be by the latest inquiry into child protection, the previous five inquiries into child protection, and they should be answered by the government. For goodness sake, it is absolutely ridiculous that now the government has decided it needs to take this issues paper to the industry, to the people of the Northern Territory, to seek guidance on how it is going to amend the legislation.
I could amend the legislation here and now, pertaining to most of these areas which I am very familiar with. There are very serious issues raised in this issues paper. These issues have been debated extensively throughout the board of inquiry process which took over 12 months …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression. We have moved away from this particular bill to other bills and other reports.
Madam SPEAKER: I will listen very carefully to the member for Araluen. I remind you, member for Araluen, the bill is about information sharing, so if you could contain your comments as much as possible to that. I realise there is a level of latitude, but if you could bear information sharing in mind.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The points I am raising are relevant, if the government cares to bear with me. It is all about information sharing. It is all about this government being transparent and going about the business of implementing the recommendations. The information sharing legislation before parliament today we are discussing has come about through one of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. I am using this as an opportunity to talk about other recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report which are all interrelated and highly connected when it comes to child protection.
The people of the Northern Territory need to know about the progress of this government, how it is implementing this particular Recommendation 113, but certainly other very closely related and connected issues pertaining to child protection.
When I read this issues paper, I was absolutely floored this government could waste precious time and resources seeking feedback and comment from the Northern Territory people, yet again, at the cost of immense time. Ultimately, the answers are in front of you. It is almost beyond belief that, after everything this government has subjected us to with inquiries, reports and endless media …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, once again: digression. You have allowed latitude. The member is repeating what she said previously and should come back to the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, this is a bill regarding information sharing. While the care and protection of children is a very important matter, the bill is about information sharing. If you could come to the point, please, or resume your seat.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I have listened in parliament many times to debates about certain topics, and there has been much latitude given …
Mr Knight: Are you questioning the Speaker?
Mr Elferink: Oh, for goodness sake!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, can you please just speak about information sharing.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Okay, I will continue.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what the bill is about. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about information sharing. It is about child protection, safeguards, and enabling information sharing between different government departments. This bill will enhance communication and information sharing between the workers within the department, between departments, and between agencies.
I take this opportunity to talk about another aspect of information sharing which has come up in the media of late; that is, the fact that this government has allowed the level of caseloads to override what is widely accepted as Australian Standards. In the NT News on 12 March of this year, there was an article outlining the unimaginable caseloads that are slowly escalating for child protection workers and how, in some cases, workers across the Northern Territory are being asked to manage more than 11 times the number of recommended cases. The Department of Children and Families figures show all officers across the Northern Territory have average caseloads above recommended levels. However, East Arnhem and Barkly officers are worse off. When you are talking about information sharing, people going about their jobs, people trying to safeguard the needs of children, it is almost impossible to imagine just how these workers are surviving and achieving the requirements of their position. It draws me to one of the previous recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report - in fact, an urgent recommendation which specifically advises there should be established benchmark caseload ratios to enable acceptable staff levels and appropriate and manageable caseloads.
When we talk about information sharing and getting the best outcomes for children, it is unimaginable we have child protection workers across the Northern Territory faced with extraordinary high caseloads. For example, East Arnhem staff have an average of 79 cases each. That is 79 children, 79 families, 79 different agencies working with and around these facilities, 79 schools potentially, and 79 health workers or services. It is mind boggling to think these caseload ratios have been allowed to get to this state.
The other aspect of sharing information and allowing workers to go about their business in a very highly professional and child focused fashion is, in my mind, one of the most important issues this department faces: the lack of real strategic planning, the lack of real clarity in vision and mission in where this department is going. I talk to people from within the department on almost a weekly basis. People ring me and people talk to me about …
Mr Knight: Did you tell them you are going to sack them?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: This government has proven it is unable to provide a mission or a strategic direction when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. As I said earlier, what is driving this department, this portfolio, is how they can get away with covering themselves when it comes to the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
When it comes to this legislation before the House, this is a very small token as to how they have gone about implementing the 107 semi-urgent recommendations which are coming up in the next couple of weeks.
The state of child protection in the Northern Territory has not improved, and we have been given much evidence over the last couple of years of that. Even since the board of inquiry released its findings, we find a system that is struggling. The example that came to mind fairly recently, which does involve information sharing, was the decision of the department to hand over responsibility for the assessments of potential foster carers in Alice Springs - and throughout the Northern Territory I later found out – to a non-government organisation. This was done exceedingly poorly. I received reports from various people in Alice Springs about how they were not informed there was a change; that these workers from a non-government agency turned up on their doorstep without notice, without notification, without warning, without an introduction, asking to, there and then, assess these families – not just the children but the parents – and to do a house inspection.
To me, this typifies the disorganisation, the lack of planning, and the lack of proper information sharing and communication …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, I have to say that particularly the last 10 minutes has been fairly much a digression. I remind you of the letter which I sent to members yesterday where I noted in relation to digression from a subject:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I am trying to make, in raising these other issues I feel are intrinsically related to this legislation, is the broader picture of child protection in the Northern Territory remains grim. There are still big mistakes being made in child protection; there are still areas the government is dragging its heels on that require immediate attention; and there are still areas in which workers and children are suffering. Because I have been corrected in my approach to my speech today, I will not drift into what those specific areas are.
I will say this legislation before parliament today has been a long time coming. It is satisfactory; it meets the expectations of the opposition. It certainly meets the expectations of Recommendation 113 of the board of inquiry report, Growing them strong, together. It will enhance the ability of workers to work together for better outcomes for children.
The shame of it is this is such a small piece of the pie. We have a long way to go. I am not confident in this government. I do not feel there is enough urgency in the way it is going about its business. I feel the issues paper distributed throughout the community on probably 40 or 50 of the semi-urgent recommendations due to commence implementation in the next couple of weeks is pathetic. It is a shortcut, it is wasting time, it is wasting resources and, in the meantime, children are suffering.
We have heard, in this parliament, about children being seriously neglected as a result of this government dragging its heels. I do not think we have time on our hands to waste. This continues to be one of the greatest debacles the people of the Northern Territory have ever seen. Child protection remains in a state of absolute crisis. Because we have not had the opportunity to talk about child protection for several months I feel this is an opportunity to put this issue back on the table. Just because things have gone slightly quiet over the Christmas/January period, it is very important, and the people of the Northern Territory want to hear just how important the issue of child protection remains.
This government has presented very flimsy legislation as a way of flagging they are doing something. It will have an important impact on how people go about their business. I am not denigrating the content but, the enormity of reform this government is responsible for making, they should be very embarrassed that, after all this time - after 18 months of the board of inquiry report coming out - all we have seen is a couple of amendments to legislation.
What they committed to was not consistent with one of the recommendations of the board of inquiry report about the role of the Children’s Commissioner. They said they would implement each and every one them, and they did not. What we are seeing is a very inadequate response to the board of inquiry report into child protection by this government. We are seeing them drag their heels, take an inordinate amount of time to get themselves together, and really make substantial reforms.
We do not need more consultation, Madam Speaker, we do not need ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I make it reluctantly. This is a point of order about digression from subject. The member for Araluen has, once again, strayed away from this bill. I feel she is actually trying to precipitate something here. I suggest she has ample opportunity with a matter of public importance, within a motion on General Business Day, to raise the issues she is talking about. We will debate them. However, it is about sticking to the subject of this particular bill, member for Araluen.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business is probably one of the greatest digressers in the history of this parliament, and I expect the same latitude be extended to the member for Araluen as has on numerous occasions been extended to the Leader of Government Business.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat, member for Araluen.
I have written to members because I have considered the behaviour during debate and various other issues to have brought our House into disrepute. One of these has been continuous misuse of the standing orders in digression from the subject. In this particular debate, I have allowed the member for Araluen to speak for 30 minutes; probably more than half of it has been digression.
Member for Araluen, I have already given you a final warning. Unless you have something to actually say regarding the information sharing itself - and I can assure you I am going to be doing this with all future debates - I ask you to complete your comments.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, the conclusion of my debate this morning is around addressing some of the comments made by the minister in his second reading speech in which he referred to the Growing them strong, together report; to the recommendations of the board of inquiry; and many of the things I have just spoken about.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say this government really does not want to hear just how poorly it is tracking when it comes to child protection. I see the issues raised by the Leader of Government Business regarding relevance as a direct way of shutting me up, which we have seen him do on many occasions in this parliament ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, resume your seat, thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before us to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. It is a very important part of a very important matter - the care and protection of children. It implements Recommendation 113 of the board of inquiry.
I thank the government for the briefings on this matter. I also thank the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Bath, for his comments in relation to this bill. I would also like to go to committee stage if that is possible, as I have some questions in relation to the bill ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if I acknowledge these students, please? They are from one of the best schools in the Northern Territory, Nightcliff Primary School – I could be biased - Year 5/6 students accompanied by Mr Kokkinomagoulos and Mr Peter Slidders. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Wood: Are we putting that to the vote, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no vote.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, one has to start by asking what the objectives of this act are, in Part 5.1A:
1. The object of this is Part is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children by enabling particular persons and bodies having responsibilities for a child to request or give particular information about the child.
2. For achieving that object, it is the underlining principle of this Part that rules about protecting confidentiality and privacy of individuals should not protect the sharing of information for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children.
3. Anyone exercising a power or performing a function under this Part must, as far as practicable, uphold the principle.
I sometimes wonder whether, in many ways over the years, privacy has driven us down a path we really did not need to go down. People would argue differently. I give an example. I can take a photo of children at school sports and be required to get permission for every one of those children to have their photograph in my newsletter. I can go down to the football match at Marrara Oval and take the same picture and there is no problem.
I understand why there are some conditions over privacy but, in some cases, those conditions have led us to places where people have been reluctant to share information; in this case, which was relevant to the wellbeing and safety of children. To some extent this reflects that, even within departments, the whole issue of privacy has turned out to be something that has worked against the wellbeing and protection of children.
You will get cases where the husband might ring up a particular business and ask for information about his wife’s account. He probably only wanted to know how much was on the account so he could pay it. Immediately, he would be told under the Privacy Act he could not do that and would have to get his wife to ring. Years ago, that would not have occurred. Today, we are smothered in issues of privacy and perhaps, as in this case, that has worked to the detriment of children in our society who need protection.
Today we have a bill which tries to release some of those limitations but, at the same time, ensures those changes do not go overboard and there are limitations on what information can be shared between departments.
There was a word used some years ago which I have to laugh about. There are many ‘in’ words today like ‘genres’. That is something the ABC started. I cannot even spell it or, when I spell it, I cannot even pronounce it. I saw it at school the other day - ‘genres’ - I did not hear of it in my day. It is like the word ‘silo’. In my time, that was a place where you stored grain. All of a sudden, we have ‘silos’, and ‘information sharing between these silos was very difficult’.
We have moved into a very restrictive type of government in some ways, where everyone was a little patriotic to their department and did not want another department to share that information because they might lose some kudos for the information they had. I wonder whether that jealousy between different silos - which I would probably call different departments in plain speaking language - has been the cause of some of what we have here today; that we got away from realising all departments belong to one government.
How we have arrived at this stage where people within government could not share information, I do not know. I would have thought a government is a body which works for the benefit of all people, including children who need protection. Naturally, you would have thought information would be shared between departments because they had one goal in mind; that is, to look after the welfare of children. However, it seems as time has gone on, it has become harder to do that. We now have privacy laws and all those things. This is, at least, an opportunity to try to break down some of those laws that have worked against what most of us - or all of us - in this House want and that is the protection of children.
It is pleasing to see this legislation come through today. One of the big issues will be that the silos have become entrenched; the loyalties to the department have become entrenched over the years. It would be interesting to know how you are going to change that. In some of the notes I have, there is a note about education. It is about bringing all those departments together on the one day so they can all hear the information on how this particular bill will operate, so all those departments have a full understanding. You do not want one department going to a meeting and having a different interpretation from another department that might turn up at another meeting in relation to the explanation of this bill. It would be good to see what the government’s program is that would break down these barriers we have today and ensure that it is done uniformly. If you are asking the departments to work together, it is really important that they all know they are working from the same sheet.
Of course, with that comes a budget. Is there going to be enough money to ensure this will actually happen? No matter where you are in the Northern Territory, what department you work for, you should all hear the same story. If that requires people to be flown or driven into meetings in various centres, that should occur because the last thing you want is a different interpretation.
A classic example, if I go back a little, was the Mataranka cattle issue. What was the role of one department versus the role of another department? Part of the issue we had was there were conflicting views on the role each of those departments. We should ensure we do not make those same mistakes again, and departments, when sharing information, know exactly what they are allowed to share and fully understand the guidelines required in sharing that information.
I have some questions I would like to put to the committee stage. Perhaps I could leave them until then and, if we need more discussion, we could leave it to that stage. I recognise the work done by the member for Araluen. She previously tried to introduce this legislation. It has now gone to the government. The government has looked at it and come back with similar legislation, but at least it is here today, and that is good. I welcome this bill before us. If it makes even one difference to one child then it has served its purpose. However, we hope it will do far more than that. We hope this will start to break down some of the barriers that have occurred.
I might just mention – and it is knowledge that has now become public – that we have found out through the CTC hearings that there is a lack of information in regard to where children are, especially in outback communities, because the systems are not capable of tracking some of those people. Will those types of things be addressed in here? If the information is difficult to obtain, then it is going to be difficult to share. If it is difficult to obtain, then children could still be at risk due to a problem with the system that is in place for tracking children, especially those who have been sent to remote communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this important legislation. As I said, it deals with Recommendation 113 of the report and that is a good thing in itself.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and his constructive comments.
With regard to the member for Araluen, her performance today was embarrassing. It started wrong from the very beginning. I introduced this legislation not as the Minister for Health but as the Minister for Child Protection. It got even worse after that. She told us they introduced legislation in 2009 to exchange information between public sector entities. This legislation the government put forward today goes further than that. It allows the exchange of information between public sector entities, organisations outside the public sector, foster parents, and individuals. This has been modelled after the New South Wales and Tasmanian legislation, but goes even further. The New South Wales legislation allows exchange of information between public sector organisations. We allow exchange of information between public sector organisations, individuals and other organisations working in child protection. Our Territory bill authorises information sharing for the safety and wellbeing of children up to the age of 18. The New South Wales and Tasmanian legislation allows the exchange of information for children up to the age of 16.
Then, the member for Araluen was critical that the department is driven by the recommendations of the board of inquiry. Well, I am very pleased about that. I would be very worried if they did not follow the board of inquiry’s recommendations and went on a different trajectory. Then, she mentioned the legislation, the Care and Protection of Children Act, and said we asked the community for input. That is exactly what the board of inquiry asked for, and that is what any normal process of legislation demands: talk to the community. If the community does not own the legislation, it would not be effective legislation. That is what we did. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot accuse us of following the board of inquiry, and being driven by the board of inquiry recommendations, but we are not on the other side.
The last person to lecture this government about child protection should be the member for Araluen, a member of the CLP government - a government that abandoned children outside the urban centres ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! In accordance with the instruction issued by the Speaker, and in accordance with the determination she made in relation to the member for Araluen’s contribution, I ask that you direct the minister to restrain himself to the legislation before this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, I remind you to contain your comments to the bill before the House.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing. I am responding to the comments made by the member for Araluen, when she was actually commenting on the bill before the House ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: … because she accused this government of abandoning children. I only have to remind them that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have given instruction to the minister. I ask that you now enforce that instruction.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if I can just qualify that by, on the one hand, reminding the minister to address the bill before the House. However, he does have the opportunity in closing debate to respond to comments that have been made by members during this debate. Minister, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That was not afforded to the member for Araluen. I ask that that latitude not be afforded to the minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the member for Araluen was given a warning; she was given opportunity. Minister, you have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is interesting how sensitive the other side can be. The member for Araluen called this legislation flimsy. Am I going to respond to that or not? This is not flimsy legislation; it is very solid legislation that has actually includes more than the legislation introduced by the CLP in 2001. The member for Araluen made mention of two reports from the NT News. However, she omitted to say that in the report in the NT News by Alyssa Betts it was clearly stated that the CLP had abandoned child protection and Labor was left to hold the baby ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If we are going to play this game of pedantic rules, then I ask the pedantic rules be directed at both sides of the House. He is now referring to news reports unrelated to this issue.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I respectfully suggest that you take advice, because it is quite within the minister’s ambit to respond to statements made by a member ...
Mr Elferink: You have one set of rules for one side of the House, and one set of rules for the other side of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: No, it is not two sets of rules.
Mr Elferink: Yes, it is.
Dr BURNS: This is parliamentary practice.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Mr Elferink: You grub.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment, please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw ‘grub’.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I will be taking advice from the Clerk, thank you very much.
Minister, on the advice I have received - and I accept that advice - you have the capacity to respond to comments that have been made in this debate by the member for Araluen. However, I ask you in responding to those comments to contain your remarks within the context of the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing.
I will give you another example. The member for Araluen commented on and condemned the government for handing out assessments of foster parents to NGOs. Yes, we did, exactly in accordance with Recommendation 77 of the board of inquiry. The NGO which was interviewing foster parents actually won this arrangement in a proper open tender, which many NGOs applied for. Of course, we will question parents because we want to ensure foster parents who are going to look after children in danger are proper and fit people to do the job.
There are a number of things the member for Araluen accused this government of doing, and I take offence at that. As I said before, the last person I would take advice and criticism from is the member for Araluen, a member of a government which abandoned children, as stated by the state of denial report, and had only $7m budgeted for child protection and about 100 workers; and a member of a government that continues now ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen has not, as far as I am aware, raised any issues of budgetary constraints in past CLP governments. This is a bill before this House. This minister is now in breach of the directive you just gave. Please enforce your directive.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the minister has responsibility under the bill, with capacity around budgetary arrangements as well. In this instance ...
Mr ELFERINK: There is nothing about a budget in this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen was sat down because of digression from debate. This minister is talking about something that happened 10 years ago and nothing to do with the bill.
One set of rules is being applied on this side of the House, and another set of rules is being applied on that side of the House. This government is trying its hardest to use this direction from the Speaker to shut down debate in this House. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we object to that - we object enormously.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That suggestion that there are two rules is repugnant, I believe, to the stature of the Chair. You have already told the minister he should be relevant, and I am sure the minister will be relevant ...
Mr Elferink: Well, he is not being relevant, and he is not being relevant to the bill before the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: If you want to play these games, we will play.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call. I assure members of this House, the Speaker and I - in my role as Deputy Speaker - are making every effort to ensure rules are applied equally across this House.
Minister, you have the call, but I ask you to be relevant in your contribution to this debate about this bill before the House.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member across the floor is making accusations about caseloads; that people are overworked. I remember that because I marked it down when she said it. A significant number of people in Arnhem Land are overworked. Yes, there is overwork because there is a large demand out there. We are addressing that demand, after many years of failure by the previous government.
When it comes to the budget, the budget was raised by the member for Nelson. He asked clearly: is there going to be a budget to ensure all this is put in place? Of course, there is going to be a budget because this government placed an extra $130m over five years, on top of the $145m a year we have currently in the budget - compared to $7m the CLP put in place. Can you dispute that? No, you cannot because that is the truth ...
Mr Elferink: I can, actually. I can dispute that because you are misrepresenting those numbers.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is stated here and I am prepared to table it now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: This government adopted the recommendations - the urgent ones - within six months. The recommendations required to be implemented between 18 months and two years we are progressing and putting into legislation properly and steadily. There is an implementation committee which oversees implementation of the recommendations. This committee checks every time that we do the right thing in the right time frame. To date, the committee has said: ‘Yes, the government is putting in place what is recommended by the board of inquiry’.
This is not flimsy legislation as the member for Araluen has mentioned; this is good legislation. Departments should not, and do not, have the right to refuse to exchange information. Departments work for the government of the day. Departments are all working together, not against each other. I remember when I first became minister I asked for information from my own department and received an answer that they could not disclose that information to the minister because it was confidential. I told them what to do, and they did it.
I also find it incredible my ex-wife, when working in a high school, said the nurse would find out about a child with regard to an issue that may involve child protection, but she could not talk to the teacher, the teacher could not talk to the Education department, and the Education department could not talk to child protection under the protection of privacy. That is what this legislation addresses: it authorises people to talk to each other and make provisions for what kind of information will be disclosed and how to protect the privacy of people by not disclosing certain information unless people justify why they want the information.
If we are going to address the issue of child protection it should not be done only by the department for child protection, it should be done by anyone in any organisation who is involved with children – the Education department, Health department, child protection department, and sports and recreation. It is very important for people to say: ‘There are privacy issues so I cannot disclose information’. Paramount at the end of the day is the protection of children.
Yes, we have made significant inroads in child protection. Only last week, my department, working with the police, charged an individual for failing to provide the necessities of a life to a child. That was reported widely in the media, and we will do it again, and again, because this government means business and wants to, and will, protect children wherever they live - in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Yirrkala, Yuendumu, or any small or large community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House because it will help protect children in the Territory.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my first question is a general question. How is information going to be shared between jurisdictions? What is the process? Are there going to be some guidelines as to how that information is shared?
Mr VATSKALIS: This legislation applies within the Territory, not between different states and territories.
Mr WOOD: You cannot ask, for instance, the Commonwealth for information? The reason I ask that, of course, is the Commonwealth has a big say in all this because it is part of the intervention. You have government business managers and - well, we did have police officers. Is there no form of information sharing between those bodies?
Mr VATSKALIS: We cannot bind the Commonwealth with our legislation; it has the right to refuse it. However, the department has its own channels and connections talking to each other about it, especially when children move from one jurisdiction to another, either an order or an arrangement, then an exchange of information takes place. However, this legislation applies for individuals and organisations within the Territory.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand there might be a difficulty between state to state or territory to state. However, I have a concern that the reason we had government business managers and federal officers move into the Northern Territory was about child protection. Therefore, you would have thought it would be very important to share the information with our departments. Were there any discussions held with the Commonwealth government in relation to setting up procedures to allow for sharing of information? I will just add one more question to that. If a general business manager has information, then what is the process for the sharing of that information about a child with the Department of Children and Families?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is up to the business manager to disclose this information. We cannot force him under our legislation because he is subject to Commonwealth laws and Commonwealth laws prevail over Territory laws.
Mr WOOD: Whilst I understand that, my question was whether there were any negotiations. Bearing in mind we were bringing forward this amendment and the Commonwealth has a big say in the welfare of children in the Northern Territory, was there any communication to establish some protocols which would allow those matters which a general business manager cannot give freely to your department, so a process did actually work?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we do negotiate with the Commonwealth. However, as I said to you before, there are different provisions under Commonwealth legislation for the business managers to act, but we cannot force them under our own legislation. That is my point: this applies to the Territory - Territory organisations, public servants, and NGOs based in the Territory. I cannot force Commonwealth people to disclose information to us. The Commonwealth has its own set of regulations that apply to its own officers that, under those regulations, can be discussed with us.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify that, you are saying the Commonwealth has the power to share information about a child with the Department of Children and Families?
Mr VATSKALIS: If they so wish, but I cannot force them to do so.
Mr WOOD: Minister, do you think that is a failing in the system if that is not the case?
Mr VATSKALIS: To date, the information flow between the Commonwealth and us is not inhibited, but there is nothing formal. I would like to see something more formal, and we continue to discuss this with the Commonwealth.
Mr WOOD: It was mentioned in some notes but, in my discussions with Dr Bath, a concern he raised was in relation to whether information could be shared easily between community child safety and wellbeing teams. What is the process of sharing of information between those two groups?
Mr VATSKALIS: This legislation provides the framework for an exchange of information between organisations within or outside the government. They have to comply with this legislation.
Mr WOOD: The other area that was of concern to the Children’s Commissioner was whether there is anything in here that also removes the possibility of the identification of a child by including in a report those particular matters which would easily identify that person. This was raised in relation to the Ombudsman’s report last year. Are there any controls over the type of information that could be released to the public to ensure those people, especially the children, are not identified?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not think the Ombudsman’s report fell under the provisions of the legislation. It is totally different. This legislation does not do it, but other legislation provides for safeguarding the identity of the children - not to become public.
Mr WOOD: Another question that was raised - and I had it here too - is the workload people might have. We know some workers have quite high caseload ratios. Do you think this could create an extra burden on those people; that is, the reporting of this information? Someone has to physically report information and ensure it gets to another department. Have you considered that this may be an extra workload on those people which could reduce their capacity to do the work they are meant to do, or mean that information does not get out simply because they do not have the time to do it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Until now, everything is handled by child protection officers within the organisation. By putting this legislation in place, we can now engage NGOs outside the public service to do some of the things we are doing because they are bound by the provisions of the legislation. No, it would not increase the workload. In some cases, it might actually lighten the workload. Everything is handled by child protection officers. If we can allow other organisations, under this legislation, to deal with some of these lighter issues - and the majority of what we are dealing with is neglect, which is not like sexual abuse - that would allow us then to concentrate on the most important issues and allow other organisations to work with us because they are bound by legislation in place.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I raised in my response an issue which seems to be of concern to the Council of Territory Cooperation, which has been relayed to us from the Department of Children and Families; that is, there appears to be the inability through computer programs to be able to track where children are in remote communities. Is there an issue, if we are trying to share information between different departments, we actually had in some cases an inability to obtain that information? If we were trying to tell the police or we were trying to tell the department of youth services, or whatever, about a particular child, the issue we have is that we perhaps do not know where that child is. Is that area a priority of yours: to see whether that programming can be speeded up, or the development of a program, so there is not that lack of information about those children?
Mr VATSKALIS: In most cases, this applies to people in remote communities, especially in remote, remote communities - one day people can be this side of the border of the Northern Territory/Western Australia, next day they can be on the other side of the border with the whole family. However, by being able to talk to the clinics, the police, the teachers - and the opposite, the teachers talking to us - it would be much easier to track children’s movements even in remote communities. It is not going to be perfect, but will improve significantly what we now have in place.
Mr WOOD: I probably was not referring to people going over the border. The information we received at the meeting with Family and Community Services is they cannot say, with their present computer programs, where children are if they need to at a moment’s notice. I suppose they can do it by ringing round and that sort of thing, but the programs they have do not enable them to do that. I am worried, if we are sharing information, there is a bit of a failing at one point in that sharing of information because, simply, we cannot get that information.
Mr VATSKALIS: We are looking into that. That is an information database problem we are trying to resolve: how to ensure we can track children wherever they are.
Bill agreed to, without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few closing comments. This, indeed, is very important legislation. It is not very lengthy, it is nine pages long, and, in essence, it is not that complicated. I was quite staggered to hear the Minister for Child Protection talk about the fact that his wife, who is a teacher, has struggled with the fact that the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I just seek your clarification on the parameters around a third reading speech. I believe, in relevance, it should be in the four corners, the four boundaries, of the legislation itself.
Madam SPEAKER: I am still listening to the member for Araluen.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I was quite staggered to hear the Minister for Child Protection speak of his wife feeling frustrated that as a teacher she could not communicate with the child protection industry about concerns she had, or shared, concerning children under her watch.
Minister, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you have had a personal experience of the frustrations of information sharing and, yet, it has taken you this long to put this very small piece of legislation forward. It has taken you years. This government has taken years to reform the Care and Protection of Children Act to allow information sharing to occur.
I believe you have, once again, failed in your duty to provide the child protection system of the Northern Territory a proper amenity to go about the duties that are necessary under the act to protect children. It is absolutely essential these things take place in a timely manner. This government has taken almost 12 years of precious time to reform things like this - sharing information. A nine-page piece of legislation has taken at least three years.
In 2009, COAG released a report titled Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business in which they clearly stated the ability for government departments, non-government organisations, and various other organisations with a stake in child protection be able to share information. Why does this government continue to drag its heels when it comes to child protection?
We had a report from the Ombudsman just last year. Many of the cases she cited in detail were around the frustrations and the inadequacies of the system when it comes to information sharing - and I am not digressing from the topic now. Information sharing has been a critical issue recognised and identified for many years in the Northern Territory, and this government has taken years to come up with a nine-page piece of legislation making a very simple reform which will enable people within the system to share information.
I am absolutely appalled, once again, by how this government drags its feet time and time again when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory - three years! Two years ago, the opposition brought a private member’s bill to try to amend the Information Act for this very reason. At the time, the opposition to that legislation was that it was not satisfactory or it did not meet the need, or words to that effect.
Madam Speaker, we support this legislation. We have supported it, in essence, for many years. I condemn the government for how slack and negligent it has been when it comes to child protection. A simple change to the Care and Protection of Children Act took years to come about. Does that give us any confidence in this government? I say no. Once again, we have no reason to feel confident in the Minister for Child Protection and how he goes about managing child protection in the Northern Territory.
We are now waiting on 106 recommendations pending, in two week’s time, to commence implementation. I wait to see, with great anticipation, how he will go about managing that. I have absolutely no confidence they will be implemented in a timely, responsible manner as is required by government, because what they have done is put it out for public comment. Six independent inquiries into child protection over the last 10 years have not been enough for this government. They want more consultation because they are unable to make a decision. They are incompetent when it comes to child protection, and this is just evidence. This simple amendment about information sharing within the Care and Protection of Children Act was a simple amendment which took years.
Madam Speaker, once again, I am almost speechless when it comes to how incompetent this government really is.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, how interesting it was to listen to the member for Araluen speak about the previous legislation just passed in this parliament and the time it took to do it. We are now debating a bill - and whilst the member for Araluen was talking about something that goes back three years, and it being completely inappropriate that the government takes three years to deal with something that they see as urgent legislation – in this case, we see legislation that was an election commitment of Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister, on her first campaign in 2000 when it was first promised by Labor.
We are talking about 12 years in this case - 12 years to get some legislation in front of the parliament ...
Dr Burns: Like mobile phones down the Stuart Highway.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister makes fun and says we are talking about mobile phones along the Stuart Highway. Unfortunately, minister, we are not in government ...
Dr Burns: But you were when you made that promise!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We are not in government.
There is now mobile coverage along the Stuart Highway. Anyone who is concerned about security can always go into a Telstra shop and hire a satellite phone for a relatively fair price and use that. That is another debate, minister, and I am happy to have that debate with you at any time you like. I do not think Madam Speaker would consider it appropriate to have that debate on this bill.
This bill, as I said, goes back to the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, prior to her election, making commitments that they would bring in builders registration and insurance to protect the consumer. It is 12 years later, and this bill is finally being debated in this parliament. You have to ask how committed the Labor Party is to commitments it makes in election campaigns when it takes 12 long years to actually get their heads around something. As we will see later in this debate, they have not done a very good job of that either; they do not have their heads around this. There are still many questions that need asking. I hope and pray they can answer those questions.
It seems to be commonplace for these Labor members opposite to make commitments and promises which they never deliver. The most famous was their mini-budget in 2001 when they allocated $14m to an oncology centre - which I know you are well aware of, Madam Speaker, as you were the Health minister at the time. As happy as the community was to hear that commitment, to know that something was going to be done to treat cancer patients in the Northern Territory, it did not occur. It did not occur until, of course, they tried to duck shove responsibility to the federal government, and a former federal member gladly took up the fight and put it on the federal agenda. It never appeared there because, quite clearly, this government was incapable of meeting that election commitment. They failed to meet that election commitment because they did not do anything about it. It actually took the federal government to step in and deliver something they committed to delivering themselves …
Dr Burns: Not your government, though.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister jumps in and says not our government. I urge the minister to have a look at previous budgets, and see where a line item was put in for an oncology facility in the Northern Territory. It certainly was a Coalition government that first put the plan to the Australian people ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is one example ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Leader of Government Business will not - put it down, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, he defies the laws, Madam Speaker. He is on his way out, he does not really care ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Relevance, here he goes.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that the bill appears to be about Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters). If you could try to …
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, and that is exactly what I have been speaking about. It is quite ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am listening, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is quite interesting to see the way the Leader of Government Business interjects on a range of other subjects. As soon as he is called to order, he jumps up ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business!
Mr TOLLNER: ... and pleads relevance. Goodness me, the guy knows no bounds. Hypocrisy knows no bounds ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Tollner: Oh, here we go.
Dr BURNS: I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not actually think it was out of order in that context ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I know he has a glass jaw ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could just keep your comments to the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: ... so I am glad to withdraw. He is sugar coated, Madam Speaker.
In any case, the point I was making is this is not the only example where government has dragged its feet on an issue important to many people. The member for Araluen raised the matter just a couple of minutes ago in the final debate about how government is so slack and tardy when it comes to introducing legislation that meets its election commitments and other commitments it makes in the community.
Goodness me, we see it at Bagot with the commitment to build a police post - never delivered on. They do not care about the people of Bagot.
In this case, they do not care about people purchasing homes, or people who could be dudded by dodgy contractors or dodgy builders. They do not seem to care about small business people who are in the building game. They put something off for 12 long years – 12 years it has taken for this government to come in here with legislation to say they are going to do something in this area. That is absolutely appalling. I cannot believe these guys sit here with straight faces seeming to think this is the right thing to do.
We have seen, over those 12 years, building businesses go to the wall, contracting businesses suffer because their bills are not being paid, homeowners and the like out of pocket because of dodgy practices. Yet, this government seems to be able to turn a blind eye to it all, proudly march through it, and every now and then make the same commitment they did 12 years before.
Well, it is not good enough because it says this is a government that cannot be trusted on their word. There are very few things when you look around the place and what they commit to that they have actually done. And as we often say, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What they do is vastly different to what they say they are going to do. They are a pack of blowhards. They make commitments to the electorate, to people, and then never deliver. They are just blowhards. It is a joke to see the way this government treats industry, Territorians and people who need action in particular areas.
The member for Araluen did a marvellous job of highlighting this government’s incompetency and failure to deliver on commitments in areas where drastic reform is required. The government would much prefer to come in here and deliver puff pieces - ministerial statements and the like, blowing their own trumpets – but, at the same time, doing nothing for the people. We see it all the time. We see it everywhere. We have the minister for the Environment talking about what a wonderful success the Cash for Containers Scheme is ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, digression from subject. The member has been on his feet for at least 10 minutes now and has not even got into the debate of the bill - everything but.
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Mr TOLLNER: That is not true at all.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not true. He has referred to the bill on numerous occasions.
Dr Burns: I was hoping he was going to get there, but he is not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, there does seem to be a fair bit of digression. I have given you a reasonable level of latitude. It is almost the luncheon break so perhaps we can have something a little more relevant between now and 12 o’clock when I will ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pardon me if I disagree with you. I believe I am being relevant. I believe I am being completely relevant. This is a commitment the Labor Party, this government, gave in the year 2000 when they first ran. That is more than 12 years ago. The Leader of Government Business might not think that is relevant. He might like to try to shut me up and gag debate, and gag the opposition from talking about these issues. I can tell you that people out there are pretty damn unhappy about the tardiness of this government and the length of time it takes for any sort of a resolution.
If you expect me to stand up here and pull this bill to bits, piece by piece, in the next one-and-a half minutes, you have another think coming. There is at least another 35 minutes to go in this discussion, certainly on my part, and I will devote a lot of that to it.
It is worth reminding the electorate and people out there that this is a commitment that goes back to the year 2000. I know the government does not want people to hear that. They do not like being reminded of their prior election commitments. They do not like being reminded of things like the oncology unit, the previous bill that was just discussed, and the police post at Bagot. They would like all those things to be forgotten about. They will re-announce them – as sure as God made little apples, these guys will re-announce this as a new commitment. They keep doing it over and over again, and at the same time, nothing, nothing, nothing ever gets done.
They are a do-nothing government. They are a government of blowhards, of people who like to blow their own trumpet and do nothing. They are out there for every media photo. They are out there trying to claim every good news story but, as soon as the wood is put on them about doing something, they go to water. You see the Leader of Government Business jumping up, interjecting, calling for this and that, trying to do everything he can to gag members on this side from reminding Territorians about what these guys have actually promised. I do not think that is right; I believe that is wrong. This government should be held to account, and that is the role of oppositions.
I know there are people on the other side who think that is not right; that we should sit here lamely and follow every blas comment they make. Well, I do not find that particularly appealing. I do not think that is what the people of Fong Lim elected me to do ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: Gladly, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from another one of my favourite schools, Essington School, accompanied by Miss Mali Grossman and Mr Daniel Hogg. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: We will be going back to the debate. We had the member for Fong Lim, but he will not be back for a little while; he can continue his remarks later.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge you have enabled the member for Fong Lim to complete his remarks at a later time. I place on the record my thanks for that.
I find myself somewhat surprised to be on my feet at the moment, for obvious reasons. I am probably not as well briefed as some other members in relation to this legislative instrument. However, I pick up on a very important component this instrument demonstrates to the people of the Northern Territory; that is, movement on really important issues.
The island of Greenland is moving towards the North Pole more quickly than this government moves on things that matter to Territorians. Whilst we are generally supportive of what is in this legislative instrument, it is deeply concerning that it has taken this tectonic government such an extraordinary long time to drift in this direction.
I believe it was the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as Opposition Leader, who was raising these issues. During the intervening time, several building companies have collapsed, leaving people exposed in the fashion they have been in the absence of this Labor government being able to put together a decent package of, particularly, residential building consumer protection, which is what one of these cognate bills is all about. This government’s slowness has seen numerous people left swinging in the breeze, and left them without their houses completed and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. This bill represents what this government is; that is, careless and sloppy with the interests of Northern Territorians.
This also raises the question - and I have yet to see any advice on this – of what the cost imposition this bill, particularly the consumer protection component of it, represents to the price of an average three-bedroom house.
I listened with interest to the minister for Affordable Housing - I always get you guys confused because you have your split roles. Which one are you, Affordable Housing?
Dr Burns: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, thank you. The minister for Affordable Housing was saying during Question Time he will be renting out properties for 20% cheaper than the most expensive rental rates in the country.
Dare I digress, but that as an aside, there are legislative instruments that come through this House which, on every occasion we pass these bills - that is not true; on regular occasions when we pass these bills - have a cost impact out the other end. By way of parallel, things like the container deposit legislation have a cost impact. That was acknowledged during the debates in the introduction of that legislation.
You have other legislative instruments such as occupational health and safety, which add to costs for building houses. For argument’s sake, if you take the Housing Industry Association’s assessment of the occupational health and safety legislation cost in the final cost of a three-bedroom house, their guesstimate was somewhere between $20 000 and $30 000. Add to that other components of government regulation, including taxes, and it is not long before you realise a large slice of a house being purchased is paying for government regulations. One of the things the Country Liberals are very mindful of - and will be attending to should we form a government after the next Territory election - is a policy that will run a few new filters over the types of legislation we introduce. One of those filters will be a filter asking how much the cost impost will be to a family affected by the passage of this legislation. Currently, if you look at a Cabinet document, there is a series of items as to what the impost is to government, what the native title effects are, and those sorts of things. There will be a new item which will be: what the average family will be paying as a result of the passage of this legislative instrument. The second component will be: what is the cost to business?
All of these legislative instruments that are passed – and the government does much of what it does with good intent. I do not honestly believe anyone thinks - I am not going to say the government is motivated purely by some villainous predisposition oriented towards playing The Internationale every time they pass legislation in this place. As affectionate as I am - as the Karl Marx for Port Darwin - to that idea, I am wondering who my Engels is ...
Dr Burns: I know who it is.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay.
Dr Burns: I know who V I Lenin is as well.
Mr ELFERINK: I have a fridge at home called Engels. Anyway, that is by the by.
The cost impost - I do not believe the government is engaged in villainy. However, sometimes I wonder when bills come before this House whether consideration is given to how much it costs. If you take something like the work safety legislation and those cost imposts, you have to have some structure in place, either in the common law or in legislative instruments to protect the rights of employees and workers generally. I do not take exception to that; of course, a workplace has to be a safe place.
This legislation suggests a consumer needs to be protected in the instance that a company goes bust. None of this happens for free. There is not some sort of charitable institution in the community that says they will underwrite government legislation if it happens to have a cost impost on consumers. It does not work that way. As a consequence, you find yourself in a position where you look at legislative instruments and you see them in isolation - as we are looking, effectively, at this instrument in isolation saying: ‘Wow, what a good idea, this will protect consumers’. Clearly, it has been called for by us and promised by government for quite some time.
I am also mindful of the fact that these cost imposts exist and, if you add them up cumulatively, they take up a large slice of something like a house. Every time we pass a legislative instrument in here, there is potential for such a cost impost to business and the private sector. Bear with me for one second.
We. on this side of the House, understand there is a cost impost because one of the critical things - you will notice if you look at the most recent Property Council report on our favourite capital city, Darwin gets the wooden spoon. If you look at one of the graphs in that report - which is 148 pages long, but is actually quite readable - the graph speaks volumes; that is, the dissatisfaction with government in relation to its capacity to deal with things such as the cost of living. Every time we have a bright idea in this place or on the fifth floor, someone has to pay. Accumulatively, those payments rack up and up and up.
Moreover, we then have three tiers of government doing exactly the same thing. We have a federal government which says: ‘Oh, it is only going to be a couple of dollars per week here and a couple of dollars per week there’. Then, here comes the next tier of government – us - who sit here and say: ‘It is only a few dollars per week here and a few dollars per week there’. Then, you go down to a local council level and it is only the car parking on Saturday, it is only a little money there. If you add up all of those bits of money - the carbon tax at the federal level, other taxation at the federal level, the removal of things like the Medicare rebates for what are so-called high-income workers - all of that bites.
We then pass legislation in this place because we signed up to a national scheme saying we have to get our childcare centres loaded up with one teacher each. That costs. And by gum, I know it costs because it was not that long ago - I am only talking about a couple of years ago - that I had two kids in childcare. At the time, I was on $125 000. Essentially, we were a one-income family, but the missus occasionally worked and picked up some extra cash. If I am on $125 000 a year and paying $525 or $550 a week in childcare, and I look at my bank account at the end of the week and go ‘Ouch’, I wonder how a family on $80 000 does it. I cannot imagine it; I cannot fathom it - I really cannot. The moment I managed to get my kids into school I was thinking to myself: ‘Thank goodness for that’.
The passage of that childcare legislation has now ramped up those costs to the average family by another $30 a week, and that is a lot of dough. Add on the extra we are going to be paying for our power through the carbon tax, the extra we are going to be paying for this, that, and the other, and the costs accumulate and accumulate. Small wonder the big three issues in elections have evaporated.
Remember when the mantra used to be health, education, law and order - the big three issues in any election campaign? That is not coming through in the research I have been doing. It is not coming through anymore in issues faced, let us say, by the Queensland Labor Party in the Queensland election. I suspect it is not coming through even in the government’s own polling and focus groups. It is not coming through in the Property Council’s reviews.
What is coming through is that health and education is dropping away, law and order is still there, particularly in the Northern Territory, but the one that stands out is cost of living. People are actually hurting, and they are really feeling it. I find it quite extraordinary. I expected the health, education, and law and order mantra to be playing out for a political campaign for as long as I drew breath and my backside pointed to the ground. However, it is not true anymore. Those two things, whilst important in people’s minds, are now taking a secondary position to law and order, cost of living.
It is just not in the Northern Territory. It is particularly painful here, particularly in the area of rents - hence the question to the minister during Question Time. The question we asked was what is the comparator; how do we compare with other jurisdictions across the country. The minister partially answered the question. He said, at the end of Question Time, how much it cost to rent a three-bedroom house in the Northern Territory, and in other …
Dr Burns: Units.
Mr ELFERINK: Units, thank you. However, he did not do the comparison with the rest of the country. Why? Because we are coming out on top on both of those polls. I think we are one step down, second on house rents, top on units - or is it the other way around? We are right up there ...
Ms Purick: Second highest on rents.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you. We are right up there. This is busted backside old Darwin, and we are right up there, competing with major metropolitan areas in the southern states - and it hurts. The cost of living hurts, it really bites, and governments are being held responsible for it.
In the Queensland election - and I was careful to look at some of the things that were tracking along - even on the night in question when the ABC runs their excellent election coverage and they show graphs, a consistent theme from the commentators was cost of living. They penalised - they absolutely belted - the Bligh government in a way I still find astonishing. I know how I feel about it, but I can imagine how some Labor people feel about what has happened there. As parliamentarians, we operate with the very best intentions in the world. Whilst I do not agree with the philosophy of members opposite on how to engineer society, if you like - that is one of our great points of difference - I still do not believe they are engaged in wickedness. However, their engineering costs. The point is that by another means you end up doing this redistribution of wealth thing anyhow, and it all happens in small incremental packets.
What I am striding to extract from the minister, should we get a second reading reply - and I am sure we will - is whether a cost review has been done of these schemes. Who are the insurers, for argument’s sake, which are stumping up, and how much are their premiums going to be? Those are the questions because that is what I would like to know as well. Whilst we approve of this, there will be other legislation before this House which we may not approve of, simply on cost grounds. As a consequence of those cost imposts, I would like to hear a reply from the minister which covers these details. I am becoming increasingly conscious of what we are imposing upon other people.
Unfortunately, in the real world, builders like Carey Builders, for argument’s sake, will continue to occur. The other thing I place on the record now is that whilst we approve or support - or do not oppose, if you like - this legislation in this instance, what I also want to turn my attention to is a commitment to have a look at how it is going. What I also want to be able to determine at some point in the future is whether this cost impost we are placing on Territorians will actually work. It is one thing to say we are going to do this, and then make it happen, but it may not be the best system available. It may not be the best system because it costs, because it does not capture certain types of builders, or because it does not produce an outcome we are attempting to achieve.
You need look no further than the container deposit legislation as a demonstration where well-intended legislation - the concept was supported by this side of the House; we were critical about the structures – which does not work well. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves at some point in the future that we will come back and check how this legislation is operating and ensure it is not another Container Deposit Scheme, but is actually a scheme which works and which brings about the intention that the Residential Building Consumer Protection Bill actually intends to achieve.
I would hate to see the establishment of the scheme which results in a much greater expense, and still does not throw a wide enough shadow over the industry, so people who still find themselves subject to the operation of buildings firms that collapse still are not effectively covered. It may well be that, upon such a review, it will be determined to be cheaper that people do this stuff individually than get insurance on a case-for-case business. It may well be that the banks determine that you cannot get a loan to construct a house unless you carry this sort of insurance. I do not know. Is that the rule now? I am not sure if that is the rule now; if you are getting a bank loan to build a house you have to have this sort of insurance attached to it.
As I said when I stood up, I am speaking at short notice, namely, two minutes. It would be very interesting to know whether the banks insist on something like this for someone who gets a loan. If someone has the cash up-front, it may be simple. It might be that after a few years it is back to the marketplace to determine the amount of risk, rather than a scheme like this adopting a risk.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have nothing more to add and I will hand over to the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin. He actually raised a very important issue of the costs on to the consumer. We certainly have to be wary of that. My understanding, in looking at this bill, is we are looking at somewhere between $2500 and $3000 per house which, for some people, may not seem much but, for others, it might be just the point where they cannot quite have enough money to purchase their house.
On the other hand, government is in a bit of a bind, I suppose, in the sense it knows the pain of the Carey Builders situation. It remembers some of the other companies that have gone bung over the years. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. It has to do something otherwise the public will continue to complain they are not protected against dodgy builders and poor workmanship by law. There is a cost to that. I suppose that is what the balance has to be when you are trying to protect consumers but, at the same time, you are trying to ensure the cost of housing does not continue to increase.
The area of trying to reduce costs in housing is something I know the government has been looking at through the Land Development Corporation. I had some ideas myself. I had a briefing with the minister yesterday in relation to ensuring developers only purchase the land they need for development, especially if other parts of that land are going to be retained in either local government or government hands. So, when the developer purchases land, he or she only purchases land that is required for the development; that is, the building of the houses. That may not fit perfectly all the time, but it is one of those areas we need to look at in relation to trying to keep the cost of housing down.
I thank the member for Port Darwin. As he said, he took this on at short notice. It is legislation I certainly have not taken on, on short notice; it has taken a while to get my head around some of this. I believe his comments were right on the ball: governments do have to, at times, filter what the effect of the legislation will be on the consumer.
I will get back to more specifics in relation to these two bills. The first, of course, is the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill. It goes hand in hand with the next bill, which is the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill. The reason I say that is, although we are setting up an insurance system – probably technically not insurance because we are setting up a fidelity fund, although there can be an insurance company step into that area as well. What these two pieces of legislation are trying to do is work so there is a minimal risk; there is a minimal reason for a need to use the funds in the fidelity fund. If you can do that, then there is a fair chance that increases in premiums will either not happen, or perhaps could even reduce as time go by, if there is enough money in the fidelity fund. The way to do that is by reducing the risk, and the way to reducing the risk is what you see in this first bill.
The first bill deals with, for instance, that you have to be a registered builder - which you have to be now anyway - but you also have to have $50 000 in the bank for the life of the policy. If you have a policy to build a house or houses you must have $50 000 in the bank. This has been brought into the legislation because it appears some builders, to get around this situation, will see their best mate or their mum and ask for a $50 000 loan. They show that to the board, and the board sees $50 000 in the bank. As soon as the policy has been approved, they take the money out and give it back to mum, which means they do not have any money in the bank. This sets in place that money must be there for the life of the policy.
It also amends section 48B of the current act, titled ‘Building contract to be entered into’, and allows a regulation that may provide for progress payments. Those progress payments are 5% deposit, 10% base frame, 15% frame stage, 35% lock-up stage, 25% fixing stage, 7% practical completion, 3% on issue of occupancy permit. Basically, people are only required to pay that amount, except for the deposit, at the completion of each stage. That is where a number of people have come unstuck, either by foolishness or simply because they have been pressured or conned by a builder to pay more than is in these stages. Some people have lost quite a bit of money. I would have thought the Carey Builders situation was one where people paid out money, the company went broke, they probably paid for a stage that had not been completed, and they lost quite a considerable amount of money. This regulation about progress payments is very important.
When the government was talking with the MBA, there were some concerns about whether that could be modified. The latest information I have, after my briefing yesterday, is there is a provision in regulations for the builder and consumer to agree to modify progress payments for standard and non-standard work. I was concerned yesterday that this only applied to non-standard work, but I am informed it also applies to standard work. It allows the flexibility that is needed because, even though you might have standard houses, you are also going to have houses where people want their own special attributes that might cost a bit more money at certain stages.
You have those policies in place that will make it more difficult for people to get into the building industry without certain things being in place before they start building a house.
I also have to note - this is really important from a consumer’s point of view - the government is bringing out a consumer side to building and renovating in the NT. Sometimes, these things are put on the webpage; unfortunately, many people do not look at the webpage now. It is nice to have it on the webpage, but there are still many people out there who do not get on the web or do not have a computer.
It is an area that needs to be promoted on a continual basis because there will always be people wanting to build a house, especially young people. It may be that, in conjunction with the local council, these types of education packages for consumers are held in various centres where housing construction is occurring. For instance, you might be able to do something in collaboration with – as it is called now - the City of Palmerston Council. You may be able to work in conjunction with other groups to get this message out. However, you would not want to do it just for six months; it should be done on a regular basis because, as I said before in relation to the staged or progress payments, people have come unstuck by paying more money than they should. We need to get it into people’s heads that they need to ensure they know all the ins and outs before they go down the path of buying a house. That is really important. Legislation is one thing; education is something that should go hand in hand with this legislation.
In relation to the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill, I should have said at the beginning: ‘At last!’, because it is a long time coming. There have been attempts at it, there have been versions of it, and they all seem to have either not seen the light of day or, when they have seen the light of day, they have not really done the job people expected of this type of legislation. It is a fair criticism of the government that this legislation has taken a long time to come before this House.
It seems a long time since we debated in Alice Springs what could be done about the Carey homes. I still do not think the concept I had of putting a caveat on people’s places and the government actually paying for the remaining construction of those homes was a bad thing. Obviously, Treasury would not have liked that sort of thing, but it was a fairly straightforward way of allowing people to finish their houses. They would have had to repay that cost to the government at a later stage, say, when their house was sold.
It is good to see this bill before us today. It looks at a range of things. We will have consumer guarantees that will have effect for the period prescribed by regulation, which will be called the prescribed effect period. The consumer guarantees will include areas such as structural matters which will have a guarantee for six years, and non-structural for two years. In my discussions with industry in relation to that, there were some concerns about whether that was too long a period for non-structural items. One of the concerns raised was that non-structural items can mean damage to cupboards, or maybe the paint is peeling off, or whatever. From a builder’s point of view, some of them say you will get people start to whinge about everything in the hope they will get it fixed under the non-structural guarantee. If that non-structural guarantee is for too long, they will be complaining about chips on the door frames and dints in the cupboards. So, their concern is that might be too long.
On the other hand, two years allows you to go through two Wet Seasons. It is sometimes nice to go through two Wet Seasons in a house; you can see whether you are going to have a leak in the roof which, even in new houses, I do not think is uncommon. Having worked on Litchfield Council for quite some time, contractors for things like road drainage used to give a guarantee of, say, 12 months. Sure enough, you would have the driest Wet Season on record and nothing much would happen to the drains. Then, the year after, you would get some terrific floods and you would find the council would have to pick up quite a bit of cost to repair the damage. I can see the builder’s point of view regarding two years, but I can also see the consumer’s point of view that they want to ensure the issues such as the ones with the SIHIP houses at Alice Springs do not, all of a sudden, pop up after just one year.
If those SIHIP houses were being built under this legislation, they were non-structural problems. Under this legislation, even one year would have covered them. But, who knows whether some of those faults might still come up, especially if they have been using the same material for sealing the walls at a later stage? That is where the two years might be of more benefit. It is something that will be in the regulations and, I gather, will be discussed with the industry. There may be some way through that as well.
The other different matter we deal with here is we are setting up a fidelity fund. It took me a little while to understand a fidelity fund. It is not quite an insurance company, although it is similar. I suppose if there is someone out there who knows a bit more about the difference between the two they could explain that a bit more clearly. It is based, to a large extent, on the ACT model where a body sets up a fund and that body is responsible for distributing funds where needed where a house is either not finished or the workmanship is poor. That is what this legislation is aiming at.
The two areas in this legislation that will be covered by either the fidelity fund, or an insurance firm if they want to get into the business - and HIA expressed some interest in doing that. The building cover for non-completion will be where a builder goes broke, dies, or just takes off, and that will cover works that require a registered builder over $12 000. Caps will be set for claims in regulations, but based on interstate practice consultations they are proposed to be up to 20% of the contract to a maximum of $200 000, and it is only applicable to consumers, not government or owner builders and developers.
Basically, if the person has been paying out stage by stage, they should not be much out of pocket. This allows a new person to come into the market to finish off the house and there will be costs involved in that changeover. This allows some money to overcome any issues in relation to one builder taking over from another builder. Maybe there are some small costs in there as well, if work was not quite completed up to that stage, but money had been paid.
The other big one is the building cover that is for non-compliance. If a building is shown to be faulty - that is, there are problems with the building - you can claim up to $200 000 less, if that is the case, the money paid to the builder who took over after the other builder went broke. I presume, of course, if it was a case where the builder did not go broke, you would have up to $200 000 if the builder was still operating, but built a house that was of poor quality, where it could be shown there were some defects in that building.
There are a few issues which have been raised. The issue of underquoting was raised by HIA. They said if a company underquotes and starts building a house and then goes broke, people are left with the cost of that. It seems that will be covered because the fidelity fund, before they assess whether the builder is capable of carrying out that work, will have a good look at the policy that has been put forward for that house. If they see a three-bedroom block house being built in Palmerston at half the price of all the other three-bedroom block houses being built it, I imagine they would say they do not believe you can build a house for that amount and would question the builder.
So, there are some good checks and balances in this bill to ensure we can reduce the risk of the fidelity fund even being used in the first place. As I said, if you take these two bills as a whole, it is about reducing risk, therefore, reducing the need for customers to require the fidelity fund payments.
As I said before in relation to underquoting, as long as consumers pay according to the stages, there is a fair chance, even if there was some underquoting, that the loss would be fairly minimal. All the cases I have heard, including Carey - and I have a case at the moment that is ongoing with some people in Virginia who paid the first deposit and the second deposit and my understanding is they might not have even had a contract. They have no money and they have no building. Information I received yesterday was that one of those builders is overseas, so it is hard to work out what can be done to help those people, if they cannot get their money returned, at least to get the building started. My understanding is that, unfortunately, it is more complex than it sometimes seems on the surface.
There is also a dispute resolution, which I believe is important. It says here there will be a statutory position of Commissioner of Residential Building Disputes that will be, basically, the same as the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Of course, you have to have that where you have disputes. Disputes between the consumer and the builder are not uncommon, and those areas need to be sorted out. I imagine one area where that will happen is workmanship. Where someone complains the quality of workmanship is not up to scratch, especially if the builder says it is, there is going to be a dispute and there needs to be a mechanism to ensure those disputes are resolved.
I have looked at this legislation for quite some time. I had a long meeting with the Master Builders Association, and we had a meeting with HIA. HIA had some concerns and I have raised those with the government, but I do not see those concerns as groundbreaking. From that point of view, even though this has taken some time, because I gather MBA had at least three meetings with the builders, they have eventually come up with a form of legislation which they pretty well agree with. There will always be a few things, such as the non-structural issue having a guarantee for two years - there was some concern about that. Overall, I believe this legislation looks the goods.
I know it has to be set up by the government, and the government will be putting $0.75m into it, and that will have to be repaid. If there was another company, such as an insurance company that would like to set up as well in the Territory, the government can help that company with some start-up funds, to ensure there is enough money in the kitty to pay for any early claims.
It is good we have this legislation at last. Of course, we can criticise the government - and I believe that criticism is reasonable, because it has taken so long. On the other hand, we should be grateful we now have legislation which I believe will give consumers protection.
I reiterate what the member for Port Darwin said - and it is one of those difficult areas - that if people want protection, it will cost. If it costs, it means the house is a little more expensive than we would have liked. However, it is part of a lot of regulation that has added to the costs of housing. For instance, we have asked the government to review the efficiency of the 5-star energy rating to see if we really need to go to a 6-star energy rating. All those things add costs to the cost of building. There always seem to be changes to the Building Code. There are some glorious, anonymous people out there whose lives are just all about changing the Building Code to some Australian Standard, especially in cyclone areas. I am not saying standards should not be upgraded, but the question about all the costs this might add to a house need to be taken into account.
We come up with those costs when we discuss whether you can build a house that is not a 5-star rated house; if you want to build a house that is not up to the standard of having an air-conditioner, but would like a nice breeze-through house. If you want to live in a shed, one of the problems with that is you have to have a 5-star rating for the shed. So, we regulate, we legislate, and it tends to add on more and more costs. On one hand it would be easy to say, let us reduce some of those costs but, on the other hand, you have to go back to see what costs are ones you cannot remove without removing the safety of the building, or the protection of the people who are building the houses.
Overall, the government has spent a great deal of time. In this case, getting these bills together, it has spent time that was well worth the effort. It has spoken to and listened to industry. As with all legislation, there will be some bits people might not agree with. I hope this bill is reviewed on a regular basis, that we hear how the fidelity fund is going, and we get reports if there are any issues in relation to the fidelity fund or the legislation, so we can see whether it is working. It would be good to see, if all the bits and pieces the minister has put forward today to reduce risk, can have a beneficial effect over a longer period by reducing premiums, or at least not letting premiums rise.
If a fidelity fund has a large amount of money and very few claims, you would hope it could pass on some of those benefits to the consumer. I know they want to talk about using some of the money for education programs and training - that is fine - but the consumers put that money in there and the consumers, perhaps, should get some benefit in the end if the fidelity fund gets above a certain amount of money. People would see that as a positive rather than putting up the price of premiums because the CPI said so, when the fact is they could probably go down because there is plenty of money in the fidelity fund. That is also something that should be reported on a regular basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for introducing these building amendment bills. They really are important and I am interested to hear his reply at the end of the debate.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pathetic, useless government this is - a pack of fools. As I said before Question Time, it is something promised prior to 2000 by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, and here we are in March 2012 finally getting to debate it. How absolutely pathetic this government is. Something that was identified 12 years ago as a problem, something that was going to be dealt with 12 years ago, and here we are in March 2012 debating it. How pathetic and what a pack of blowhards they are.
This bill raises a number of questions and I am very keen to hear what the minister has to say about some of those questions. I am keen to know the name of the insurance fund, and what insurance funds have been bidding for this opportunity. I am keen to know what the costs are to builders and contractors in this scheme the minister is putting forward. Of course, it is about reducing risk, and reducing risk comes at a premium. At the end of the day, we all know who is going to be paying that premium: those costs will be passed on to the consumer. We already have the most expensive houses in Australia and the most unaffordable rents in the country - that is a given. We are suffering the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory. Things are ridiculously unaffordable now, and I am interested to know what cost this will add to building a house to first homeowners and the like.
This government seems to be very good at increasing costs in a whole range of things. They squeal like stuck pigs when the cost of drinks go up, when they put a levy on beverage companies. Well, blind Freddy could see the cost of drinks would go up, but this government does not seem to care about that. This government is very good at spending money, and not very good at saving money. Their economic management and fiscal responsibility is all over the shop - worse than a five-year-old kid in a lolly shop. They will spend every cent they have every time and then scream poor when the hard times hit - and not take any responsibility for it themselves.
It is going to be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about this scheme in the committee stage of the debate, and to find out exactly how this scheme is going to be managed. I have read most of the information, and I have been to briefings at the theatrette in the museum. There are still many questions I have in relation to who the insurance company is; what power will that insurance company have to determine who can work in the building industry, who cannot; who will be excluded; what the limits are to doing certain work; and what the costs are. None of those questions have been adequately answered for me. This government is quite good at saying: ‘That is nothing to do with us. That is a commercial issue’. Ultimately, those commercial issues are being driven by the policy and the legislation this government creates - very similar to what is happening in the Cash for Containers situation at the moment - absolutely horrific; costing Territorians an absolute bomb for no noticeable effect at all.
The government will quite gladly support that lunatic in Canberra, the current Prime Minister, with her crazy plans for a carbon tax not taking into account at all any cost to business or Territorians. The Chief Minister cannot even answer the most simple questions on that, such as how much will the price of a litre of milk go up or a cubic metre of concrete? They have absolutely no idea, and they are quite happy to say: ‘That is nothing to do with us; that is a commercial matter. We do not really care about that’.
The fact is that the Northern Territory is now a very expensive place to live. You read reports in the paper about people saying that Darwin is the worst capital in Australia to live - crime is out of control, the cost of living is far too high, you cannot afford a place to live, there are people with full-time jobs sleeping on the streets because they cannot afford to rent. The government seems to have scant regard for those people’s concerns at all.
They come in here and gild the lily on a whole range of things. We heard in Question Time the Treasurer banging on about 2000 people on the Banned Drinker Register. That Banned Drinker Register is costing Territorians a bomb. It is costing a great deal of money and Territorians have a right to know what they are getting for that money. When you look outside and see all the drunks on the streets - it does not matter where you go, whether you are in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, or in Alice Springs, there are drunks everywhere – it is a bit hard to see how the government’s expenditure on that is working in any way at all to stop public drunkenness. However, they will come in here, spruik it and say: ‘We have the toughest alcohol laws in Australia’. Well, they are certainly the stupidest - there is no doubt about that.
Is there any way of stopping this legislation or getting changes to it? Goodness only knows. You would think these people would take on some level of community concern, and listen to the electorate, but it does not seem to matter.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be asking questions at the committee stage, and I am very keen to hear what the minister has to say about some of those matters I raised.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions.
Residential building cover really relates to the Territory and the bright future and the strong growth forecasts we have - may I say - set up by this government. So, it is more important than ever that consumers and builders feel confident during construction. That is an important point. As a government, we have been working with industry to make sure we get this cover right.
Currently, building contractors are required to obtain an approved policy of insurance against failure to carry out building work which complies with the Building Code. However, consumers are not covered in the event of insolvency, or the builder passing away, or disappearing for any other reason. Therefore, we have been asked by Territorians for this – not only by consumers who are entering a period where they will make the biggest investment in their life, we have also been asked by the building industry for this. The building industry wants to see that balance. It wants to see a healthy, thriving industry, because it can see the opportunities online in the Northern Territory, and no one wants to see anyone disadvantaged, particularly people losing their investment if contracts fail.
This package is different, and the cognate bills represent a package of initiatives. It is being delivered in partnership with industry, which is a very powerful point. There has been much work and consultation. It includes a proposed fidelity fund cover to cover parties in the event of death, loss of registration, and insolvency. It also covers general non-completion and poor workmanship. There are conditions, and builders must have $50 000 of assets to stay in business. Mandatory progress payments are set for stages of construction, a very logical way to go about protecting the consumer, which has been agreed to by industry. There will be further reviews and further consultation. That is what good legislation is all about.
There is a dispute resolution process that has been asked for by industry; a dispute resolution process managed by a dedicated Consumer Affairs commissioner for building disputes. This is a good, comprehensive package.
All members who contributed to the debate made a comment on the time it has taken. I believe it is important we go through a little of the chronology of what has been happening in the Northern Territory in real time - not in fantasy land.
If they are interested - and no doubt the member for Fong Lim is interested - the government amended the act in 2004 and 2005 that provided for the registration of builders and home warranty insurance. So the journey began. Builders registration was commenced in 2006. However, Part 4C, the home warranty insurance, was not commenced due to concerns nationally with the insurance products available. That is an important part of the story. In November 2008, a Senate committee inquiry was held in relation to home warranty insurance, and the outcome of that inquiry validated home warranty insurance and recommended a dispute resolution process to complement the insurance product. In the following two years, insurers nationally commenced withdrawing from the market. There are currently only two insurers providing this product in the market.
In 2010, a consultation draft bill was tabled to provide for the Territory Insurance Office to manage a government scheme in the Territory. During the consultations on the tabled bill, industry expressed an interest in providing an insurance scheme in the Territory. The end result of the process is the Master Builders Association’s managed fidelity fund has been chosen to commence this legislation, and the Master Builders Association is a respected national industry representative and stakeholder. The bill does allow for other insurers to enter the market. The Territory is open for business.
On the basis of this, the bills before the House were introduced in November 2011. It is important to note, to progress this has been an extremely important body of work, in partnership with industry and the community, and there has been an extensive amount of community and industry consultation recently undertaken and needed to ensure this legislation meets the needs of industry and homeowners. That is very important.
The member for Port Darwin contributed to the debate, and made an apology that he was not well briefed, so he did a bit of filling in while his colleague was in the sin bin. I can assure the member for Port Darwin, you were briefed as much as any CLP member, because none of them got a briefing ...
Mr Tollner: Rot, absolute rot!
Mr McCARTHY: No one came near the department; no one came near my office ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister is misleading the House. He knows I turned up to briefings, in the theatrette, organised by his department. Why does he mislead the House in this way?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, within standing orders you may wish to prepare, under ...
Mr TOLLNER: Well, he is a grub.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that word, please.
Mr TOLLNER: He is sitting there ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, I withdraw. Goodness me, we are all sensitive, aren’t we?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, in accordance with Standing Order 57, if you wish to prepare a personal explanation and discuss that with the Speaker, then the Speaker can table that in the House.
Mr TOLLNER: What? So he can sit there and run slurs. Are you saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he can sit there and run slurs as long as he likes?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have said to you, in accordance with Standing Order 57, you may offer a personal explanation to the House after meeting with me or the Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I informed you that he was misleading the House and I would like you to ask him to withdraw. I was offended by those comments.
Mr GUNNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He knows he can clarify it by way of personal explanation if he wants.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. Member for Fong Lim, it remains that you can utilise Standing Order 57 to prepare a personal explanation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Drawing our attention back to the debates of recent times in relation to offensive and unbecoming words, it was fairly clear that, when a member is offended, then that member is offended, and the request for a withdrawal is not unusual. What is good for that side must be good for this side.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I am in no position to be making a judgment as to whether or not a member has or has not had a briefing. That is why I am pointing out to the member for Fong Lim that, under Standing Order 57, he has the opportunity under standing orders to present a personal explanation.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I found the minister made an offensive comment and I would like you to ask him to withdraw that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to seek some advice on this, honourable members.
Honourable members, on the advice that I have received - and I am going to accept that advice - minister, I am going to ask you to withdraw that.
I remind the member for Fong Lim that he can use Standing Order 57 to produce a personal explanation.
Minister, if you could please withdraw that particular reference.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
I would like to continue, because I would like to start with the semantic difference between a forum and briefing. I tell the House that I attended the forum run by the Department of Lands and Planning in Alice Springs. They conducted forums in Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin. I am glad to hear the member for Fong Lim attended a forum.
A briefing is a far different kettle of fish. A briefing was not requested by the Country Liberal Party. Therefore, I wanted to let the member for Port Darwin know that he is at no disadvantage because no member from the CLP came to the office where we set up formal briefings, as did the member for Nelson ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Does the minister suggest that you can only get a briefing by going into his office with his supervision? Is that what he is suggesting? What are you suggesting? Come on, spit it out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I will remind you ...
Mr Tollner: You run these slurs ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call. You have raised a point of order with me and I am trying to respond. I remind you, once again, you have, under Standing Order 57, the opportunity for a personal explanation. Minister, you have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, for the information of the House, I do not normally attend briefings for opposition members; the department runs those. They run a very comprehensive process. The member for Nelson has taken the time to accept the bill, the advice, and the recommendations; to work through them thoroughly, to ask questions, and to participate in the debate effectively.
I will continue with my close which, effectively, represents a briefing for the member for Fong Lim on the floor on the run. I am quite happy to do that because he has asked some interesting questions in his brief encounter with cognate bills. The member for Port Darwin cuts in on my notes because he jumped to speak - as the member from Fong Lim was in the sin bin; another matter he will deal with.
The debate turned to the cost of living. I would like to put on the record some comments about the cost of living. The cost of living in the Territory has always been higher than down south for two primary reasons: remoteness, and the lack of competition in the marketplace. I can certainly talk about remoteness having spent more than half my life in remote areas of the Northern Territory. However, I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ultimately, the best way to drive down prices in the Territory is to increase competition. The only way to increase competition is by growing our economy, and that is what we are on about; that is what we are doing. There are wonderful opportunities in the Territory, the best place in Australia at the moment for these opportunities: economically, socially, culturally and educationally. I could go on and on. It is the best place in Australia to be, and part of what the Chief Minister calls the century of Northern Australia.
However, it is important to put on the public record what the government is doing to help meet the cost of living, supporting Territorians with the most generous concessions and grants in the country: housing concessions, electricity concessions, seniors’ concessions, education and childcare concessions just to name a few, and the lowest taxes for small business in Australia. We are the only place in Australia where free public transport for students and seniors is on tap. We will deliver super clinics to cut the cost of healthcare. I could go on to talk about the government’s approach to reducing the cost of living, but I will get back to the bills, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have made it very clear we are to stay on track in the debate.
The member for Port Darwin talked about not paying for regulations. The essence of this legislation is about consumer protection. There is no doubt that there will be costs, but the costs represent a package of initiatives never seen before in the Northern Territory which will advantage consumers, provide certainty, provide security, and will also be a bonus for business; that is, the construction industry. Industry has asked for this package of initiatives. The Master Builders Association has helped every step of the way, in partnership with industry, and has proposed, through the fidelity fund, what is effectively a reinvestment in the industry. The member for Nelson talked about that. He also provided a brief on the floor because he knew what he was talking about. He talked about that reinvestment and he challenged government with not only reinvestment in education and training packages through MBA - which will happen in the future - but also reducing costs. I take up that challenge.
As I said, when we are talking about residential building cover, we are talking about an initiative that is supporting what will be the biggest investment a family will make in new housing. We are providing that certainty and security. It is important to note that we do review regulations; it is a normal process of providing good legislation. The residential building cover package will allow new players entering the market in regard to insurance or fidelity.
The member for Fong Lim cut to the chase and asked a couple of direct questions to which I will respond. He asked about what insurers had been contacted and who had entered the market. First of all, the bill allows an insurer or a fidelity fund to provide cover - that is important to take on board. Expressions of interest were requested from known providers and those that had shown interest. QBE and Caledon are the only national underwriters of this type of insurance in the country. Caledon has advised it will not underwrite such insurance in the Northern Territory. QBE has advised it will not compete with a fidelity fund and the market is marginal in viability. The Housing Industry Association’s insurance arm, a partnership with AON, is a broker with QBE as the underwriter and, thus, is unable to offer the cover.
The Master Builders Association has expressed an interest in setting up a fidelity fund similar to the only other one in the country run by MBA in the Australian Capital Territory. We did extensive research there. I went to Canberra to do firsthand research. MBA has run a very successful fidelity fund for a long time addressing what are the Territory objectives in this legislation. Government will need to support the fidelity fund during the establishment period.
All contributors to this debate asked a question about the difference between insurance and a fidelity fund. Very succinctly, insurance is regulated under Commonwealth legislation, and the fidelity fund is a discretionary trust regulated by the provisions in the Northern Territory bill and proposed regulations. So, there is a difference. As I outlined, from 2008, the major insurers were walking away from this product, nationally, and the big jurisdictions had great difficulty in attracting insurance companies into this space. One of the extra challenges for the Northern Territory was in relation to our small jurisdiction and our small volume in new builds. So, it was almost impossible to get a product in this space. We have landed, with a very good outcome, through the Master Builders Association and the fidelity fund.
It is important to note this bill allows a provider of another fidelity fund, or an insurer, at any time to be approved to enter the market - and I have stressed that a number of times. The fidelity fund proposed by MBA will only be approved when the minister is satisfied its trustee and operational framework is in place. It will need to comply with prudential standards in the regulations. It will report to and be accountable to government. It will be a separate legal entity directed by trustees and managed by MBA. It will not favour MBA members, and will offer policies to all eligible builders and owner/builders. It will be run along a not-for-profit principle and, in time after sufficient reserves have accumulated, any surpluses will be returned to training within the industry and industry initiatives.
How much financial support will be required from the NT government? The support will be in two ways. First, the government will underwrite the risk until the fund has sufficient reserves to meet a possible catastrophic event. Preliminary actuarial advice is that reserves of $5m are required and could be reached between five and eight years. Payment will only be made if and when required, and will be recovered with interest when future reserves accumulate. The second way of support will be the seed money to establish the fund. Preliminary actuarial advice suggests around $750 000 is required. Payments will be made by instalments and will be recovered with interest when the fund is able to pay.
Members asked about likely costs, and were focused on costs, and that is fine. The member for Nelson asked about costs and being able to reduce costs as much as possible. Through the extensive work that has been done by government, the premium will be set by trustees having regard to actuarial advice and input from government. An ACT premium for a $400 000 house is around $2000, but remembering a different market, twice the size and geographically compact, and different parameters such as a cap of $85 000; in the NT it is proposed to be $200 000. The insurance premium in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria government schemes is around $3000. In South Australia and Western Australia, insurance with some government underwriting, varying premiums from around $1500 for large volume builders to over $5000 depending on the risk of the builder. In the Territory, we expect the cost will be around $3000.
The member for Nelson touched on some very important issues about what government is doing to prevent the builder going bust and to prevent the consumer from losing their major investment. We are very proud of the work we have achieved in partnership with industry. They have asked us for these initiatives. They have said this represents the improved health of the industry in the Territory - a growing industry.
The member for Nelson talked about this education process as ongoing, and objectives to meet prevention as opposed to cure, and initiatives to support the consumer. I will outline for the House that one of the first products developed is a consumer guide. Building and Renovating in the NT – A Consumer Guide was published in December 2011 by the Department of Lands and Planning. For the member for Nelson’s inquiry, it is on the web and it can be printed if requested. It will be updated as the staged consumer package is rolled out. It has been well-received across the board, and consumers and builders are better informed on residential building practice and the certification process in the Northern Territory from this guide. It provides tips and raises other matters that should be considered, and is a very good product. I have outlined one initiative of a very comprehensive package. Speaking as a lay person in the Territory, I recommend this to consumers. I recommend to all Territorians that, before they enter into any contractual obligations with a major investment like a new home, they do some research. The Department of Lands and Planning is there to support you.
This legislation also brings in an industry component with the Master Builders Association fidelity fund. As you progress down the path of doing your research and setting up your construction project, finding your builder, and starting to develop that contractual system, you are going to be guided all the way, not only in your investment, but in industry standards and practice. The best informed consumer will achieve the best outcomes.
The member for Nelson talked about the consumer guarantees, another important part of this package: the cognate bills. It is important to note the package does not alter rights the consumer already has, or obligations the builder already has under consumer law to provide a product fit for service for its reasonable life. In response to what industry has expressed and the consumer requires, government is proposing that the regulations, once drafted, will reduce the proposed period for consumer guarantees for non-structural building work. We have to look at that, but there has been a request from industry. In the regulations, we now have two years for the non-structural, and six years for the structural. This will be subject to further consultation. This explains to the member for Nelson that we are sticking with what we told you at the briefing; that is what is being introduced. However, we take advice from industry and there will be further consultation around the consumer guarantees.
The member for Nelson wanted the fidelity fund explained, and I think I have explained that. Basically, it means a fidelity fund is managed by a recognised and trusted body - the body in the Territory being the Master Builders Association NT. It will have similar characteristics to insurance, but it is an industry-managed discretionary trust regulated by provisions of the Northern Territory bills.
In relation to three very direct questions from the member for Nelson, I will outline for the House a response regarding progress payments. The standard progress payments will be prescribed in the regulations, and are likely to be used in the majority of contracts. A consumer and a builder may, for any work, agree on other percentages and stages. To do so, both will be required to sign an approved form that will be the agreement and will be attached to the contract. The form and the consumer guide will encourage both parties to seek independent advice before signing. In Stage 2, as the progress payments significantly affect risk, the fidelity fund will require a builder to demonstrate that the percentages and stages are reasonable for a particular contract before issuing the policy.
The member for Nelson also asked a question around the consumer guarantees, and I will reiterate the information around that. The periods for which non-structural and structural guarantees apply will be in the regulations for the second bill that are to be drafted. The explanatory statement, an outline of possible regulations for bill two that were tabled, refer to proposed periods of two and six years respectively. The Master Builders Association and the Building Industry Reference Group have made submissions that the two-year period be reduced to one year. However, we will deal with this through further consultation and negotiation.
The member raised an interesting matter in the briefing, and also in the House in contribution to debate, about under-quoting. This raised a good discussion at the member for Nelson’s briefing, in Suite 1 on the fifth floor, with the Department of Lands and Planning team. I am pleased to give a formal response that the consumer guide strongly advises consumers to get more than one quote and to seek expert advice on quotes.
The fidelity fund will require builders to apply for eligibility before being able to obtain residential building cover policies. This is similar to CAL accreditation that gives accreditation for contractors to carry out government works. Matters such as past performance, business practice, nett tangible assets, and quality control will be the subject of consideration. As with CAL eligibility, it will match business capacity and risk with turnover; that is, how many houses may be built at any one time.
The partnership between builder and the fidelity fund will allow the fund to identify significant underquoting and take the appropriate action ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the member.
The last point was regarding whether a builder fails during construction. The claim the consumer can make to cover the additional costs in engaging a second builder under non-completion is capped at 20% of the contract price up to a maximum of $200 000. The consumer would have to meet the rest if that is insufficient. This provides an incentive for a consumer to seek advice on quotes, particularly if they appear low. That was an interesting point raised by the member for Nelson. The bottom line is, in the consumer guide the department strongly advises consumers to get more than one quote and to seek expert advice on quotes before signing any contracts.
These two bills are now before the House and I thank members for their contribution to the debate. This has been extensive work and I thank the department, which has worked tirelessly on delivering this important legislation that will definitely reflect the Territory’s bright future and strong growth forecast in providing that certainty to not only consumers, but also the building industry. I also thank my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues for their work to deliver what is, for Territorians, security and certainty, and - as the cognate bill set out - a package of initiatives which is a real boost to industry, a professional addition to industry reflecting what the government has been asked for.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand here today as one of a number of government members who have worked towards delivering this package for the Northern Territory, for the consumer, and for the industry. I thank everyone who has been involved in the journey along the way.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill (Serial 187) and the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill (Serial 188) in the name of Mr McCarthy.
Bills, by leave, taken together.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, if it is okay with the minister, rather than going through the bill point by point, we on this side do not have too many questions. In fact, I have just a handful of questions. I would like to ask some general questions and get it over and done with rather quickly, if that is okay with the minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Absolutely
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you say the consumer guide encourages people to get more than one quote if they are concerned about under-insuring. Where would they get more than one quote from?
Mr McCARTHY: Speaking from experience, member for Fong Lim, I would definitely line up a number of building companies, builders, or a construction agency of my choice and ask them to quote on what would be my dream home.
Mr TOLLNER: I thought you were talking about under-insuring when you made that comment in your statement. I thought your concern was there might be under-insurance and that people should hunt for a suitable insurance contract to ensure they were not under-insured or over-insured.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, that was a point I was commenting on which was raised by the member for Nelson at the briefing. His question was: ‘What about under-quoting?’ In my reply, I started by saying the consumer guide is definitely a very healthy tool for all consumers to be familiar with. Then, of course, the fidelity fund would also apply the lens to the contract, because not only would they be able to advise the consumer, they would also be managing the builder regarding the builder’s eligibility.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. I apologise, minister. I obviously misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting they should chase down various insurance companies for insurance quotes. What you are talking about is how much it might cost to construct a particular building.
Can you explain how the process will work to determine how many houses a particular builder can build under this arrangement?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, basically, the process starts with application to the fidelity fund for eligibility. One of the initiatives in the package is to ensure the builder has a minimum of $50 000 worth of assets maintained throughout the project. Then there would be an assessment process in relation to the size of the builder’s company and the volume the builder undertakes. I will just get some expert advice as well.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, minister, is that $50 000 per house they are building, or is it $50 000 for any number of houses?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, the $50 000 is what I said about eligibility to register. Those assets will need to be maintained. However, if you have more in the bank and more assets, you can then be assessed to build more houses. It is like that sliding scale.
Mr TOLLNER: How much money will you need in the bank to build, say, two houses?
Mr McCARTHY: Well, $50 000 will get you registered to build one house. I am advised that in the ACT under the model, $50 000 in assets allows you to build two houses.
Mr TOLLNER: What if you wanted to build three houses, minister? I am not talking about the ACT model. I am talking about what you have cooked up here in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, there is an element to that question that is complex, which relates to the prudential requirements that will be assessed by the fidelity fund. However, as you demonstrate you have nett tangible assets in excess of $50 000, then you will be assessed in the volume you can build.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, given the fact that you say this fidelity fund will be regulated by the Northern Territory government, those prudential requirements, I would imagine, would also be regulated by the Northern Territory government. The fact that it is not an insurance company, it is a fidelity fund, and your government will be in control of setting those benchmarks, can you just outline for us what those benchmarks will be - what you are considering?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, once again, that is a complex process. First of all, the fidelity fund will be managed by a board of trustees, so there will be a trust deed. There will also be the assessment process which will be undertaken by people who are experienced in industry - the trustees - and actuarial advice will also be sought. So, it will be a combination of those elements in a comprehensive assessment process to make those decisions.
Mr TOLLNER: That all sounds very good minister, but given that this fund will not be overseen by the Australian Securities Investments Commission or the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority - it falls outside of those bounds - all regulation now falls onto your shoulders as the minister, or some other minister in your government. You are now legislating an ability to set up a fidelity fund. I understand a trust deed will govern that fund to some extent. Are you able to provide an outline or table a proposed trust deed for that fund, and some of the regulations you propose to put in place when you create this fidelity fund in the Northern Territory?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, you will note that in introducing this legislation and in my wrap, I talked about the research we did with the Master Builders Association in the ACT and the product they presented to government, having similarities in trying to produce a product for a small jurisdiction. We are very happy to work with them; industry has been very happy to work with them. What we can table is the ACT model because that is what we have modelled our legislation on.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, what other jurisdictions did you model your legislation on? We would not want to go down the ACT path of construction, where it can sometimes take several years to get through the rigmarole of constructing a building. What other models did you look at?
Mr McCARTHY: As I mentioned in my contributions to the debate, we looked at this as a residential building consumer cover package. Insurance companies were not able to deliver it; they walked away from it. We looked at a product which was a fidelity fund - an industry-managed fund. The Master Builders Association Australia has developed that product and we are able to table the details of the ACT model. The Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory is very supportive of the moves government has made and is very interested in delivering this component of this package of initiatives.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you have made the point that the ACT and the Northern Territory are very different in size and type of works; there are also building issues here which are quite different to those in the ACT. It would be good if we had an idea of exactly what you are proposing for the Northern Territory, rather than just copycat the ACT.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I hope I can assure you, as I have mentioned in my remarks in this House, that we looked at New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria. We were unable to attract insurance companies to look at it seriously. We looked at the fidelity fund in the ACT, which is the only one in Australia, and then we incorporated the best elements of all of our research to develop this model.
Mr TOLLNER: Who are going to be the trustees of the fidelity fund?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I am advised that the trustees will be established by the Master Builders Association, then they will present that to government for government’s assessment.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. Who will be the trustees?
Mr McCARTHY: Well, this is what will be set up, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, minister, I am not asking about the trust deed, I want to know who the trustees are.
Mr McCARTHY: My first position is to, hopefully, succeed in getting this legislation through the House. Then the Master Builders Association will start to build that fidelity fund, and that will represent the trust deed and putting forward recommendations for trustees on the board.
Mr TOLLNER: What you are saying is you have no idea who the trustees of this, at the moment, trust-deedless fund, or proposed fund, are?
Mr McCARTHY: No, I did not say that at all, member for Fong Lim. I could explain it again if you would like me to.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, please do, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. What I said was, hopefully, we will have this legislation passed in this House, because this is a great outcome for the Territory in the period of growth and prosperity we are entering into, providing that certainty, not only for the consumer, but also, for the building industry, to also reflect that incredible partnership we have forged with industry in this.
Member for Fong Lim, you would be aware, from the forum you attended in Darwin, as I did in Alice Springs, of that unity we have been able to create, because both consumer and industry want to take the industry to the next level. Should I be successful in that endeavour, then the Master Builders Association will commence the formal steps to set up the trust deed, and they will put the recommendations to government for the trustees of the board.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, so there is no hint from you at this stage that the trustees will come from industry, workers bodies, trade unions, and the like, or it may well be professional trustees brought in from interstate? You have no idea at this stage as to who and who may not be a trustee?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, are you making an application for a job?
Mr TOLLNER: No, minister. What you are saying to me is you cannot tell me anything at all about the trustees of the fund until you know what is being presented to you by the Master Builders Association?
Mr McCARTHY: One of the things I was very interested in when I did the research in the ACT with the Master Builders Association was their component of very experienced people who represented a good cross-section, not only of industry, but also people with great knowledge of consumer affairs. When we talked about managing this as a package of initiatives, they said it achieves a good, wholesome outcome, because you have a good cross-section of respected members of industry and the community. The Master Builders Association, under this model, will present the same recommendations to the Northern Territory government, and that will come to the minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear what you are saying, and I have no doubt there are supremely well-qualified people across the Northern Territory who could fulfil the role of a trustee. I have no doubt that, given proper advice and the like, you might well be able to develop regulations and a trust deed that would give a level of assurance to consumers, builders, and everyone in the industry.
My concern, of course, minister, is none of that is before us; we do not even know what we are talking about. You put forward speculative figures; there is speculation about who is qualified to build a house and who may not be qualified to build a house, but we know none of this. What we are being asked to buy here today is a pig in a poke. That is correct, is it not, minister? That assessment is correct - we do not have a trust deed at the moment and we have not determined who the trustees are going to be? In fact, you have not even come in here with proposed regulations yet, have you, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, for Territorians, that represents your position of say anything, all care, no responsibility. I have been working on this for two years, member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner: I just want to know what you are proposing.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: I have been working on this for two years to deliver ...
Mr TOLLNER: Twelve years, minister!
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, please, while the minister is on his feet.
Mr McCARTHY: ... to deliver a package of consumer cover for the Territory. We have looked extensively at the modelling and have brought this legislation to this House based on that extensive research. Should this legislation pass through this parliament, we can then progress to the next step of delivering for Territorians.
I am not interested in loose semantics. It is easy for you to say what you like. I come from the side of the House that has had the shoulder to the wheel delivering for the Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: I agree with you, minister. It is very easy for me to say what I like because, at the moment, there is no detail in it; there is very little at all. You cannot tell me whether there will be predatory practices taking place in relation to this where some builders might be excluded from constructing houses. Some builders who have had a long and profitable career constructing houses and doing a good job may well be excluded because they do not have the assets, or a whole range of things. It could well be determined by a group of trustees, who may or may not come from the industry, or workers’ organisations which may or may not have an axe to grind with a particular builder. We do not know anything at all about this scheme you are proposing.
Minister, I am quite upset by this whole idea that you waltz in here, after 12 years, telling me you have had your shoulder to the wheel, you have been working on this, yet there is scant information about what you are proposing, how the fund is going to be regulated, who the trustees are, and what mechanisms will be in place to determine who is eligible to build what amount of houses.
It seems to me to be all over the shop, minister. I would have thought, after 12 years, this government would be well and truly progressed down this line so you could come into this House and tell us what you are intending. At the moment, you cannot even tell us how much it will cost, how many houses a builder can build, or any of that type of thing. It is all speculation. Am I correct in that assessment, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, this has been consultative throughout the Territory every step of the way. There has been very thorough research. This is representing protection for the consumer, and also building the health of our building industry. I have personally attended forums, meetings, and consulted with Territorians. We have been building this, block by block, and now it is to the stage where we have the legislation before this House and we want to continue with this building.
In regard to the regulations, I have advised the House that we will continue with the consultation. This is about working in partnership in industry. It is unfortunate I do not have the confidence of the member for Fong Lim. However, I have the confidence of the vast majority of the industry, and of Territory consumers, and that is what we are taking forward.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, please do not be offended. It is not me, personally, who does not have confidence in you. I just do not have confidence in the mob you are involved with. We have seen, time and time and time again, where your mob has managed to stuff things up in the most remarkable way. So, pardon me for being a little concerned about something like setting up a fidelity fund completely without the checks and balances of federal law, and expecting your mob is going to do a damn good job of it. I would like to believe you are.
I have to tell you, I also believe in this legislation and your aims of this legislation. You come in here with scant detail - very little information - talk in flowery ways about shoulders to the wheel and all of these sorts of things, and expect us over this side to say: ‘Okay, minister, you are a hard worker, great stuff’. And you cannot answer the most basic questions!
I was going to ask some questions about the excess proceeds that come into this fund and where they may well be spent, but I suppose if you do not have a trustee, you have no regulations, you do not know who the trustees are, it is a bit of a long bow to ask where excess funds may be spent. You said they might go to training programs, they might go here - goodness knows where they could go. There is nothing at all in your plans to say where – there are no regulations, there is no legislation on any of that sort of stuff. We are quite blind to the whole thing, aren’t we?
Minister, I have no further questions. If you want to get on with this farce, go for it. We will be supporting you because we support this concept. However, I tell you, do not think we are not watching to see what is going on from here because, as I said, pardon me if I seem a little concerned. It is not you personally; it is the mob you hang out with. They are bad news; they never get anything right anywhere. We will just wait and see how this show unfolds.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I will respond to those comments you have made. First of all, the industry has been telling me, since I have had the privileged position of being Minister for Lands and Planning, that they want education and awareness for the industry. They want every opportunity they can get to build that, and they see the benefit of it. They see, basically, what our government has set up for an incredible future for the Northern Territory and Territorians.
The Master Builders Association has put education and training packages up for industry representatives and also for consumers as well.
I would just like to respond to ‘my mob’ because, as the member for Fong Lim alluded to, he attended a forum with the department, as one part of extensive consultation provided, as did I. I will put some names on the public record as ‘my mob’. What we have done in consulting to develop this legislation goes to respected industry groups and stakeholders such as the Building Industry Representative Group, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Institute of Building Surveyors, Engineers Australia, the Institute of Architects, Building Designers Association, the Real Estate Institute, the Building Practitioners Board, the Building Advisory Committee, a building certifier, a building certifier in Alice Springs, and a builder. We have received extensive submissions. We have travelled the Territory consulting. I have engaged the public in conversations around this.
I assure you that when you talk about ‘my mob’ this is truly representative of reputable industry stakeholders from across the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I can assure you I have absolutely no dramas with that group at all. They are a highly reputable bunch of organisations and people you have named. When I was referring to ‘your mob’, I was referring to your Labor government. If you are telling me this crew you have now just outlined are part of the Labor government, well, I have some pretty serious concerns about that. I would be very surprised, if I went and talked to those groups, that they would identify as being part of the Labor ‘mob’ here in the Northern Territory ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The Labor Party here in the Northern Territory is an absolute, cruel joke. The fact is you have come in here, you are telling us you are going to sidestep ASIC, you are going to sidestep APRA, that there is a trust deed about to come out of the ether which the Labor government is going to cook up and put in to regulations and pick a group of trustees - which I imagine would be legislated or regulated, more likely regulated - determine where they come from and who they represent. I imagine it would be up to the trustees to determine actuaries and custodians and all that is involved in running a fidelity fund. Ultimately, it is this Labor government which controls the levers on how that fund is regulated and managed.
Pardon me for saying I have no great level of comfort in knowing that because you do not have your eyes on the ball. You have made that abundantly clear in a range of different areas across the Territory where you were quite keen to waste money. I do not know whether you are keen to waste money, but spending money seems to be the outcome of your government rather than achieving results.
Minister, I wish you all the best with it. We will be watching to see what you come up with. We are very wary but we also understand that consumers need protection, the industry and contractors want protection, and for that reason we are happy to support this. However, do not think that gives you a green light to run off and ignore things again. It has taken 12 years to get this far. You can blame it on the Senate or on a range of things. The fact is Clare Martin promised this 12 years ago. You have done five-eighths of nothing in that time. You are here now with some hastily cobbled together legislation - no fund as such, a proposed fund, a proposed trustee, a proposed set of regulations. I hope you get it right because Territorians want this, and they want it to work.
There are builders now going to what you determine as forums - I thought they were information sessions which, to me, is not greatly different from a briefing. Having gone to those forums and having listened to a few people on the phone talking to me about it, I can tell you they are not 100% happy with it. I know you will never make everyone happy; there will always be some concerns.
The little guys are particularly concerned about this. They see this as a way the big builders will be able to further increase their market power at their expense because they will have the muscle required to get their way on some of these regulations. I will not go into too much about how that might occur, but they are very concerned about that. I sometimes understand that the little guys in industries do need looking after. As I said, we are keen to support this legislation because something needs to be done. Twelve years is 12 years too long, and I hope you can get on with it and get things happening. Please do not do what you have done with so many other things and stuff it up.
Bills agreed to without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Radiation Protection Act. While the act sits within the Health Department, the coverage is the mining industry, hence the shadow for Resources talking on the bill. The bill will allow the radiation dose history for uranium mining and milling workers over a period of their employment anywhere in the industry in Australia to be stored in a single national database. It is about protection of the workers and their personal safety, and that is paramount. The amendments will give force to a national uniform reporting scheme, and that is welcomed.
The registrar that holds this information was announced in 2008 by the Australian government and it is called the Australian National Radiation Dose Register. The register will be administered and managed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
The Australian National Radiation Dose Register was established in 2010 to collect, store, manage, and disseminate records of radiation doses received by workers in the course of their employment in a centralised database. The Australian National Radiation Dose Register has been open to receive dose records from operators since 1 July 2010. The register - and I will call it the register for short - was officially launched in June 2011 following full development of the register, including a system for workers to be able to request their individual dose history records. The data will be used to track a worker’s lifetime radiation dose history within the radiation uranium mining and milling industry in Australia. A worker can request a dose history report from ARPANSA which will show the cumulative dose the worker has received during the course of their employment in the uranium mining and milling industry in Australia, while the worker has been registered on the register.
The data will be used to create annual statistics showing industry sector trends and comparisons. It will also be used to assess radiological doses within worker categories to help establish recommended dose constraints for certain work practices. This bill will ensure that the uranium mines in the Territory, specifically the Ranger Mine, currently complies with the register guidelines for the collection, storage, and transfer of radiation dose information on Territory uranium mining and milling workers. I am comforted by the fact that the operators of the Ranger Mine have taken the lead on this issue and are fully supportive of the need to exchange this information.
In regard to the bill, I thank the minister for the briefing provided today by the staff from the Health Department. I have some questions about the coverage of the bill. The bill covers current workers at the Ranger Mine. How will past workers at uranium mines in the Territory be captured; for example, workers who worked the Nabarlek Mine? I understand a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere; however, I am concerned this bill may not scoop up all the people who should be scooped up, hence the question.
My second point is will the bill include workers at the proposed Nolans Bore, given that project includes thorium and uranium? I understand the bill does not include workers in the exploration industry; however, many hundreds of workers may be measured but not recorded for radiation exposure. I find it interesting that planning has not been undertaken for the bill to include exploration workers, given that most, if not all, companies measure and record exposure within their company’s operations, and that many exploration workers do go from exploration to mining projects within a short time frame with the same company. Perhaps the minister can explain when exploration will be included.
The same goes for mineral sand operations. We have had mineral sand operations in the past in the Territory and will have them again the future, I am very sure, yet this bill does not seem to include mineral sand workers. If good legislation is to be developed, surely it should be underpinned by sound planning and an eye for the future so we do not have to keep coming back to this parliament to pass amendments to include these workers from other sectors of the industry?
I also seek clarification on what is or what will be the prescribed period for a worker to be on a site. In other words, how long does a person have to be on the mine site to be scooped up by this dose register and reporting?
The uranium industry is poised for a strong growth period and exploration is good in the Territory, but not as high as it could be, or perhaps should be, such as the states of Western Australia and South Australia. In the Territory for 2010-11, exploration expenditure was $40m, compared to Western Australia of $100m, and South Australia $53m. The Territory should be the $100m if the government really supported the uranium industry.
For the record, I will highlight the potential of the uranium projects in the Territory, because they will be affected and have to comply with this legislation. We have the Jabiluka deposit, which has approximately 135 400 tonnes of uranium oxide. There is Koongarra, which has 14 500. We have Mt Fitch in the Batchelor region, with 6600 uranium oxide in tonnage. The Angela project, if it gets the go-ahead, is 10 000 tonnes approximately. The Bigrlyi project has about 11 000 tonnes of uranium oxide. This is not the ore; this is the actual oxide that is produced. Nolans Bore has about 3900 and Napperby 1400. The Westmoreland project, which borders the Northern Territory and Queensland, has about 7000 tonnes of uranium oxide. There are many projects in the Northern Territory that would be using this legislation if they were in an operating phase, so it is important the legislation is constructed carefully and properly, such that there are no unanswered questions.
I have not seen too many public statements of late from this government in regard to the uranium industry, nor have I heard any acknowledgment of the good work of Ranger Mine’s commitment and economic contribution; for example, the $220m brine concentrator which it has committed to with much of that expenditure undertaken in the Territory. I have read nothing about exploration for uranium or what the government is doing to encourage more companies to establish a base in the Territory. I would like to hear from the minister about the exploration companies in the Territory and what work has been done to try to encourage more exploration companies, particularly uranium companies, to establish offices and bases in the Territory.
Let us not forget Arafura Resources and this government’s decided lack of support for the project. More importantly, its processing plant which has now gone to South Australia, where they were welcomed with open arms - hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in expenditure gone over the border, and the Territory is poorer for the decision that company made to base themselves in South Australia. Madam Speaker, I digress.
Minister, I understand what the bill is going to do and why. However, one needs clarification on the issues I referenced previously. Also, could the minister explain specifically how the recording on a site will work? Will each and every worker at the Ranger Mine, for example, be required wear a TLD tag, or will recording be random or based on some other system? The other thing I wanted to seek clarification on, minister - and I understand the proposed waste facility planned for Muckaty Station is a Commonwealth responsibility - what would the arrangements be for workers at that site, particularly if a worker goes, for example, from the Ranger Mine to the Muckaty site - a radiation officer, for example? What would happen in that situation?
Madam Speaker, we will not be opposing this bill. It is good legislation and is long overdue. It should have happened a couple of years ago. However, I seek clarification from the minister on those few issues I have raised.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, some short comments on this bill. I agree with the member for Goyder that this legislation is well overdue. It is an area that is needed to ensure workers are protected, especially those who work in the uranium industry. Regardless of what happened in Japan, the uranium industry will continue to expand, especially if people are really concerned about global warming. As much as renewable energies will be part of that, there is no way they will be able to pick up and turn around global warming unless we look at other alternatives such as wind, solar, tidal and also geothermal. However, there will be a continuing need to mine uranium in the Northern Territory.
ERA will be mainly affected by this legislation. It is a company that does not get enough mention as one that does much good in the Northern Territory. I recently had a briefing from them and they spoke about various changes they are bringing in to their mine to make it far more environmentally friendly, especially in relation to a new plant that will, basically, deal with the tailings dam water and be able to turn that into drinking water. I am not saying you will drink it, but it will be of that standard. They are spending millions and millions of dollars to do that. They also employ large numbers of Indigenous people in the region. They are not given enough credit. I asked them about their turnover of people, especially Indigenous people, and it is quite low - about 17%. When you look at SIHIP and the turnover of Indigenous people in that industry it is far higher. You have a company that is doing good things in the Northern Territory, employing local people. It is putting money into facilities in Jabiru such as the new boarding school. It basically supplies electricity for Jabiru. My understanding is it provides many facilities for the community.
This legislation protects those workers who are working at ERA. Of course, there are protections already, but this is keeping a register of what doses these workers receive. It is not as though there is no protection at all.
I just have one question the minister may answer without too much trouble. I was looking up the definition of ‘mining site’. I was a bit concerned when I first read the definition that it meant that all mining sites would have to have a register. Then, it says here, in the explanatory note:
Clause 4, section 4 amended.
It says on the opening page of the bill:
Then it says under Part 3A, section 47A:
What I could not understand is why the definition that is mentioned in the explanatory notes is not simply written in here under the heading, ‘Definition’ for this particular act. Part 3A heading is ‘Monitoring and recording of personal radiation exposure on mining sites’. I would have thought then, to ensure we are only dealing with mining sites limited to the mining of uranium ore and production of concentrate, that definition would have been written in the bill. I am just not sure why it is not there.
I believe this bill will be important for people working at Muckaty Station. I am on record as saying I think Muckaty will be a good site for a radioactive waste repository - to use the more correct term. Of course, if you oppose such a thing, it is always a dump. However, having been to Lucas Heights a number of times, you know they will not be ‘dumping’ material there; they will be storing it, and that storage will be in facilities that will be highly regulated. Do people really think the Australian nuclear industry will just throw radioactive waste material on the ground? That would go against all the regulations and requirements Australia has in relation to its obligations to store waste in a particular manner. We know this would be a place where radioactive material will be stored, and we know there will be workers there who will, obviously, have to be checked. If you have been to Lucas Heights, you know that already exists.
I am not sure whether this act would cover those people who would be working on the Muckaty Station site. I am not sure whether that will be regarded as a Commonwealth site and, therefore, come under Commonwealth legislation. Perhaps the minister can give us some clarification on that.
I make note, Madam Speaker, that one of the issues in relation to radiation was brought home to me recently by a program on Horizon on SBS. Unfortunately, I cannot get a transcript yet, so I was not going to sit down and watch the video again. The person who was the producer of that program was a gentleman, Jim Al-Khalili, who is an Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author, and science communicator. He is a Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey. He was born in Baghdad in 1962 to an Iraqi father and English mother. He studied physics at the University of Surrey; he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1986, and stayed on to pursue a PhD Degree in Nuclear Reaction Theory which he obtained in 1989. In 1989, he was awarded a Science and Engineering Research Council Post Doctorate Fellowship of the University College of London.
He recently hosted a program called Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe? There were many things in that program, but there was an emphasis on the effect of radiation. It was very interesting to see there is some conjecture as to whether there are some levels of radiation which are not harmful; in fact, they may be beneficial. There seems to be room for more discussion on what a harmful level of radiation is and what is not. What was surprising in that debate was the visit to Chernobyl where they did experiments on rats which had been irradiated by living in the area where the radiation occurred, and on rats which had not been irradiated. They chopped them up to check to see if the chromosomes were okay, and they were.
They also spoke to many of the people who lived in Chernobyl and had moved away. The surprising thing was they found many people died from depression or suicide because of the worry they had with living in an area that had been covered in radiation. I mention this because we are dealing with a bill which deals with radiation protection.
I thought it was an opportunity to highlight some of the issues Professor Jim Al-Khalili, raised. As he said, we have been going through a phase in our history where people nearly have radiation phobia and believe everything about radiation is bad. They have done tests, I gather – I am using my memory of this program - of people such as airline pilots who continually fly at high altitude and receive doses of radiation higher than you would at ground level. They have not found any ill effect from receiving those doses. Although we are dealing with a requirement for a national register for workers to be checked for the amount of radiation they may have been exposed to during their work in a year, it opens up the possibility of a little more discussion in our society about radiation itself.
When I used to speak up about Muckaty people said: ‘Why don’t you want it in your back yard?’ It probably would be safe in my back yard. However, we have developed a fear in our society that all things to do with radiation are bad and must be put as far away as possible. To some extent, the government is working with that fear and requiring a site which will be a long way from the general population. It is not as if you cannot store this material closer to populated areas; it is simply that government has looked for a site - naturally we know they picked on the Territory - which was in a relatively unpopulated area and they had an agreement with the traditional owners of that area.
We tend to have this fear of radiation and forget the benefits of radiation such as the people in hospital who use this material to help preserve the lives of people who are sick. We also forget the benefits of radioactive material in checking on the life of the metal of particular products like aeroplanes, and the inside of boilers, to see whether a boiler used in the power station has any more life in it. You can do that using radioactive materials to check the life of the steel the boiler is made from. There are many reasons why we use radioactive materials for beneficial uses in our society. Sometimes, when you hear a lot of hue and cry about Muckaty, about loads falling off trains or trucks, they are not dealing with the science; they are dealing with the ideology.
There are quite a number of people - and I include Senator Ludlam from The Greens – who do not argue the case that our Lucas Heights facility or the digging up of uranium is something we can do safely. He comes from a background of saying we do not want to be part of the nuclear cycle at all. That is the problem we have; where debates go to any extent to argue that we should not have these materials in Australia. The reality is that we do have them and they are important.
There are workers across Australia who work in the radiation field and this legislation allows those workers, if they are travelling from one state to another, to be on a register of what dosage they have recorded.
I should say too, when people talk about storing nuclear radioactive waste, I went to the Esk facility, northwest of Brisbane. It is about 100 km away, near the Wivenhoe Dam which was full of water recently. It is 10 km out of Esk; Muckaty is 120 km north of Tennant Creek. The closest people nearby would be Ray Aylett at the cattle station and some of the traditional owners who live just off the left-hand side of the road - who, I believe, are the traditional owners who gave approval - about 10 km from the site.
The Esk site is quite near a populated town in Queensland, just on the edge of the major water catchment in a forestry area, close to tomato growers and people running horses. It went through the pain of people protesting but, now, no one worries about it. It takes the hospital waste up there on a regular basis. It is behind a 6 ft chain mesh fence. It just looks like a house. A council operator comes along every now and then and mows the lawn. No one worries.
The issue we have today with Muckaty is we have to get over that hurdle of the ideologists who disagree with anything nuclear, and to get through that pain and show people this facility will not harm people. It will be well regulated and well run, and it deals primarily with low-level radiation; that is, the radiation mostly you get from Lucas Heights.
This bill gives us an opportunity to talk about radiation in general, as well as the issue of workers. It is an important area for the Northern Territory. The uranium industry will continue to grow. My discussions with ERA the other day - I have forgotten the general manager’s name, but he is a person who, I believe, has the Territory at heart. He has Indigenous employment at heart. He has a real belief of being a company that works with the community. He is one of the people in the Northern Territory who sometimes are not recognised for the good things they do and for the work they do to promote their industry.
There is no doubt that there will be more uranium mines in the Northern Territory. There will be noise about them as we saw with Angela Pamela. There will be kerfuffles about that. Again, that is about the fear. Basically, the reason that did not even get past the exploration stage was because it was about the fear.
You can drum up fear in Indigenous people, in people in Alice Springs. You do not have to use the science, you just have to use the fear, and then people are scared and the unknown becomes important for them. Because of that unknown, they immediately say they do not want it near them. The reality is we know, like many things in life, if they are looked after properly, if we look after our workers properly, if we ensure they are monitored properly, then we can do many things safely. We should not be over fearful. We should certainly be vigilant and careful about how we use radiation and materials, but we should not step back so far that we go backwards in time and do not embrace the technology that comes with this.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I had that question about the definition of mining and am interested in hearing what the minister has to say.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. First, let us make it clear what this is all about. This is an amendment to the Radiation Protection Act to allow the radiation dose for uranium mining and milling workers over the period of their employment to be stored in a central database - nothing more, nothing less.
I understand the question: what about people who worked in the mine before? Unfortunately, the federal government decision was for uranium mines and milling only during their employment, meaning their current employment. People who work in a mine like ERA at Jabiru wear special tags which are checked every month, or up to three months, to find out if they have been exposed to radiation. If they have not, they continue working there. If, by any chance, they have been exposed they are removed and put somewhere else so they do not continue to be exposed to radiation so they do not exceed the allowable limit every year.
It will not extend to mineral sands. It will not apply to - and that is my understanding - Nolans Bore. Nolans Bore would be a rare earth mine not a uranium mine – a uranium by-product of production when it is processed in the factory. It may be a mine, but it is not a uranium mine. Uranium is one of the components of rare earth and, when it is taken out and processed, and the different components are separated, uranium would be one of those components. When that happens in the processing area, in the milling area, the workers wear that device.
No, it will not apply to Muckaty Station. Muckaty Station is not a mining site. If it is approved and if it goes ahead it would be a repository and other regulations or legislation will apply there - not the same as applied by the Commonwealth to a uranium mine.
It is really for the company to collect information, and this information be conveyed to a central database to record possible exposure of people working in the uranium mining industry and mining.
It is good legislation. It did not happen before. You had to work out, by and large, who was responsible for this legislation. My Department of Health proceeded with the amendments since it is in charge of the Radiation Protection Act.
With regard to the question by the member for Nelson about the definition of mining, there is a clear definition of mining under the Mining Act. By referring the definition here to what applies in the Mining Act it is quite proper. Otherwise, you have a different act with different definitions and it becomes very confusing.
It is simple legislation. This simple amendment will allow for all the information regarding dose history for people working in the mining industry, and it applies from the moment people walk into a uranium mine. People have to wear the tags to check the exposure. If something happens, then the people can have access to their history, the data records. Things can go wrong in the future. We have some examples of industrial accidents and diseases that happen many years after the exposure. Asbestos exposure is one of these. The collection of this information will provide information to scientists, as the member for Nelson mentioned, about the impact the exposure to radiation, or certain levels of radiation, can have in order to adjust the level downwards, or to provide a better control over exposure to radiation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Brennan’s interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, for and on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that leave be granted for the Chief Minister to continue his remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I table the Select Committee Report on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory, Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Today, I present the Select Committee on Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory report, Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory. Suicide is a tragedy for the individual and devastating for the family, friends, and community. The pain for loved ones is immeasurable and enduring. When it is a young person with their whole life ahead of them, the tragedy is heightened. In the Northern Territory, with our many tightknit communities, the sense of loss and failure can carry across regions. Our youth suicide rate is three-and-a-half times the national average, although the rates for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people aged 18 to 24 have decreased over the past 10 years.
It was disturbing to learn that the suicide rate amongst Indigenous young people aged under 18 has been increasing at an alarming rate, from 18 per 100 000 in the period 2001 to 2005 to 30 per 100 000 for the period 2006 to 2010. Whilst the rates for young men have always been relatively high, the committee was concerned the rate for young women, particularly young Indigenous women, has also increased in recent years. Girls now comprise up to 40% of all suicides of children under the age of 17. Clearly, things need to change if we are to stop losing our young people at their own hands at such a high rate.
Suicide is a multidimensional problem that requires many different responses which need to be sustained over the longer term. A range of factors were identified that increase the risk of suicide; for example, substance misuse, social and economic disadvantage, cultural and sexual identity issues, and problems with family and the law. The committee also learned that many youth suicides in the Territory result from impulsive behaviour, usually accompanied by alcohol or substance abuse.
It was heartening to hear of the excellent work being done around the Territory to respond to youth in crisis, such as the Tiwi For Life Project and the Galupa Marngarr Suicide Prevention Group where the communities rallied to turn around what were identified as the highest suicide rates in the world; the work of the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network which took the initiative to fill the gaps in suicide support in the region; the work of the Mt Theo program where the elders of Yuendumu developed diversionary programs to help those of their youth in crisis; and the work of the Mental Health Association of Central Australia which has developed much-needed, culturally specific suicide prevention resources.
Nonetheless, more needs to be done to address youth suicide. Too many of our young people are falling through the gaps and not getting the help they need. For too many of our youth, there is not enough hope to protect them from the impulse to end their lives.
The committee received 46 submissions and held 10 public hearings in Darwin, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Ski Beach, Katherine, and four public forums in Tennant Creek, Yirrkala, Bees Creek and Katherine and, with the assistance of headspace, a youth forum was also held in Palmerston. Arrangements were made for a hearing and public forum on the Tiwi Islands, first on 25 January, and then on 1 and 2 February, but these could not be held due to severe weather and a community funeral. The committee met with the Tiwi Island Shire on 3 February 2012.
On the basis of the evidence received, the committee identified four distinct action areas:
1. Building strong, healthy and resilient communities. The foundation of lasting suicide prevention is building stronger and more resilient communities. While helping those in crisis is important, building communities where individuals are less likely to meet the range of factors which may lead to suicide and who are more able to deal with life’s stresses as they arise will provide the greatest benefit in the long run.
2. Identifying and helping those at risk. Individuals in crisis and at risk of self-harm need to be able to access the help they require to get through, whether that be a place to be safe from their current problems for a while, counselling and mental health services, or a means of rebuilding their place in their community. The family and friends of those who may be in crisis also need the support to be able to identify when that person requires assistance and enable those at risk to access the help required.
3. Helping the bereaved and stopping the contagion. The response to a completed suicide can have a significant impact on the bereaved and the community at large. This also creates risk of further suicides, resulting in some communities having to deal with a number of suicides in a short period of time. A suicide is a point of crisis which must be addressed to help the bereaved deal with their grief and stem the risk of contagion.
4. Smarter service delivery. Overcoming the tyranny of distance is an ongoing challenge when it comes to service delivery in the Northern Territory. Strategies are required to ensure we make the most of limited resources, including ensuring services work effectively together, sharing rather than duplicating resources where possible, and providing a holistic, rather than fragmented, service to those requiring help. It is essential that services meet the needs of the community they serve and empower communities rather than create dependence. We also need funding mechanisms which look to the long term and enable services to grow and develop within a community while, at the same time, ensuring accountability and that money is not wasted on services that cannot deliver the best and most sustainable outcomes.
Outcomes and recommendations: the committee acknowledges that some key issues identified during the inquiry are already the subject of significant policy initiatives and were beyond the capacity of the committee to address, such as alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence, and local economic development. Continued action is required on these high-level issues, as well as the recommendations put forward by the committee, to reduce youth suicide in the Territory.
This inquiry found that the greatest priority is the need to work better with what we have. The need for greater coordination and collaboration was raised with the committee wherever it went. The committee found there are significant service deficits in some areas, whilst in others there is a high degree of service duplication. Also, too often we heard of successful and vital programs closing or losing staff because a grant program had ceased or changed its priorities. It is, therefore, essential that the government takes up Recommendations 19 and 23 regarding the mapping of youth and community services and funding across the Territory, and establishing a new high-level suicide prevention coordination committee with the authority and resources to ensure agencies and organisations are working together and providing services where they are needed. Recommendations 20 and 22 are also targeted at improving the way we deliver services and are a high priority for the committee.
The second priority is to ensure there are people for our youth to turn to in times of crisis and to help them through the transition from childhood to mature adults. This includes access to counselling and mental health services, youth workers, and mentors. The committee, therefore, calls on the government to give close and favourable consideration to Recommendations 1, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 18 to improve access to youth-specific and youth friendly counselling, allied health and mental health services; and Recommendations 6, 10, and 11 to improve access to positive role models and life-promoting opportunities.
The critical role that schools play in the lives of young people was another issue that arose repeatedly. Schools make a significant contribution in building resilience and the development of the skills young people require to be able to manage and navigate the difficulties and challenges of life. Recommendations 4, 5 and 9 referred to strategies to improve the capacity of schools to help students in this regard, including ensuring teachers have access to professional development opportunities relating to mental health and wellbeing to assist them in recognising and assisting young people at risk of suicide; adequate provision of school counsellors; a reviewing of policies on the use of mobile phones during school hours; and the prevention of cyber bullying.
The lack of infrastructure to support service delivery in rural, regional and remote areas was also highlighted as an area of significant concern, in particular, the availability of staff housing and facilities such as youth drop-in centres. The committee, therefore, considers that Recommendations 2 and 3 must be addressed to facilitate the development of strong and healthy communities.
The response to a suicide can make a considerable difference to the lives of the bereaved and can dramatically reduce the chance of further suicide in imitation. We need to both better equip those who deal with the bereaved and provide those bereaved by suicide better access to services to help them through this difficult time. Recommendation 15 calls for the Department of Education and Training to review its emergency preparedness policy to incorporate specific procedures to respond to suicide as a matter of priority. Recommendations 16 and 17 acknowledge the importance of providing bereavement training, debriefing procedures and counselling support for all frontline staff required to respond to those bereaved by suicide. They also call for the provision of resources to the Coroner’s office to ensure those bereaved through suicide have appropriate access to fully-qualified bereavement counselling.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who provided submissions to the inquiry or attended its hearings and forums. It was both humbling and inspiring to hear of the dedication of the many people across the Territory who are providing help to those in need, and of the time and initiative many have taken to strengthen their communities. The committee also thanks all those people who shared their personal, and often painful, stories to enable the community to better understand the issues around youth suicide. In particular, the committee thanks the young people who so generously gave of their time and shared their personal experience and the challenges they had faced with us.
I thank the other members of the committee, the Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy, Ms Lynne Walker; the member for Fannie Bay, Mr Michael Gunner; the member for Goyder, Ms Kezia Purick; and the member for Sanderson, Mr Peter Styles, for their commitment, understanding and finding solutions to the problem of youth suicide.
On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the Committee Secretariat: Russell Keith; Clerk Assistant of Committees; Julie Knight, Committee Secretary; Maria Viegas, Research Officer; Lauren Copley, Research Assistant; and Kim Cowcher, Committee Administration Officer.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Speaker, I table Building On Our Strengths - A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 – 2012, second progress report 2010 - 2012.
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Speaker, I present the second and final progress report on the government’s policy for women, Building On Our Strengths - A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012. This policy was created after extensive consultation with Northern Territory women, and the framework was built around five key priority areas for action: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; participation and leadership, and life balance.
I stand today proud of the achievements made within the last two years, but also with a high awareness of setting goals for the next four years. The time span of this progress report has seen significant changes for women at the national level, with the introduction by the federal Labor government of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, a national women’s health policy, and the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children and, recently, a renewed national focus to deliver on commitments to achieve gender equality for women in Australia.
While I will elaborate upon my statement at a later stage, I wish to now highlight some of the achievements of the government over the last two years. Under the Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture program, we have seen the delivery of integrated maternity services to Territory women, enhanced service delivery through the six dedicated remote areas midwives, and the building of the hostel in Darwin for Indigenous expectant mothers from remote areas.
Our government has expanded alcohol and drug rehabilitation services in remote communities and increased our investment in women’s sport and infrastructure.
We stand firm in our commitment to enhancing women’s economic security. The annual Chief Minister’s Scholarships for Women managed by the Office of Women’s Policy, and the Department of Business and Employment’s International Women’s Day Return to Study Grants, assist women through tertiary studies to gain their first formal qualification in order to improve their employability and increase their earning capacity.
Our government has also funded a Business Women’s forum and enhanced Indigenous women’s employment through the More Indigenous Teachers program, as well as supporting the Indigenous Women Marine Rangers program and the Girls at the Centre program.
Improving women’s leadership is a key area of the Territory 2030 strategy. Tools to address this issue have been developed through the enhanced Women On Board Register which matches vacancies on decision-making bodies with interested women. We have made great progress in increasing the role of women in local government through grants and seminars, as well as encouraging women’s leadership in governance as part of the A Working Future initiatives.
The achievements made within the last four years have much to do with the hard work by the Office of Women’s Policy. Led by its manager, Ms Janette Galton, OWP has passionately advocated to further the opportunities for all women right across the Northern Territory. I thank Janette for her unwavering commitment and support in this area.
Before I adjourn to continue my remarks at a later date, I reflect on the 2012 Tribute Awards I had the honour of presenting at last month’s International Women’s Day events. This year I had the privilege to acknowledge three Territory women:
Jane Tye, a pioneer woman, for her contribution as a steadfastly loyal midwife and early advocate for Chinese Australians in the Territory;
Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra, for her commitment to cross-cultural reconciliation and her contribution to economic and social outcomes for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory; and
Vicki Schultz for her contribution as an inspirational role model, mentor and for improving the lives of young Territorians.
These award recipients are symbolic of where we are with women’s policy and where we need to be heading.
Jane Tye, a life lived during the pioneer period of the Territory, is an early advocate for cross-cultural understanding. Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra spent her life time committed to furthering reconciliation and advocating for Indigenous people. Vicki Schultz - as I watched this young lady give her acceptance speech, I could see how much she encompasses the Territory and where we should be heading with women’s policy. Vicki has benefited from our history of strong pioneering women, but has stamped her mark on the Territory with her own passions and style of leadership.
Tomorrow, we will be having the Top End forum to contribute to the new women’s policy. As the tribute awards illustrate, we need to celebrate and build upon successes, but also continue to eliminate the barriers facing women across the community across the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Is it possible for me to enter this debate now, Madam Speaker, or do I have to wait until such time as we return to it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave has already been granted, so it has, effectively, been adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK: I was on my feet, Madam Speaker, in any instance …
Madam SPEAKER: It has already been adjourned, though.
Mr ELFERINK: I was on my feet. You were not looking in my direction, I suspect. I have a couple of simple questions I would not mind the minister answering, if I may, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think the minister will be answering them tonight, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, not now, but she can at some other point ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you wish, this will be your entire speech then ...
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it will be my entire speech.
Madam SPEAKER: … but it is not up to the minister to respond tonight.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I am not asking her to respond tonight, but there are just a couple of issues I would like to raise, Madam Speaker. The issue I would like to raise tonight arises particularly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to hinder the member for Port Darwin. Procedurally, if the member for Port Darwin gives his speech now, we adjourn this at the end of that. Is that how it is going to work?
Madam SPEAKER: That is the end of this, yes, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am happy with that, it is fine.
The reason I raise this issue is I would like to hear from the minister some procedural answers as to how these women who have been acknowledged in the tribute for Territory women were actually selected. I listened to the three names selected - Jane Tye, Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra and Vicki Schultz - and doubtlessly they are deserving recipients of such a tribute.
Whilst we are told about how these people were acknowledged in the community, I find it curious what the process is that was followed. I would like to ask some questions about that. I would like the minister to turn her attention to this particular issue. What was the panel? How was the panel convened? Who was considered and why were they considered? Why were some people discounted?
It has come to my attention that Annette Burke, the former Mayor of Palmerston and a great worker in our community, was nominated - whilst she was overseas but, nevertheless, nominated - in relation to the tribute for Territory women. Those people who nominated her received a letter saying ‘not good enough’. Considering the enormous work Annette Burke has done over the years for the people of the Northern Territory, as the Mayor for Palmerston and any other number of roles she has participated in, in the community, I find ‘not good enough’ a very surprising result - and not good enough. If Annette Burke is not good enough, well, I will go he, quite frankly. The work she has done for the people of the Northern Territory, and Palmerston in particular, has been huge.
The first part of the nomination was a response to seven criteria which included the nominee’s life activities, achievements, involvement, and contribution to the NT community. Annette Burke’s nominators gave 20 examples on their nomination form, from her time in the Northern Territory: a contribution as an inspirational role model and leader; a contribution to improving the lives of Territorians; the degree of difficulty of achievement and challenges overcome; two statements of support - and there were four from the YMCA, when she was chair, deputy chair and public officer; support from Richard Ryan, the former Chancellor of the CDU - and it goes on and on.
The minister needs to explain to the people of the Northern Territory what the selection process is, and what makes Annette Burke not good enough to be recognised in a tribute of Territory women. I cannot think of – well, I will rephrase that. Annette Burke would be thoroughly deserving of such a tribute. I would hate to think the process that was gone through actually did not involve a panel, and a proper scrutiny process, and the decision was made in some arbitrary fashion somewhere in an office with someone just doing a tick-and-flick process. If that is the case, then the process has been diminished and, in the process of doing that, you have diminished not only Annette Burke but the other women you talk about, because those women also deserve to have their applications properly scrutinised. I would hate to see the politicisation of the Office of Women’s Policy through a process, or lack of a process, when people like Annette Burke are tipped out and passed over.
That is what I want to hear from the minister. It is all this touchy, feely stuff she bangs on about when she walks into this place, but people were disappointed when Annette Burke was passed over and people were disappointed to receive a ‘not good enough’ letter in reply.
I would like to know how many nominations there were, and who else was passed over and why. If this process is not clear, not transparent, and has not followed a fair and just process, then this government has potentially not only embarrassed Annette Burke who did not receive a tick from this committee, but also those people who did receive a tick from this committee.
Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon this government to stand up in this place and explain the process in detail to reassure me and other people in the Northern Territory that it is apolitical and not interfered with. If there is a filter in place which sees a former Mayor of Palmerston passed over, simply because government would not like the result and the attendant publicity which may go with it, then woe betide this government. I am deeply concerned that is what has occurred in this case.
As I understand it, the nomination for Annette Burke was fulsome; it was 70 pages long. To fill out all of the details which were filled out - people cared enough to very carefully put together a good and solid nomination for Annette Burke. Her absence from this list is noticeable. I ask the minister to explain the process to demonstrate it was properly and dutifully followed.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain.
It is signed by the member for Blain.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is definitely a matter of public importance. I speak, first, as a resident of Palmerston who has resided in Palmerston for nearly 23 years, having raised a family and representing those who have raised their families in Palmerston, and having close association with the rural area.
The issues around planning are very much in the public mind. You only have to look at the decisions which were made around the development of Palmerston. We live with mistakes which were made some time ago. We have tried to respond to the planning problems around the CBD.
I will now talk about something we can do in response to a growing concern within the Palmerston and rural area over health and education.
First, by way of background, I will introduce the concerns around health. As I prefaced my comments around the matter of public importance, it is the provision of health. Palmerston is a growing community. When I arrived with my wife and two young kids, there were just over 6000 people there. In those early days, it was a well-connected community. We seemed to know where to go if our child had a temperature. There was no questioning, no doubt, and no confusion; you knew where to go. You knew where the doctors were. You knew after hours where you would go. Then, the town grew, as did the expectation that there would be provided greater availability of medical services in Palmerston and the greater Palmerston area.
At the same time, with the increased population and with the Defence build-up, it was presumed, with the health requirements of the Defence families, it would be sensible to provide a secondary hospital or some facility in Palmerston that could take some of the pressure off Darwin. With a growing population, it was for many years - and it still is in some measures - the fastest-growing municipality in the country. With those times of rapid growth, for year after year, the expectations grew; the connections in the community seemed to separate a little so it was not so clear where you would go. Out of that came the provision of the Farrar after-hours medical clinic. It was positioned so it could be accessed by those in the growing rural area as well. The population was expanding. It was an area where you had fewer GPs per head of population than anywhere else in the Northern Territory, including remote Territory. It was a real problem and it required longer-term planning. Recognising that the centre of the population growth had moved to that area, it required longer-term and careful consideration of those trends and how you would respond to it.
It was the Country Liberals, in 1999, that put down the stakes for what is now the health precinct. There was the expectation that, at any time you had an emergency, a family knew where to go. That certainty was judged to be critical. For a period of time, that did exist. I still have photographs of the signs that were there to help families know where they were to go in their time of an emergency, that time of anxiety.
There was the change of government in 2001. For a government that is not known for its swift decision-making, one of the fastest decisions it has ever made was an assessment of the 24-hour clinic in Palmerston was conducted and it decided to close it. It was a very swift review and decision, most uncharacteristic of what we have come to know as the Territory Labor government in its 10 or more years. Then we had confusion. Was it 24 hours, which was a provision of something that was expected by the community, or was it now less? No, it became after hours. What hours? When a parent wanted to know where to go, they were uncertain about where to go.
Then, moving along, about 20 000 signatures of concerned families and people in the Palmerston and rural area were presented to this parliament. They wanted certainty, clarity, and that their concerns were being taken seriously. I still remember the response at the time was not to extend the availability of health services in Palmerston, but to actually stop it - or reduce or remove the subsidy that allowed the after-hours clinic to operate. In a sense, the Palmerston and rural communities were being used as political playthings.
It was confirmed when Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, then announced a super clinic to save the day. The super clinic was then spoken of, and it sounded like it was something to meet the needs of Palmerston. There seemed to be some kind of political manoeuvring going on, playing with the concerns of families wanting to meet the needs of their kids, and after-hours medical services was being engineered so we could have this thing called a super clinic. It was certainly over-sold, as is typical of the Labor administration – it was very well publicised and promoted. When it finally arrived it did not seem to match the description of what was on its way.
We now have a situation where there still is a need for a longer-term response for the people in Palmerston and the rural area to be taken seriously. They need a hospital. We announced a hospital, as was fitting - recognising and hearing the community, there needed to be that response. It was announced in the campaign of 2008, described then by the current Chief Minister as a cruel hoax. Then, after a year or so went by, it was announced - almost identical, but the location is different. That is the background.
The issue is when decisions are being made for a community, to me, in my time as a local member and a resident of a community, getting a sense of what we should do responsibly, we need to ensure we ask some very serious questions and allow the community the opportunity to engage around those very genuine questions so the right decisions can be made on their behalf, and not on behalf of some process around whether it is a federal campaign, it is a super clinic - whether it used to be something run by the CLP, let us change it. These things are just the playthings and, ultimately, the community judges those types of decisions quite harshly. In fact, it erodes any confidence people have in the political process because it is meant to serve the interests of the people.
A hospital, which was once a cruel hoax, has now been identified and I understand is being designed. However, when there was a presentation in Palmerston, the alarm bells rang. There is just a deep annoyance in Palmerston and the rural area about this hospital.
A basic question I do not believe has been asked or answered: is it positioned to meet long-term requirements? What process have you gone through to identify, in an objective sense, its positioning in light of projected numbers, the type of service it would offer; whether it be specialisation you would be aiming for in the longer term, whether it be general? The decision on the location has also caused some concern. What process has the government gone through in identifying this site as the best location?
There are some important longer-term questions. I can see the short-term sense, but I believe the community - particularly the Palmerston and rural community – is fed up with the short-termsim. We already have a CBD. Okay, it is not the fault of the current government; the CBD is the fault of a former administration not a Labor one. We have a mess there and we have to live with that. However, we have been mucked around with health.
Some questions need to be answered regarding the location, and it is time for a genuine public forum to engage on these things. How does the decision to locate it there articulate with the predicted growth trends in Palmerston and the rural area? How does it relate to Weddell? These issues need to be presented in a coherent way. I have seen a presentation in Palmerston. I believe it requires the minister to come out and explain these things to the residents because it certainly did not provide the residents with the answers to the questions they were seeking.
Another question over the location: is that location suitable for access, given you have, I assume, asked the longer-term question of what is the shape of this catchment area? What is its demography? How should it articulate and connect to Royal Darwin Hospital? What are the longer-term plans? What is the design and on what basis was the design chosen? Does it have scope for growth? What level of genuine engagement has been undertaken with the community? What questions have been asked of the community - that is in Palmerston and rural - and also the health profession? How have they been involved in this process so we can look ahead and, in five, 10, 15, 20 years time, actually see something? The decision that is made today has some coherence, but it appears it is fragmented and a response to a short-term requirement.
Dare I say, do not ever let it happen, but it appears that you want some kind of announcement before 25 August over this hospital. I do not believe the right questions have actually been presented, or the community been given the opportunity to engage those questions in a thoughtful way. The only consultation that appears to have been taken is: ‘Let us come together and work out the name of the place’. Guess what name they came up with? Palmerston Hospital!
We need a bit more honesty over your desire to genuinely engage the community. What I started with, in 1989, 1990, was a connection; people knew why something was there, when it was opened, and what services it provided. However, in the last 12 years, there has been such fragmentation, and issues like health have become the plaything of politics, which has eroded that connectedness within the community. I know it for a fact, because people do not know where to go anymore, and they have lost their confidence in the things that have been oversold and under-delivered. That is health.
Now to education: I said at the outset this is to do with CDU, and I hold government in a position of responsibility here. I accept there is a need for additional housing in Palmerston and the rural area - make no mistake about it. The Chief Minister cannot stand up and say: ‘Oh, well, things are going to go gangbusters. We have to prepare for 70 000 people’. Well, we certainly do. We have much more planning to do than trying to work out how we can position ourselves for 25 August. We have much more serious issues to deal with.
So, when it comes to a decision to take some of the university land and make it residential, I have no problems with that. None of my colleagues have any problems with that basic response; there is a need. However, what is required, though - and this is the difficult work of a government - is to satisfy the deeper concern, that deeper obligation of: on what basis was that decision made? How did it come to be that was the right amount of land? What assurances does the government have that decision was made on a sound basis? Do we just take your word for it? Do we just take the university’s word for it?
If that be the case, there has to be a level of honest engagement with the community because the contract has been entered into; that is, in 1994 that land was gifted to the Northern Territory university. It was 154 ha of land. It was gifted for a specific and explicit purpose and, if that purpose has changed, there needs to be an explanation. Whilst the explanation is that it provides general benefit to the enterprise of tertiary education in the Territory - which is fine - the land is situated in Palmerston. I would have thought a responsible government which cares about such things would have seen that as an opportunity to engage and speak directly to the community about things that really matter to them: the long-term planning around tertiary education delivery at Palmerston and in the rural areas. However, that has not happened. There has been some discussion, some nod and a wink it appears, between government and Charles Darwin University. The outside observer is uncertain whether the decision-making on these important matters about long-term educational requirements for our kids has been explained.
I will make it clear: there is no problem with land being turned over for residential development in Palmerston. I have no problem with the Charles Darwin University; I am a proud and long-term supporter of the university. Professor Barney Glover is doing an outstanding job. What is required is to see this as an opportunity - an opportunity that has almost slipped. We can do something special here. You can take this opportunity to strengthen the connection with Palmerston and the rural area by engaging, in a genuine way, with that community about your plans, hear the aspirations the families in this area have for tertiary education, and respond.
I assume the amount of land which has been set aside is based on a plan. That plan needs to be communicated to the community. Something special can come out of this. It is a shame that government, in its panic to try to find some land to release, overlooked this requirement. It is not this or that, you can have both. However, the most important requirement is to ensure you talk to people about things which really matter to them
They are concerned about health, and I do not believe you have treated them seriously. I was at the forum, and I have never seen a minister turn up to any of these things. They will send someone along to have a chat. The seniors were asking such important questions that I thought it was sad the person who was standing out the front of the seniors’ forum was quite exposed – as a part of a process that had not genuinely engaged the serious questions around health delivery in Palmerston. There is an opportunity there now. Do not miss it! For goodness sake, do not lock yourself into the process, once again. A little warning for you - I know the member for Johnston likes to give political advice - do not do it! Do not take the temptation of resorting to glossy brochures and ads saying, ‘Boy, have we got a deal for you’ because, when it comes to health, the people of Palmerston and the rural area are over it. They can see right through you. The health area has been oversold and sadly under-delivered and people do not trust it anymore. They want some honesty and genuine engagement and a response which is coherent and is not a political response.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a wonderful opportunity with the university. I put on the record that I am more than happy to throw myself into this and work with the Vice-Chancellor and the local community to develop a plan which builds the confidence of local families in Palmerston and the rural area, and ask some of those nagging bigger questions regarding Palmerston. Government seems to be preoccupied with Weddell, but Palmerston health and education issues are critical. I urge government to start to talk about how those things interact with each other and take the community seriously. This is a matter of public importance, particularly for families, now and into the future.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not a temporary Territory resident. I have a great deal of red dirt and the green tropics in my blood. That will remain the same no matter what happens.
I have been working with the Durack Residents Group for over 18 months. Durack is part of my electorate and part of this MPI. First, I will touch on some of our health needs. It may make it a little uncomfortable for some of the former and current ministers on the other side. It is clear, when we look at the future needs of our communities - whether that be Gunbalanya, Elcho or any of our other communities - we need to ensure we plan clearly for future growth and need, not for today. When we only plan for today we seem to find ourselves always falling short. Unfortunately, we saw that with our housing growth demands. We seem to target what the needs are today. We found ourselves falling short in the Territory, with people who were, essentially, homeless, or they were double- or triple-bunked in someone else’s house to try to get by. Subsequently, those people left.
What we need to do with our health needs in Palmerston, as the current Health Minister knows, and as the former Health Minister also knows - the former Health Minister, Dr Chris Burns, an eminent young man, unfortunately, in 2008, called the Country Liberals’ proposal for a hospital in Palmerston a cruel farce. That was disappointing to hear, because I thought he was a man who would plan for the future, not back to the future.
What we now see is the current government promising what we had promised in 2008, that is, a hospital for Palmerston. That should be applauded. However, what must clearly be done, and under public scrutiny, is a business plan - a model that will demonstrate what is required for the growth needs of Palmerston and rural, including Weddell, and whether that hospital on their proposed patch of land will have enough space for growth. It must have enough room to grow. We know our current hospital is getting pretty tight. It has some fantastic new facilities there - doesn’t it, Health Minister? He is playing on his iPad ...
Dr Burns: He is researching.
Mr BOHLIN: He is researching on the iPad. The thing is we know the current plan for the Palmerston Hospital is perhaps on too small a block of land. We have not seen what the projected growth and the demands are for that hospital. We need to ensure that is part of this rigorous planning process, because Palmerston, rural, and the Northern Territory, needs to know its needs are being met by whichever government is in power at the time.
I move away from that now on to CDU education requirements. This is the area I have spent most of my time in the last 18 months, focusing, working with the community groups. The Durack Residents Group has been a very active group over a long period of time. It is quite a substantial group. What we see here is 18 months worth of work from the community, supported by their local member – me - but we do not see a minister. We see letters, questions being asked, obviously media releases being issued, DCA meetings occurring, questions being put, objections being put, objections by the Palmerston City Council being put to the DCA, yet we still do not see a minister hitting the ground to explain to the people of Palmerston what the government intends to do. It is the minister’s responsibility in the long run; it is not just the DCA’s. It is easy to hand it over and say: ‘That is a DCA decision, we cannot get involved’. The reality is, that side is government and the DCA is an arm of that government. They have a role to play.
It has been disappointing for a long time during a long, quite sedate, concerted effort. These people have maintained quite a dignified approach to this. We still have not seen that minister, unfortunately, although Professor Barney Glover has done a great job within the university, offering a great future for Territorians. That has also been a little quiet. There has been a call, for some time, for a master plan for the Palmerston Campus. It is pretty much like that of the hospital, to demonstrate to the people - the primary users of the facility and the only reason the facility exists. The facility at CDU was created for the people, therefore, it should be accountable to the people. It is there for the people, created for the people, and should be accountable to the people. There have been calls for a master plan to clearly define the projected growth needs for a university in the Palmerston area.
I will move back to 1998 and the development of Durack; what was then called Fairway Waters. As part of that development consent, it was a requirement for a master plan to be drawn up for the Palmerston CDU Campus. That master plan was drawn up. In fact, last week in Palmerston, I displayed that master plan to the DCA meeting and asked the DCA members to bear in mind that in 1998 a master plan was required when giving approval for the development of another portion of the university land. It is not the first time it has happened, and it included a school at the time, which is now well and truly full – Durack is a beautiful school.
What I pointed out in the master plan from 1998 is 50% of the land intended to be developed into housing - and we need housing; we definitely need affordable family housing – which is now proposed, was campus. The master plan has the whole area covered in buildings. In 1998, the then Vice-Chancellor, and the entire board of CDU, decided this was going to be the growth. It disappoints me that I do not have a copy of that with me today. This was going to be the growth requirements for the Territory and for the broader reach of CDU. When I say broader reach, I am talking about reaching to our close neighbours, offering opportunities for educational outcomes across our seas as well as interstate.
However, in 2011 - starting late 2009 into 2010 - there was no requirement for that master plan. All we have heard is: ‘Yes, there is plenty of land. No worries mate, she’ll be fine, cobber. Trust me’. First, we have not seen the minister so we cannot say it is a political twist on words, but a company has been contracted to do the job - ‘Trust me’. We are talking about a large amount of money - millions of dollars.
In 1998, there was a requirement for a master plan. All the community is now asking - and it was asked at the DCA meeting - let us have a master plan to demonstrate to the people whether this land is going to be left. This one-third of the existing land, is that going to be enough to service not just Palmerston but rural education needs in the future? I am not just talking about the next five years, guys, I am talking about the next 20-plus years. Let us get out of this cycle of thinking it is a political five- or four-year gain time. Let us talk about serious planning.
That is what they are asking. They know when they are asking this question, they are asking not just for Palmerston rural, but they are asking for the rest of the Territory. They are asking for those young people, and some not-so-young people, all around Australia or from overseas, who want to get a good education from Charles Darwin University. We have had proud ties with overseas countries in delivering education outcomes through CDU. We should be proud of that, as Territorians. However, let us see a proper master plan for this. It is important to have it. It is important to ensure we have enough.
Is there enough land? You have to remember when they say there is plenty of land there, which is some 33 acres or something similar to that figure, we have a big lake on that land, some tennis courts, two football ovals, some swampy land, and some existing facilities already. What is left of that 33 acres? Is it only 15 acres? Is that enough without imposing on the street frontage? We have Karawa, a beautiful place, a great cooking training facility. But, does it want to be surrounded by buildings so compacted that it cannot breathe?
The people in Durack, the Durack Residents Group, and the greater Drysdale electorate, are asking a very logical question on behalf of Territorians. First, they want to know why a minister has never bothered to show up anywhere. They want to know where a master plan is. If we can see that master plan, I am sure many of those people will be greatly satisfied that, if anything in life, they have achieved something that may have a meaning for Territorians for years to come; that they have done their bit, their lot in life, to ensure the educational needs of our people are met. Obviously, that master plan would want to include reasoning why it is greatly different from the expected growth needs from 1998. It is a stark contrast when you see the layout of the proposed building site - the land mass, the footprint - compared to what is now promised.
It is going to be exciting, though, no matter what, having growth in Palmerston – the fastest growing city in Australia. It is always exciting. As I said, it has been an absolute joy to be part of that growth and the community that actually cares enough to ask these questions. It is not always easy for these community groups to stand up and say: ‘Hang on, I do not feel right about the decision that has been made here’. Then, to get together and take a lot of energy and time to actually do something about it. That is good hard work that needs to be recognised, and it deserves a result which is a good, quality master plan, so we can see clearly now that the Palmerston Campus of CDU is fit for the future, and it has a great team backing it up. We know we have some great educators here; we just need to ensure they still have the right tools and the right space to grow into.
Please do not dismiss the requirement for good planning. Please do not get trapped into this thought that planning is only the next five years, just over the horizon of the next election. That is not far enough when planning our health needs and our educational needs. Minister, with your ears on, with your new directions - I cannot remember the phrase he likes using - a new beginning, a new era. Minister, with your new era, let us get back to some basics and get some serious planning happening and some accountability. If the replies I have had from you are an indication, your planning ability is pathetic. We need to be more careful because this is the future of all Territorians. No matter how long you sit in that chair, these are long-term decisions which are vital.
I thank the member for Blain for bringing on this MPI, because it is a matter of public importance. I repeat, it is not just a matter of public importance for Palmerston, Madam Deputy Speaker, but for the people from your electorate as well. It is for all Territorians and beyond.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to improving health and education services for all Territorians, no matter where they live. Our record is strong and we are proud of it. We are pleased to speak on this matter of public importance and the long-term strategic plans this government has in place for Palmerston and the rural area. I am pleased to be able to speak on just how important the Henderson government believes health and education are for the future of the Northern Territory.
Since we came to government in 2001, we have made record investments in health and education. We have increased the health funding by 149% since 2001. We delivered the Territory’s first billion-dollar health budget in 2009. In 2011, the health budget was standing at $1.12bn. This has provided record numbers of doctors and nurses throughout the Territory - 720 extra nurses, 250 extra doctors, and an additional 187 hospital beds. To name just a few major highlights, there are expanded facilities in primary care, super clinic, renal dialysis units in every major centre, speciality services such as the hospice, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and the birthing centre. In addition, we opened the Northern Territory’s first-ever full medical school in partnership with Flinders University, Charles Darwin University and the Australian government in February 2011. We have developed a clear pathway for Territory kids from preschool all the way through to senior school and into university, to train to become doctors without ever having to leave the Territory.
These achievements can only happen with a long-term strategic view to plan and develop the Territory. We have launched our vision for the future with our Territory 2030 strategic plan. There are six core priority areas in Territory 2030 with education, health and wellbeing key amongst them. Work is already well under way in these priorities.
Let me now turn my attention to health. Within the health priority, a commitment to provide and improve access to essential healthcare services is reinforced. The new hospital in Palmerston is a key priority in our Territory 2030 strategy, with $110m being committed to this project in partnership with the Australian government: $70m from the Australian government and $40m from the Northern Territory government.
The member for Blain asked questions about the planning of the hospital. I am going to give him some answers. Since the funding was announced in May last year, we have embarked on a comprehensive planning process integrating service demands for the greater Darwin region, including Palmerston and rural areas, to identify the service scope for the Palmerston Hospital. We have committed to two hospital campuses for the broader Darwin area, although the Royal Darwin Hospital will continue to function as the main tertiary hospital for the Top End Territory hospital network. Palmerston Hospital will not duplicate the highly-specialised and intensive services such as ICU, coronary care, or the cancer centre, but will address the needs of the region, bringing care closer to where people live.
A project task force comprising the Department of Health, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the Northern Territory Treasury, and an independent health planning infrastructural expert, has been established to oversee the project. Our planning process includes comprehensive consultation with clinicians, stakeholders and the community. A survey of Palmerston and rural residents was conducted last year to gain an understanding from the community about perceived health needs. A total of 183 questionnaires were completed. Key findings from the questionnaires included accident and emergency services as the highest ranking health priority for the Palmerston community, with almost nine out of 10 responses ranking it as a top priority. Other priorities identified were maternity services, outpatient clinics, children and youth services, general hospital services, and day surgery.
The service planning phase has been completed to align the required services with the changing pattern of demand through population projections and current service uses, plus any innovative model of care. Over 70 stakeholders were involved in the consultation last August and September to detail the service requirements. I do not know where the members for Blain and Drysdale were, because they either missed out, were not aware or, probably, did not turn up.
The Australasian Health Facility Guidelines have been used throughout the planning phases and have resulted in the plan for the Palmerston Hospital to provide the following services: an emergency department with short stay beds including paediatrics, two inpatient wards with up to 60 beds, maternity services, day surgery facilities, outpatients clinics, 24/7 medical imaging, pharmacy, and pathology.
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has undertaken the concept master development plan to include site investigation, site master planning, transport patterns, site infrastructure assessment, economic appraisals, staging expansion options, and social amenity including car parking. The multidesign consultancy contract, including the provision of architectural consultancy for the full range of planning and design services, has been awarded to Darwin-based firm, MKEA Architects Pty Ltd, which will partner with Suters Architects, experienced health facility architects based in Sydney and Melbourne. The early works tender has closed and has been evaluated to award. We expect to commence headworks this Dry Season.
The forward time line for the Palmerston Hospital is shaping up with the construction tender being advertised late in 2012 and awarded in early 2013. It is expected that construction will be completed in late 2015, with its fit-out and commission in the period to follow.
The site has been selected for the Palmerston Hospital on land adjacent to the Palmerston Super Clinic. This will make a hub of health and community services for the Palmerston and rural regions close to transport and retail centres. The Palmerston Super Clinic complements the existing services at the health precinct, including mothers and baby clinics, renal dialysis unit, public and private dental clinics, a general practitioner clinic, family planning, immunisation, community health, and domiciliary nursing.
We are committed to providing for the future health needs of the Palmerston and rural region. We have already delivered the $10m Palmerston GP Super Clinic to increase access to primary healthcare around the clock. Over 30 000 patients have received treatment at the daytime multidisciplinary service, and an average of 35 patients per night have received care at the urgent care after-hours clinic. The super clinic has been supported with the delivery of a new 24/7 ambulance for the Palmerston and rural region in our Budget 2009-10.
We have a strategic plan for Palmerston Hospital, staged to match changes in the greater Darwin population. As the population grows and changes in the region, we have the flexibility to expand services to meet the demands. We are currently negotiating with the Australian government for the appropriate level of resources to support a full range of health services for residents in the detention centre, including adequate ambulance services. Our planning process also provides opportunity to consider future investment in the Royal Darwin Hospital site to ensure the required service capacity across the whole region.
We do not believe in closing or scaling back the RDH like the Leader of the Opposition wants to do and, as he said on Mix 104.9 FM on 8 September 2011:
Let us have a look what the CLP has planned for health and education. Let us look at their recently launched manifesto 2012. There is nothing for health and education - no plans, no ideas, no policy, no funds. This is the record for the CLP. In the 2008 election, they made a weak attempt to build a hospital in Palmerston based on the promise of $100m - and no planning and no beds for 15 years. The only plan they had for the hospital was a car park - that is it. No other plan to address the demand on our health system: no super clinic, no more doctors or nurses, no additional beds until 2023.
Mr Abbott, the federal Leader of the Opposition, wants to scrap super clinics. The member for Solomon has never supported the northern suburbs super clinic, as she said in the federal parliament on 3 November 2011. There is little doubt they would scrap any effort to deliver on the northern suburbs super clinic. The CLP just do not care about you or your family’s health, and they have no plans for meeting the future needs.
The CLP situation with education is no different. They have no interest in providing quality education for Territorians. Only a few months out to the elections, and still they have no credible education policy. The government has said many times education is our No 1 priority. We say so because we know this is a key to delivering social, cultural, and economic development to benefit all Territorians. We know Territorians strongly believe education and training should be the government’s No 1 priority. They made that clear in Territory 2030. That is why we will continue to invest heavily in this area, with a record $930m budget in 2011-12.
We are a government that has a plan and a vision for education in the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategic planning has been at the core of the innovative approach we are taking to education, so we have the best schools and our students have the best opportunities ahead of them. Unlike the CLP, we take education seriously. We are serious about offering quality education to all Territorians, no matter where they live. We apply this equally to students in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, and the rural areas. We acknowledge there will be significant growth in demand for education services in Palmerston and the rural areas as the population continues to expand there. We are a forward-looking government. We are very strategic in the way we go about gearing up for growth.
To this end, education has played a significant role in managing Darwin’s Growth Steering Committee. The Department of Education and Training is already planning ahead to ensure adequate enrolment capacity, given the densification of Berrimah Farm, Darwin City, Coolalinga and Virginia, as well as new developments such as Lyons, Muirhead, Charles Darwin University village, Zuccoli, and Weddell. A number of precinct planning groups have been planning for population growth and, therefore, an increase in enrolment demand. This will be expanded in 2012 to a cross-sector education authority precinct planning group to map the needs for Palmerston, rural, and Weddell.
Precinct planning groups involve school principals and, where appropriate, executive teams that include developers and planners. Together, they consider current infrastructure needs, current operating capacity, and options across individual schools and precincts to support densification of existing, and development of new suburbs. As part of this process, DET has contacted every school and is collating data in order to obtain school capacity information following the conclusion of the Building the Education Revolution which provided new facilities and new classrooms.
The members opposite squirm in their seats at the mention of BER because they opposed it. They opposed $270m of infrastructure in Territory schools and said they did not want these facilities. However, like the hypocrites they are, they turn up at all the openings for a piece of cake and a photo for their newsletters.
Strategic planning is in progress to ensure the investment of social infrastructure for education. It is targeted at growth areas and delivers where there is demand. In relation to new schools in the suburbs of Palmerston and rural areas, planning is highly dependent on population growth, yield, and density. Strategic infrastructure planning also includes working with the non-government sector to meet demands for choice in education services and, therefore, maximise the investment of both government and private investment in infrastructure.
The non-government sector plays an important role with investments in Palmerston such as the new Lutheran middle school at Howard Springs, the new Mary MacKillop Catholic College, and the St Francis of Assisi School at Humpty Doo. DET has commenced a review of all school capacities in the greater Darwin area, including Palmerston and rural, and analysing current 2012 enrolment data with the recently published population projections in order to test and evaluate the overall demand and utilisation of assets. This is important post the Building the Education Revolution, as the nation building project provided opportunities for DET to increase school capacity in Palmerston and rural areas.
This current review and analysis will provide evidence-based data for DET to plan for, and government to invest in, new schools and school expansion projects. DET has delivered the key elements outlined in the Palmerston Strategic Infrastructure Plan of 2007, including establishment of the Palmerston Senior College, the new middle and primary schools at Rosebery, and the inclusion of an additional cyclone centre for Palmerston, funding and support for the new Catholic Education middle school, and a new special school planned for Bellamack.
Planning is progressed for new schools at Zuccoli, and land has been set aside for educational purposes. The Catholic Education Office has expressed interest in building a new school at Zuccoli. Currently, planning is based around in-principle support for a co-located but separate Catholic and government school. DET has been involved in the planning and design process for Weddell and has provided advice on the quantum of school infrastructure required to cater for a future population.
The Henderson government has a proud record of investment in education infrastructure in the Palmerston and rural area. The following works have recently been completed in government schools in Palmerston and the rural area: new state-of-the-art Rosebery Middle and Primary School at a cost of $57m; new Farrar childcare centre funded by the Commonwealth at a cost of $0.1m; new classrooms worth $1.3m at Woodroffe Primary, Durack Primary and Bees Creek Primary Schools; Palmerston High School received $12.9m for construction of a new senior wing; and Taminmin College has been the recipient of $13.4m for middle years schooling and a trade training centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has planned for Palmerston, will continue to work with the community to fulfil its plan for Palmerston, and the only people who express any concern about Palmerston is the opposition, which has no plans at all.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak on this MPI because it mentions the word ‘rural’. I cannot let that go without saying a few words.
I have listened to some of the discussions over the evening about strategic planning for Palmerston and rural areas. There are certainly some concerns in the rural area. Perhaps I could give a summary of how much growth is occurring in the rural area at the moment. The Good Shepherd Lutheran school is expanding – I think it has about 650 students - and is going to go to a full primary school, as well as a full secondary school. We have new subdivisions, the INPEX construction village, the Howard Springs pine forest is being targeted as a future rural subdivision, the new shopping centre and subdivision at Coolalinga, and the development of the prison.
The government has not quite planned quickly enough for the development that is occurring. If I threw in the MacKillop Catholic secondary school on Lambrick Avenue, one can get an understanding of how much the traffic is being escalated because of the development that is occurring in this area.
I heard what the member for Blain said about the site of the hospital. I remember the CLP originally wanted the hospital located on the corner of Lambrick Avenue and the Stuart Highway. Unfortunately, that is a heritage site called the 17 Mile - it has another name which escapes me at the moment – where the American Army was camped during World War II. I always felt the site should have been straight across the road from that site, on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The reason for that site is because this hospital is not just about Palmerston. The member for Blain said the government’s only decision, more or less, was to decide what name it is. I actually think it should be called the Palmerston rural or Palmerston and district hospital, because that is what it is meant to serve.
You need these hospitals on the main highways because anyone who has tried to get to the hospital at Casuarina from the rural area gets seasick by the time they get there. It certainly is not the hospital you want to get to when you are in a hurry because there really is not a direct route to it. The reason I always felt the hospital should go on that intersection near the corner of Lambrick Avenue, Howard Springs Road and Stuart Highway is because it would easily be accessible to Palmerston people by Lambrick Avenue and the Stuart Highway, and for people in the Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, and down the track areas because it would be right on the highway.
There was the issue about whether there was enough planning. I look at the Darwin hospital today and ask who planned for car parking at the Darwin hospital? It is certainly a difficult area to find a car park. I know there has been some work trying to move some of the staff cars away from the area closest to the hospital. However, I wonder when I go past Palmerston whether there is going to be adequate car parking where the hospital is going to go. There is not a lot of room, and you want to allow some places for trees to grow. However, I believe an alternative would have been on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The land is Crown land and would have been accessible for both Palmerston and rural residents.
In relation to the rural area, the government has issued its Greater Darwin Plan which talks about social needs assessments undertaken to ensure provision of land for long-term planning for health facilities. It talks about health and wellbeing. One of those areas we need to look at is aged care, because the Greater Darwin Plan talks about services for senior Territorians and people with a disability or requiring rehabilitation.
There are two things that are needed in the rural area at the moment. One is a retirement village/aged care, and one is a full-time ambulance service at Humpty Doo. We have the fire service, the police station, but there is a need now to complement those services with an ambulance service. We have, for some time, had the Humpty Doo Cadets, and we are now developing a new group, the Livingstone Cadets, which is terrific. However, there is room for a full-time St John Ambulance presence in the rural area. The rural area is supposed to be the fastest growing area, yet it does not have some of the facilities that other areas of a similar size would have. That is something that would be beneficial. To have an ambulance service that would service both the Cox Peninsula, the Marrakai region, and as far down as the Batchelor area - although Batchelor has its own ambulance - would still complement the coverage for that area. That needs to be looked at.
In relation to education, the Greater Darwin Plan the government has released says:
There are two issues which have been raised by the member for Drysdale; one was the university. I have also written to the minister in relation to the development of the university at Palmerston. I agree that we need to ensure there is adequate land for any expansion of the university in the Palmerston area, and that the amount of land being set aside is shown to the people to be adequate for future growth. That is the biggest concern for residents in that area. The university land borders on to my electorate around Tiger Brennan Drive, and rural people will be using those facilities as well. They, at least, need to have some comfort the university will have enough land to expand into the future, because Palmerston is not the only place that is going to expand. The rural area is going to expand; Robertson Barracks is probably going to expand as well. There is a possibility there will be partnerships between the university and Robertson Barracks as time goes on.
That the people in the Palmerston area, especially Durack, have not been given sufficient proof that enough land has been set aside for future expansion of the university, before a decision is made about subdividing the rest of the land into residential, is of some concern. The minister, in his role as the minister who would approve the rezoning of that area, needs to take that into consideration.
The big school in the rural area, besides the Good Shepherd Lutheran school, is Taminmin College. It is already over capacity and there is a great need for a new school, not only to be planned but to start to be constructed, possibly in the Weddell area. Taminmin College is already stretched to the limit. There is a requirement for good planning, not just for five or 10 years time, but to start building an extra secondary school now. The Good Shepherd Lutheran school and the MacKillop Catholic secondary school will take some students in the rural area, and that would probably take some load off Taminmin, but from the point of view of government schools, there needs to be urgent consideration for a secondary school. I suggest it has to be near Weddell to service not only the future township of Weddell but also the region nearby. People from Adelaide River, Batchelor, Dundee, Cox Peninsula and the southern part of the Litchfield Shire would find a public secondary school in that area a great facility, and it would give children an opportunity to go to school without having to travel long distances.
The government cannot sit around for too long and hope that Weddell will eventually happen; it needs to build the school now. Once it has decided on a plan for Weddell, it does not have to wait a long time for houses to be built there before it builds a school. The school can go out in the bush for the time being and let the development of Weddell come around it. If the government is serious about planning for the future then it has to do something about a new school.
Girraween Primary School has actually reached total capacity. It now has 15 classes. I was there the other day for Harmony Day. It has a great range of facilities. It has a new outdoor learning centre that is not quite completed that needs a kitchen. The new school council will be looking to try to raise funds, and I hope the government can perhaps contribute, even dollar-for-dollar, to get that facility up and running. It is a school that has nearly reached its limits. It is a very popular school in a growing area and it is desperately in need of facilities. For years, I have been asking the government to find out ways to open up the small district centre at Girraween itself. They do not have a day care centre in that area, and that is something that is urgently needed for residents of Girraween and around McMinns Lagoon.
This MPI raises some good issues. There is no doubt the government has brought out its Greater Darwin Plan and, whilst it is a good attempt, I must admit I think it is too broad, it is too aspirational. What it needs is a bit more guts in it, and it needs to deal with the issues as they are today, and those issues are changing all the time. There is talk about taking gravel from near Robertson Barracks and having large trucks travelling up and down Thorngate Road every 10 minutes. They are all the things that actually have not been planned for, because I am fairly sure that, in the documentation I saw about future major trucking routes, Thorngate Road was not included. So, things are changing fairly quickly. The government cannot always be relying on some plan that goes way into the future to do its planning; it actually has to keep its feet on the ground, because sometimes things change much quicker than the government has planned for. A classic example would be INPEX because of the change of plans about getting gravel.
The Good Shepherd Lutheran school is growing very fast. Many people are using that school, yet the facilities, the infrastructure, like the roads, are now becoming quite congested. Part of the reason for that is because of the increase in the number of people who come from Palmerston and drive their children to that school.
That planning is, somehow, missing at times. It might look good in a document, but on the ground nothing much has changed. I hope in this budget there will be some consideration for upgrading of roads such as Whitewood Road to take the increased traffic from trucks that are moving sand and gravel from that area, and the increased number of vehicles that are going between Palmerston and the Howards Springs area. Whether they are going to the MacKillop school, Good Shepherd Lutheran school or Howard Springs Primary School, there is much traffic on the road mixing with all the peak hour traffic. Anyone who has sat by the side of the Stuart Highway at 7.30 am at Howard Springs and notes how much traffic heads into town can only wonder where is it all going to end, because it is bumper to bumper at 7.30 am. It is a sign that the rural area is certainly growing. Government has at least been trying to offset some of that with park and ride facilities and trying to get people to catch public buses. However, the reality is, there are many people who use the roads in the rural areas to get to town.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for bringing forward this MPI. It is important that we plan. I get a bit worried about the planning of the hospital. I know the experts are looking at it, and we are told they have this all in hand. However, I sometimes feel we should have, perhaps, allowed the planning of the new hospital to go to a Public Accounts Committee. It would have been an ideal way of including the public in the planning, and it would have been a good way to look at options to see which was the best place to site the hospital. However, obviously, the government has made up its mind. The only thing I could say is, if you have made up your mind, maybe you can change the name of it, because Palmerston Rural will reflect the people it is going to serve; it is not just Palmerston Hospital.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I contribute briefly to this matter of public importance. My colleague, the member for Casuarina, covered the areas very thoroughly. There are a couple of issues I would like to touch on. One of them relates to something the member for Blain said about my words in 2008 that the CLP’s proposal for a hospital in Palmerston as being a cruel hoax.
I did that on the basis of two things when I was Health minister; one being the time frame this hospital was being promised in, which, from memory, was about 21 or 23 years. It was nothing more than a scoping study being announced by the Leader of the Opposition in 2008. Second, the money being put on the table by the Leader of the Opposition certainly was not for any reasonable hospital or what the man in the street, or the citizens of Palmerston, would expect in a hospital. We know the expense of building, maintaining, and staffing a hospital, and the whole issue around the specialists required, particularly if you are going to have accident and emergency, theatres, etcetera. My comments were based around that and, to some degree, I believe they have been taken out of context.
The second issue I will address briefly relates to the member for Drysdale, and others - the member for Nelson also touched on it – about planning issues and the proposed developments by the university on university land in Palmerston. There are a couple of things to lay on the record here. First, Charles Darwin University has its own act, has its own autonomy under the act, and has its own university council. There are some very eminent people, not only on that university council, but also advising it in a business sense. Justice Sally Thomas is currently the Chancellor of Charles Darwin University and preceding her, of course, was Mr Richard Ryan who is well-known to members in this House. He has made a great contribution over many years to the development of the Northern Territory. Richard Ryan certainly would have been in there advising and pointing to opportunities for the university, principally around the issue of being able to expand their student base.
One of the limitations on the expansion of their student base is accommodation. We have talked about this. There are rental pressures in Darwin, particularly for students, and difficulties for students to find accommodation. My understanding of the proposed development at CDU in Palmerston is it will provide quite a bit of accommodation for students, including overseas students.
I commend Charles Darwin University for the way it is engaging with nations to our north, in Asia and beyond, and trying to encourage students to study at Charles Darwin University. The university rankings recently published point to the fact that Charles Darwin University is becoming a more and more desirable destination for students from overseas. However, one of the impediments to that, of course, is the whole issue of accommodation for those students. Whilst there are other elements to the proposed development by Charles Darwin University, I say to members that a big part of it is expanding the student base.
In relation to the very important issue raised by the members for Drysdale, Nelson and Blain about ensuring there is enough land with the capacity to hold future developments for Charles Darwin University, I agree with that. In my discussions with Barney Glover, I will be alluding to the discussions in this Chamber tonight and putting forward the quite reasonable view put forward by members.
I am not being critical of the university or Barney Glover, but it is evident here tonight that the university probably should be engaging more with the community and explaining what its plans are. When that is done, many of the community concerns could be allayed. That is an important element.
The other thing to say about this whole thing is the finger is being pointed at the minister for Planning. Ultimately, as the member for Nelson said, the minister will have a final say, probably, on any rezoning application in relation to that development. I am sure the minister will exercise all the wisdom; he will gather the advice and take on board what has been said here tonight. However, ultimately, I do not think it is a good thing for Planning ministers to become too closely involved with processes at certain stages. It is good for ministers to hear what is being said, but some members opposite really need to have a good look at the Planning Act and see what the role of a Planning minister is. There is a bit of a misunderstanding by some members opposite about what a Planning minister should and should not be doing. There is no doubt that a Planning minister has powers which should be exercised appropriately at the right time, based on the right advice. I have every confidence in our Planning minister; that he will take all these matters into consideration. We have a Planning Act that has statutory processes in it, and it behoves everyone to understand what those processes are, and respect them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether there are other speakers to this MPI, but I commend the member for Blain for bringing it forward. There are important issues he has raised here tonight, and every member who has spoken tonight has spoken well. It is a very important issue, and these issues are ones the government has, and will, take on board. I have given my undertakings in relation to issues that have been raised within my portfolio area.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to an outstanding individual in the rural area, and the years of hard work and dedication to our rural lifestyle. I pay my respects and compliments to Mary Walshe, who has been the Litchfield Council President for over 10 years. I have known Mary and other members of her family for many years: Patrick, Danny, Joanne and Cecilia. Possibly, there are many more I do not know about, but it is a big family I know and talk to regularly. They are a great family and have done so much for the rural area, as well as the Territory generally.
Their parents, Neville and Helen, went to the rural area in or around 1967 when Humpty Doo was mostly dirt roads and considered a long way from Darwin. Mary’s parents were well ahead of their time and could see the potential for growth and, as a consequence, set up a small store on the side of the road, then turned their plans to a hotel which they built and, today, is the living legend I am sure Neville intended it to be; that is, the Humpty Doo Hotel.
It takes much commitment and hard work, and more so in those days of yesteryear, given where they were located and the transport methods. It shows me, and should show this House, that the family has been committed to the Territory, in particular the rural area of the Top End, for many years, if not many decades. To my knowledge, all, if not most of the children of Neville and Helen, live in the rural area, as do their offspring, and I am sure they would live nowhere else. From this background of hard work and commitment, love of the bush, and family upbringing of all giving to community, it was not surprising that Mary put her hand up for President, as it was called then and, now, the Mayor of Litchfield Council.
Since being in this job, I have crossed paths with Mary numerous times at events, sporting fixtures, meetings and socially. Whether it was Anzac Day, Australia Day and her being cheeky to the new Australians, watching family at polocrosse, to school end-of-year assemblies and the Freds Pass Show, Mary was charming and friendly always and happy to have a chat or put the record straight on many an issue we discussed. When I was first elected, Mary helped me understand what council did versus what NT government did and, in hindsight, it was the best advice I received, as many people in the community get the responsibilities mixed up and want government to fix something they cannot, and vice versa.
I always considered Mary’s position, first and foremost, was for the people of the rural area. She was only too happy to go in to bat for us and blast those who tried to either pick on us, downgrade us or, generally, not support us in a way she thought we should be supported as a community. Being an elected local government person and, in particular, being a mayor is not an easy job. In some ways, it is very much like a member of this parliament: people want everything fixed yesterday; do not understand why they have to pay rates; and have high expectations on all manner of issues, subjects, and rural issues.
However, from where I sat, Mary handled them all. I know that sometimes people thought Mary was a little tough, but fighting the good fight often needs a high level of toughness, particularly when fighting for grant money or fighting governments - whether it be the Northern Territory or the Commonwealth government.
It is my view that Mary is, and was, and will continue to be, an inspiration to all women and has performed exceptionally well in a difficult role. There is no doubt the rural area is facing increasing pressure. Mary was acutely aware of this and worked diligently and assiduously at getting us the best deal. Yes, many of us disagree where the rural pool should go, and, yes, we grumbled over our rubbish dumps - it is interesting how rural people value their dumps. However, some decisions were made and sometimes they are difficult decisions, yet Mary was not afraid to take on tough issues and make tough decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to Mary Walshe for leading the Litchfield Council over the last 10 years, and for her enduring commitment to the rural area. I am sure Mary will pop up again in a community role. I wish her, her family, and her extended family, all the very best in the future.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about Alice Springs, where my heart is, and where my family and life is based. At the sittings in February this year, the Chief Minister talked about Gearing Up for Growth in the Northern Territory. At the time, I raised the issue that not one mention was made of Alice Springs in his statement. Not one mention was made of Central Australia at all in this statement made by the Chief Minister about gearing for growth in the Northern Territory.
It is with much sadness that I bring it to the attention of parliament tonight that we commiserate 49 businesses closing in Alice Springs over the last few years - businesses owned and operated by people like me who have come to the town to have a go and to make the most of the wonderful opportunities in the town. I provide that information with much regret.
Last week, there was discussion in the media about the fact that two very distinguished businesses in town, the Alice Springs Memorial Club and the Town and Country Tavern, had closed. The Chief Minister responded by saying the people were talking the town down. The Chief Minister accused me, and the members for Greatorex and Braitling, of talking the town down because we dared to speak openly and publicly about the regret we had around yet two more very important enterprises in Alice Springs closing.
That seems to be the only response the Chief Minister has to anything that happens in Alice Springs that is not of a favourable nature: he routinely accuses us of talking the town down. Well, in this Parliament House of the Northern Territory, in which we are appointed to talk about these issues, you cannot accuse people of talking the town down when they are talking facts. It is not about a perception or an opinion; it is about fact. The fact of the matter is Alice Springs is facing a very serious crisis in its economy, in where the town is heading, and some of the problems we are facing. It is not talking the town down when we look at these things as brutally honestly as we possibly can. That is what we try to do in this House of Parliament, we flesh things out, debate them, analyse them and, sometimes, our assessment is not what the government wants to hear. That is when we are accused of talking the town down by the Chief Minister and various other members of government.
What we fail to hear from the government is any vision for Alice Springs, any plan forward, or how we are going to deal with these very difficult issues. It is very much based on the Chief Minister not wanting to take responsibility and be proactive in trying to address these issues.
Gina Rinehart came up with an idea which was quoted in the media about a month ago. She said that Alice Springs, like other major regional centres throughout Australia, could be used as a centre for bureaucracy; that instead of bureaucrats flying in and out of Canberra, they could, in fact, live in places like Alice Springs, contribute to the community, and work out of the town, and that would do a lot for regionalising Australia across the board. Gina Rinehart, who lives in Western Australia, has, I suppose, business interests throughout the country, and the world now. She was able to come up with a good idea about Alice Springs which I was very impressed with. I wrote her a letter commending her on having a vision this government sincerely lacks when it comes to Alice Springs.
Last week, the Police Commissioner was on radio in Alice Springs. He said there is an insatiable demand for police services in Alice Springs. He was very honest and very open. In relation to crime in Alice Springs and the problems we are experiencing, he said ‘there is an insatiable demand for police services’. I commend the Police Commissioner for saying that. It is probably the most frank and honest I have ever heard him speak when it comes to Alice Springs. He was not trying to dodge the bullets or pretend, as the Chief Minister does, that things are not as bad as they are. He was not flipping it over to the people raising the issues and accusing them of talking the town down; he was fairly up-front. He said, as I have repeated now, there is a problem and the police are confronted with an insatiable demand for their services. I commend the Police Commissioner in this situation and these circumstances for his frankness; for being honest with the people of Alice Springs. That is what we appreciate in Alice Springs and Central Australia: people who are honest and open because, in our circumstances where we are faced with such dire problems - and they are dire because they affect each and every one of us, either directly or indirectly - it is important there is some level of openness about how we discuss and address these issues.
However, we are not hearing from this government what its vision for Alice Springs is. The truth of the matter is, it does not really have one, nor has it ever had a plan for Alice Springs. It is really the poor cousin down the track, and that was truly reflected in the Chief Minister’s statement in February, Gearing Up for Growth in the Northern Territory. Alice Springs did not get a mention.
This government has been hell-bent on centralisation. It has been hell-bent on closing as much down in Alice Springs as possible and moving it up to Darwin. The Ombudsman’s Office closed several years ago. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment closed. Various key positions - for example, the Police Media Liaison position – were moved out of Alice Springs. One that was very important in the work I have been undertaking of late, the Childcare Regulator position, was removed from Alice Springs, which was inexplicable. There was no explanation; there was no real reason for that.
I happened to be at a meeting of childcare workers last Monday night. It was quite interesting, there was a lady there who had been newly recruited to a key position in the childcare industry. She, obviously, did not know the history of the position, and she advised the meeting the good news was that the Childcare Regulator would be visiting Alice Springs once a month. Those of us who had been around for more than six months really could not even think of words to respond to the poor woman, who was really quite ignorant of the fact that we used to have a full-time Childcare Regulator in Alice Springs. That is just one example.
You can attribute the downturn in the Alice Springs economy to many things. You can talk about the global financial crisis and the high Australian dollar, which is reeled out at every opportunity. However, the social problems in Alice Springs play a very significant part in the problems of the economy of Alice Springs. They are very closely linked; you cannot talk about one without the other. You cannot talk about reasons for 49 businesses closing in Alice Springs over the last couple of years without talking about the social problems in Alice Springs, and about law and order.
My job is not about talking Alice Springs down; it is about presenting the truth to this parliament. I would appreciate the truth coming back from the government. I would appreciate hearing its vision for Alice Springs; what it would like to see; what it intends to do. We have not heard it for the last 11 years. Perhaps, leading up to the election in August, we might hear some hope and confidence from this government when it comes to Central Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will also say a few words about Mary Walshe. The member for Goyder spoke about Mary, and it was a very good summary of what Mary was all about. I will come more from a local government aspect. When I was President of Litchfield Shire, Mary was a councillor. She took over the council when I left to come into this House.
Mary might not have been a perfect president, but she was a good president who really represented Litchfield in everything she did. She was a fighter for Litchfield. I will give you one example of fighting because it has been in the paper occasionally - I am mentioned in the same breath. It was about the establishment of a regional waste facility to take over from the Humpty Doo tip. The member for Johnston will remember the debates we had in this House. For some reason, the NT News tends to believe the government when it comes to the issue of a regional waste facility, and likes to put the downers on both Mary Walshe and me in relation to where this new tip should go.
However, Mary did fight hard to get a different site for the tip. Unfortunately, that debate was not won, and the government decided to close the Humpty Doo tip down. The only option the Litchfield residents had, and still have today, is to take their rubbish, eventually, via their transfer station to Shoal Bay, which is a long way away for rubbish to travel, especially in the southern part of the shire.
Mary fought hard and copped much criticism from the NT News about dog registration. Once again, the NT News did not understand the difficulties in trying to introduce dog by-laws in rural areas. It is not the same as the city, and not the same as Palmerston. It is difficult to enforce. Also, there was a misunderstanding by people outside Litchfield that Litchfield was founded on a philosophy of having very few regulations because its motto was ‘Community Effort is Essential’. You try to sort your problems out yourself without having piles of legislation and, on top of that, you get piles of administration and, on top of that, you get piles of costs, which end up being reflected in your rates.
Mary took her time with the issue of dogs and, when the dog legislation was eventually brought in as part of Litchfield by-laws, it was probably the appropriate time because, by that time, the council’s population had grown considerably. As you know, you can probably multiply the number of people in the shire by two and get the number of dog that live in the shire. People have accepted there had to be some control over dogs as the numbers increased. Mary put that through.
Mary was the one who helped promote and get the new transfer station at Humpty Doo established, which she recently opened. I was there to watch that happen. Yes, it is an expensive facility but, once again, Mary drove that and the facility is now up and running and gets plenty of praise from local residents about how it has been constructed.
I did not agree with everything Mary did, but that is part of politics. I am talking here (1) as a local resident, (2) as a local member of parliament, and (3) as a past member of the council. There were things the council did I, obviously, did not agree with, but that is life. One of the things people forget when it comes to the president or mayor of a municipality, is they represent the wishes of the council. If Mary decided there was not going to be a swimming pool at Freds Pass, it was a decision of the council.
We sometimes forget that is the case, and presidents and mayors have to promote a policy they may not totally agree with. I remember George Brown had that trouble one time as Mayor of Darwin. To me, people like Graeme Sawyer are excellent people who work very hard for the city of Darwin. You might not have always agreed with him, but he worked hard; he was passionate about Darwin. He reflected the wishes of the council. Of course, when it comes to an election, sometimes they only see that person being the person who is the cause of what they disagree with. In the case of Graeme, that may have been one of the reasons he was not re-elected. That could also have been the same reason with Mary.
I put on record that Mary was a good president. The residents of Litchfield, obviously, believed it was time for a change. It should be noted that she worked hard, she was passionate about the rural area retaining rural identity, and that is what she should be remembered for. If you want to put it in a more stylish way, she was a loyal servant of the people of the rural area. She should be remembered for that.
Just quickly on to another issue, I recently went to Katherine for the Bombing of Katherine Commemorative Service. I congratulate the member for Katherine, Mr Willem Westra van Holthe who, with the Katherine Museum, put together a top-class commemorative service - just as good as you see in Darwin for the Bombing of Darwin ceremonies.
Katherine was bombed on 22 March 1942. One person was killed. That person, whose name has only been recently discovered, was an Aboriginal called Dodger Kodjalwal. The ceremony had its formalities, with various speakers. Melissa Brumby, I think who is related to Dodger Kodjalwal, did the Welcome to Country, the RAAF cadets did the flag raising, the Katherine South School and the Casuarina Street School did the National Anthem, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, addressed the gathering, and Willem Westra van Holthe, the local member, welcomed everyone there.
We had a guest speaker, Ms Mim McGinniss, and her sister, Mrs Ludwig, whose first name I cannot remember. They both spoke about their time in Katherine when they were schoolchildren, and how they would have to jump into the slit trenches to get away from the bombs if they were coming, because they, obviously, had air raid sirens. Their stories were great. Another guest speaker was Squadron Leader Mr Damien Fairhurst, who talked about one of the squadrons that were operating in that area during the war. There was plenty of historical readings by one of the local schools. I will get the ladies name who was involved with the museum – Kerryn Taylor. Then, finally, Katherine South School sang the song Pack up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit Bag, which many older people knew and joined in ...
Mr Elferink: Hey! I knew it. You are calling me old now, are you?
Mr WOOD: Yes, well, older.
We then went off to a group of rocks near the old Katherine airstrip which was the one that was bombed by the Japanese - and we have to remember they think that 91 bombs were dropped on Katherine. Most of them were dropped on the airfield, but a few went astray. The think one of those bombs landed near one of the large rocks which has a large number of shrapnel holes in it. That is where they think Dodger might have been killed. The member for Katherine and the Brumby family went there with many other people from Katherine and crowds of media to unveil a small plaque which was placed on the rock to commemorate the day and Dodger Kodjalwal.
It was a great day. It was great to see the Brumby family there who were related to Dodger, who was sometimes called Roger. There was a fair amount of effort required to find out who he was. The local member, Willem Westra van Holthe, put a great deal of effort into trying to find out the history of this man and where he came from. I know the member will give this much more coverage than I have because he has a better knowledge of what happened. I congratulate the member. There are several reasons for retaining and remembering our history: from a heritage point of view, from a personal point of view, to remind the young people what really happened, but also to develop the Territory. This history is important to the Territory, both from a historical and economic point of view. The member for Katherine has done a great job in doing all those things with the commemoration he organised last week.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will also speak briefly about the 70th anniversary celebrations in Katherine recently. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend. I was at Mulga Bore for the community meeting in my electorate. However, I was told, and have just heard from the member for Nelson, what a fantastic event it was. During a trip to Katherine recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine Museum and meeting with some of the ladies there - Kerryn Taylor, the museum manager, and Kaye Marsh, a volunteer at the centre in Katherine.
Karen told me the story of the old man who lost his life during the bombing. As we have heard, 91 bombs were dropped on the town and the surrounding area during the bombing of Katherine. There is still a great deal of that history around. I spent an hour or so at the museum but you could spend a day there just looking at history. There is an exhibition at the moment about the Tapp family. There are some great old photos and a lot of history being shared for those who want to visit and read about it. The story of the old man who lost his life during the bombing was very moving.
I understand around 300 locals turned out to mark the day in Katherine last week. As part of the ceremony, as the member for Nelson said, the old man’s daughter, Ivy Brumby, unveiled the plaque at the rock to pay tribute to this tragic loss of life.
I congratulate Kerryn and her team on a most successful day and thank her for working tirelessly to ensure this special occasion was honoured. It was an important event for the Katherine community. It is a town, as we heard, which has many challenges, but it is these great and important events that bring people together. I was very pleased to be able to offer some financial support towards the day. The bombing site near the rock has now been listed as a World War II heritage site and will add to the many sites located throughout the Territory, which locals and tourists can visit and learn more about our past.
Moving a little further south of Katherine to Mataranka where, last week, I had the pleasure of attending the convening of the Federal Court in a special outdoor ceremony to mark the handing down of the native title decision over Mataranka. There were many people there representing the three Aboriginal groups of the region which were awarded native title under the determination. The decision is only the third consent determination in the history of native title to cover a town area. I congratulate the three Aboriginal groups and the claimants in this momentous occasion.
I also say thank you and congratulations to the people of Mataranka for putting on a great event at the Territory Manor, a fantastic venue for this event. Thank you to Darryl and Yvonne Martin and their son Ryan Martin and his partner Eleanor White from the Territory Manor for their hospitality. It was beautiful setting for such an important day. Also, thanks to the many people from the Northern Land Council who were involved in doing a great deal of the groundwork, as well as those staff providing support on the day, and the people of Sunrise Health for providing the much-needed cold water on a hot day at Mataranka.
I was also able to catch up with many Roper Gulf Shire Council staff at the function, including Virginya Boon, the shire Service Manager and Clair O’Brien, who was the Deputy Mayor before the elections over the weekend.
While in Mataranka, I also visited the school and met with the Principal, Rex McLean, along with teaching staff and students. We had a great morning at the school and it was a great opportunity to speak to the students about my job as their local member and as a member of the parliament, but also talk about the significance of their determination to the community of Mataranka and what that means for their future. Thanks again to Rex and the staff for giving me a warm welcome to their school and the opportunity to speak to their students and staff.
I visited the health clinic and met staff there, including the Acting Clinic Manager, Vanessa Markham, and Sue Edwards and Cheryl Birch. To all the staff at the clinic, I thank you as well for sharing a cup of tea and some great photos of the determination event.
Finally, I respond briefly to the claims from the member for Araluen about Alice Springs and this government’s neglect. As the only government member in Alice Springs, I am very proud of this government’s achievements in Central Australia, particularly over the last four years. Some of these key achievements include the following: upgrades to the Alice Springs Hospital; opening the Alice Springs Police Beat in the Todd Mall; improvements to the Tanami Highway and the Mereenie Loop Road; upgrading Traeger Park and the opening of the new Alice Springs Aquatic and Leisure Centre; opening the Red Centre Way; West MacDonnell Discovery Centre at the Alice Springs Desert Park; headworks commencing at Kilgariff; land release for the subdivision at Mt Johns Valley; the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; and $150m invested into the town camps in Alice Springs. These are fantastic commitments by government.
Also, in Alice Springs, this government has recently awarded a tender for a new building of 2500 m2 in Alice Springs CBD. This will enable the Greatorex building redevelopment in Alice Springs to take place, and would be, of course, taken up by Territory government agencies.
Regarding the Memorial Club, I have met with representatives of the Memo Club recently and had discussions with them about their future. I am saddened by what is going on there, but I will do what I can to assist the Memo Club in getting through this tough time.
Alice Springs is not the only place that is feeling the effects of the global financial crisis and a very strong Aussie dollar. As we know, one of the key industries in Alice Springs is tourism, and that is the industry that is particularly feeling the brunt of these global issues.
Times are tough for the Memo Club. As a member, I am certainly saddened at the way it is going at the moment. It is tough times, and real leadership means you do not go out and talk a town down; you need to keep on top of it and work with the community at a grassroots level to see people through these tough times.
As a government, we have a proven track record of supporting businesses. In Alice Springs, to date this financial year, seven Alice Springs businesses have been supported with more than $19 000 in committed funding. In 2010-11, $79 000 in grants was provided to 20 businesses in Alice Springs to develop strategic plans to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration.
It is important to note there are businesses that are also thriving in Alice Springs, and new ones are opening. Major companies seeking to invest in Alice Springs show there is great confidence here. I acknowledge those great companies such as Bunnings, Best and Less, Lasseters Casino and Kmart, to name a few.
The member for Araluen had an opportunity to talk a bit about the vision of her party, the CLP. Reading through their manifesto - if you are a Territorian, I am not sure if she can understand that word, ‘manifesto’. However, the CLP’s vision is interesting, isn’t it? Their environment policy only had 68 words to say what they are going to do for the environment.
However, let us look at Alice Springs. Their manifesto shows how much the CLP takes Alice Springs for granted. There is not one idea or commitment aimed at Central Australia besides a juvenile boot camp. In fact, in this manifesto they have reneged on promises made to Alice Springs over recent years. The member for Greatorex, who has been ranting and raving over the last couple of years, has been promising 20 extra police for Alice Springs. This manifesto says there will be a review - no extra cops as the member for Greatorex rants and raves about, but a review. There is a huge backflip already.
Another one is they have also promised to put the police call centre back in Alice Springs. We hear about it all the time in this Chamber, but can you see that commitment in their manifesto? Not at all. Not to be seen. Here is another one; they will bring in a youth curfew for all Territory children under the guise of a night safe strategy. This is a curfew. Again, the CLP is relentless in running down the town and portraying Alice Springs as a place to avoid.
Dr Burns: Oh, here we go. Are you going to talk about the manifesto?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You can relax; I am going to talk about Graeme Sawyer briefly, and Katrina Fong Lim.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will ignore the member for Johnston as long as I possibly can. I want to place on the record my thanks to Graeme Sawyer, the outgoing Lord Mayor of Darwin who, whilst engaged in the odd element of controversy in his tenure as Lord Mayor, was a genuine and hard-working Lord Mayor for the people of Port Darwin. It is worthwhile acknowledging Graeme’s contribution to the people of Darwin as a whole over the term of his incumbency as Lord Mayor.
However, times change and, the moment I heard Katrina Fong Lim was standing, I thought to myself there were many worried cane toads out there. I understood, and pretty much expected, the result was going to occur, did occur - and that is the way democracy works. Many people do not realise it, but the Lord Mayor is the person with the largest electorate in the Northern Territory, I believe. No, Natasha Griggs is, but the Lord Mayor comes second.
There are now issues facing Katrina Fong Lim. I used to bang on Graeme Sawyer’s door about this and, now, I will be banging on Katrina’s door. One of the things I raised during the campaign - and am grateful to see Heather Sjoberg and Helen Galton in particular picked this up, as did Jamey Robertson - is the situation at the waterfront which needs to be resolved. The people at the waterfront deserve to have local government representation and to be included in the municipality of Darwin.
There is currently legislation before this House which will further entrench the separation between the two. I urge Katrina Fong Lim, as one of her first announcements and acts as Lord Mayor, to open the channels and negotiation with the Northern Territory government with a view to having the waterfront brought under the umbrella of the Darwin City Council. I am a strong believer, as the Leader of Government Business is well aware, that people who pay taxes should have a right to elect the organisations to which they pay taxes, which is currently not the condition the people at the waterfront find themselves in.
I will be contacting the new Lord Mayor shortly on this issue and other issues, but this one in particular. I am sure Katrina will become well and truly sick of the sound of my voice complaining about local government issues. Graeme was always responsive and did his best and I expect no less from Katrina.
Katrina is from a long, long, long-term Darwin family. There is no need to remind honourable members of her pedigree in relation to her role as Lord Mayor. Alec remains one of the most fondly remembered Lord Mayor’s in the history of this city. I include myself in having fond memories of Alec. As Katrina pointed out, if she is half the Lord Mayor her father was, then we will have a good Lord Mayor.
The second issue I wish to raise tonight is the matter of Flagstaff Park. Dare I stand up here and talk about Flagstaff Park? Yes, I do. The minister for Planning, last year during the Estimates process, promised he had found $6m in the upcoming budget for Flagstaff Park, which is exactly the same amount announced in August 2008 by the then Planning minister, but now Treasurer. Without having allowed for the effect of CPI, we will actually be spending less on Flagstaff Park. However, I want the government to keep its commitment to the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park and allocate the $6m the minister promised last year to that commitment. I will be looking out for it, particularly and specifically, in the next Territory budget.
The second component of this, of course, is the old hospital site which, once again, was launched with great fanfare, reviewed by Mickey Dewar at some expense to government and, then, the remodelled old hospital site was relaunched - and it remains a large vacant lot ...
Dr Burns: Are you going to sell it?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. The government has done nothing with it. The best they can do is to run some tawdry little allegation that we are going to sell it. Well, no, we are not. So, before you start peddling that nonsense out there, we are on the record ...
Dr Burns: I am just asking.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know. Well, nobody has ever suggested that anyone was going to sell it and, now, all of a sudden - this is the old trick. This is what the people of Port Darwin need to be aware of: the people opposite will simply fabricate a story that suits them at the drop of a hat so they have something to peddle out there. Well, no, so let us kill that one dead.
Before you start fabricating anything else, Leader of Government Business or ALP staffers on the fifth floor, just put it away. Put it away and run an honest and decent campaign, and keep your promises. That is my request of government. When you promise to redevelop an old hospital site, redevelop it. When you promise to deliver Flagstaff Park, do it. Make good on your promises. The minister opposite will have cheap shots all he likes. All I am asking for is government to keep its promises. What I will be looking for is a government that keeps its promises in the next Territory budget. Do what you promised with Flagstaff Park.
Get on your horse and get something organised in relation to the old hospital site because, as far as I am concerned, the government has decided to ignore that area, and it diminishes our capital city. It is about time the government delivered, instead of just producing hot air in this place.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the container deposit legislation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Of course, I heard the very clear interjections from those on the government side who just want to crawl under their desks and hide from what people say about this container deposit legislation.
In my role as the shadow minister for Youth, I have already received much feedback from angry members of various youth and charity groups, not to mention parents and young people themselves who are upset at the collapse of this ill-conceived, poorly thought out, and incompetently implemented legislation. If the matter was not so tragic, if the amount of money wasted in implementing this failed scheme was not so great, if the number of young Territorians affected was not high, this would be a laughing matter. Instead, it has just highlighted this government is a laughing stock.
Sadly for all Territorians, though, it is just another fine example of this government’s failure. This container deposit legislation is the NT government’s pink batts scheme. It is the latest in a long line of failures for which this government is responsible. It is another example of Territorians’ tax money going down the drain, which went the same way as the huge amounts of money and funding used to implement the Banned Drinker Register - another failure. I ask the minister for the Environment how much money this has cost Territory taxpayers and where has the money gone?
It was not just slabs of alcohol that rose in price by up to $10, Territorians were hit in the hip pocket with price rises for soft drinks, flavoured milk and fruit juice. The scheme has failed. Container refund centres have closed in Darwin and Katherine and, now, the lawyers are involved. Kids in charity groups, schools and childcare centres who had faith and were collecting cans for pocket money and to raise additional money to support their members, are bitterly disappointed. Hard-working Territory families have had to cop these price rises and, soon, there will be nowhere for them to collect the refund.
The tragedy is the legislation already existed. All the government had to do was copy the existing South Australian legislation - a simple job of cut and paste, and still they messed it up. As with the Banned Drinker Register, the most important issue for the government was having a good headline in the newspaper, and perhaps seeing their faces on television.
To the minister for Environment, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, I say, shame on you. It was more important to have positive media coverage than to take the time and get it right. The container deposit legislation was rushed, it was ill thought out and it has shown how incompetent they are in implementing their own legislation. In a nutshell, the legislation is another example of an ineffective, inefficient rushed job which has become the trademark of this government. Now your time will be spent fixing another mess instead of focusing on governing. Tell us where the money has gone; tell us your plan on fixing this mess!
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, hard-working Territory families, Territory charities, and Territory kids deserve better.
What prompted me to stand up was my recollection of Question Time today and the way this government shamelessly comes in here talking about its Banned Drinker Register and the Enough is Enough campaign. The Treasurer, now the minister for Business, cranks on about how they are doing such a wonderful job with the Enough is Enough campaign. They spent a significant amount of money on that campaign. Some $10m has gone into that campaign and I think more than half of it has been spent on scanning machines so they can inconvenience every Territorian who goes to the Bottle-O to buy a bottle of wine, a carton of beer, or something like that. They seem to think it is good use of resources.
She said the police say this is a good tool for combating public drunkenness. I do not know what sort of a political creep verbals police like that, but the police I talk to …
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will moderate my language.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, I concur with the observation from the member.
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe ‘political creep’ was a little too close to the mark. In any case, the fact is the Treasurer seems to think what the government is doing with drunks is, somehow or other, a good thing. I do not know what world the Treasurer lives in, but when I walk onto the streets of Darwin and see the number of drunks we have in parks, littering almost all of the parks, littering the beaches, causing mayhem and grief all around shopping centres - goodness me, every morning at the shopping centre I operate from, the landlord has to hose all the filth and other nonsense off the footpaths because of the drunks from the previous night. That goes on in almost every single shopping centre across Darwin.
If we think things are bad here, you just have to go for a trip to Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs to see how bad things can be there. Our problems here in Darwin pale into insignificance in comparison to some of the concerns people have in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. In actual fact, I do not think it is any secret at all that public drunkenness is the single biggest problem the Northern Territory has. For goodness sakes, have a look at that last report. People are afraid to go out on the streets at night; they do not feel safe; drunks are everywhere. This is one of the reasons people are marking Darwin down.
The Chief Minister, the Treasurer, and those on the other side seem to think it is their duty to stand up, gloss over all the bad things and say how much they love Darwin, but fail to recognise the problems out there. We are seeing a huge amount of money spent inconveniencing a huge number of Territorians, but we are not seeing anything happen to the drunks on the streets.
We are told there are now more than 2000 people on the Banned Drinker Register. Well, I tell you, it has not stopped any of them getting a drink. They are always accessing alcohol. Let us see how many of these drunks do not get a drink. I tell you, there are not too many of them. In fact, any one of those people can walk into a pub and drink if it is their desire. There are no problems at all with them doing that. The Banned Drinker Register does not stop them getting alcohol. This whole notion that Labor is, somehow, turning off the tap is the biggest, cruellest joke they have tried to commit on Territorians. It is just twisted. Are these people blind? You walk outside the door and all you see littering our streets is drunks. You do not even have to walk a 100 m from Parliament House almost on any day of the week and you see drunks. All along The Esplanade there are drunks. It is just ridiculous.
I see the member for Blain is here. I remember a couple of years ago going out to Bakewell looking at the drunks in that park and seeing what happens with kids as they leave school having to walk through - almost half the school has to walk past a park full of drunks on their way home. What is happening about it? Absolutely nothing! Meanwhile, we have moribund, useless government members sitting here blowing their trumpets saying they are doing something about drunks. Toughest alcohol laws in Australia, they say. Well, they are the toughest, there is no doubt about that. They have inconvenienced almost the entire population. They have spent an enormous amount of money and done absolutely nothing. They are the toughest laws - they are tough on all of us. What are we getting for it? Nothing - absolutely nothing.
What Territorians need, and are demanding, is a government with some intestinal fortitude to get out there and do what is required. That is to grab these drunks, mandatorily detain them, and rehabilitate them. That is what is required. Everybody is calling for that. They want to see some real action on this stuff, not some namby-pamby, leftist policy that penalises the entire population and, yet, provides all sorts of revolving door services to drunks. Goodness me! I have to say I am glad to see the shake-up on council, because this idea of giving free massages, haircuts and what not to a bunch of street drunks – hopefully, the days of that nonsense is over.
People have had a gutful in Darwin – absolute gutful. And they have had a gutful in Alice Springs. You see the alcohol-fuelled violence and crime that occurs down there. They are in the middle of a crime wave in Alice Springs, most of it caused by alcohol abuse, and what is the government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They are penalising the whole population, but this government will not do what is required. Doing what is required is enforcing personal responsibility.
That is what my good friend, the member for Sanderson, has been banging on about for so long. I am proud to say that is what my good friend, the member for Blain, has been saying since prior to the 2008 election. We are 100% united on this. A Country Liberals’ government will lock up drunks and rehabilitate them, mandatorily. If you are picked up three times drunk on the streets in a six-month period, you are going to get rehab. You can voluntarily check yourself in and, if you do not turn up, we will grab you and throw you into mandatory detention and rehabilitation. No drinks, no smokes, no drugs - nothing for three months. You will dry out because that is what mandatory rehabilitation is about. This is not about punishment; this is about sorting people out, trying to get them back on the rails and giving them a chance to enjoy a decent life.
What I am saying tonight is I am horrified at the way this government is treating Territorians and conveniently ignoring the biggest problem we have. We have to sit through Question Time and listen to puerile responses from the Treasurer banging on with nonsense about what they are doing with drunks when everybody knows - Blind Freddy knows - the drunks are not being affected at all. The only people being affected are decent, hard-working Territorians who have to front up with ID, as they would have to in communist Russia or communist China. if they want to get a drink.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the socialists have to go! We need a government with some brains, some drive, and some will to get rid of drunks off the streets of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, and all the other places in the Territory that have problems with drunks.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about some of the candidates for the Labor Party for the next election. It was great to see on page 4 today, Alan James, very well-known in the Darwin community and the electorate of Port Darwin. His mother and family lived there and he grew up in that area. His mother was an evacuee during the Bombing of Darwin. Alan is well-known in the music industry. I am proud to say Alan is a friend of mine; I have been out sailing with him more than a couple of times. He has a great sense of humour, is a very warm personality, and will draw people to him. Perhaps he will draw the 2.6% required as a swing to unseat the current member for Port Darwin. He is a great candidate and will campaign in a different way. It will be interesting to see the contest for the seat of Port Darwin.
In my electorate, Ken Vowles has been nominated for the Labor Party. He represented and captained the Northern Territory in cricket, and was raised in the electorate of Johnston. He attended Jingili Primary School, and has huge family connections through that electorate. He is already working hard, out doorknocking and attending functions.
Jodie Green, the candidate for Sanderson, as everyone knows is Principal of Sanderson Middle School. She has a young family, is very passionate about education, working hard, and has already started doorknocking. She has received a great reception doorknocking and at functions, and will give the member for Sanderson a run for his money in the electorate of Sanderson. They will be interesting contests.
People put their hand up and there is a process within the Labor Party. People are disappointed, but it has been harmonious. No one has spat the dummy; no one has really been upset; there has been no division within our party around those preselections, and others.
There is a contrast with the CLP. Unfortunately, the member for Drysdale has not been reindorsed for that seat. I like the member for Drysdale. I did not think I did when I first met him, but he grows on you. He certainly spoke very well tonight. He is well-liked in the electorate; he has worked pretty hard. He has been to many functions I have been to - and I am a bit of a function goer; I see who is there and who is not.
I just saw this lovely picture of the member for Drysdale with the members for Blain and Brennan playing croquet. They had great big hammers in their hands and croquet balls. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition did not use his croquet hammer to hammer in support of the member for Drysdale. There has been an inability of the member for Blain to support him in being renominated. I come from the Labor Party, I am not factionally aligned, but I reckon that has ‘faction’ written all over it. There has been factional politics come into play regarding the member for Drysdale. The Leader of the Opposition has not been able to really defend him.
I talked about Alan James on one side of the paper. Quite sadly, on the other side of the paper is an article on the difficulties the member for Katherine is facing in Katherine. He is being challenged in that seat in quite a bitter contest. I agree with the member for Nelson and commend the member for Katherine over the Bombing of Katherine celebrations. I was very impressed by what I saw there. However, I am dismayed by what I see in the paper. It appears the Katherine Branch is deeply divided; the member for Katherine has threatened to sue his own branch chairman for defamation. There is the former candidate, Ms Cummings who is running against the member for Katherine. This defamation threat this month was prompted by a conversation Mr Jansen - who is the branch president in Katherine - had with the Coomalie Caravan Park owner. Mr Jansen allegedly had been digging dirt on the politician. Well, it is not being done by the Labor Party; this is all happening within the CLP.
There is no doubt rumours are abounding about the member for Katherine about his activities. It is coming out of the walls, really. There are all sorts of things being said about the member for Katherine. I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition - this is something he said on 18 August 2010:
That is so true - a lot of wisdom there, member for Blain. It is probably a bit prophetic as well, because it appears people are trying to dig up dirt on the member for Katherine. If you believe what is being said, they have all these dossiers and all this stuff is going to tip out. However, I will leave that to the CLP to work out. They are divided. They have been divided almost from 2008, with the Leo Abbott affair. We have this division around the member for Katherine. I just wonder whether the member for Blain has the strength; whether he will get that croquet hammer out and protect the member for Katherine in this process.
When you come down to it, both the members for Drysdale and Katherine are supporters of the Opposition Leader. We know, currently, there is a group of four - the gang of four. Underneath the manifesto there is a gang of four. The gang of four is still there; we know it is still there. If you count out two, that brings it a little closer - that is six. Two away from the eight, which brings it to six.
Then, in that case, the member for Macdonnell has the balance of power. Who knows which way she is going to go? The point I am making …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Blain is laughing here, but I ask Territorians to consider this: stability. Stability is so important, and these troubles within the CLP point to massive instability. There is instability there. The members opposite can point to the Queensland election and say the same is going to happen in the Northern Territory. I do not actually think so.
I have named some of the candidates who have been nominated for the Labor Party; they are quite decent candidates. I believe there will be a contest come August. There is no guarantee all the members opposite are going to win their seats.
What I am trying to say is, in that case, even leading up to and past the election, support is waning for the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader. There is no guarantee he will be Chief Minister for very long after the election if they were elected. The money is firming, if that were the case, with the member for Fong Lim. It is sad what has happened to the member for Drysdale. I commend him; he spoke very well tonight. I sometimes ask his advice on mechanical things and other stuff. He is pretty knowledgeable as far as that goes. I know he is very keen on his motor sport and I know, after this life, he will spend more time with his motor sport. I wish him well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very dirty situation which the member for Katherine is in at present. There are, obviously, people from his own side of politics trying to dig dirt, who are spreading rumours about him. They reckon they have all this evidence which is going to spill out. Once again, I will quote the Opposition Leader:
Listen very carefully, Leader of the Opposition:
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to frolic in the same muddy pool which the member for Johnston seems to delight in during the last days of his illustrious time in parliament. It is a shame he spends his time in such places ...
Dr Burns: I study your words.
Mr MILLS: No, you study much more than that.
I will report on a trip I took to Jakarta in January. I have not really made a report on this because I did not take the trip for the purposes of a report; I took the trip for the purposes of building and strengthening engagement with our near neighbour.
As members may or may not know, one of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory over 22 years ago was because of my conviction that we had a very special obligation and opportunity with Indonesia. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia has ebbed and flowed over time. In my time in the Northern Territory, we have had a boom time when Indonesia was regarded as one of the economic tigers of the region, and there were a number in that group. That is when the Northern Territory led the nation in engaging our near neighbour. It was the Country Liberal Party which provided that national leadership.
Then, there came a time when the economic activity and the strength of Indonesia seemed to fade as they fell into an economic crisis. That coincided with a change in the level and nature of the engagement with Australia and Indonesia, sadly, because it is still our neighbour. Then, at about the same time, we found that China began to rise, then we became fixated on China and pursuing the economic opportunities.
It has always been my view that there will be changes within the region. However, given that Indonesia, with a population of 230 million people, and the Northern Territory are so close and with such an historic engagement, we can put ourselves in a very smart place if we strategically engage and maintain quality relationships. That was the purpose of my visit. It is not to play one off against the other, but we have to work in this space in a sophisticated and knowledgeable way to build mutual advantage.
I made the decision to go to Jakarta because the first trip I took last year was in direct response to the deep concern I felt when the decision was made to impose a blanket ban on live cattle trade and what effect that would have in Indonesia and on the Australian/Indonesian relationship. I am still mindful of the diplomatic capital that has been established over time. It has not completely eroded between Australia and Indonesia in Indonesia’s mind, particularly Darwin. Darwin is still held in high regard, and there are still memories there with some very senior and influential former politicians, business leaders, and academics who know of the very important relationship Darwin has had with Indonesia, and are actually looking for that to be resumed.
I had nine different meetings. I went there the first time because of that prompt to try to find a place where we could acknowledge that Indonesia had been slighted in that kneejerk and panic reaction from Prime Minister Gillard, with the Chief Minister nodding behind the Prime Minister at that time, and then trying to find another place to stand. It really was the opposition which created that space where there could be a unified position taken in this parliament.
At that time, Indonesia was slighted, as I said, but they were wanting us, as a neighbour, to assist them in their reform programs. They want to improve their practices. There is excellent practice in Indonesia in the slaughter of cattle and they would like that strengthened, but not to be humiliated and have their food supplies threatened by having a blanket ban to satisfy a domestic political situation.
This time I went solely not to place pressure on Indonesia to reconsider its quota, but I thought the first thing we need to have is to strengthen our capital. I met with some very significant people, and it was a great honour to be able to meet Harry Tjan Silalahi who was a senior Soekarno and Suharto minister. He is currently a businessman and founder of CSIS, which is a think tank and research unit highly regarded and very influential in Indonesia. He is a man who met Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and Gough Whitlam, at the time just after Vietnam fell. He came under persuasion from both Whitlam and Gerald Ford to go as a proxy into East Timor. He recounted the time and he told me the conversations he had. He is still influential and active, and acutely aware of the great opportunities we have within the region, and acknowledges, as I brought up in conversation, the role that Darwin could play.
I also met with Kwik Kian Gie, legendary politician, a Chinese Indonesian, highly regarded as an activist and a person who speaks up for the poor in Indonesia. He was a former Minister for Economic Development and National Planning, and is still very enthusiastic and keen to see Australia be involved, and maintain and develop a close relationship with Indonesia so, together, we could strengthen our strategic alliance.
I met Fuad Bawazier, who is a former Minister for Finance, also a mentor to young politicians in Indonesia. There is still much political activity in Indonesia about the development and the strengthening of this phase of democracy. I also met the Deputy Head of the National Chamber of Commerce, which is a fascinating story. Bambang Sujagad is a very wealthy businessman, very involved in politics, and is No 2 at the National Chamber of Commerce. He has a special connection and affection for Darwin, because in 1973-74, he studied English here at the community college, and was here when the cyclone struck. He helped in the recovery, he served coffees at the Capri Caf, and he packed prawns at Fishermans Wharf. He has not really been back to Darwin, and he is really keen to come back and look for opportunities for investment.
Everyone of those people, and the young politicians and senior journalists I spoke to, are all very aware of Darwin. They are aware of Obama’s visit to Darwin. They are perplexed by that decision to bring troops into the region. They all talk to me about that; it made for interesting conversations. All of them expressed their fondness for Australia and their desire for a stronger relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
I tested the proposition that Darwin could well be the place which could facilitate that relationship and provide national leadership. Darwin is strategically placed and, with Indonesia liking Australia and wanting to work more closely with Australia, we need to engage and start talking to each other. Rather than have Jakarta talk to Canberra, it is my view Darwin could be the place where those conversations could be facilitated.
To that end, I have spoken to Professor Barney Glover with an idea I developed in Indonesia; that we need to develop a much higher level capacity to bring people together and allow us to discuss contentious issues. The first one would be to allow senior academics and influential figures in Indonesia to come to Darwin to have a discussion with someone from the ANU, someone from DFAT, and perhaps someone from the US Consulate, to talk about how each of us view the Marine presence in Darwin. It would be a useful way for us to develop a better understanding of each other and to explore and understand the views of each of us so we can come to a better understanding, rather than standing far off and not understanding each other’s view. There is a real opportunity there ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: I will talk more about this later.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Commonwealth Day Message 2012
Commonwealth Day Message 2012
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the Commonwealth Day Message 2012 from Her Majesty the Queen, dated 8 March 2012. With the concurrence of honourable members, I will have the Commonwealth Day Message incorporated in the Parliamentary Record. I table the message.
Members: Hear, hear!
- The Commonwealth Day Message 2012 from Her Majesty The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth
One of the great benefits of today’s technology-based world is the range of opportunities it offers to understand and appreciate how others live: we can see, hear, and enter into the experience of people in communities and circumstances far removed from our own.
A remarkable insight we gain from such windows on the world is that, however different outward appearances may be, we share a great deal in common. Our circumstances and surroundings may vary enormously, for example in the food we eat and the clothes we wear, but we share one humanity, and this draws us all together. The joys of celebration and sympathy of sadness may be expressed differently but they are felt in the same way the world over.
- How we express our identities reveals both a rich diversity and many common threads. Through the creative genius of artists - whether they be writers, actors, film-makers, dancers, or musicians – we can see both the range of our cultures and the elements of our shared humanity.
‘Connecting Cultures’, our Commonwealth theme this year, encourages us to consider the special opportunities we have, as members of this unique gathering of nations, to celebrate an extraordinary cultural tapestry that reflects our many individual and collective identities. The Commonwealth treasures and respects this wealth of diversity.
Connecting cultures is more, however, than observing others and the ways in which they express themselves. This year, our Commonwealth focus seeks to explore how we can share and strengthen the bond of Commonwealth citizenship we already enjoy by using our cultural connections to help bring us even closer together, as family and friends across the globe.
To support this theme, a special song has been composed for the Commonwealth, Stronger as One. There are any number of ways in which that single piece of music alone can be played or sung anywhere in the Commonwealth. And by sharing the same music with our own personal interpretations and contributions, the wonderful human attribute of imagination is nourished, and we gain insights of understanding and appreciation of others.
The Commonwealth offers a pathway for this greater understanding and the opportunity to expand upon our shared experiences in a wider world. A world in which paths to mutual respect and common cause may also be explored and which can draw us together, stronger and better than before.
Elizabeth R.
Madam SPEAKER: I note there is a song for the Commonwealth. Perhaps we should learn Stronger As One. I have not heard it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): If it assists the House, Madam Speaker, you have the agreement of this side of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5 St Paul’s Catholic Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Lorella Pollon and Mr Alain van Gurp. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 56 and 58
Petition Nos 56 and 58
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I advise that responses to petition Nos 56 and 58 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to the petitioners.
- Petition No 56
Date presented: 24 November 2011
- Presented by: Mr Henderson
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 29 March 2011
Date response received: 15 March 2012
- Response:
- The suburb of Muirhead is owned by Defence Housing Australia, which has entered into a joint venture arrangement with Investa Property Group to develop the new suburb.
The land was rezoned to a specific use zone in 2009 and 2010, to facilitate the subdivision, use and development of the land as a residential estate that provides for housing choice through a range of lot sizes and housing types. The rezoning process included a public exhibition period to allow the community to comment and make submissions. This was followed by a public hearing of the Development Consent Authority (DCA).
In response to concerns raised about the loss of the natural vegetation, the specific use zone has a condition that a landscaped buffer of not less than 20 m wide be retained along the entire length of Fitzmaurice Drive. The subdivision design for Muirhead also ensures that there is no development within 700 m of the sewage treatment ponds. This requirement is in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Power and Water Corporation.
The Muirhead subdivision was referred to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, which advised that it did not require assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. The site has also been assessed under the Commonwealth’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Development application for Stage 1 of the Muirhead development was approved by the DCA in 2010. Stages 2 and 3 were approved in November 2011.
Defence Housing Australia and Investa are now proceeding with development of the suburb of Muirhead, in accordance with the specific use zone and the approved development permits. Stage 1 was completed in December last year.
- Petition No 58
Safety of Elderly Residents at 40 Head Street, Braitling
Date presented: 15 February 2012
Presented by: Mr Giles
Referred to: Minister for Public and Affordable Housing
Date response due: 15 February 2012
Date Response due: 18 September 2012
Date Response received: 15 March 2012
Date Response presented: 27 March 2012
Response:
The Northern Territory government places a high priority on addressing and resolving antisocial behaviour in public housing.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services (DHLGRS) is working with other agencies and stakeholders to implement the Public Housing Safety Strategy, which includes:
a ‘Three Strikes’ policy that will categorise the nature and severity of antisocial behaviour incidents involving tenants and/or their visitors in public housing. The third formal warning (Strike 3) will lead to the commencement of legal eviction proceedings; and
In response to concerns raised by the residents of the public housing complex at 40 Head Street, Braitling, DHLGRS has worked with NT Police to assess the safety of the complex and has already begun to implement measures to improve safety, including improved lighting and new fencing.
An upgrade to security lighting within the complex has commenced and will be completed by the end of March 2012.
New fencing will also be installed within the complex by the end of March 2012 which will aim to prevent unwanted visitors using the complex as a thoroughfare.
All shrubbery within the complex has been pruned to a maximum height of 1.5 m above ground to improve visibility.
Five new directional signs will be installed to each entrance of the complex by the end of March 2012.
DHLGRS will continue to work with NT Police to assess the effectiveness of these measures and will consider further measures, if required.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Withdrawal of Business
Withdrawal of Business
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, four General Business Notices previously on the Notice Paper have been withdrawn by Mr Giles and removed from the Notice Paper accordingly. The text of the notices has been circulated to honourable members.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe I understand the process outlined by the Clerk. We know the order of business in this place changes from time to time, for example, today with one of our bills. However, it is quite extraordinary for four items of business to be withdrawn without any explanation. I ask the opposition to give this parliament some explanation of why they have withdrawn four items ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Thank you, Leader of Government Business, resume seat.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): In response, Madam Speaker, that starts to sound like a frivolous point of order ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: You know, that is a good point, good question. Are you going to respond to it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
TABLED PAPER
Parliamentary Behaviour
Parliamentary Behaviour
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a copy of the letter I sent to all members relating to parliamentary behaviour. I hope each of you has had the opportunity to read that letter.
DISABILITY SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 196)
(Serial 196)
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the agenda looks pretty light today. Ordinarily, I would like to take up the whole 45 minutes to speak on this bill. We support this bill. We wholeheartedly support this bill, not without some bumps along the way, minister; that is, the location of these two secure care facilities in Alice Springs and the rural area. I know of the great work done by the member for Goyder in championing the concerns of her constituents and having it relocated. Of course, it is the same in Central Australia. All local members in Alice Springs work very hard and listen and comply with the concerns of our constituents who requested a relocation of the facility. With that, we support the bill. We realise these are two very important facilities for Northern Territorians and the Territory and we throw our support wholeheartedly behind it. Let us get on with it; let us get the facilities operational and provide the care these clients require.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I signal at some stage I want to look at clauses 41 and 42 and ask some questions during the committee stage relating to how these operate with each other. I want to get the government on the record on a couple of issues. I indicate there will be a requirement for committee stages.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. This is a very important bill and deserves to be recognised as such. I also thank the department for briefings in relation to this bill and for allowing me to visit the new secure care facility at Holtze which all members, if they have an opportunity, should visit. I have not seen the one in Alice Springs but I imagine it is of similar design. It is certainly a very impressive facility and one that is long overdue, but recognises there needs to be a place for the care of these special people.
It has been mentioned there were some issues in relation to the siting of these facilities when they were first put forward. Some of that was, unfortunately, due to telling people at an early stage what the government was intending to do and asking for comments in relation to the one planned for the Bees Creek area. Unfortunately, for most people, the first time they heard about it was when the yellow sign went up on the road. That is a poor way to conduct a consultation as it caused people to fear what was being proposed. While some of those fears could be well justified, some comments at those meetings demonised some of the people who will be in the secure care facility. That disappointed me because the people in these secure care facilities could be our brother or sister, our daughter or son, our mother or father, for all we know. As my mother would say: ‘But for the grace of God there go I’.
In our discussions about the siting of these facilities, we have to be careful not to demonise the people who will be in them. I found a little disheartening some of the discussion that occurred. I have no problem with people having concerns about the siting of the facility, but to put down those people who would reside in that facility by putting labels on them was shameful. We need to be careful that we distinguish between the people and the facility; they are two different things.
The amendment presented can be summed up that it is important, when we are dealing with the locking up of people, that we set out the principles. Under section 2A it says:
- The following principles (the treatment and care principles) apply to the treatment and care of a person with a disability:
(a) the treatment and care must be reviewed regularly;
(b) if a restriction on the rights or opportunities of the person is necessary, the option chosen should be the option that is the least restrictive as is possible in the circumstances; and
(c) for a person for whom a treatment order is enforced - the treatment and care of the person must cease if the person no longer obtains therapeutic benefit from it.
What we are dealing with is removing the rights of a person from having the freedom to move about our society at will. If we are to take those freedoms away, we should only do it in such a way as there are safeguards to ensure those freedoms can be returned to that person at the earliest possible stage, and the reasons for that person’s freedom being restricted are very clear and precise. This act does that. It allows a court to make a decision as to whether a person should be sent to the secure centre. The court must be satisfied there are treatment orders which will be accompanied by a treatment plan, so the court can decide whether the CEO’s argument that this person requires involuntary treatment and care is justified.
This bill is not just about the medical matters that would be required in relation to looking after this person; it is dealing with a fundamental issue of restricting the rights of a person from being able to freely walk around our Territory, and it makes clear the reasons that person should have involuntary treatment and care are justified through a local court. The beginning of this act is very important, so people understand that before anyone is put in care, there are very clear guidelines that have to be attended to before that person can be taken to these particular facilities.
The bill also deals with some basic concepts. It is also important that people understand the basic concepts of why a person would be required to spend time in this secure care facility. That needs to be read out as well:
- A person fulfils the criteria for involuntary treatment and care if:
(a) the person is an adult; and
(i) is likely to cause serious harm to himself or herself or to someone else; or
(f) the person has the capacity to benefit from goal-oriented therapeutic services in a secure care facility; and
(g) the person can participate in treatment and care in a secure care facility; and
(h) there is no less restrictive way of ensuring the person receives the treatment and care.
That is an important part of this bill. In fact, when there was discussion about the siting of these facilities that is what needed to be put before the people so they understood the type of resident who would be living in these facilities. That, at least, would have cleared the air in the debate about the perceived risks associated with the siting of these facilities.
The bill also talks about a treatment plan which, of course, is extremely important. It talks about behaviour support plans in which are included certain restrictive interventions. If you visit the site you will see there is a room which would allow people some space where they could not harm themselves but could quieten down so other residents would not be affected.
That is another area which is clearly defined in the amendment and is important. By having these matters documented not only does the public understand what is happening in these facilities but the staff who will run these centres know exactly what is required of them. It clearly sets out matters about the searching of people, the keeping of records, how a person can be apprehended, the use of reasonable force, and transfers of a resident to another secure care facility. Within this act there is a series of guidelines - they are more than guidelines because they are within the act - but regulations and rules that have to be applied and that is important.
There is also an area for appeals. It says in clause 40, Review of behaviour support plan – review panel:
(1) A resident of a residential facility or someone else consulted on the preparation of the behaviour support plan for the resident may apply for the review panel for the review of the inclusion of the use of a restrictive intervention in the plan.
They have set out in here their functions and their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are really important because you are making sure these people who lose their freedoms we have continually have the opportunity to put forward any issues they have, but also to ensure these people are not being kept within this facility longer than required. That is part of the balance here. There is a balance which is trying to protect a person - as stated in the basic concepts - who could cause harm to themselves or to someone else, or be a substantial risk to the general community, or is likely to suffer serious mental or physical deterioration. On one hand, we are trying to help those people; on the other hand, we are taking away their freedom. It is that balance which is really important. Looking through this bill, there is a series of mechanisms to ensure that balance is retained. That should be looked at in the annual report, to ensure those checks and balances are working. I have no reason to say they would not work, but you would hope an amendment to the act which has in it restrictions on a person’s movement would be constantly monitored to ensure everything is fair for both the community and the person who resides in that facility.
I support this amendment. It is an important amendment because it deals with a small group of people in our community who could easily be discarded, a bit like in times previously where people like this would be have even been locked up in a mental asylum, or would have been left on the street to look after themselves. Today we are showing that we need to care for these people; they are human beings and they have problems.
Building these new facilities reflects the government’s commitment to looking after these people. The government should be praised for that. It may have had some problems in the planning of these particular facilities, but credit should be given where it is due. I believe the people who will reside in these facilities will get the best care possible, which is what the government should be all about.
I believe the siting of the facility at Holtze is excellent. When the government is thinking of doing something in the rural area it should occasionally be brave enough to talk to local members - not necessarily that the local members want to be negative but the local members have a great deal of knowledge on the ground. In regard to this particular site, I asked the department why it did not look at the site near where the white truck selling the fruit, vegies and fish goes. That was Commonwealth land. They had a look and then realised that just across the other side of the bicycle path they owned the land there, which is next to a lovely wetland. It is away from residential areas and is halfway between Palmerston and Darwin which, I believe, was a requirement of this facility. It is close to the bus service and is near some shops if people want to get food and drink.
I believe we ended up with a really good site. However, in the beginning, I do not know whether people trusted us. Sometimes, you should go out and talk to people and say you are considering that. The member for Goyder has been around since she was born in the rural area, and I have probably been around as long as she was born in the rural area, but we have local knowledge about our areas. Just because we are not in government does not mean we would not want to assist the government in trying to find a suitable site for a facility like this. I believe there can be some lessons learnt.
This is an area that should not be political at all; we should be working together. Any time the government wants to consider some other proposal in the rural area, I am happy to talk to the member for Goyder about that. We would share our local knowledge with government about the siting of some facility if they required it. That way you would get a better outcome. This started off on the wrong foot, unfortunately, and that caused a delay in coming to fruition.
Madam Speaker, in summing up, I believe the bill is excellent. It covers many of the issues I have spoken about: the controls and the checks and balances. I thank the department for allowing me to visit the site at Holtze. It really is a top-class facility. If other people would like to look at it before it is officially opened - because it cannot be opened until this legislation is enacted - I am sure the minister would be happy for people to have a look at it, because it is a bit of an eye opener when it comes to caring for these people. As I said before, many times these people were put on the rubbish heap, or just ignored or put into an asylum, or left to their own devices. This facility totally turns that around and will be something the Territory should be proud of in the way it cares for people with cognitive impairment.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their contribution. It is not often the opposition and the government agree, especially on legislation. This is very important legislation. We know we deal with people with mental illness, but this is how to deal with people with cognitive impairment, which is sometimes very complex and could be a result of an accident, alcohol, or drugs.
Two facilities have been built; the one in Darwin is finished and the other, in Alice Springs, is near completion. I agree with both members that the selection of the sites at the beginning was probably not done very well. I agree that you inform people about what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. When people have the information, they do not object. Half information is dangerous. It is better to provide people with all the information so they understand what you are doing.
The member for Stuart approached me when a selection of sites took place in Alice Springs and discussed it with me. I went to Alice Springs and looked at the site and found it was totally inappropriate. I had to fight the bureaucrats to put the facility at the site it is now. There were objections from bureaucrats and organisations who said the site in Alice Springs was very inappropriate as it was very close to the prison. The fact the prison is about 2 km away makes their concern irrelevant. We selected the site and advised the facility would be independent of the prison and would be a suitable facility for people with cognitive impairment.
The same thing applied in Darwin. The department selected a very inappropriate site, and I had e-mails to my personal and government e-mail addresses. I took the time to look at it and I insisted that site be abandoned and a new one found. Quite rightly, as the member for Nelson pointed out, the site is appropriate - halfway between Darwin and Palmerston, close to the bus route, and we did not have to pay for the land because we owned it. I took the time to visit the site with the member for Nelson and was impressed by the quality of the site.
It is a difficult situation when you have to restrict the personal freedom and the rights of a person because that person will either harm others or themselves. Unfortunately, things have to be done that way. I do not know how many of you have had personal experience with people who cannot control themselves; I have had that personal experience. My first wife was manic depressive and had to be admitted, forcibly, to a mental institution. I will never forget the way the police had to manhandle her to put her into the police car to take her to Heathcote in Perth. I will also never forget that she was a lovely woman - excellent, loved people - but at the time she had no control of her senses; she was somewhere else. I remember when she grabbed my glasses and just smashed them and had to be restrained. It had to be done and it was not a very nice experience.
I was impressed by the facility in Darwin. It was very suitable and in a very nice environment for people. You just do not shove people into blocks and concrete bunkers. That facility has nice, landscaped surroundings and protection for those who are inside and those who are outside. Even in the case where people have to be restrained in a room, that particular room is suitable so people cannot harm themselves. The accommodation was done in such a way there were no hanging points - people could not hang themselves, could not smash a window, could not smash a mirror and harm themselves, or others. It is, unfortunately, a necessary evil that we sometimes have to protect people from themselves, and everything is taken into account and consideration.
Again, human rights are paramount. That is the reason this legislation prescribes exactly the way people can be admitted, how long they will be admitted, and there will be constant review of their condition. People are not locked up somewhere, the key thrown away and forgotten. People have rights, and their rights are respected. Of course, the ultimate decision will be made by suitably qualified personnel who are familiar with the situation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and thank members for their support. If there are any questions, I am happy to answer them.
Motion agreed to: bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I already know what the answer to this question is going to be. I received this inquiry at the 11th hour, walking in here, and would like the minister to place it on the record, basically. It deals with the relationship between clauses 41 and 42 of the proposed bill. I draw the minister’s attention to clause 41(2)(d).
You will note there are eight paragraphs under that with Roman numerals which deal with the requirements for the provision of a certain standard where a person is the subject of a restrictive intervention.
Clause 42 of the proposed legislation then outlines the use of restraint and seclusion in emergency cases. There is an absence, if you like, of the provisions of clause 41(2)(d). The only thing I seek from the minister is reassurance that, as far as possible, the provisions which are made for a person under clause 41 will also be extended, as far as possible, to a person who is subject of an emergency restraint or seclusion under clause 42.
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely, they will apply.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That is it.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (INFORMATION SHARING) BILL
(Serial 194)
(Serial 194)
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the Care and Protection of Children (Information Sharing) Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 194) was introduced on 16 February 2012 by Mr Vatskalis as the Minister for Health. The purpose of this bill is to enable government agencies to request and share information relating to the wellbeing of a child or group of children that would otherwise be restricted under provisions of privacy and confidentiality.
The opposition supports this legislation. Of course, we do. In 2009, we introduced a private member’s bill to amend the Information Act to allow interagency information sharing and collaboration. This bill sought to amend the Information Act to allow a general provision permitting a public sector entity to request or provide information that was otherwise restricted under provisions of confidentiality. That was two years ago, in May 2010, and it has taken this long for the government to come up with similar legislation allowing information sharing to improve the quality of care we provide children who come to the attention of the Department of Children and Families. So, we have no problems with this bill at all.
We definitely support better coordination of delivery of services to children. We support the removal of obstructions to information flow between government entities, and government and non-government entities, and people who are on the same page when it comes to wanting good outcomes for children who come to the attention of the department because they are possibly being abused or neglected. Everyone in the child protection industry will be supportive of this legislation.
In 2009, COAG released a report Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business in which Strategy 2.2 aimed to develop new information sharing provisions between Commonwealth agencies, state and territory agencies, and NGOs dealing with vulnerable families. Appendix A of the report details the current initiatives and reforms being undertaken by each state and territory to address failings in child protection. On page 51, the report states that in the Northern Territory the Care and Protection of Children Act provides the legislative basis for increased interagency collaboration in child protection by supporting the sharing of information between agencies. This legislation comes about, at least in part, due to Recommendation 113 of the Growing them strong, together report released in October 2010 which dedicated a chapter to the subject of interagency collaboration. So this has been on the agenda for quite some time.
I feel the government has certainly dragged its heels, once again, in implementing this very simple, innocuous legislation which has very powerful and meaningful implications to the quality of care provided to children in the Northern Territory.
When we put out private member’s bill to parliament in May 2010, ironically the government opposed this bill on the grounds that it was technically flawed. The Attorney-General at the time was of the opinion that the issue of sharing of information should be considered in the context of the specific legislation and, although this may seem more inefficient than a general provision, it would allow more specific consideration to be given to the circumstances in which confidential information should be shared. It is interesting that the government has now chosen to implement Recommendation 113 of the Growing them strong, together report with a general provision. However, nothing this government does really surprises me, particularly when it comes to child protection.
The positive outcome of this legislation is that it will enhance collaboration between workers from all different agencies and assist them in working together. It will enable information sharing.
I came into my profession as a social worker in the early 1980s. In those days, there were very few restrictions placed on the ability of practitioners to share information, state to state, governments to governments, and agencies to agencies. As time crept on, in about the mid-1990s, laws and restrictions were placed on this. I could never really understand why, when clearly, 99.9% of us as practitioners, as carers, as workers, were all on the same page. We all wanted positive outcomes for the people we were working with. To me, this has come the full circle. From a global perspective we are now about breaking down the barriers, putting away the red tape, holding off the bureaucracy, and just allowing people to talk about cases in a very constructive and measured way.
- The bill enables information sharing authorities, in possession of information which they believe would assist another authority to provide a service for the safety and wellbeing of a child, to share that information without fear of criminal or civil liability.
That was taken from the minister’s speech in February this year.
I support the safeguards put in place that will stop any misuse of information about children. While the bill removes the legal barriers to information sharing when it is for the safety and wellbeing of a child, it does leave some opportunity for information sharing authorities to refuse a request for information for reasons other than irrelevance. So, yes, the opposition supports the legislation as it stands.
It is interesting that we are coming up to the 18 months’ mark since the Growing them strong, together report was released in October 2010. The government is obviously working hard to account for its commitment to implementing all of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry report. The Chief Minister accepted every one of those recommendations as they were written, and undertook to implement each and every one of them. I am told, from circles inside the department, that it is the board of inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report which is actually driving the Department of Children and Families at the moment; it is not about unique and positive mission statements and strategic planning. The Department of Children and Families should be renamed the Growing Them Strong Together Department because that is, in fact, what is solely driving this department at the moment. This is very sad because it really says that this government has no initiative and no great plan or vision for child protection; it is simply doing what the board of inquiry report says. On one hand, that is not such a bad thing, but it also says they really have been unable to come up with a unique, modified and relevant interpretation of the report. They just have to blindly implement each and every one of those recommendations.
Talking about the child protection system and the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations, I refer to July of last year when there was quite a feature in the Northern Territory News about a broken system that will take years to fix. This was a four-page spread in the Northern Territory News: ‘Territory’s failure to save kids’. That was printed nine months ago and, from my perspective and the perspective of many people I talk to within the industry, things are still very much in their infancy in reform and change. The Northern Territory government is still struggling to get on top of this diabolical situation; the tsunami of need that we heard about just 18 months ago. This government has shown very little imagination or enthusiasm when it comes to getting themselves out of this mire.
In reading the response to the 107 recommendations labelled as semi-urgent that are in the Growing them strong, together report, the government has just a few weeks to prove they have commenced the implementation of these 107 semi-urgent recommendations. They are on the ball, because we all know that is really the sole driver of the department at the moment. What surprised me was reading this document they released to the public called Major Review of the Care and Protection of Children Act Issues Paper. What they are saying is:
- The BOI made a number of recommendations which require amendment of the Care and Protection of Children Act. These reforms have been progressed in three stages ...
The third one, to which this issues paper pertains - I do not know, probably 30 or 40 of the semi-urgent recommendations. This paper is quite lengthy; it goes on for 27 pages. It is asking the community to comment on some of the recommendations, and to advise the government on exactly how it should implement these urgent recommendations involving amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. After all these years, after six independent inquiries into child protection in the Northern Territory, we now have the government asking, once again, the people of the Northern Territory to come up with answers for it; to come up with solutions and ways in which it can address the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
When is this government going to start governing? When are you going to start making some decisions? When are you going to start doing the work required of a government when it comes to child protection? I cannot believe, after everything that has happened over the last 11 years, particularly climaxing over the last two, you would start asking people to make decisions for you - asking the child protection industry to come up with the answers. The answers are in the board of inquiry report. The answers should be by the latest inquiry into child protection, the previous five inquiries into child protection, and they should be answered by the government. For goodness sake, it is absolutely ridiculous that now the government has decided it needs to take this issues paper to the industry, to the people of the Northern Territory, to seek guidance on how it is going to amend the legislation.
I could amend the legislation here and now, pertaining to most of these areas which I am very familiar with. There are very serious issues raised in this issues paper. These issues have been debated extensively throughout the board of inquiry process which took over 12 months …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression. We have moved away from this particular bill to other bills and other reports.
Madam SPEAKER: I will listen very carefully to the member for Araluen. I remind you, member for Araluen, the bill is about information sharing, so if you could contain your comments as much as possible to that. I realise there is a level of latitude, but if you could bear information sharing in mind.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The points I am raising are relevant, if the government cares to bear with me. It is all about information sharing. It is all about this government being transparent and going about the business of implementing the recommendations. The information sharing legislation before parliament today we are discussing has come about through one of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. I am using this as an opportunity to talk about other recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report which are all interrelated and highly connected when it comes to child protection.
The people of the Northern Territory need to know about the progress of this government, how it is implementing this particular Recommendation 113, but certainly other very closely related and connected issues pertaining to child protection.
When I read this issues paper, I was absolutely floored this government could waste precious time and resources seeking feedback and comment from the Northern Territory people, yet again, at the cost of immense time. Ultimately, the answers are in front of you. It is almost beyond belief that, after everything this government has subjected us to with inquiries, reports and endless media …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, once again: digression. You have allowed latitude. The member is repeating what she said previously and should come back to the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, this is a bill regarding information sharing. While the care and protection of children is a very important matter, the bill is about information sharing. If you could come to the point, please, or resume your seat.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I have listened in parliament many times to debates about certain topics, and there has been much latitude given …
Mr Knight: Are you questioning the Speaker?
Mr Elferink: Oh, for goodness sake!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, can you please just speak about information sharing.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Okay, I will continue.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what the bill is about. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about information sharing. It is about child protection, safeguards, and enabling information sharing between different government departments. This bill will enhance communication and information sharing between the workers within the department, between departments, and between agencies.
I take this opportunity to talk about another aspect of information sharing which has come up in the media of late; that is, the fact that this government has allowed the level of caseloads to override what is widely accepted as Australian Standards. In the NT News on 12 March of this year, there was an article outlining the unimaginable caseloads that are slowly escalating for child protection workers and how, in some cases, workers across the Northern Territory are being asked to manage more than 11 times the number of recommended cases. The Department of Children and Families figures show all officers across the Northern Territory have average caseloads above recommended levels. However, East Arnhem and Barkly officers are worse off. When you are talking about information sharing, people going about their jobs, people trying to safeguard the needs of children, it is almost impossible to imagine just how these workers are surviving and achieving the requirements of their position. It draws me to one of the previous recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report - in fact, an urgent recommendation which specifically advises there should be established benchmark caseload ratios to enable acceptable staff levels and appropriate and manageable caseloads.
When we talk about information sharing and getting the best outcomes for children, it is unimaginable we have child protection workers across the Northern Territory faced with extraordinary high caseloads. For example, East Arnhem staff have an average of 79 cases each. That is 79 children, 79 families, 79 different agencies working with and around these facilities, 79 schools potentially, and 79 health workers or services. It is mind boggling to think these caseload ratios have been allowed to get to this state.
The other aspect of sharing information and allowing workers to go about their business in a very highly professional and child focused fashion is, in my mind, one of the most important issues this department faces: the lack of real strategic planning, the lack of real clarity in vision and mission in where this department is going. I talk to people from within the department on almost a weekly basis. People ring me and people talk to me about …
Mr Knight: Did you tell them you are going to sack them?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: This government has proven it is unable to provide a mission or a strategic direction when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. As I said earlier, what is driving this department, this portfolio, is how they can get away with covering themselves when it comes to the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
When it comes to this legislation before the House, this is a very small token as to how they have gone about implementing the 107 semi-urgent recommendations which are coming up in the next couple of weeks.
The state of child protection in the Northern Territory has not improved, and we have been given much evidence over the last couple of years of that. Even since the board of inquiry released its findings, we find a system that is struggling. The example that came to mind fairly recently, which does involve information sharing, was the decision of the department to hand over responsibility for the assessments of potential foster carers in Alice Springs - and throughout the Northern Territory I later found out – to a non-government organisation. This was done exceedingly poorly. I received reports from various people in Alice Springs about how they were not informed there was a change; that these workers from a non-government agency turned up on their doorstep without notice, without notification, without warning, without an introduction, asking to, there and then, assess these families – not just the children but the parents – and to do a house inspection.
To me, this typifies the disorganisation, the lack of planning, and the lack of proper information sharing and communication …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, I have to say that particularly the last 10 minutes has been fairly much a digression. I remind you of the letter which I sent to members yesterday where I noted in relation to digression from a subject:
- … while a level of digression is to be expected, members who persistently digress will be asked to leave the Chamber.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I am trying to make, in raising these other issues I feel are intrinsically related to this legislation, is the broader picture of child protection in the Northern Territory remains grim. There are still big mistakes being made in child protection; there are still areas the government is dragging its heels on that require immediate attention; and there are still areas in which workers and children are suffering. Because I have been corrected in my approach to my speech today, I will not drift into what those specific areas are.
I will say this legislation before parliament today has been a long time coming. It is satisfactory; it meets the expectations of the opposition. It certainly meets the expectations of Recommendation 113 of the board of inquiry report, Growing them strong, together. It will enhance the ability of workers to work together for better outcomes for children.
The shame of it is this is such a small piece of the pie. We have a long way to go. I am not confident in this government. I do not feel there is enough urgency in the way it is going about its business. I feel the issues paper distributed throughout the community on probably 40 or 50 of the semi-urgent recommendations due to commence implementation in the next couple of weeks is pathetic. It is a shortcut, it is wasting time, it is wasting resources and, in the meantime, children are suffering.
We have heard, in this parliament, about children being seriously neglected as a result of this government dragging its heels. I do not think we have time on our hands to waste. This continues to be one of the greatest debacles the people of the Northern Territory have ever seen. Child protection remains in a state of absolute crisis. Because we have not had the opportunity to talk about child protection for several months I feel this is an opportunity to put this issue back on the table. Just because things have gone slightly quiet over the Christmas/January period, it is very important, and the people of the Northern Territory want to hear just how important the issue of child protection remains.
This government has presented very flimsy legislation as a way of flagging they are doing something. It will have an important impact on how people go about their business. I am not denigrating the content but, the enormity of reform this government is responsible for making, they should be very embarrassed that, after all this time - after 18 months of the board of inquiry report coming out - all we have seen is a couple of amendments to legislation.
What they committed to was not consistent with one of the recommendations of the board of inquiry report about the role of the Children’s Commissioner. They said they would implement each and every one them, and they did not. What we are seeing is a very inadequate response to the board of inquiry report into child protection by this government. We are seeing them drag their heels, take an inordinate amount of time to get themselves together, and really make substantial reforms.
We do not need more consultation, Madam Speaker, we do not need ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I make it reluctantly. This is a point of order about digression from subject. The member for Araluen has, once again, strayed away from this bill. I feel she is actually trying to precipitate something here. I suggest she has ample opportunity with a matter of public importance, within a motion on General Business Day, to raise the issues she is talking about. We will debate them. However, it is about sticking to the subject of this particular bill, member for Araluen.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business is probably one of the greatest digressers in the history of this parliament, and I expect the same latitude be extended to the member for Araluen as has on numerous occasions been extended to the Leader of Government Business.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat, member for Araluen.
I have written to members because I have considered the behaviour during debate and various other issues to have brought our House into disrepute. One of these has been continuous misuse of the standing orders in digression from the subject. In this particular debate, I have allowed the member for Araluen to speak for 30 minutes; probably more than half of it has been digression.
Member for Araluen, I have already given you a final warning. Unless you have something to actually say regarding the information sharing itself - and I can assure you I am going to be doing this with all future debates - I ask you to complete your comments.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, the conclusion of my debate this morning is around addressing some of the comments made by the minister in his second reading speech in which he referred to the Growing them strong, together report; to the recommendations of the board of inquiry; and many of the things I have just spoken about.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say this government really does not want to hear just how poorly it is tracking when it comes to child protection. I see the issues raised by the Leader of Government Business regarding relevance as a direct way of shutting me up, which we have seen him do on many occasions in this parliament ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, resume your seat, thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before us to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. It is a very important part of a very important matter - the care and protection of children. It implements Recommendation 113 of the board of inquiry.
I thank the government for the briefings on this matter. I also thank the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Bath, for his comments in relation to this bill. I would also like to go to committee stage if that is possible, as I have some questions in relation to the bill ...
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if I acknowledge these students, please? They are from one of the best schools in the Northern Territory, Nightcliff Primary School – I could be biased - Year 5/6 students accompanied by Mr Kokkinomagoulos and Mr Peter Slidders. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Wood: Are we putting that to the vote, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no vote.
___________________
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, one has to start by asking what the objectives of this act are, in Part 5.1A:
1. The object of this is Part is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children by enabling particular persons and bodies having responsibilities for a child to request or give particular information about the child.
2. For achieving that object, it is the underlining principle of this Part that rules about protecting confidentiality and privacy of individuals should not protect the sharing of information for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children.
3. Anyone exercising a power or performing a function under this Part must, as far as practicable, uphold the principle.
I sometimes wonder whether, in many ways over the years, privacy has driven us down a path we really did not need to go down. People would argue differently. I give an example. I can take a photo of children at school sports and be required to get permission for every one of those children to have their photograph in my newsletter. I can go down to the football match at Marrara Oval and take the same picture and there is no problem.
I understand why there are some conditions over privacy but, in some cases, those conditions have led us to places where people have been reluctant to share information; in this case, which was relevant to the wellbeing and safety of children. To some extent this reflects that, even within departments, the whole issue of privacy has turned out to be something that has worked against the wellbeing and protection of children.
You will get cases where the husband might ring up a particular business and ask for information about his wife’s account. He probably only wanted to know how much was on the account so he could pay it. Immediately, he would be told under the Privacy Act he could not do that and would have to get his wife to ring. Years ago, that would not have occurred. Today, we are smothered in issues of privacy and perhaps, as in this case, that has worked to the detriment of children in our society who need protection.
Today we have a bill which tries to release some of those limitations but, at the same time, ensures those changes do not go overboard and there are limitations on what information can be shared between departments.
There was a word used some years ago which I have to laugh about. There are many ‘in’ words today like ‘genres’. That is something the ABC started. I cannot even spell it or, when I spell it, I cannot even pronounce it. I saw it at school the other day - ‘genres’ - I did not hear of it in my day. It is like the word ‘silo’. In my time, that was a place where you stored grain. All of a sudden, we have ‘silos’, and ‘information sharing between these silos was very difficult’.
We have moved into a very restrictive type of government in some ways, where everyone was a little patriotic to their department and did not want another department to share that information because they might lose some kudos for the information they had. I wonder whether that jealousy between different silos - which I would probably call different departments in plain speaking language - has been the cause of some of what we have here today; that we got away from realising all departments belong to one government.
How we have arrived at this stage where people within government could not share information, I do not know. I would have thought a government is a body which works for the benefit of all people, including children who need protection. Naturally, you would have thought information would be shared between departments because they had one goal in mind; that is, to look after the welfare of children. However, it seems as time has gone on, it has become harder to do that. We now have privacy laws and all those things. This is, at least, an opportunity to try to break down some of those laws that have worked against what most of us - or all of us - in this House want and that is the protection of children.
It is pleasing to see this legislation come through today. One of the big issues will be that the silos have become entrenched; the loyalties to the department have become entrenched over the years. It would be interesting to know how you are going to change that. In some of the notes I have, there is a note about education. It is about bringing all those departments together on the one day so they can all hear the information on how this particular bill will operate, so all those departments have a full understanding. You do not want one department going to a meeting and having a different interpretation from another department that might turn up at another meeting in relation to the explanation of this bill. It would be good to see what the government’s program is that would break down these barriers we have today and ensure that it is done uniformly. If you are asking the departments to work together, it is really important that they all know they are working from the same sheet.
Of course, with that comes a budget. Is there going to be enough money to ensure this will actually happen? No matter where you are in the Northern Territory, what department you work for, you should all hear the same story. If that requires people to be flown or driven into meetings in various centres, that should occur because the last thing you want is a different interpretation.
A classic example, if I go back a little, was the Mataranka cattle issue. What was the role of one department versus the role of another department? Part of the issue we had was there were conflicting views on the role each of those departments. We should ensure we do not make those same mistakes again, and departments, when sharing information, know exactly what they are allowed to share and fully understand the guidelines required in sharing that information.
I have some questions I would like to put to the committee stage. Perhaps I could leave them until then and, if we need more discussion, we could leave it to that stage. I recognise the work done by the member for Araluen. She previously tried to introduce this legislation. It has now gone to the government. The government has looked at it and come back with similar legislation, but at least it is here today, and that is good. I welcome this bill before us. If it makes even one difference to one child then it has served its purpose. However, we hope it will do far more than that. We hope this will start to break down some of the barriers that have occurred.
I might just mention – and it is knowledge that has now become public – that we have found out through the CTC hearings that there is a lack of information in regard to where children are, especially in outback communities, because the systems are not capable of tracking some of those people. Will those types of things be addressed in here? If the information is difficult to obtain, then it is going to be difficult to share. If it is difficult to obtain, then children could still be at risk due to a problem with the system that is in place for tracking children, especially those who have been sent to remote communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this important legislation. As I said, it deals with Recommendation 113 of the report and that is a good thing in itself.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and his constructive comments.
With regard to the member for Araluen, her performance today was embarrassing. It started wrong from the very beginning. I introduced this legislation not as the Minister for Health but as the Minister for Child Protection. It got even worse after that. She told us they introduced legislation in 2009 to exchange information between public sector entities. This legislation the government put forward today goes further than that. It allows the exchange of information between public sector entities, organisations outside the public sector, foster parents, and individuals. This has been modelled after the New South Wales and Tasmanian legislation, but goes even further. The New South Wales legislation allows exchange of information between public sector organisations. We allow exchange of information between public sector organisations, individuals and other organisations working in child protection. Our Territory bill authorises information sharing for the safety and wellbeing of children up to the age of 18. The New South Wales and Tasmanian legislation allows the exchange of information for children up to the age of 16.
Then, the member for Araluen was critical that the department is driven by the recommendations of the board of inquiry. Well, I am very pleased about that. I would be very worried if they did not follow the board of inquiry’s recommendations and went on a different trajectory. Then, she mentioned the legislation, the Care and Protection of Children Act, and said we asked the community for input. That is exactly what the board of inquiry asked for, and that is what any normal process of legislation demands: talk to the community. If the community does not own the legislation, it would not be effective legislation. That is what we did. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot accuse us of following the board of inquiry, and being driven by the board of inquiry recommendations, but we are not on the other side.
The last person to lecture this government about child protection should be the member for Araluen, a member of the CLP government - a government that abandoned children outside the urban centres ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! In accordance with the instruction issued by the Speaker, and in accordance with the determination she made in relation to the member for Araluen’s contribution, I ask that you direct the minister to restrain himself to the legislation before this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, I remind you to contain your comments to the bill before the House.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing. I am responding to the comments made by the member for Araluen, when she was actually commenting on the bill before the House ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: … because she accused this government of abandoning children. I only have to remind them that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have given instruction to the minister. I ask that you now enforce that instruction.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if I can just qualify that by, on the one hand, reminding the minister to address the bill before the House. However, he does have the opportunity in closing debate to respond to comments that have been made by members during this debate. Minister, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That was not afforded to the member for Araluen. I ask that that latitude not be afforded to the minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the member for Araluen was given a warning; she was given opportunity. Minister, you have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is interesting how sensitive the other side can be. The member for Araluen called this legislation flimsy. Am I going to respond to that or not? This is not flimsy legislation; it is very solid legislation that has actually includes more than the legislation introduced by the CLP in 2001. The member for Araluen made mention of two reports from the NT News. However, she omitted to say that in the report in the NT News by Alyssa Betts it was clearly stated that the CLP had abandoned child protection and Labor was left to hold the baby ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If we are going to play this game of pedantic rules, then I ask the pedantic rules be directed at both sides of the House. He is now referring to news reports unrelated to this issue.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I respectfully suggest that you take advice, because it is quite within the minister’s ambit to respond to statements made by a member ...
Mr Elferink: You have one set of rules for one side of the House, and one set of rules for the other side of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: No, it is not two sets of rules.
Mr Elferink: Yes, it is.
Dr BURNS: This is parliamentary practice.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Mr Elferink: You grub.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment, please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw ‘grub’.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I will be taking advice from the Clerk, thank you very much.
Minister, on the advice I have received - and I accept that advice - you have the capacity to respond to comments that have been made in this debate by the member for Araluen. However, I ask you in responding to those comments to contain your remarks within the context of the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing.
I will give you another example. The member for Araluen commented on and condemned the government for handing out assessments of foster parents to NGOs. Yes, we did, exactly in accordance with Recommendation 77 of the board of inquiry. The NGO which was interviewing foster parents actually won this arrangement in a proper open tender, which many NGOs applied for. Of course, we will question parents because we want to ensure foster parents who are going to look after children in danger are proper and fit people to do the job.
There are a number of things the member for Araluen accused this government of doing, and I take offence at that. As I said before, the last person I would take advice and criticism from is the member for Araluen, a member of a government which abandoned children, as stated by the state of denial report, and had only $7m budgeted for child protection and about 100 workers; and a member of a government that continues now ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen has not, as far as I am aware, raised any issues of budgetary constraints in past CLP governments. This is a bill before this House. This minister is now in breach of the directive you just gave. Please enforce your directive.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the minister has responsibility under the bill, with capacity around budgetary arrangements as well. In this instance ...
Mr ELFERINK: There is nothing about a budget in this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen was sat down because of digression from debate. This minister is talking about something that happened 10 years ago and nothing to do with the bill.
One set of rules is being applied on this side of the House, and another set of rules is being applied on that side of the House. This government is trying its hardest to use this direction from the Speaker to shut down debate in this House. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we object to that - we object enormously.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That suggestion that there are two rules is repugnant, I believe, to the stature of the Chair. You have already told the minister he should be relevant, and I am sure the minister will be relevant ...
Mr Elferink: Well, he is not being relevant, and he is not being relevant to the bill before the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: If you want to play these games, we will play.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call. I assure members of this House, the Speaker and I - in my role as Deputy Speaker - are making every effort to ensure rules are applied equally across this House.
Minister, you have the call, but I ask you to be relevant in your contribution to this debate about this bill before the House.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member across the floor is making accusations about caseloads; that people are overworked. I remember that because I marked it down when she said it. A significant number of people in Arnhem Land are overworked. Yes, there is overwork because there is a large demand out there. We are addressing that demand, after many years of failure by the previous government.
When it comes to the budget, the budget was raised by the member for Nelson. He asked clearly: is there going to be a budget to ensure all this is put in place? Of course, there is going to be a budget because this government placed an extra $130m over five years, on top of the $145m a year we have currently in the budget - compared to $7m the CLP put in place. Can you dispute that? No, you cannot because that is the truth ...
Mr Elferink: I can, actually. I can dispute that because you are misrepresenting those numbers.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is stated here and I am prepared to table it now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: This government adopted the recommendations - the urgent ones - within six months. The recommendations required to be implemented between 18 months and two years we are progressing and putting into legislation properly and steadily. There is an implementation committee which oversees implementation of the recommendations. This committee checks every time that we do the right thing in the right time frame. To date, the committee has said: ‘Yes, the government is putting in place what is recommended by the board of inquiry’.
This is not flimsy legislation as the member for Araluen has mentioned; this is good legislation. Departments should not, and do not, have the right to refuse to exchange information. Departments work for the government of the day. Departments are all working together, not against each other. I remember when I first became minister I asked for information from my own department and received an answer that they could not disclose that information to the minister because it was confidential. I told them what to do, and they did it.
I also find it incredible my ex-wife, when working in a high school, said the nurse would find out about a child with regard to an issue that may involve child protection, but she could not talk to the teacher, the teacher could not talk to the Education department, and the Education department could not talk to child protection under the protection of privacy. That is what this legislation addresses: it authorises people to talk to each other and make provisions for what kind of information will be disclosed and how to protect the privacy of people by not disclosing certain information unless people justify why they want the information.
If we are going to address the issue of child protection it should not be done only by the department for child protection, it should be done by anyone in any organisation who is involved with children – the Education department, Health department, child protection department, and sports and recreation. It is very important for people to say: ‘There are privacy issues so I cannot disclose information’. Paramount at the end of the day is the protection of children.
Yes, we have made significant inroads in child protection. Only last week, my department, working with the police, charged an individual for failing to provide the necessities of a life to a child. That was reported widely in the media, and we will do it again, and again, because this government means business and wants to, and will, protect children wherever they live - in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Yirrkala, Yuendumu, or any small or large community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House because it will help protect children in the Territory.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my first question is a general question. How is information going to be shared between jurisdictions? What is the process? Are there going to be some guidelines as to how that information is shared?
Mr VATSKALIS: This legislation applies within the Territory, not between different states and territories.
Mr WOOD: You cannot ask, for instance, the Commonwealth for information? The reason I ask that, of course, is the Commonwealth has a big say in all this because it is part of the intervention. You have government business managers and - well, we did have police officers. Is there no form of information sharing between those bodies?
Mr VATSKALIS: We cannot bind the Commonwealth with our legislation; it has the right to refuse it. However, the department has its own channels and connections talking to each other about it, especially when children move from one jurisdiction to another, either an order or an arrangement, then an exchange of information takes place. However, this legislation applies for individuals and organisations within the Territory.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand there might be a difficulty between state to state or territory to state. However, I have a concern that the reason we had government business managers and federal officers move into the Northern Territory was about child protection. Therefore, you would have thought it would be very important to share the information with our departments. Were there any discussions held with the Commonwealth government in relation to setting up procedures to allow for sharing of information? I will just add one more question to that. If a general business manager has information, then what is the process for the sharing of that information about a child with the Department of Children and Families?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is up to the business manager to disclose this information. We cannot force him under our legislation because he is subject to Commonwealth laws and Commonwealth laws prevail over Territory laws.
Mr WOOD: Whilst I understand that, my question was whether there were any negotiations. Bearing in mind we were bringing forward this amendment and the Commonwealth has a big say in the welfare of children in the Northern Territory, was there any communication to establish some protocols which would allow those matters which a general business manager cannot give freely to your department, so a process did actually work?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we do negotiate with the Commonwealth. However, as I said to you before, there are different provisions under Commonwealth legislation for the business managers to act, but we cannot force them under our own legislation. That is my point: this applies to the Territory - Territory organisations, public servants, and NGOs based in the Territory. I cannot force Commonwealth people to disclose information to us. The Commonwealth has its own set of regulations that apply to its own officers that, under those regulations, can be discussed with us.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify that, you are saying the Commonwealth has the power to share information about a child with the Department of Children and Families?
Mr VATSKALIS: If they so wish, but I cannot force them to do so.
Mr WOOD: Minister, do you think that is a failing in the system if that is not the case?
Mr VATSKALIS: To date, the information flow between the Commonwealth and us is not inhibited, but there is nothing formal. I would like to see something more formal, and we continue to discuss this with the Commonwealth.
Mr WOOD: It was mentioned in some notes but, in my discussions with Dr Bath, a concern he raised was in relation to whether information could be shared easily between community child safety and wellbeing teams. What is the process of sharing of information between those two groups?
Mr VATSKALIS: This legislation provides the framework for an exchange of information between organisations within or outside the government. They have to comply with this legislation.
Mr WOOD: The other area that was of concern to the Children’s Commissioner was whether there is anything in here that also removes the possibility of the identification of a child by including in a report those particular matters which would easily identify that person. This was raised in relation to the Ombudsman’s report last year. Are there any controls over the type of information that could be released to the public to ensure those people, especially the children, are not identified?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not think the Ombudsman’s report fell under the provisions of the legislation. It is totally different. This legislation does not do it, but other legislation provides for safeguarding the identity of the children - not to become public.
Mr WOOD: Another question that was raised - and I had it here too - is the workload people might have. We know some workers have quite high caseload ratios. Do you think this could create an extra burden on those people; that is, the reporting of this information? Someone has to physically report information and ensure it gets to another department. Have you considered that this may be an extra workload on those people which could reduce their capacity to do the work they are meant to do, or mean that information does not get out simply because they do not have the time to do it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Until now, everything is handled by child protection officers within the organisation. By putting this legislation in place, we can now engage NGOs outside the public service to do some of the things we are doing because they are bound by the provisions of the legislation. No, it would not increase the workload. In some cases, it might actually lighten the workload. Everything is handled by child protection officers. If we can allow other organisations, under this legislation, to deal with some of these lighter issues - and the majority of what we are dealing with is neglect, which is not like sexual abuse - that would allow us then to concentrate on the most important issues and allow other organisations to work with us because they are bound by legislation in place.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I raised in my response an issue which seems to be of concern to the Council of Territory Cooperation, which has been relayed to us from the Department of Children and Families; that is, there appears to be the inability through computer programs to be able to track where children are in remote communities. Is there an issue, if we are trying to share information between different departments, we actually had in some cases an inability to obtain that information? If we were trying to tell the police or we were trying to tell the department of youth services, or whatever, about a particular child, the issue we have is that we perhaps do not know where that child is. Is that area a priority of yours: to see whether that programming can be speeded up, or the development of a program, so there is not that lack of information about those children?
Mr VATSKALIS: In most cases, this applies to people in remote communities, especially in remote, remote communities - one day people can be this side of the border of the Northern Territory/Western Australia, next day they can be on the other side of the border with the whole family. However, by being able to talk to the clinics, the police, the teachers - and the opposite, the teachers talking to us - it would be much easier to track children’s movements even in remote communities. It is not going to be perfect, but will improve significantly what we now have in place.
Mr WOOD: I probably was not referring to people going over the border. The information we received at the meeting with Family and Community Services is they cannot say, with their present computer programs, where children are if they need to at a moment’s notice. I suppose they can do it by ringing round and that sort of thing, but the programs they have do not enable them to do that. I am worried, if we are sharing information, there is a bit of a failing at one point in that sharing of information because, simply, we cannot get that information.
Mr VATSKALIS: We are looking into that. That is an information database problem we are trying to resolve: how to ensure we can track children wherever they are.
Bill agreed to, without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few closing comments. This, indeed, is very important legislation. It is not very lengthy, it is nine pages long, and, in essence, it is not that complicated. I was quite staggered to hear the Minister for Child Protection talk about the fact that his wife, who is a teacher, has struggled with the fact that the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I just seek your clarification on the parameters around a third reading speech. I believe, in relevance, it should be in the four corners, the four boundaries, of the legislation itself.
Madam SPEAKER: I am still listening to the member for Araluen.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I was quite staggered to hear the Minister for Child Protection speak of his wife feeling frustrated that as a teacher she could not communicate with the child protection industry about concerns she had, or shared, concerning children under her watch.
Minister, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you have had a personal experience of the frustrations of information sharing and, yet, it has taken you this long to put this very small piece of legislation forward. It has taken you years. This government has taken years to reform the Care and Protection of Children Act to allow information sharing to occur.
I believe you have, once again, failed in your duty to provide the child protection system of the Northern Territory a proper amenity to go about the duties that are necessary under the act to protect children. It is absolutely essential these things take place in a timely manner. This government has taken almost 12 years of precious time to reform things like this - sharing information. A nine-page piece of legislation has taken at least three years.
In 2009, COAG released a report titled Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business in which they clearly stated the ability for government departments, non-government organisations, and various other organisations with a stake in child protection be able to share information. Why does this government continue to drag its heels when it comes to child protection?
We had a report from the Ombudsman just last year. Many of the cases she cited in detail were around the frustrations and the inadequacies of the system when it comes to information sharing - and I am not digressing from the topic now. Information sharing has been a critical issue recognised and identified for many years in the Northern Territory, and this government has taken years to come up with a nine-page piece of legislation making a very simple reform which will enable people within the system to share information.
I am absolutely appalled, once again, by how this government drags its feet time and time again when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory - three years! Two years ago, the opposition brought a private member’s bill to try to amend the Information Act for this very reason. At the time, the opposition to that legislation was that it was not satisfactory or it did not meet the need, or words to that effect.
Madam Speaker, we support this legislation. We have supported it, in essence, for many years. I condemn the government for how slack and negligent it has been when it comes to child protection. A simple change to the Care and Protection of Children Act took years to come about. Does that give us any confidence in this government? I say no. Once again, we have no reason to feel confident in the Minister for Child Protection and how he goes about managing child protection in the Northern Territory.
We are now waiting on 106 recommendations pending, in two week’s time, to commence implementation. I wait to see, with great anticipation, how he will go about managing that. I have absolutely no confidence they will be implemented in a timely, responsible manner as is required by government, because what they have done is put it out for public comment. Six independent inquiries into child protection over the last 10 years have not been enough for this government. They want more consultation because they are unable to make a decision. They are incompetent when it comes to child protection, and this is just evidence. This simple amendment about information sharing within the Care and Protection of Children Act was a simple amendment which took years.
Madam Speaker, once again, I am almost speechless when it comes to how incompetent this government really is.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
BUILDING AMENDMENT (REGISTRATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 187)
BUILDING AMENDMENT (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL
(Serial 188)
(Serial 187)
BUILDING AMENDMENT (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL
(Serial 188)
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, how interesting it was to listen to the member for Araluen speak about the previous legislation just passed in this parliament and the time it took to do it. We are now debating a bill - and whilst the member for Araluen was talking about something that goes back three years, and it being completely inappropriate that the government takes three years to deal with something that they see as urgent legislation – in this case, we see legislation that was an election commitment of Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister, on her first campaign in 2000 when it was first promised by Labor.
We are talking about 12 years in this case - 12 years to get some legislation in front of the parliament ...
Dr Burns: Like mobile phones down the Stuart Highway.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister makes fun and says we are talking about mobile phones along the Stuart Highway. Unfortunately, minister, we are not in government ...
Dr Burns: But you were when you made that promise!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We are not in government.
There is now mobile coverage along the Stuart Highway. Anyone who is concerned about security can always go into a Telstra shop and hire a satellite phone for a relatively fair price and use that. That is another debate, minister, and I am happy to have that debate with you at any time you like. I do not think Madam Speaker would consider it appropriate to have that debate on this bill.
This bill, as I said, goes back to the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, prior to her election, making commitments that they would bring in builders registration and insurance to protect the consumer. It is 12 years later, and this bill is finally being debated in this parliament. You have to ask how committed the Labor Party is to commitments it makes in election campaigns when it takes 12 long years to actually get their heads around something. As we will see later in this debate, they have not done a very good job of that either; they do not have their heads around this. There are still many questions that need asking. I hope and pray they can answer those questions.
It seems to be commonplace for these Labor members opposite to make commitments and promises which they never deliver. The most famous was their mini-budget in 2001 when they allocated $14m to an oncology centre - which I know you are well aware of, Madam Speaker, as you were the Health minister at the time. As happy as the community was to hear that commitment, to know that something was going to be done to treat cancer patients in the Northern Territory, it did not occur. It did not occur until, of course, they tried to duck shove responsibility to the federal government, and a former federal member gladly took up the fight and put it on the federal agenda. It never appeared there because, quite clearly, this government was incapable of meeting that election commitment. They failed to meet that election commitment because they did not do anything about it. It actually took the federal government to step in and deliver something they committed to delivering themselves …
Dr Burns: Not your government, though.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister jumps in and says not our government. I urge the minister to have a look at previous budgets, and see where a line item was put in for an oncology facility in the Northern Territory. It certainly was a Coalition government that first put the plan to the Australian people ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is one example ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Leader of Government Business will not - put it down, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, he defies the laws, Madam Speaker. He is on his way out, he does not really care ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Relevance, here he goes.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that the bill appears to be about Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters). If you could try to …
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, and that is exactly what I have been speaking about. It is quite ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am listening, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is quite interesting to see the way the Leader of Government Business interjects on a range of other subjects. As soon as he is called to order, he jumps up ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business!
Mr TOLLNER: ... and pleads relevance. Goodness me, the guy knows no bounds. Hypocrisy knows no bounds ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Tollner: Oh, here we go.
Dr BURNS: I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not actually think it was out of order in that context ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I know he has a glass jaw ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could just keep your comments to the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: ... so I am glad to withdraw. He is sugar coated, Madam Speaker.
In any case, the point I was making is this is not the only example where government has dragged its feet on an issue important to many people. The member for Araluen raised the matter just a couple of minutes ago in the final debate about how government is so slack and tardy when it comes to introducing legislation that meets its election commitments and other commitments it makes in the community.
Goodness me, we see it at Bagot with the commitment to build a police post - never delivered on. They do not care about the people of Bagot.
In this case, they do not care about people purchasing homes, or people who could be dudded by dodgy contractors or dodgy builders. They do not seem to care about small business people who are in the building game. They put something off for 12 long years – 12 years it has taken for this government to come in here with legislation to say they are going to do something in this area. That is absolutely appalling. I cannot believe these guys sit here with straight faces seeming to think this is the right thing to do.
We have seen, over those 12 years, building businesses go to the wall, contracting businesses suffer because their bills are not being paid, homeowners and the like out of pocket because of dodgy practices. Yet, this government seems to be able to turn a blind eye to it all, proudly march through it, and every now and then make the same commitment they did 12 years before.
Well, it is not good enough because it says this is a government that cannot be trusted on their word. There are very few things when you look around the place and what they commit to that they have actually done. And as we often say, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What they do is vastly different to what they say they are going to do. They are a pack of blowhards. They make commitments to the electorate, to people, and then never deliver. They are just blowhards. It is a joke to see the way this government treats industry, Territorians and people who need action in particular areas.
The member for Araluen did a marvellous job of highlighting this government’s incompetency and failure to deliver on commitments in areas where drastic reform is required. The government would much prefer to come in here and deliver puff pieces - ministerial statements and the like, blowing their own trumpets – but, at the same time, doing nothing for the people. We see it all the time. We see it everywhere. We have the minister for the Environment talking about what a wonderful success the Cash for Containers Scheme is ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, digression from subject. The member has been on his feet for at least 10 minutes now and has not even got into the debate of the bill - everything but.
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Mr TOLLNER: That is not true at all.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not true. He has referred to the bill on numerous occasions.
Dr Burns: I was hoping he was going to get there, but he is not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, there does seem to be a fair bit of digression. I have given you a reasonable level of latitude. It is almost the luncheon break so perhaps we can have something a little more relevant between now and 12 o’clock when I will ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pardon me if I disagree with you. I believe I am being relevant. I believe I am being completely relevant. This is a commitment the Labor Party, this government, gave in the year 2000 when they first ran. That is more than 12 years ago. The Leader of Government Business might not think that is relevant. He might like to try to shut me up and gag debate, and gag the opposition from talking about these issues. I can tell you that people out there are pretty damn unhappy about the tardiness of this government and the length of time it takes for any sort of a resolution.
If you expect me to stand up here and pull this bill to bits, piece by piece, in the next one-and-a half minutes, you have another think coming. There is at least another 35 minutes to go in this discussion, certainly on my part, and I will devote a lot of that to it.
It is worth reminding the electorate and people out there that this is a commitment that goes back to the year 2000. I know the government does not want people to hear that. They do not like being reminded of their prior election commitments. They do not like being reminded of things like the oncology unit, the previous bill that was just discussed, and the police post at Bagot. They would like all those things to be forgotten about. They will re-announce them – as sure as God made little apples, these guys will re-announce this as a new commitment. They keep doing it over and over again, and at the same time, nothing, nothing, nothing ever gets done.
They are a do-nothing government. They are a government of blowhards, of people who like to blow their own trumpet and do nothing. They are out there for every media photo. They are out there trying to claim every good news story but, as soon as the wood is put on them about doing something, they go to water. You see the Leader of Government Business jumping up, interjecting, calling for this and that, trying to do everything he can to gag members on this side from reminding Territorians about what these guys have actually promised. I do not think that is right; I believe that is wrong. This government should be held to account, and that is the role of oppositions.
I know there are people on the other side who think that is not right; that we should sit here lamely and follow every blas comment they make. Well, I do not find that particularly appealing. I do not think that is what the people of Fong Lim elected me to do ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: Gladly, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from another one of my favourite schools, Essington School, accompanied by Miss Mali Grossman and Mr Daniel Hogg. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
BUILDING AMENDMENT (REGISTRATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 187)
BUILDING AMENDMENT (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL
(Serial 188)
(Serial 187)
BUILDING AMENDMENT (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL
(Serial 188)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: We will be going back to the debate. We had the member for Fong Lim, but he will not be back for a little while; he can continue his remarks later.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge you have enabled the member for Fong Lim to complete his remarks at a later time. I place on the record my thanks for that.
I find myself somewhat surprised to be on my feet at the moment, for obvious reasons. I am probably not as well briefed as some other members in relation to this legislative instrument. However, I pick up on a very important component this instrument demonstrates to the people of the Northern Territory; that is, movement on really important issues.
The island of Greenland is moving towards the North Pole more quickly than this government moves on things that matter to Territorians. Whilst we are generally supportive of what is in this legislative instrument, it is deeply concerning that it has taken this tectonic government such an extraordinary long time to drift in this direction.
I believe it was the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as Opposition Leader, who was raising these issues. During the intervening time, several building companies have collapsed, leaving people exposed in the fashion they have been in the absence of this Labor government being able to put together a decent package of, particularly, residential building consumer protection, which is what one of these cognate bills is all about. This government’s slowness has seen numerous people left swinging in the breeze, and left them without their houses completed and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. This bill represents what this government is; that is, careless and sloppy with the interests of Northern Territorians.
This also raises the question - and I have yet to see any advice on this – of what the cost imposition this bill, particularly the consumer protection component of it, represents to the price of an average three-bedroom house.
I listened with interest to the minister for Affordable Housing - I always get you guys confused because you have your split roles. Which one are you, Affordable Housing?
Dr Burns: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, thank you. The minister for Affordable Housing was saying during Question Time he will be renting out properties for 20% cheaper than the most expensive rental rates in the country.
Dare I digress, but that as an aside, there are legislative instruments that come through this House which, on every occasion we pass these bills - that is not true; on regular occasions when we pass these bills - have a cost impact out the other end. By way of parallel, things like the container deposit legislation have a cost impact. That was acknowledged during the debates in the introduction of that legislation.
You have other legislative instruments such as occupational health and safety, which add to costs for building houses. For argument’s sake, if you take the Housing Industry Association’s assessment of the occupational health and safety legislation cost in the final cost of a three-bedroom house, their guesstimate was somewhere between $20 000 and $30 000. Add to that other components of government regulation, including taxes, and it is not long before you realise a large slice of a house being purchased is paying for government regulations. One of the things the Country Liberals are very mindful of - and will be attending to should we form a government after the next Territory election - is a policy that will run a few new filters over the types of legislation we introduce. One of those filters will be a filter asking how much the cost impost will be to a family affected by the passage of this legislation. Currently, if you look at a Cabinet document, there is a series of items as to what the impost is to government, what the native title effects are, and those sorts of things. There will be a new item which will be: what the average family will be paying as a result of the passage of this legislative instrument. The second component will be: what is the cost to business?
All of these legislative instruments that are passed – and the government does much of what it does with good intent. I do not honestly believe anyone thinks - I am not going to say the government is motivated purely by some villainous predisposition oriented towards playing The Internationale every time they pass legislation in this place. As affectionate as I am - as the Karl Marx for Port Darwin - to that idea, I am wondering who my Engels is ...
Dr Burns: I know who it is.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay.
Dr Burns: I know who V I Lenin is as well.
Mr ELFERINK: I have a fridge at home called Engels. Anyway, that is by the by.
The cost impost - I do not believe the government is engaged in villainy. However, sometimes I wonder when bills come before this House whether consideration is given to how much it costs. If you take something like the work safety legislation and those cost imposts, you have to have some structure in place, either in the common law or in legislative instruments to protect the rights of employees and workers generally. I do not take exception to that; of course, a workplace has to be a safe place.
This legislation suggests a consumer needs to be protected in the instance that a company goes bust. None of this happens for free. There is not some sort of charitable institution in the community that says they will underwrite government legislation if it happens to have a cost impost on consumers. It does not work that way. As a consequence, you find yourself in a position where you look at legislative instruments and you see them in isolation - as we are looking, effectively, at this instrument in isolation saying: ‘Wow, what a good idea, this will protect consumers’. Clearly, it has been called for by us and promised by government for quite some time.
I am also mindful of the fact that these cost imposts exist and, if you add them up cumulatively, they take up a large slice of something like a house. Every time we pass a legislative instrument in here, there is potential for such a cost impost to business and the private sector. Bear with me for one second.
We. on this side of the House, understand there is a cost impost because one of the critical things - you will notice if you look at the most recent Property Council report on our favourite capital city, Darwin gets the wooden spoon. If you look at one of the graphs in that report - which is 148 pages long, but is actually quite readable - the graph speaks volumes; that is, the dissatisfaction with government in relation to its capacity to deal with things such as the cost of living. Every time we have a bright idea in this place or on the fifth floor, someone has to pay. Accumulatively, those payments rack up and up and up.
Moreover, we then have three tiers of government doing exactly the same thing. We have a federal government which says: ‘Oh, it is only going to be a couple of dollars per week here and a couple of dollars per week there’. Then, here comes the next tier of government – us - who sit here and say: ‘It is only a few dollars per week here and a few dollars per week there’. Then, you go down to a local council level and it is only the car parking on Saturday, it is only a little money there. If you add up all of those bits of money - the carbon tax at the federal level, other taxation at the federal level, the removal of things like the Medicare rebates for what are so-called high-income workers - all of that bites.
We then pass legislation in this place because we signed up to a national scheme saying we have to get our childcare centres loaded up with one teacher each. That costs. And by gum, I know it costs because it was not that long ago - I am only talking about a couple of years ago - that I had two kids in childcare. At the time, I was on $125 000. Essentially, we were a one-income family, but the missus occasionally worked and picked up some extra cash. If I am on $125 000 a year and paying $525 or $550 a week in childcare, and I look at my bank account at the end of the week and go ‘Ouch’, I wonder how a family on $80 000 does it. I cannot imagine it; I cannot fathom it - I really cannot. The moment I managed to get my kids into school I was thinking to myself: ‘Thank goodness for that’.
The passage of that childcare legislation has now ramped up those costs to the average family by another $30 a week, and that is a lot of dough. Add on the extra we are going to be paying for our power through the carbon tax, the extra we are going to be paying for this, that, and the other, and the costs accumulate and accumulate. Small wonder the big three issues in elections have evaporated.
Remember when the mantra used to be health, education, law and order - the big three issues in any election campaign? That is not coming through in the research I have been doing. It is not coming through anymore in issues faced, let us say, by the Queensland Labor Party in the Queensland election. I suspect it is not coming through even in the government’s own polling and focus groups. It is not coming through in the Property Council’s reviews.
What is coming through is that health and education is dropping away, law and order is still there, particularly in the Northern Territory, but the one that stands out is cost of living. People are actually hurting, and they are really feeling it. I find it quite extraordinary. I expected the health, education, and law and order mantra to be playing out for a political campaign for as long as I drew breath and my backside pointed to the ground. However, it is not true anymore. Those two things, whilst important in people’s minds, are now taking a secondary position to law and order, cost of living.
It is just not in the Northern Territory. It is particularly painful here, particularly in the area of rents - hence the question to the minister during Question Time. The question we asked was what is the comparator; how do we compare with other jurisdictions across the country. The minister partially answered the question. He said, at the end of Question Time, how much it cost to rent a three-bedroom house in the Northern Territory, and in other …
Dr Burns: Units.
Mr ELFERINK: Units, thank you. However, he did not do the comparison with the rest of the country. Why? Because we are coming out on top on both of those polls. I think we are one step down, second on house rents, top on units - or is it the other way around? We are right up there ...
Ms Purick: Second highest on rents.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you. We are right up there. This is busted backside old Darwin, and we are right up there, competing with major metropolitan areas in the southern states - and it hurts. The cost of living hurts, it really bites, and governments are being held responsible for it.
In the Queensland election - and I was careful to look at some of the things that were tracking along - even on the night in question when the ABC runs their excellent election coverage and they show graphs, a consistent theme from the commentators was cost of living. They penalised - they absolutely belted - the Bligh government in a way I still find astonishing. I know how I feel about it, but I can imagine how some Labor people feel about what has happened there. As parliamentarians, we operate with the very best intentions in the world. Whilst I do not agree with the philosophy of members opposite on how to engineer society, if you like - that is one of our great points of difference - I still do not believe they are engaged in wickedness. However, their engineering costs. The point is that by another means you end up doing this redistribution of wealth thing anyhow, and it all happens in small incremental packets.
What I am striding to extract from the minister, should we get a second reading reply - and I am sure we will - is whether a cost review has been done of these schemes. Who are the insurers, for argument’s sake, which are stumping up, and how much are their premiums going to be? Those are the questions because that is what I would like to know as well. Whilst we approve of this, there will be other legislation before this House which we may not approve of, simply on cost grounds. As a consequence of those cost imposts, I would like to hear a reply from the minister which covers these details. I am becoming increasingly conscious of what we are imposing upon other people.
Unfortunately, in the real world, builders like Carey Builders, for argument’s sake, will continue to occur. The other thing I place on the record now is that whilst we approve or support - or do not oppose, if you like - this legislation in this instance, what I also want to turn my attention to is a commitment to have a look at how it is going. What I also want to be able to determine at some point in the future is whether this cost impost we are placing on Territorians will actually work. It is one thing to say we are going to do this, and then make it happen, but it may not be the best system available. It may not be the best system because it costs, because it does not capture certain types of builders, or because it does not produce an outcome we are attempting to achieve.
You need look no further than the container deposit legislation as a demonstration where well-intended legislation - the concept was supported by this side of the House; we were critical about the structures – which does not work well. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves at some point in the future that we will come back and check how this legislation is operating and ensure it is not another Container Deposit Scheme, but is actually a scheme which works and which brings about the intention that the Residential Building Consumer Protection Bill actually intends to achieve.
I would hate to see the establishment of the scheme which results in a much greater expense, and still does not throw a wide enough shadow over the industry, so people who still find themselves subject to the operation of buildings firms that collapse still are not effectively covered. It may well be that, upon such a review, it will be determined to be cheaper that people do this stuff individually than get insurance on a case-for-case business. It may well be that the banks determine that you cannot get a loan to construct a house unless you carry this sort of insurance. I do not know. Is that the rule now? I am not sure if that is the rule now; if you are getting a bank loan to build a house you have to have this sort of insurance attached to it.
As I said when I stood up, I am speaking at short notice, namely, two minutes. It would be very interesting to know whether the banks insist on something like this for someone who gets a loan. If someone has the cash up-front, it may be simple. It might be that after a few years it is back to the marketplace to determine the amount of risk, rather than a scheme like this adopting a risk.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have nothing more to add and I will hand over to the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin. He actually raised a very important issue of the costs on to the consumer. We certainly have to be wary of that. My understanding, in looking at this bill, is we are looking at somewhere between $2500 and $3000 per house which, for some people, may not seem much but, for others, it might be just the point where they cannot quite have enough money to purchase their house.
On the other hand, government is in a bit of a bind, I suppose, in the sense it knows the pain of the Carey Builders situation. It remembers some of the other companies that have gone bung over the years. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. It has to do something otherwise the public will continue to complain they are not protected against dodgy builders and poor workmanship by law. There is a cost to that. I suppose that is what the balance has to be when you are trying to protect consumers but, at the same time, you are trying to ensure the cost of housing does not continue to increase.
The area of trying to reduce costs in housing is something I know the government has been looking at through the Land Development Corporation. I had some ideas myself. I had a briefing with the minister yesterday in relation to ensuring developers only purchase the land they need for development, especially if other parts of that land are going to be retained in either local government or government hands. So, when the developer purchases land, he or she only purchases land that is required for the development; that is, the building of the houses. That may not fit perfectly all the time, but it is one of those areas we need to look at in relation to trying to keep the cost of housing down.
I thank the member for Port Darwin. As he said, he took this on at short notice. It is legislation I certainly have not taken on, on short notice; it has taken a while to get my head around some of this. I believe his comments were right on the ball: governments do have to, at times, filter what the effect of the legislation will be on the consumer.
I will get back to more specifics in relation to these two bills. The first, of course, is the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill. It goes hand in hand with the next bill, which is the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill. The reason I say that is, although we are setting up an insurance system – probably technically not insurance because we are setting up a fidelity fund, although there can be an insurance company step into that area as well. What these two pieces of legislation are trying to do is work so there is a minimal risk; there is a minimal reason for a need to use the funds in the fidelity fund. If you can do that, then there is a fair chance that increases in premiums will either not happen, or perhaps could even reduce as time go by, if there is enough money in the fidelity fund. The way to do that is by reducing the risk, and the way to reducing the risk is what you see in this first bill.
The first bill deals with, for instance, that you have to be a registered builder - which you have to be now anyway - but you also have to have $50 000 in the bank for the life of the policy. If you have a policy to build a house or houses you must have $50 000 in the bank. This has been brought into the legislation because it appears some builders, to get around this situation, will see their best mate or their mum and ask for a $50 000 loan. They show that to the board, and the board sees $50 000 in the bank. As soon as the policy has been approved, they take the money out and give it back to mum, which means they do not have any money in the bank. This sets in place that money must be there for the life of the policy.
It also amends section 48B of the current act, titled ‘Building contract to be entered into’, and allows a regulation that may provide for progress payments. Those progress payments are 5% deposit, 10% base frame, 15% frame stage, 35% lock-up stage, 25% fixing stage, 7% practical completion, 3% on issue of occupancy permit. Basically, people are only required to pay that amount, except for the deposit, at the completion of each stage. That is where a number of people have come unstuck, either by foolishness or simply because they have been pressured or conned by a builder to pay more than is in these stages. Some people have lost quite a bit of money. I would have thought the Carey Builders situation was one where people paid out money, the company went broke, they probably paid for a stage that had not been completed, and they lost quite a considerable amount of money. This regulation about progress payments is very important.
When the government was talking with the MBA, there were some concerns about whether that could be modified. The latest information I have, after my briefing yesterday, is there is a provision in regulations for the builder and consumer to agree to modify progress payments for standard and non-standard work. I was concerned yesterday that this only applied to non-standard work, but I am informed it also applies to standard work. It allows the flexibility that is needed because, even though you might have standard houses, you are also going to have houses where people want their own special attributes that might cost a bit more money at certain stages.
You have those policies in place that will make it more difficult for people to get into the building industry without certain things being in place before they start building a house.
I also have to note - this is really important from a consumer’s point of view - the government is bringing out a consumer side to building and renovating in the NT. Sometimes, these things are put on the webpage; unfortunately, many people do not look at the webpage now. It is nice to have it on the webpage, but there are still many people out there who do not get on the web or do not have a computer.
It is an area that needs to be promoted on a continual basis because there will always be people wanting to build a house, especially young people. It may be that, in conjunction with the local council, these types of education packages for consumers are held in various centres where housing construction is occurring. For instance, you might be able to do something in collaboration with – as it is called now - the City of Palmerston Council. You may be able to work in conjunction with other groups to get this message out. However, you would not want to do it just for six months; it should be done on a regular basis because, as I said before in relation to the staged or progress payments, people have come unstuck by paying more money than they should. We need to get it into people’s heads that they need to ensure they know all the ins and outs before they go down the path of buying a house. That is really important. Legislation is one thing; education is something that should go hand in hand with this legislation.
In relation to the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill, I should have said at the beginning: ‘At last!’, because it is a long time coming. There have been attempts at it, there have been versions of it, and they all seem to have either not seen the light of day or, when they have seen the light of day, they have not really done the job people expected of this type of legislation. It is a fair criticism of the government that this legislation has taken a long time to come before this House.
It seems a long time since we debated in Alice Springs what could be done about the Carey homes. I still do not think the concept I had of putting a caveat on people’s places and the government actually paying for the remaining construction of those homes was a bad thing. Obviously, Treasury would not have liked that sort of thing, but it was a fairly straightforward way of allowing people to finish their houses. They would have had to repay that cost to the government at a later stage, say, when their house was sold.
It is good to see this bill before us today. It looks at a range of things. We will have consumer guarantees that will have effect for the period prescribed by regulation, which will be called the prescribed effect period. The consumer guarantees will include areas such as structural matters which will have a guarantee for six years, and non-structural for two years. In my discussions with industry in relation to that, there were some concerns about whether that was too long a period for non-structural items. One of the concerns raised was that non-structural items can mean damage to cupboards, or maybe the paint is peeling off, or whatever. From a builder’s point of view, some of them say you will get people start to whinge about everything in the hope they will get it fixed under the non-structural guarantee. If that non-structural guarantee is for too long, they will be complaining about chips on the door frames and dints in the cupboards. So, their concern is that might be too long.
On the other hand, two years allows you to go through two Wet Seasons. It is sometimes nice to go through two Wet Seasons in a house; you can see whether you are going to have a leak in the roof which, even in new houses, I do not think is uncommon. Having worked on Litchfield Council for quite some time, contractors for things like road drainage used to give a guarantee of, say, 12 months. Sure enough, you would have the driest Wet Season on record and nothing much would happen to the drains. Then, the year after, you would get some terrific floods and you would find the council would have to pick up quite a bit of cost to repair the damage. I can see the builder’s point of view regarding two years, but I can also see the consumer’s point of view that they want to ensure the issues such as the ones with the SIHIP houses at Alice Springs do not, all of a sudden, pop up after just one year.
If those SIHIP houses were being built under this legislation, they were non-structural problems. Under this legislation, even one year would have covered them. But, who knows whether some of those faults might still come up, especially if they have been using the same material for sealing the walls at a later stage? That is where the two years might be of more benefit. It is something that will be in the regulations and, I gather, will be discussed with the industry. There may be some way through that as well.
The other different matter we deal with here is we are setting up a fidelity fund. It took me a little while to understand a fidelity fund. It is not quite an insurance company, although it is similar. I suppose if there is someone out there who knows a bit more about the difference between the two they could explain that a bit more clearly. It is based, to a large extent, on the ACT model where a body sets up a fund and that body is responsible for distributing funds where needed where a house is either not finished or the workmanship is poor. That is what this legislation is aiming at.
The two areas in this legislation that will be covered by either the fidelity fund, or an insurance firm if they want to get into the business - and HIA expressed some interest in doing that. The building cover for non-completion will be where a builder goes broke, dies, or just takes off, and that will cover works that require a registered builder over $12 000. Caps will be set for claims in regulations, but based on interstate practice consultations they are proposed to be up to 20% of the contract to a maximum of $200 000, and it is only applicable to consumers, not government or owner builders and developers.
Basically, if the person has been paying out stage by stage, they should not be much out of pocket. This allows a new person to come into the market to finish off the house and there will be costs involved in that changeover. This allows some money to overcome any issues in relation to one builder taking over from another builder. Maybe there are some small costs in there as well, if work was not quite completed up to that stage, but money had been paid.
The other big one is the building cover that is for non-compliance. If a building is shown to be faulty - that is, there are problems with the building - you can claim up to $200 000 less, if that is the case, the money paid to the builder who took over after the other builder went broke. I presume, of course, if it was a case where the builder did not go broke, you would have up to $200 000 if the builder was still operating, but built a house that was of poor quality, where it could be shown there were some defects in that building.
There are a few issues which have been raised. The issue of underquoting was raised by HIA. They said if a company underquotes and starts building a house and then goes broke, people are left with the cost of that. It seems that will be covered because the fidelity fund, before they assess whether the builder is capable of carrying out that work, will have a good look at the policy that has been put forward for that house. If they see a three-bedroom block house being built in Palmerston at half the price of all the other three-bedroom block houses being built it, I imagine they would say they do not believe you can build a house for that amount and would question the builder.
So, there are some good checks and balances in this bill to ensure we can reduce the risk of the fidelity fund even being used in the first place. As I said, if you take these two bills as a whole, it is about reducing risk, therefore, reducing the need for customers to require the fidelity fund payments.
As I said before in relation to underquoting, as long as consumers pay according to the stages, there is a fair chance, even if there was some underquoting, that the loss would be fairly minimal. All the cases I have heard, including Carey - and I have a case at the moment that is ongoing with some people in Virginia who paid the first deposit and the second deposit and my understanding is they might not have even had a contract. They have no money and they have no building. Information I received yesterday was that one of those builders is overseas, so it is hard to work out what can be done to help those people, if they cannot get their money returned, at least to get the building started. My understanding is that, unfortunately, it is more complex than it sometimes seems on the surface.
There is also a dispute resolution, which I believe is important. It says here there will be a statutory position of Commissioner of Residential Building Disputes that will be, basically, the same as the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Of course, you have to have that where you have disputes. Disputes between the consumer and the builder are not uncommon, and those areas need to be sorted out. I imagine one area where that will happen is workmanship. Where someone complains the quality of workmanship is not up to scratch, especially if the builder says it is, there is going to be a dispute and there needs to be a mechanism to ensure those disputes are resolved.
I have looked at this legislation for quite some time. I had a long meeting with the Master Builders Association, and we had a meeting with HIA. HIA had some concerns and I have raised those with the government, but I do not see those concerns as groundbreaking. From that point of view, even though this has taken some time, because I gather MBA had at least three meetings with the builders, they have eventually come up with a form of legislation which they pretty well agree with. There will always be a few things, such as the non-structural issue having a guarantee for two years - there was some concern about that. Overall, I believe this legislation looks the goods.
I know it has to be set up by the government, and the government will be putting $0.75m into it, and that will have to be repaid. If there was another company, such as an insurance company that would like to set up as well in the Territory, the government can help that company with some start-up funds, to ensure there is enough money in the kitty to pay for any early claims.
It is good we have this legislation at last. Of course, we can criticise the government - and I believe that criticism is reasonable, because it has taken so long. On the other hand, we should be grateful we now have legislation which I believe will give consumers protection.
I reiterate what the member for Port Darwin said - and it is one of those difficult areas - that if people want protection, it will cost. If it costs, it means the house is a little more expensive than we would have liked. However, it is part of a lot of regulation that has added to the costs of housing. For instance, we have asked the government to review the efficiency of the 5-star energy rating to see if we really need to go to a 6-star energy rating. All those things add costs to the cost of building. There always seem to be changes to the Building Code. There are some glorious, anonymous people out there whose lives are just all about changing the Building Code to some Australian Standard, especially in cyclone areas. I am not saying standards should not be upgraded, but the question about all the costs this might add to a house need to be taken into account.
We come up with those costs when we discuss whether you can build a house that is not a 5-star rated house; if you want to build a house that is not up to the standard of having an air-conditioner, but would like a nice breeze-through house. If you want to live in a shed, one of the problems with that is you have to have a 5-star rating for the shed. So, we regulate, we legislate, and it tends to add on more and more costs. On one hand it would be easy to say, let us reduce some of those costs but, on the other hand, you have to go back to see what costs are ones you cannot remove without removing the safety of the building, or the protection of the people who are building the houses.
Overall, the government has spent a great deal of time. In this case, getting these bills together, it has spent time that was well worth the effort. It has spoken to and listened to industry. As with all legislation, there will be some bits people might not agree with. I hope this bill is reviewed on a regular basis, that we hear how the fidelity fund is going, and we get reports if there are any issues in relation to the fidelity fund or the legislation, so we can see whether it is working. It would be good to see, if all the bits and pieces the minister has put forward today to reduce risk, can have a beneficial effect over a longer period by reducing premiums, or at least not letting premiums rise.
If a fidelity fund has a large amount of money and very few claims, you would hope it could pass on some of those benefits to the consumer. I know they want to talk about using some of the money for education programs and training - that is fine - but the consumers put that money in there and the consumers, perhaps, should get some benefit in the end if the fidelity fund gets above a certain amount of money. People would see that as a positive rather than putting up the price of premiums because the CPI said so, when the fact is they could probably go down because there is plenty of money in the fidelity fund. That is also something that should be reported on a regular basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for introducing these building amendment bills. They really are important and I am interested to hear his reply at the end of the debate.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pathetic, useless government this is - a pack of fools. As I said before Question Time, it is something promised prior to 2000 by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, and here we are in March 2012 finally getting to debate it. How absolutely pathetic this government is. Something that was identified 12 years ago as a problem, something that was going to be dealt with 12 years ago, and here we are in March 2012 debating it. How pathetic and what a pack of blowhards they are.
This bill raises a number of questions and I am very keen to hear what the minister has to say about some of those questions. I am keen to know the name of the insurance fund, and what insurance funds have been bidding for this opportunity. I am keen to know what the costs are to builders and contractors in this scheme the minister is putting forward. Of course, it is about reducing risk, and reducing risk comes at a premium. At the end of the day, we all know who is going to be paying that premium: those costs will be passed on to the consumer. We already have the most expensive houses in Australia and the most unaffordable rents in the country - that is a given. We are suffering the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory. Things are ridiculously unaffordable now, and I am interested to know what cost this will add to building a house to first homeowners and the like.
This government seems to be very good at increasing costs in a whole range of things. They squeal like stuck pigs when the cost of drinks go up, when they put a levy on beverage companies. Well, blind Freddy could see the cost of drinks would go up, but this government does not seem to care about that. This government is very good at spending money, and not very good at saving money. Their economic management and fiscal responsibility is all over the shop - worse than a five-year-old kid in a lolly shop. They will spend every cent they have every time and then scream poor when the hard times hit - and not take any responsibility for it themselves.
It is going to be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about this scheme in the committee stage of the debate, and to find out exactly how this scheme is going to be managed. I have read most of the information, and I have been to briefings at the theatrette in the museum. There are still many questions I have in relation to who the insurance company is; what power will that insurance company have to determine who can work in the building industry, who cannot; who will be excluded; what the limits are to doing certain work; and what the costs are. None of those questions have been adequately answered for me. This government is quite good at saying: ‘That is nothing to do with us. That is a commercial issue’. Ultimately, those commercial issues are being driven by the policy and the legislation this government creates - very similar to what is happening in the Cash for Containers situation at the moment - absolutely horrific; costing Territorians an absolute bomb for no noticeable effect at all.
The government will quite gladly support that lunatic in Canberra, the current Prime Minister, with her crazy plans for a carbon tax not taking into account at all any cost to business or Territorians. The Chief Minister cannot even answer the most simple questions on that, such as how much will the price of a litre of milk go up or a cubic metre of concrete? They have absolutely no idea, and they are quite happy to say: ‘That is nothing to do with us; that is a commercial matter. We do not really care about that’.
The fact is that the Northern Territory is now a very expensive place to live. You read reports in the paper about people saying that Darwin is the worst capital in Australia to live - crime is out of control, the cost of living is far too high, you cannot afford a place to live, there are people with full-time jobs sleeping on the streets because they cannot afford to rent. The government seems to have scant regard for those people’s concerns at all.
They come in here and gild the lily on a whole range of things. We heard in Question Time the Treasurer banging on about 2000 people on the Banned Drinker Register. That Banned Drinker Register is costing Territorians a bomb. It is costing a great deal of money and Territorians have a right to know what they are getting for that money. When you look outside and see all the drunks on the streets - it does not matter where you go, whether you are in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, or in Alice Springs, there are drunks everywhere – it is a bit hard to see how the government’s expenditure on that is working in any way at all to stop public drunkenness. However, they will come in here, spruik it and say: ‘We have the toughest alcohol laws in Australia’. Well, they are certainly the stupidest - there is no doubt about that.
Is there any way of stopping this legislation or getting changes to it? Goodness only knows. You would think these people would take on some level of community concern, and listen to the electorate, but it does not seem to matter.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be asking questions at the committee stage, and I am very keen to hear what the minister has to say about some of those matters I raised.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions.
Residential building cover really relates to the Territory and the bright future and the strong growth forecasts we have - may I say - set up by this government. So, it is more important than ever that consumers and builders feel confident during construction. That is an important point. As a government, we have been working with industry to make sure we get this cover right.
Currently, building contractors are required to obtain an approved policy of insurance against failure to carry out building work which complies with the Building Code. However, consumers are not covered in the event of insolvency, or the builder passing away, or disappearing for any other reason. Therefore, we have been asked by Territorians for this – not only by consumers who are entering a period where they will make the biggest investment in their life, we have also been asked by the building industry for this. The building industry wants to see that balance. It wants to see a healthy, thriving industry, because it can see the opportunities online in the Northern Territory, and no one wants to see anyone disadvantaged, particularly people losing their investment if contracts fail.
This package is different, and the cognate bills represent a package of initiatives. It is being delivered in partnership with industry, which is a very powerful point. There has been much work and consultation. It includes a proposed fidelity fund cover to cover parties in the event of death, loss of registration, and insolvency. It also covers general non-completion and poor workmanship. There are conditions, and builders must have $50 000 of assets to stay in business. Mandatory progress payments are set for stages of construction, a very logical way to go about protecting the consumer, which has been agreed to by industry. There will be further reviews and further consultation. That is what good legislation is all about.
There is a dispute resolution process that has been asked for by industry; a dispute resolution process managed by a dedicated Consumer Affairs commissioner for building disputes. This is a good, comprehensive package.
All members who contributed to the debate made a comment on the time it has taken. I believe it is important we go through a little of the chronology of what has been happening in the Northern Territory in real time - not in fantasy land.
If they are interested - and no doubt the member for Fong Lim is interested - the government amended the act in 2004 and 2005 that provided for the registration of builders and home warranty insurance. So the journey began. Builders registration was commenced in 2006. However, Part 4C, the home warranty insurance, was not commenced due to concerns nationally with the insurance products available. That is an important part of the story. In November 2008, a Senate committee inquiry was held in relation to home warranty insurance, and the outcome of that inquiry validated home warranty insurance and recommended a dispute resolution process to complement the insurance product. In the following two years, insurers nationally commenced withdrawing from the market. There are currently only two insurers providing this product in the market.
In 2010, a consultation draft bill was tabled to provide for the Territory Insurance Office to manage a government scheme in the Territory. During the consultations on the tabled bill, industry expressed an interest in providing an insurance scheme in the Territory. The end result of the process is the Master Builders Association’s managed fidelity fund has been chosen to commence this legislation, and the Master Builders Association is a respected national industry representative and stakeholder. The bill does allow for other insurers to enter the market. The Territory is open for business.
On the basis of this, the bills before the House were introduced in November 2011. It is important to note, to progress this has been an extremely important body of work, in partnership with industry and the community, and there has been an extensive amount of community and industry consultation recently undertaken and needed to ensure this legislation meets the needs of industry and homeowners. That is very important.
The member for Port Darwin contributed to the debate, and made an apology that he was not well briefed, so he did a bit of filling in while his colleague was in the sin bin. I can assure the member for Port Darwin, you were briefed as much as any CLP member, because none of them got a briefing ...
Mr Tollner: Rot, absolute rot!
Mr McCARTHY: No one came near the department; no one came near my office ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister is misleading the House. He knows I turned up to briefings, in the theatrette, organised by his department. Why does he mislead the House in this way?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, within standing orders you may wish to prepare, under ...
Mr TOLLNER: Well, he is a grub.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that word, please.
Mr TOLLNER: He is sitting there ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, I withdraw. Goodness me, we are all sensitive, aren’t we?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, in accordance with Standing Order 57, if you wish to prepare a personal explanation and discuss that with the Speaker, then the Speaker can table that in the House.
Mr TOLLNER: What? So he can sit there and run slurs. Are you saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he can sit there and run slurs as long as he likes?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have said to you, in accordance with Standing Order 57, you may offer a personal explanation to the House after meeting with me or the Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I informed you that he was misleading the House and I would like you to ask him to withdraw. I was offended by those comments.
Mr GUNNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He knows he can clarify it by way of personal explanation if he wants.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. Member for Fong Lim, it remains that you can utilise Standing Order 57 to prepare a personal explanation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Drawing our attention back to the debates of recent times in relation to offensive and unbecoming words, it was fairly clear that, when a member is offended, then that member is offended, and the request for a withdrawal is not unusual. What is good for that side must be good for this side.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I am in no position to be making a judgment as to whether or not a member has or has not had a briefing. That is why I am pointing out to the member for Fong Lim that, under Standing Order 57, he has the opportunity under standing orders to present a personal explanation.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I found the minister made an offensive comment and I would like you to ask him to withdraw that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to seek some advice on this, honourable members.
Honourable members, on the advice that I have received - and I am going to accept that advice - minister, I am going to ask you to withdraw that.
I remind the member for Fong Lim that he can use Standing Order 57 to produce a personal explanation.
Minister, if you could please withdraw that particular reference.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
I would like to continue, because I would like to start with the semantic difference between a forum and briefing. I tell the House that I attended the forum run by the Department of Lands and Planning in Alice Springs. They conducted forums in Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin. I am glad to hear the member for Fong Lim attended a forum.
A briefing is a far different kettle of fish. A briefing was not requested by the Country Liberal Party. Therefore, I wanted to let the member for Port Darwin know that he is at no disadvantage because no member from the CLP came to the office where we set up formal briefings, as did the member for Nelson ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Does the minister suggest that you can only get a briefing by going into his office with his supervision? Is that what he is suggesting? What are you suggesting? Come on, spit it out.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I will remind you ...
Mr Tollner: You run these slurs ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call. You have raised a point of order with me and I am trying to respond. I remind you, once again, you have, under Standing Order 57, the opportunity for a personal explanation. Minister, you have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, for the information of the House, I do not normally attend briefings for opposition members; the department runs those. They run a very comprehensive process. The member for Nelson has taken the time to accept the bill, the advice, and the recommendations; to work through them thoroughly, to ask questions, and to participate in the debate effectively.
I will continue with my close which, effectively, represents a briefing for the member for Fong Lim on the floor on the run. I am quite happy to do that because he has asked some interesting questions in his brief encounter with cognate bills. The member for Port Darwin cuts in on my notes because he jumped to speak - as the member from Fong Lim was in the sin bin; another matter he will deal with.
The debate turned to the cost of living. I would like to put on the record some comments about the cost of living. The cost of living in the Territory has always been higher than down south for two primary reasons: remoteness, and the lack of competition in the marketplace. I can certainly talk about remoteness having spent more than half my life in remote areas of the Northern Territory. However, I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ultimately, the best way to drive down prices in the Territory is to increase competition. The only way to increase competition is by growing our economy, and that is what we are on about; that is what we are doing. There are wonderful opportunities in the Territory, the best place in Australia at the moment for these opportunities: economically, socially, culturally and educationally. I could go on and on. It is the best place in Australia to be, and part of what the Chief Minister calls the century of Northern Australia.
However, it is important to put on the public record what the government is doing to help meet the cost of living, supporting Territorians with the most generous concessions and grants in the country: housing concessions, electricity concessions, seniors’ concessions, education and childcare concessions just to name a few, and the lowest taxes for small business in Australia. We are the only place in Australia where free public transport for students and seniors is on tap. We will deliver super clinics to cut the cost of healthcare. I could go on to talk about the government’s approach to reducing the cost of living, but I will get back to the bills, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have made it very clear we are to stay on track in the debate.
The member for Port Darwin talked about not paying for regulations. The essence of this legislation is about consumer protection. There is no doubt that there will be costs, but the costs represent a package of initiatives never seen before in the Northern Territory which will advantage consumers, provide certainty, provide security, and will also be a bonus for business; that is, the construction industry. Industry has asked for this package of initiatives. The Master Builders Association has helped every step of the way, in partnership with industry, and has proposed, through the fidelity fund, what is effectively a reinvestment in the industry. The member for Nelson talked about that. He also provided a brief on the floor because he knew what he was talking about. He talked about that reinvestment and he challenged government with not only reinvestment in education and training packages through MBA - which will happen in the future - but also reducing costs. I take up that challenge.
As I said, when we are talking about residential building cover, we are talking about an initiative that is supporting what will be the biggest investment a family will make in new housing. We are providing that certainty and security. It is important to note that we do review regulations; it is a normal process of providing good legislation. The residential building cover package will allow new players entering the market in regard to insurance or fidelity.
The member for Fong Lim cut to the chase and asked a couple of direct questions to which I will respond. He asked about what insurers had been contacted and who had entered the market. First of all, the bill allows an insurer or a fidelity fund to provide cover - that is important to take on board. Expressions of interest were requested from known providers and those that had shown interest. QBE and Caledon are the only national underwriters of this type of insurance in the country. Caledon has advised it will not underwrite such insurance in the Northern Territory. QBE has advised it will not compete with a fidelity fund and the market is marginal in viability. The Housing Industry Association’s insurance arm, a partnership with AON, is a broker with QBE as the underwriter and, thus, is unable to offer the cover.
The Master Builders Association has expressed an interest in setting up a fidelity fund similar to the only other one in the country run by MBA in the Australian Capital Territory. We did extensive research there. I went to Canberra to do firsthand research. MBA has run a very successful fidelity fund for a long time addressing what are the Territory objectives in this legislation. Government will need to support the fidelity fund during the establishment period.
All contributors to this debate asked a question about the difference between insurance and a fidelity fund. Very succinctly, insurance is regulated under Commonwealth legislation, and the fidelity fund is a discretionary trust regulated by the provisions in the Northern Territory bill and proposed regulations. So, there is a difference. As I outlined, from 2008, the major insurers were walking away from this product, nationally, and the big jurisdictions had great difficulty in attracting insurance companies into this space. One of the extra challenges for the Northern Territory was in relation to our small jurisdiction and our small volume in new builds. So, it was almost impossible to get a product in this space. We have landed, with a very good outcome, through the Master Builders Association and the fidelity fund.
It is important to note this bill allows a provider of another fidelity fund, or an insurer, at any time to be approved to enter the market - and I have stressed that a number of times. The fidelity fund proposed by MBA will only be approved when the minister is satisfied its trustee and operational framework is in place. It will need to comply with prudential standards in the regulations. It will report to and be accountable to government. It will be a separate legal entity directed by trustees and managed by MBA. It will not favour MBA members, and will offer policies to all eligible builders and owner/builders. It will be run along a not-for-profit principle and, in time after sufficient reserves have accumulated, any surpluses will be returned to training within the industry and industry initiatives.
How much financial support will be required from the NT government? The support will be in two ways. First, the government will underwrite the risk until the fund has sufficient reserves to meet a possible catastrophic event. Preliminary actuarial advice is that reserves of $5m are required and could be reached between five and eight years. Payment will only be made if and when required, and will be recovered with interest when future reserves accumulate. The second way of support will be the seed money to establish the fund. Preliminary actuarial advice suggests around $750 000 is required. Payments will be made by instalments and will be recovered with interest when the fund is able to pay.
Members asked about likely costs, and were focused on costs, and that is fine. The member for Nelson asked about costs and being able to reduce costs as much as possible. Through the extensive work that has been done by government, the premium will be set by trustees having regard to actuarial advice and input from government. An ACT premium for a $400 000 house is around $2000, but remembering a different market, twice the size and geographically compact, and different parameters such as a cap of $85 000; in the NT it is proposed to be $200 000. The insurance premium in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria government schemes is around $3000. In South Australia and Western Australia, insurance with some government underwriting, varying premiums from around $1500 for large volume builders to over $5000 depending on the risk of the builder. In the Territory, we expect the cost will be around $3000.
The member for Nelson touched on some very important issues about what government is doing to prevent the builder going bust and to prevent the consumer from losing their major investment. We are very proud of the work we have achieved in partnership with industry. They have asked us for these initiatives. They have said this represents the improved health of the industry in the Territory - a growing industry.
The member for Nelson talked about this education process as ongoing, and objectives to meet prevention as opposed to cure, and initiatives to support the consumer. I will outline for the House that one of the first products developed is a consumer guide. Building and Renovating in the NT – A Consumer Guide was published in December 2011 by the Department of Lands and Planning. For the member for Nelson’s inquiry, it is on the web and it can be printed if requested. It will be updated as the staged consumer package is rolled out. It has been well-received across the board, and consumers and builders are better informed on residential building practice and the certification process in the Northern Territory from this guide. It provides tips and raises other matters that should be considered, and is a very good product. I have outlined one initiative of a very comprehensive package. Speaking as a lay person in the Territory, I recommend this to consumers. I recommend to all Territorians that, before they enter into any contractual obligations with a major investment like a new home, they do some research. The Department of Lands and Planning is there to support you.
This legislation also brings in an industry component with the Master Builders Association fidelity fund. As you progress down the path of doing your research and setting up your construction project, finding your builder, and starting to develop that contractual system, you are going to be guided all the way, not only in your investment, but in industry standards and practice. The best informed consumer will achieve the best outcomes.
The member for Nelson talked about the consumer guarantees, another important part of this package: the cognate bills. It is important to note the package does not alter rights the consumer already has, or obligations the builder already has under consumer law to provide a product fit for service for its reasonable life. In response to what industry has expressed and the consumer requires, government is proposing that the regulations, once drafted, will reduce the proposed period for consumer guarantees for non-structural building work. We have to look at that, but there has been a request from industry. In the regulations, we now have two years for the non-structural, and six years for the structural. This will be subject to further consultation. This explains to the member for Nelson that we are sticking with what we told you at the briefing; that is what is being introduced. However, we take advice from industry and there will be further consultation around the consumer guarantees.
The member for Nelson wanted the fidelity fund explained, and I think I have explained that. Basically, it means a fidelity fund is managed by a recognised and trusted body - the body in the Territory being the Master Builders Association NT. It will have similar characteristics to insurance, but it is an industry-managed discretionary trust regulated by provisions of the Northern Territory bills.
In relation to three very direct questions from the member for Nelson, I will outline for the House a response regarding progress payments. The standard progress payments will be prescribed in the regulations, and are likely to be used in the majority of contracts. A consumer and a builder may, for any work, agree on other percentages and stages. To do so, both will be required to sign an approved form that will be the agreement and will be attached to the contract. The form and the consumer guide will encourage both parties to seek independent advice before signing. In Stage 2, as the progress payments significantly affect risk, the fidelity fund will require a builder to demonstrate that the percentages and stages are reasonable for a particular contract before issuing the policy.
The member for Nelson also asked a question around the consumer guarantees, and I will reiterate the information around that. The periods for which non-structural and structural guarantees apply will be in the regulations for the second bill that are to be drafted. The explanatory statement, an outline of possible regulations for bill two that were tabled, refer to proposed periods of two and six years respectively. The Master Builders Association and the Building Industry Reference Group have made submissions that the two-year period be reduced to one year. However, we will deal with this through further consultation and negotiation.
The member raised an interesting matter in the briefing, and also in the House in contribution to debate, about under-quoting. This raised a good discussion at the member for Nelson’s briefing, in Suite 1 on the fifth floor, with the Department of Lands and Planning team. I am pleased to give a formal response that the consumer guide strongly advises consumers to get more than one quote and to seek expert advice on quotes.
The fidelity fund will require builders to apply for eligibility before being able to obtain residential building cover policies. This is similar to CAL accreditation that gives accreditation for contractors to carry out government works. Matters such as past performance, business practice, nett tangible assets, and quality control will be the subject of consideration. As with CAL eligibility, it will match business capacity and risk with turnover; that is, how many houses may be built at any one time.
The partnership between builder and the fidelity fund will allow the fund to identify significant underquoting and take the appropriate action ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the member.
The last point was regarding whether a builder fails during construction. The claim the consumer can make to cover the additional costs in engaging a second builder under non-completion is capped at 20% of the contract price up to a maximum of $200 000. The consumer would have to meet the rest if that is insufficient. This provides an incentive for a consumer to seek advice on quotes, particularly if they appear low. That was an interesting point raised by the member for Nelson. The bottom line is, in the consumer guide the department strongly advises consumers to get more than one quote and to seek expert advice on quotes before signing any contracts.
These two bills are now before the House and I thank members for their contribution to the debate. This has been extensive work and I thank the department, which has worked tirelessly on delivering this important legislation that will definitely reflect the Territory’s bright future and strong growth forecast in providing that certainty to not only consumers, but also the building industry. I also thank my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues for their work to deliver what is, for Territorians, security and certainty, and - as the cognate bill set out - a package of initiatives which is a real boost to industry, a professional addition to industry reflecting what the government has been asked for.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand here today as one of a number of government members who have worked towards delivering this package for the Northern Territory, for the consumer, and for the industry. I thank everyone who has been involved in the journey along the way.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill (Serial 187) and the Building Amendment (Residential Building Consumer Protection) Bill (Serial 188) in the name of Mr McCarthy.
Bills, by leave, taken together.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, if it is okay with the minister, rather than going through the bill point by point, we on this side do not have too many questions. In fact, I have just a handful of questions. I would like to ask some general questions and get it over and done with rather quickly, if that is okay with the minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Absolutely
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you say the consumer guide encourages people to get more than one quote if they are concerned about under-insuring. Where would they get more than one quote from?
Mr McCARTHY: Speaking from experience, member for Fong Lim, I would definitely line up a number of building companies, builders, or a construction agency of my choice and ask them to quote on what would be my dream home.
Mr TOLLNER: I thought you were talking about under-insuring when you made that comment in your statement. I thought your concern was there might be under-insurance and that people should hunt for a suitable insurance contract to ensure they were not under-insured or over-insured.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, that was a point I was commenting on which was raised by the member for Nelson at the briefing. His question was: ‘What about under-quoting?’ In my reply, I started by saying the consumer guide is definitely a very healthy tool for all consumers to be familiar with. Then, of course, the fidelity fund would also apply the lens to the contract, because not only would they be able to advise the consumer, they would also be managing the builder regarding the builder’s eligibility.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. I apologise, minister. I obviously misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting they should chase down various insurance companies for insurance quotes. What you are talking about is how much it might cost to construct a particular building.
Can you explain how the process will work to determine how many houses a particular builder can build under this arrangement?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, basically, the process starts with application to the fidelity fund for eligibility. One of the initiatives in the package is to ensure the builder has a minimum of $50 000 worth of assets maintained throughout the project. Then there would be an assessment process in relation to the size of the builder’s company and the volume the builder undertakes. I will just get some expert advice as well.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, minister, is that $50 000 per house they are building, or is it $50 000 for any number of houses?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, the $50 000 is what I said about eligibility to register. Those assets will need to be maintained. However, if you have more in the bank and more assets, you can then be assessed to build more houses. It is like that sliding scale.
Mr TOLLNER: How much money will you need in the bank to build, say, two houses?
Mr McCARTHY: Well, $50 000 will get you registered to build one house. I am advised that in the ACT under the model, $50 000 in assets allows you to build two houses.
Mr TOLLNER: What if you wanted to build three houses, minister? I am not talking about the ACT model. I am talking about what you have cooked up here in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, there is an element to that question that is complex, which relates to the prudential requirements that will be assessed by the fidelity fund. However, as you demonstrate you have nett tangible assets in excess of $50 000, then you will be assessed in the volume you can build.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, given the fact that you say this fidelity fund will be regulated by the Northern Territory government, those prudential requirements, I would imagine, would also be regulated by the Northern Territory government. The fact that it is not an insurance company, it is a fidelity fund, and your government will be in control of setting those benchmarks, can you just outline for us what those benchmarks will be - what you are considering?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, once again, that is a complex process. First of all, the fidelity fund will be managed by a board of trustees, so there will be a trust deed. There will also be the assessment process which will be undertaken by people who are experienced in industry - the trustees - and actuarial advice will also be sought. So, it will be a combination of those elements in a comprehensive assessment process to make those decisions.
Mr TOLLNER: That all sounds very good minister, but given that this fund will not be overseen by the Australian Securities Investments Commission or the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority - it falls outside of those bounds - all regulation now falls onto your shoulders as the minister, or some other minister in your government. You are now legislating an ability to set up a fidelity fund. I understand a trust deed will govern that fund to some extent. Are you able to provide an outline or table a proposed trust deed for that fund, and some of the regulations you propose to put in place when you create this fidelity fund in the Northern Territory?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, you will note that in introducing this legislation and in my wrap, I talked about the research we did with the Master Builders Association in the ACT and the product they presented to government, having similarities in trying to produce a product for a small jurisdiction. We are very happy to work with them; industry has been very happy to work with them. What we can table is the ACT model because that is what we have modelled our legislation on.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, what other jurisdictions did you model your legislation on? We would not want to go down the ACT path of construction, where it can sometimes take several years to get through the rigmarole of constructing a building. What other models did you look at?
Mr McCARTHY: As I mentioned in my contributions to the debate, we looked at this as a residential building consumer cover package. Insurance companies were not able to deliver it; they walked away from it. We looked at a product which was a fidelity fund - an industry-managed fund. The Master Builders Association Australia has developed that product and we are able to table the details of the ACT model. The Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory is very supportive of the moves government has made and is very interested in delivering this component of this package of initiatives.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you have made the point that the ACT and the Northern Territory are very different in size and type of works; there are also building issues here which are quite different to those in the ACT. It would be good if we had an idea of exactly what you are proposing for the Northern Territory, rather than just copycat the ACT.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I hope I can assure you, as I have mentioned in my remarks in this House, that we looked at New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria. We were unable to attract insurance companies to look at it seriously. We looked at the fidelity fund in the ACT, which is the only one in Australia, and then we incorporated the best elements of all of our research to develop this model.
Mr TOLLNER: Who are going to be the trustees of the fidelity fund?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I am advised that the trustees will be established by the Master Builders Association, then they will present that to government for government’s assessment.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. Who will be the trustees?
Mr McCARTHY: Well, this is what will be set up, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, minister, I am not asking about the trust deed, I want to know who the trustees are.
Mr McCARTHY: My first position is to, hopefully, succeed in getting this legislation through the House. Then the Master Builders Association will start to build that fidelity fund, and that will represent the trust deed and putting forward recommendations for trustees on the board.
Mr TOLLNER: What you are saying is you have no idea who the trustees of this, at the moment, trust-deedless fund, or proposed fund, are?
Mr McCARTHY: No, I did not say that at all, member for Fong Lim. I could explain it again if you would like me to.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, please do, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. What I said was, hopefully, we will have this legislation passed in this House, because this is a great outcome for the Territory in the period of growth and prosperity we are entering into, providing that certainty, not only for the consumer, but also, for the building industry, to also reflect that incredible partnership we have forged with industry in this.
Member for Fong Lim, you would be aware, from the forum you attended in Darwin, as I did in Alice Springs, of that unity we have been able to create, because both consumer and industry want to take the industry to the next level. Should I be successful in that endeavour, then the Master Builders Association will commence the formal steps to set up the trust deed, and they will put the recommendations to government for the trustees of the board.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, so there is no hint from you at this stage that the trustees will come from industry, workers bodies, trade unions, and the like, or it may well be professional trustees brought in from interstate? You have no idea at this stage as to who and who may not be a trustee?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, are you making an application for a job?
Mr TOLLNER: No, minister. What you are saying to me is you cannot tell me anything at all about the trustees of the fund until you know what is being presented to you by the Master Builders Association?
Mr McCARTHY: One of the things I was very interested in when I did the research in the ACT with the Master Builders Association was their component of very experienced people who represented a good cross-section, not only of industry, but also people with great knowledge of consumer affairs. When we talked about managing this as a package of initiatives, they said it achieves a good, wholesome outcome, because you have a good cross-section of respected members of industry and the community. The Master Builders Association, under this model, will present the same recommendations to the Northern Territory government, and that will come to the minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear what you are saying, and I have no doubt there are supremely well-qualified people across the Northern Territory who could fulfil the role of a trustee. I have no doubt that, given proper advice and the like, you might well be able to develop regulations and a trust deed that would give a level of assurance to consumers, builders, and everyone in the industry.
My concern, of course, minister, is none of that is before us; we do not even know what we are talking about. You put forward speculative figures; there is speculation about who is qualified to build a house and who may not be qualified to build a house, but we know none of this. What we are being asked to buy here today is a pig in a poke. That is correct, is it not, minister? That assessment is correct - we do not have a trust deed at the moment and we have not determined who the trustees are going to be? In fact, you have not even come in here with proposed regulations yet, have you, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, for Territorians, that represents your position of say anything, all care, no responsibility. I have been working on this for two years, member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner: I just want to know what you are proposing.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: I have been working on this for two years to deliver ...
Mr TOLLNER: Twelve years, minister!
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, please, while the minister is on his feet.
Mr McCARTHY: ... to deliver a package of consumer cover for the Territory. We have looked extensively at the modelling and have brought this legislation to this House based on that extensive research. Should this legislation pass through this parliament, we can then progress to the next step of delivering for Territorians.
I am not interested in loose semantics. It is easy for you to say what you like. I come from the side of the House that has had the shoulder to the wheel delivering for the Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: I agree with you, minister. It is very easy for me to say what I like because, at the moment, there is no detail in it; there is very little at all. You cannot tell me whether there will be predatory practices taking place in relation to this where some builders might be excluded from constructing houses. Some builders who have had a long and profitable career constructing houses and doing a good job may well be excluded because they do not have the assets, or a whole range of things. It could well be determined by a group of trustees, who may or may not come from the industry, or workers’ organisations which may or may not have an axe to grind with a particular builder. We do not know anything at all about this scheme you are proposing.
Minister, I am quite upset by this whole idea that you waltz in here, after 12 years, telling me you have had your shoulder to the wheel, you have been working on this, yet there is scant information about what you are proposing, how the fund is going to be regulated, who the trustees are, and what mechanisms will be in place to determine who is eligible to build what amount of houses.
It seems to me to be all over the shop, minister. I would have thought, after 12 years, this government would be well and truly progressed down this line so you could come into this House and tell us what you are intending. At the moment, you cannot even tell us how much it will cost, how many houses a builder can build, or any of that type of thing. It is all speculation. Am I correct in that assessment, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, this has been consultative throughout the Territory every step of the way. There has been very thorough research. This is representing protection for the consumer, and also building the health of our building industry. I have personally attended forums, meetings, and consulted with Territorians. We have been building this, block by block, and now it is to the stage where we have the legislation before this House and we want to continue with this building.
In regard to the regulations, I have advised the House that we will continue with the consultation. This is about working in partnership in industry. It is unfortunate I do not have the confidence of the member for Fong Lim. However, I have the confidence of the vast majority of the industry, and of Territory consumers, and that is what we are taking forward.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, please do not be offended. It is not me, personally, who does not have confidence in you. I just do not have confidence in the mob you are involved with. We have seen, time and time and time again, where your mob has managed to stuff things up in the most remarkable way. So, pardon me for being a little concerned about something like setting up a fidelity fund completely without the checks and balances of federal law, and expecting your mob is going to do a damn good job of it. I would like to believe you are.
I have to tell you, I also believe in this legislation and your aims of this legislation. You come in here with scant detail - very little information - talk in flowery ways about shoulders to the wheel and all of these sorts of things, and expect us over this side to say: ‘Okay, minister, you are a hard worker, great stuff’. And you cannot answer the most basic questions!
I was going to ask some questions about the excess proceeds that come into this fund and where they may well be spent, but I suppose if you do not have a trustee, you have no regulations, you do not know who the trustees are, it is a bit of a long bow to ask where excess funds may be spent. You said they might go to training programs, they might go here - goodness knows where they could go. There is nothing at all in your plans to say where – there are no regulations, there is no legislation on any of that sort of stuff. We are quite blind to the whole thing, aren’t we?
Minister, I have no further questions. If you want to get on with this farce, go for it. We will be supporting you because we support this concept. However, I tell you, do not think we are not watching to see what is going on from here because, as I said, pardon me if I seem a little concerned. It is not you personally; it is the mob you hang out with. They are bad news; they never get anything right anywhere. We will just wait and see how this show unfolds.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Fong Lim, I will respond to those comments you have made. First of all, the industry has been telling me, since I have had the privileged position of being Minister for Lands and Planning, that they want education and awareness for the industry. They want every opportunity they can get to build that, and they see the benefit of it. They see, basically, what our government has set up for an incredible future for the Northern Territory and Territorians.
The Master Builders Association has put education and training packages up for industry representatives and also for consumers as well.
I would just like to respond to ‘my mob’ because, as the member for Fong Lim alluded to, he attended a forum with the department, as one part of extensive consultation provided, as did I. I will put some names on the public record as ‘my mob’. What we have done in consulting to develop this legislation goes to respected industry groups and stakeholders such as the Building Industry Representative Group, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Institute of Building Surveyors, Engineers Australia, the Institute of Architects, Building Designers Association, the Real Estate Institute, the Building Practitioners Board, the Building Advisory Committee, a building certifier, a building certifier in Alice Springs, and a builder. We have received extensive submissions. We have travelled the Territory consulting. I have engaged the public in conversations around this.
I assure you that when you talk about ‘my mob’ this is truly representative of reputable industry stakeholders from across the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I can assure you I have absolutely no dramas with that group at all. They are a highly reputable bunch of organisations and people you have named. When I was referring to ‘your mob’, I was referring to your Labor government. If you are telling me this crew you have now just outlined are part of the Labor government, well, I have some pretty serious concerns about that. I would be very surprised, if I went and talked to those groups, that they would identify as being part of the Labor ‘mob’ here in the Northern Territory ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The Labor Party here in the Northern Territory is an absolute, cruel joke. The fact is you have come in here, you are telling us you are going to sidestep ASIC, you are going to sidestep APRA, that there is a trust deed about to come out of the ether which the Labor government is going to cook up and put in to regulations and pick a group of trustees - which I imagine would be legislated or regulated, more likely regulated - determine where they come from and who they represent. I imagine it would be up to the trustees to determine actuaries and custodians and all that is involved in running a fidelity fund. Ultimately, it is this Labor government which controls the levers on how that fund is regulated and managed.
Pardon me for saying I have no great level of comfort in knowing that because you do not have your eyes on the ball. You have made that abundantly clear in a range of different areas across the Territory where you were quite keen to waste money. I do not know whether you are keen to waste money, but spending money seems to be the outcome of your government rather than achieving results.
Minister, I wish you all the best with it. We will be watching to see what you come up with. We are very wary but we also understand that consumers need protection, the industry and contractors want protection, and for that reason we are happy to support this. However, do not think that gives you a green light to run off and ignore things again. It has taken 12 years to get this far. You can blame it on the Senate or on a range of things. The fact is Clare Martin promised this 12 years ago. You have done five-eighths of nothing in that time. You are here now with some hastily cobbled together legislation - no fund as such, a proposed fund, a proposed trustee, a proposed set of regulations. I hope you get it right because Territorians want this, and they want it to work.
There are builders now going to what you determine as forums - I thought they were information sessions which, to me, is not greatly different from a briefing. Having gone to those forums and having listened to a few people on the phone talking to me about it, I can tell you they are not 100% happy with it. I know you will never make everyone happy; there will always be some concerns.
The little guys are particularly concerned about this. They see this as a way the big builders will be able to further increase their market power at their expense because they will have the muscle required to get their way on some of these regulations. I will not go into too much about how that might occur, but they are very concerned about that. I sometimes understand that the little guys in industries do need looking after. As I said, we are keen to support this legislation because something needs to be done. Twelve years is 12 years too long, and I hope you can get on with it and get things happening. Please do not do what you have done with so many other things and stuff it up.
Bills agreed to without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
RADIATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 197)
(Serial 197)
Continued from 16 February 2012.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Radiation Protection Act. While the act sits within the Health Department, the coverage is the mining industry, hence the shadow for Resources talking on the bill. The bill will allow the radiation dose history for uranium mining and milling workers over a period of their employment anywhere in the industry in Australia to be stored in a single national database. It is about protection of the workers and their personal safety, and that is paramount. The amendments will give force to a national uniform reporting scheme, and that is welcomed.
The registrar that holds this information was announced in 2008 by the Australian government and it is called the Australian National Radiation Dose Register. The register will be administered and managed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
The Australian National Radiation Dose Register was established in 2010 to collect, store, manage, and disseminate records of radiation doses received by workers in the course of their employment in a centralised database. The Australian National Radiation Dose Register has been open to receive dose records from operators since 1 July 2010. The register - and I will call it the register for short - was officially launched in June 2011 following full development of the register, including a system for workers to be able to request their individual dose history records. The data will be used to track a worker’s lifetime radiation dose history within the radiation uranium mining and milling industry in Australia. A worker can request a dose history report from ARPANSA which will show the cumulative dose the worker has received during the course of their employment in the uranium mining and milling industry in Australia, while the worker has been registered on the register.
The data will be used to create annual statistics showing industry sector trends and comparisons. It will also be used to assess radiological doses within worker categories to help establish recommended dose constraints for certain work practices. This bill will ensure that the uranium mines in the Territory, specifically the Ranger Mine, currently complies with the register guidelines for the collection, storage, and transfer of radiation dose information on Territory uranium mining and milling workers. I am comforted by the fact that the operators of the Ranger Mine have taken the lead on this issue and are fully supportive of the need to exchange this information.
In regard to the bill, I thank the minister for the briefing provided today by the staff from the Health Department. I have some questions about the coverage of the bill. The bill covers current workers at the Ranger Mine. How will past workers at uranium mines in the Territory be captured; for example, workers who worked the Nabarlek Mine? I understand a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere; however, I am concerned this bill may not scoop up all the people who should be scooped up, hence the question.
My second point is will the bill include workers at the proposed Nolans Bore, given that project includes thorium and uranium? I understand the bill does not include workers in the exploration industry; however, many hundreds of workers may be measured but not recorded for radiation exposure. I find it interesting that planning has not been undertaken for the bill to include exploration workers, given that most, if not all, companies measure and record exposure within their company’s operations, and that many exploration workers do go from exploration to mining projects within a short time frame with the same company. Perhaps the minister can explain when exploration will be included.
The same goes for mineral sand operations. We have had mineral sand operations in the past in the Territory and will have them again the future, I am very sure, yet this bill does not seem to include mineral sand workers. If good legislation is to be developed, surely it should be underpinned by sound planning and an eye for the future so we do not have to keep coming back to this parliament to pass amendments to include these workers from other sectors of the industry?
I also seek clarification on what is or what will be the prescribed period for a worker to be on a site. In other words, how long does a person have to be on the mine site to be scooped up by this dose register and reporting?
The uranium industry is poised for a strong growth period and exploration is good in the Territory, but not as high as it could be, or perhaps should be, such as the states of Western Australia and South Australia. In the Territory for 2010-11, exploration expenditure was $40m, compared to Western Australia of $100m, and South Australia $53m. The Territory should be the $100m if the government really supported the uranium industry.
For the record, I will highlight the potential of the uranium projects in the Territory, because they will be affected and have to comply with this legislation. We have the Jabiluka deposit, which has approximately 135 400 tonnes of uranium oxide. There is Koongarra, which has 14 500. We have Mt Fitch in the Batchelor region, with 6600 uranium oxide in tonnage. The Angela project, if it gets the go-ahead, is 10 000 tonnes approximately. The Bigrlyi project has about 11 000 tonnes of uranium oxide. This is not the ore; this is the actual oxide that is produced. Nolans Bore has about 3900 and Napperby 1400. The Westmoreland project, which borders the Northern Territory and Queensland, has about 7000 tonnes of uranium oxide. There are many projects in the Northern Territory that would be using this legislation if they were in an operating phase, so it is important the legislation is constructed carefully and properly, such that there are no unanswered questions.
I have not seen too many public statements of late from this government in regard to the uranium industry, nor have I heard any acknowledgment of the good work of Ranger Mine’s commitment and economic contribution; for example, the $220m brine concentrator which it has committed to with much of that expenditure undertaken in the Territory. I have read nothing about exploration for uranium or what the government is doing to encourage more companies to establish a base in the Territory. I would like to hear from the minister about the exploration companies in the Territory and what work has been done to try to encourage more exploration companies, particularly uranium companies, to establish offices and bases in the Territory.
Let us not forget Arafura Resources and this government’s decided lack of support for the project. More importantly, its processing plant which has now gone to South Australia, where they were welcomed with open arms - hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in expenditure gone over the border, and the Territory is poorer for the decision that company made to base themselves in South Australia. Madam Speaker, I digress.
Minister, I understand what the bill is going to do and why. However, one needs clarification on the issues I referenced previously. Also, could the minister explain specifically how the recording on a site will work? Will each and every worker at the Ranger Mine, for example, be required wear a TLD tag, or will recording be random or based on some other system? The other thing I wanted to seek clarification on, minister - and I understand the proposed waste facility planned for Muckaty Station is a Commonwealth responsibility - what would the arrangements be for workers at that site, particularly if a worker goes, for example, from the Ranger Mine to the Muckaty site - a radiation officer, for example? What would happen in that situation?
Madam Speaker, we will not be opposing this bill. It is good legislation and is long overdue. It should have happened a couple of years ago. However, I seek clarification from the minister on those few issues I have raised.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, some short comments on this bill. I agree with the member for Goyder that this legislation is well overdue. It is an area that is needed to ensure workers are protected, especially those who work in the uranium industry. Regardless of what happened in Japan, the uranium industry will continue to expand, especially if people are really concerned about global warming. As much as renewable energies will be part of that, there is no way they will be able to pick up and turn around global warming unless we look at other alternatives such as wind, solar, tidal and also geothermal. However, there will be a continuing need to mine uranium in the Northern Territory.
ERA will be mainly affected by this legislation. It is a company that does not get enough mention as one that does much good in the Northern Territory. I recently had a briefing from them and they spoke about various changes they are bringing in to their mine to make it far more environmentally friendly, especially in relation to a new plant that will, basically, deal with the tailings dam water and be able to turn that into drinking water. I am not saying you will drink it, but it will be of that standard. They are spending millions and millions of dollars to do that. They also employ large numbers of Indigenous people in the region. They are not given enough credit. I asked them about their turnover of people, especially Indigenous people, and it is quite low - about 17%. When you look at SIHIP and the turnover of Indigenous people in that industry it is far higher. You have a company that is doing good things in the Northern Territory, employing local people. It is putting money into facilities in Jabiru such as the new boarding school. It basically supplies electricity for Jabiru. My understanding is it provides many facilities for the community.
This legislation protects those workers who are working at ERA. Of course, there are protections already, but this is keeping a register of what doses these workers receive. It is not as though there is no protection at all.
I just have one question the minister may answer without too much trouble. I was looking up the definition of ‘mining site’. I was a bit concerned when I first read the definition that it meant that all mining sites would have to have a register. Then, it says here, in the explanatory note:
Clause 4, section 4 amended.
- This clause amends section 4. A number of terms are defined that relate to the mining of uranium ore and concentrate. The definition of a mining site will be limited to the mining of uranium ore and production of concentrate as prescribed by Regulation.
It says on the opening page of the bill:
- mining site for Part 3A, see section 47A.
Then it says under Part 3A, section 47A:
- mining site means a mining site, as defined in section 4 of the Mining Management Act, that is prescribed by the Regulations.
What I could not understand is why the definition that is mentioned in the explanatory notes is not simply written in here under the heading, ‘Definition’ for this particular act. Part 3A heading is ‘Monitoring and recording of personal radiation exposure on mining sites’. I would have thought then, to ensure we are only dealing with mining sites limited to the mining of uranium ore and production of concentrate, that definition would have been written in the bill. I am just not sure why it is not there.
I believe this bill will be important for people working at Muckaty Station. I am on record as saying I think Muckaty will be a good site for a radioactive waste repository - to use the more correct term. Of course, if you oppose such a thing, it is always a dump. However, having been to Lucas Heights a number of times, you know they will not be ‘dumping’ material there; they will be storing it, and that storage will be in facilities that will be highly regulated. Do people really think the Australian nuclear industry will just throw radioactive waste material on the ground? That would go against all the regulations and requirements Australia has in relation to its obligations to store waste in a particular manner. We know this would be a place where radioactive material will be stored, and we know there will be workers there who will, obviously, have to be checked. If you have been to Lucas Heights, you know that already exists.
I am not sure whether this act would cover those people who would be working on the Muckaty Station site. I am not sure whether that will be regarded as a Commonwealth site and, therefore, come under Commonwealth legislation. Perhaps the minister can give us some clarification on that.
I make note, Madam Speaker, that one of the issues in relation to radiation was brought home to me recently by a program on Horizon on SBS. Unfortunately, I cannot get a transcript yet, so I was not going to sit down and watch the video again. The person who was the producer of that program was a gentleman, Jim Al-Khalili, who is an Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author, and science communicator. He is a Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey. He was born in Baghdad in 1962 to an Iraqi father and English mother. He studied physics at the University of Surrey; he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1986, and stayed on to pursue a PhD Degree in Nuclear Reaction Theory which he obtained in 1989. In 1989, he was awarded a Science and Engineering Research Council Post Doctorate Fellowship of the University College of London.
He recently hosted a program called Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe? There were many things in that program, but there was an emphasis on the effect of radiation. It was very interesting to see there is some conjecture as to whether there are some levels of radiation which are not harmful; in fact, they may be beneficial. There seems to be room for more discussion on what a harmful level of radiation is and what is not. What was surprising in that debate was the visit to Chernobyl where they did experiments on rats which had been irradiated by living in the area where the radiation occurred, and on rats which had not been irradiated. They chopped them up to check to see if the chromosomes were okay, and they were.
They also spoke to many of the people who lived in Chernobyl and had moved away. The surprising thing was they found many people died from depression or suicide because of the worry they had with living in an area that had been covered in radiation. I mention this because we are dealing with a bill which deals with radiation protection.
I thought it was an opportunity to highlight some of the issues Professor Jim Al-Khalili, raised. As he said, we have been going through a phase in our history where people nearly have radiation phobia and believe everything about radiation is bad. They have done tests, I gather – I am using my memory of this program - of people such as airline pilots who continually fly at high altitude and receive doses of radiation higher than you would at ground level. They have not found any ill effect from receiving those doses. Although we are dealing with a requirement for a national register for workers to be checked for the amount of radiation they may have been exposed to during their work in a year, it opens up the possibility of a little more discussion in our society about radiation itself.
When I used to speak up about Muckaty people said: ‘Why don’t you want it in your back yard?’ It probably would be safe in my back yard. However, we have developed a fear in our society that all things to do with radiation are bad and must be put as far away as possible. To some extent, the government is working with that fear and requiring a site which will be a long way from the general population. It is not as if you cannot store this material closer to populated areas; it is simply that government has looked for a site - naturally we know they picked on the Territory - which was in a relatively unpopulated area and they had an agreement with the traditional owners of that area.
We tend to have this fear of radiation and forget the benefits of radiation such as the people in hospital who use this material to help preserve the lives of people who are sick. We also forget the benefits of radioactive material in checking on the life of the metal of particular products like aeroplanes, and the inside of boilers, to see whether a boiler used in the power station has any more life in it. You can do that using radioactive materials to check the life of the steel the boiler is made from. There are many reasons why we use radioactive materials for beneficial uses in our society. Sometimes, when you hear a lot of hue and cry about Muckaty, about loads falling off trains or trucks, they are not dealing with the science; they are dealing with the ideology.
There are quite a number of people - and I include Senator Ludlam from The Greens – who do not argue the case that our Lucas Heights facility or the digging up of uranium is something we can do safely. He comes from a background of saying we do not want to be part of the nuclear cycle at all. That is the problem we have; where debates go to any extent to argue that we should not have these materials in Australia. The reality is that we do have them and they are important.
There are workers across Australia who work in the radiation field and this legislation allows those workers, if they are travelling from one state to another, to be on a register of what dosage they have recorded.
I should say too, when people talk about storing nuclear radioactive waste, I went to the Esk facility, northwest of Brisbane. It is about 100 km away, near the Wivenhoe Dam which was full of water recently. It is 10 km out of Esk; Muckaty is 120 km north of Tennant Creek. The closest people nearby would be Ray Aylett at the cattle station and some of the traditional owners who live just off the left-hand side of the road - who, I believe, are the traditional owners who gave approval - about 10 km from the site.
The Esk site is quite near a populated town in Queensland, just on the edge of the major water catchment in a forestry area, close to tomato growers and people running horses. It went through the pain of people protesting but, now, no one worries about it. It takes the hospital waste up there on a regular basis. It is behind a 6 ft chain mesh fence. It just looks like a house. A council operator comes along every now and then and mows the lawn. No one worries.
The issue we have today with Muckaty is we have to get over that hurdle of the ideologists who disagree with anything nuclear, and to get through that pain and show people this facility will not harm people. It will be well regulated and well run, and it deals primarily with low-level radiation; that is, the radiation mostly you get from Lucas Heights.
This bill gives us an opportunity to talk about radiation in general, as well as the issue of workers. It is an important area for the Northern Territory. The uranium industry will continue to grow. My discussions with ERA the other day - I have forgotten the general manager’s name, but he is a person who, I believe, has the Territory at heart. He has Indigenous employment at heart. He has a real belief of being a company that works with the community. He is one of the people in the Northern Territory who sometimes are not recognised for the good things they do and for the work they do to promote their industry.
There is no doubt that there will be more uranium mines in the Northern Territory. There will be noise about them as we saw with Angela Pamela. There will be kerfuffles about that. Again, that is about the fear. Basically, the reason that did not even get past the exploration stage was because it was about the fear.
You can drum up fear in Indigenous people, in people in Alice Springs. You do not have to use the science, you just have to use the fear, and then people are scared and the unknown becomes important for them. Because of that unknown, they immediately say they do not want it near them. The reality is we know, like many things in life, if they are looked after properly, if we look after our workers properly, if we ensure they are monitored properly, then we can do many things safely. We should not be over fearful. We should certainly be vigilant and careful about how we use radiation and materials, but we should not step back so far that we go backwards in time and do not embrace the technology that comes with this.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I had that question about the definition of mining and am interested in hearing what the minister has to say.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. First, let us make it clear what this is all about. This is an amendment to the Radiation Protection Act to allow the radiation dose for uranium mining and milling workers over the period of their employment to be stored in a central database - nothing more, nothing less.
I understand the question: what about people who worked in the mine before? Unfortunately, the federal government decision was for uranium mines and milling only during their employment, meaning their current employment. People who work in a mine like ERA at Jabiru wear special tags which are checked every month, or up to three months, to find out if they have been exposed to radiation. If they have not, they continue working there. If, by any chance, they have been exposed they are removed and put somewhere else so they do not continue to be exposed to radiation so they do not exceed the allowable limit every year.
It will not extend to mineral sands. It will not apply to - and that is my understanding - Nolans Bore. Nolans Bore would be a rare earth mine not a uranium mine – a uranium by-product of production when it is processed in the factory. It may be a mine, but it is not a uranium mine. Uranium is one of the components of rare earth and, when it is taken out and processed, and the different components are separated, uranium would be one of those components. When that happens in the processing area, in the milling area, the workers wear that device.
No, it will not apply to Muckaty Station. Muckaty Station is not a mining site. If it is approved and if it goes ahead it would be a repository and other regulations or legislation will apply there - not the same as applied by the Commonwealth to a uranium mine.
It is really for the company to collect information, and this information be conveyed to a central database to record possible exposure of people working in the uranium mining industry and mining.
It is good legislation. It did not happen before. You had to work out, by and large, who was responsible for this legislation. My Department of Health proceeded with the amendments since it is in charge of the Radiation Protection Act.
With regard to the question by the member for Nelson about the definition of mining, there is a clear definition of mining under the Mining Act. By referring the definition here to what applies in the Mining Act it is quite proper. Otherwise, you have a different act with different definitions and it becomes very confusing.
It is simple legislation. This simple amendment will allow for all the information regarding dose history for people working in the mining industry, and it applies from the moment people walk into a uranium mine. People have to wear the tags to check the exposure. If something happens, then the people can have access to their history, the data records. Things can go wrong in the future. We have some examples of industrial accidents and diseases that happen many years after the exposure. Asbestos exposure is one of these. The collection of this information will provide information to scientists, as the member for Nelson mentioned, about the impact the exposure to radiation, or certain levels of radiation, can have in order to adjust the level downwards, or to provide a better control over exposure to radiation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Interstate Study Travel Report – Member for Brennan
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Interstate Study Travel Report – Member for Brennan
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Brennan’s interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2011.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, for and on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that leave be granted for the Chief Minister to continue his remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I table the Select Committee Report on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory, Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Print Paper - Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Print Paper - Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory –
Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Select Committee Report on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory – Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Note Paper - Select Committee Report on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory – Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Today, I present the Select Committee on Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory report, Gone Too Soon: A Report into Youth Suicide in the Northern Territory. Suicide is a tragedy for the individual and devastating for the family, friends, and community. The pain for loved ones is immeasurable and enduring. When it is a young person with their whole life ahead of them, the tragedy is heightened. In the Northern Territory, with our many tightknit communities, the sense of loss and failure can carry across regions. Our youth suicide rate is three-and-a-half times the national average, although the rates for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people aged 18 to 24 have decreased over the past 10 years.
It was disturbing to learn that the suicide rate amongst Indigenous young people aged under 18 has been increasing at an alarming rate, from 18 per 100 000 in the period 2001 to 2005 to 30 per 100 000 for the period 2006 to 2010. Whilst the rates for young men have always been relatively high, the committee was concerned the rate for young women, particularly young Indigenous women, has also increased in recent years. Girls now comprise up to 40% of all suicides of children under the age of 17. Clearly, things need to change if we are to stop losing our young people at their own hands at such a high rate.
Suicide is a multidimensional problem that requires many different responses which need to be sustained over the longer term. A range of factors were identified that increase the risk of suicide; for example, substance misuse, social and economic disadvantage, cultural and sexual identity issues, and problems with family and the law. The committee also learned that many youth suicides in the Territory result from impulsive behaviour, usually accompanied by alcohol or substance abuse.
It was heartening to hear of the excellent work being done around the Territory to respond to youth in crisis, such as the Tiwi For Life Project and the Galupa Marngarr Suicide Prevention Group where the communities rallied to turn around what were identified as the highest suicide rates in the world; the work of the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network which took the initiative to fill the gaps in suicide support in the region; the work of the Mt Theo program where the elders of Yuendumu developed diversionary programs to help those of their youth in crisis; and the work of the Mental Health Association of Central Australia which has developed much-needed, culturally specific suicide prevention resources.
Nonetheless, more needs to be done to address youth suicide. Too many of our young people are falling through the gaps and not getting the help they need. For too many of our youth, there is not enough hope to protect them from the impulse to end their lives.
The committee received 46 submissions and held 10 public hearings in Darwin, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Ski Beach, Katherine, and four public forums in Tennant Creek, Yirrkala, Bees Creek and Katherine and, with the assistance of headspace, a youth forum was also held in Palmerston. Arrangements were made for a hearing and public forum on the Tiwi Islands, first on 25 January, and then on 1 and 2 February, but these could not be held due to severe weather and a community funeral. The committee met with the Tiwi Island Shire on 3 February 2012.
On the basis of the evidence received, the committee identified four distinct action areas:
1. Building strong, healthy and resilient communities. The foundation of lasting suicide prevention is building stronger and more resilient communities. While helping those in crisis is important, building communities where individuals are less likely to meet the range of factors which may lead to suicide and who are more able to deal with life’s stresses as they arise will provide the greatest benefit in the long run.
2. Identifying and helping those at risk. Individuals in crisis and at risk of self-harm need to be able to access the help they require to get through, whether that be a place to be safe from their current problems for a while, counselling and mental health services, or a means of rebuilding their place in their community. The family and friends of those who may be in crisis also need the support to be able to identify when that person requires assistance and enable those at risk to access the help required.
3. Helping the bereaved and stopping the contagion. The response to a completed suicide can have a significant impact on the bereaved and the community at large. This also creates risk of further suicides, resulting in some communities having to deal with a number of suicides in a short period of time. A suicide is a point of crisis which must be addressed to help the bereaved deal with their grief and stem the risk of contagion.
4. Smarter service delivery. Overcoming the tyranny of distance is an ongoing challenge when it comes to service delivery in the Northern Territory. Strategies are required to ensure we make the most of limited resources, including ensuring services work effectively together, sharing rather than duplicating resources where possible, and providing a holistic, rather than fragmented, service to those requiring help. It is essential that services meet the needs of the community they serve and empower communities rather than create dependence. We also need funding mechanisms which look to the long term and enable services to grow and develop within a community while, at the same time, ensuring accountability and that money is not wasted on services that cannot deliver the best and most sustainable outcomes.
Outcomes and recommendations: the committee acknowledges that some key issues identified during the inquiry are already the subject of significant policy initiatives and were beyond the capacity of the committee to address, such as alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence, and local economic development. Continued action is required on these high-level issues, as well as the recommendations put forward by the committee, to reduce youth suicide in the Territory.
This inquiry found that the greatest priority is the need to work better with what we have. The need for greater coordination and collaboration was raised with the committee wherever it went. The committee found there are significant service deficits in some areas, whilst in others there is a high degree of service duplication. Also, too often we heard of successful and vital programs closing or losing staff because a grant program had ceased or changed its priorities. It is, therefore, essential that the government takes up Recommendations 19 and 23 regarding the mapping of youth and community services and funding across the Territory, and establishing a new high-level suicide prevention coordination committee with the authority and resources to ensure agencies and organisations are working together and providing services where they are needed. Recommendations 20 and 22 are also targeted at improving the way we deliver services and are a high priority for the committee.
The second priority is to ensure there are people for our youth to turn to in times of crisis and to help them through the transition from childhood to mature adults. This includes access to counselling and mental health services, youth workers, and mentors. The committee, therefore, calls on the government to give close and favourable consideration to Recommendations 1, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 18 to improve access to youth-specific and youth friendly counselling, allied health and mental health services; and Recommendations 6, 10, and 11 to improve access to positive role models and life-promoting opportunities.
The critical role that schools play in the lives of young people was another issue that arose repeatedly. Schools make a significant contribution in building resilience and the development of the skills young people require to be able to manage and navigate the difficulties and challenges of life. Recommendations 4, 5 and 9 referred to strategies to improve the capacity of schools to help students in this regard, including ensuring teachers have access to professional development opportunities relating to mental health and wellbeing to assist them in recognising and assisting young people at risk of suicide; adequate provision of school counsellors; a reviewing of policies on the use of mobile phones during school hours; and the prevention of cyber bullying.
The lack of infrastructure to support service delivery in rural, regional and remote areas was also highlighted as an area of significant concern, in particular, the availability of staff housing and facilities such as youth drop-in centres. The committee, therefore, considers that Recommendations 2 and 3 must be addressed to facilitate the development of strong and healthy communities.
The response to a suicide can make a considerable difference to the lives of the bereaved and can dramatically reduce the chance of further suicide in imitation. We need to both better equip those who deal with the bereaved and provide those bereaved by suicide better access to services to help them through this difficult time. Recommendation 15 calls for the Department of Education and Training to review its emergency preparedness policy to incorporate specific procedures to respond to suicide as a matter of priority. Recommendations 16 and 17 acknowledge the importance of providing bereavement training, debriefing procedures and counselling support for all frontline staff required to respond to those bereaved by suicide. They also call for the provision of resources to the Coroner’s office to ensure those bereaved through suicide have appropriate access to fully-qualified bereavement counselling.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who provided submissions to the inquiry or attended its hearings and forums. It was both humbling and inspiring to hear of the dedication of the many people across the Territory who are providing help to those in need, and of the time and initiative many have taken to strengthen their communities. The committee also thanks all those people who shared their personal, and often painful, stories to enable the community to better understand the issues around youth suicide. In particular, the committee thanks the young people who so generously gave of their time and shared their personal experience and the challenges they had faced with us.
I thank the other members of the committee, the Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy, Ms Lynne Walker; the member for Fannie Bay, Mr Michael Gunner; the member for Goyder, Ms Kezia Purick; and the member for Sanderson, Mr Peter Styles, for their commitment, understanding and finding solutions to the problem of youth suicide.
On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the Committee Secretariat: Russell Keith; Clerk Assistant of Committees; Julie Knight, Committee Secretary; Maria Viegas, Research Officer; Lauren Copley, Research Assistant; and Kim Cowcher, Committee Administration Officer.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Building On Our Strengths – A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012 -
Second Progress Report 2010 - 2012
Building On Our Strengths – A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012 -
Second Progress Report 2010 - 2012
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Speaker, I table Building On Our Strengths - A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 – 2012, second progress report 2010 - 2012.
MOTION
Note Paper – Building on Our Strengths – A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012 –
Second Progress Report 2010 - 2012
Note Paper – Building on Our Strengths – A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012 –
Second Progress Report 2010 - 2012
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Speaker, I present the second and final progress report on the government’s policy for women, Building On Our Strengths - A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008 - 2012. This policy was created after extensive consultation with Northern Territory women, and the framework was built around five key priority areas for action: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; participation and leadership, and life balance.
I stand today proud of the achievements made within the last two years, but also with a high awareness of setting goals for the next four years. The time span of this progress report has seen significant changes for women at the national level, with the introduction by the federal Labor government of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, a national women’s health policy, and the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children and, recently, a renewed national focus to deliver on commitments to achieve gender equality for women in Australia.
While I will elaborate upon my statement at a later stage, I wish to now highlight some of the achievements of the government over the last two years. Under the Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture program, we have seen the delivery of integrated maternity services to Territory women, enhanced service delivery through the six dedicated remote areas midwives, and the building of the hostel in Darwin for Indigenous expectant mothers from remote areas.
Our government has expanded alcohol and drug rehabilitation services in remote communities and increased our investment in women’s sport and infrastructure.
We stand firm in our commitment to enhancing women’s economic security. The annual Chief Minister’s Scholarships for Women managed by the Office of Women’s Policy, and the Department of Business and Employment’s International Women’s Day Return to Study Grants, assist women through tertiary studies to gain their first formal qualification in order to improve their employability and increase their earning capacity.
Our government has also funded a Business Women’s forum and enhanced Indigenous women’s employment through the More Indigenous Teachers program, as well as supporting the Indigenous Women Marine Rangers program and the Girls at the Centre program.
Improving women’s leadership is a key area of the Territory 2030 strategy. Tools to address this issue have been developed through the enhanced Women On Board Register which matches vacancies on decision-making bodies with interested women. We have made great progress in increasing the role of women in local government through grants and seminars, as well as encouraging women’s leadership in governance as part of the A Working Future initiatives.
The achievements made within the last four years have much to do with the hard work by the Office of Women’s Policy. Led by its manager, Ms Janette Galton, OWP has passionately advocated to further the opportunities for all women right across the Northern Territory. I thank Janette for her unwavering commitment and support in this area.
Before I adjourn to continue my remarks at a later date, I reflect on the 2012 Tribute Awards I had the honour of presenting at last month’s International Women’s Day events. This year I had the privilege to acknowledge three Territory women:
Jane Tye, a pioneer woman, for her contribution as a steadfastly loyal midwife and early advocate for Chinese Australians in the Territory;
Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra, for her commitment to cross-cultural reconciliation and her contribution to economic and social outcomes for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory; and
Vicki Schultz for her contribution as an inspirational role model, mentor and for improving the lives of young Territorians.
These award recipients are symbolic of where we are with women’s policy and where we need to be heading.
Jane Tye, a life lived during the pioneer period of the Territory, is an early advocate for cross-cultural understanding. Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra spent her life time committed to furthering reconciliation and advocating for Indigenous people. Vicki Schultz - as I watched this young lady give her acceptance speech, I could see how much she encompasses the Territory and where we should be heading with women’s policy. Vicki has benefited from our history of strong pioneering women, but has stamped her mark on the Territory with her own passions and style of leadership.
Tomorrow, we will be having the Top End forum to contribute to the new women’s policy. As the tribute awards illustrate, we need to celebrate and build upon successes, but also continue to eliminate the barriers facing women across the community across the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Is it possible for me to enter this debate now, Madam Speaker, or do I have to wait until such time as we return to it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave has already been granted, so it has, effectively, been adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK: I was on my feet, Madam Speaker, in any instance …
Madam SPEAKER: It has already been adjourned, though.
Mr ELFERINK: I was on my feet. You were not looking in my direction, I suspect. I have a couple of simple questions I would not mind the minister answering, if I may, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think the minister will be answering them tonight, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, not now, but she can at some other point ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you wish, this will be your entire speech then ...
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it will be my entire speech.
Madam SPEAKER: … but it is not up to the minister to respond tonight.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I am not asking her to respond tonight, but there are just a couple of issues I would like to raise, Madam Speaker. The issue I would like to raise tonight arises particularly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to hinder the member for Port Darwin. Procedurally, if the member for Port Darwin gives his speech now, we adjourn this at the end of that. Is that how it is going to work?
Madam SPEAKER: That is the end of this, yes, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am happy with that, it is fine.
The reason I raise this issue is I would like to hear from the minister some procedural answers as to how these women who have been acknowledged in the tribute for Territory women were actually selected. I listened to the three names selected - Jane Tye, Stephanie Thompson Nganjmirra and Vicki Schultz - and doubtlessly they are deserving recipients of such a tribute.
Whilst we are told about how these people were acknowledged in the community, I find it curious what the process is that was followed. I would like to ask some questions about that. I would like the minister to turn her attention to this particular issue. What was the panel? How was the panel convened? Who was considered and why were they considered? Why were some people discounted?
It has come to my attention that Annette Burke, the former Mayor of Palmerston and a great worker in our community, was nominated - whilst she was overseas but, nevertheless, nominated - in relation to the tribute for Territory women. Those people who nominated her received a letter saying ‘not good enough’. Considering the enormous work Annette Burke has done over the years for the people of the Northern Territory, as the Mayor for Palmerston and any other number of roles she has participated in, in the community, I find ‘not good enough’ a very surprising result - and not good enough. If Annette Burke is not good enough, well, I will go he, quite frankly. The work she has done for the people of the Northern Territory, and Palmerston in particular, has been huge.
The first part of the nomination was a response to seven criteria which included the nominee’s life activities, achievements, involvement, and contribution to the NT community. Annette Burke’s nominators gave 20 examples on their nomination form, from her time in the Northern Territory: a contribution as an inspirational role model and leader; a contribution to improving the lives of Territorians; the degree of difficulty of achievement and challenges overcome; two statements of support - and there were four from the YMCA, when she was chair, deputy chair and public officer; support from Richard Ryan, the former Chancellor of the CDU - and it goes on and on.
The minister needs to explain to the people of the Northern Territory what the selection process is, and what makes Annette Burke not good enough to be recognised in a tribute of Territory women. I cannot think of – well, I will rephrase that. Annette Burke would be thoroughly deserving of such a tribute. I would hate to think the process that was gone through actually did not involve a panel, and a proper scrutiny process, and the decision was made in some arbitrary fashion somewhere in an office with someone just doing a tick-and-flick process. If that is the case, then the process has been diminished and, in the process of doing that, you have diminished not only Annette Burke but the other women you talk about, because those women also deserve to have their applications properly scrutinised. I would hate to see the politicisation of the Office of Women’s Policy through a process, or lack of a process, when people like Annette Burke are tipped out and passed over.
That is what I want to hear from the minister. It is all this touchy, feely stuff she bangs on about when she walks into this place, but people were disappointed when Annette Burke was passed over and people were disappointed to receive a ‘not good enough’ letter in reply.
I would like to know how many nominations there were, and who else was passed over and why. If this process is not clear, not transparent, and has not followed a fair and just process, then this government has potentially not only embarrassed Annette Burke who did not receive a tick from this committee, but also those people who did receive a tick from this committee.
Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon this government to stand up in this place and explain the process in detail to reassure me and other people in the Northern Territory that it is apolitical and not interfered with. If there is a filter in place which sees a former Mayor of Palmerston passed over, simply because government would not like the result and the attendant publicity which may go with it, then woe betide this government. I am deeply concerned that is what has occurred in this case.
As I understand it, the nomination for Annette Burke was fulsome; it was 70 pages long. To fill out all of the details which were filled out - people cared enough to very carefully put together a good and solid nomination for Annette Burke. Her absence from this list is noticeable. I ask the minister to explain the process to demonstrate it was properly and dutifully followed.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Long-term Strategic Planning for the Palmerston and Rural Areas – Health and Education Needs
Long-term Strategic Planning for the Palmerston and Rural Areas – Health and Education Needs
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain.
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day, the following definite matter of public importance: the requirement for long-term strategic planning for the Palmerston and rural areas to meet future health and education needs.
It is signed by the member for Blain.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is definitely a matter of public importance. I speak, first, as a resident of Palmerston who has resided in Palmerston for nearly 23 years, having raised a family and representing those who have raised their families in Palmerston, and having close association with the rural area.
The issues around planning are very much in the public mind. You only have to look at the decisions which were made around the development of Palmerston. We live with mistakes which were made some time ago. We have tried to respond to the planning problems around the CBD.
I will now talk about something we can do in response to a growing concern within the Palmerston and rural area over health and education.
First, by way of background, I will introduce the concerns around health. As I prefaced my comments around the matter of public importance, it is the provision of health. Palmerston is a growing community. When I arrived with my wife and two young kids, there were just over 6000 people there. In those early days, it was a well-connected community. We seemed to know where to go if our child had a temperature. There was no questioning, no doubt, and no confusion; you knew where to go. You knew where the doctors were. You knew after hours where you would go. Then, the town grew, as did the expectation that there would be provided greater availability of medical services in Palmerston and the greater Palmerston area.
At the same time, with the increased population and with the Defence build-up, it was presumed, with the health requirements of the Defence families, it would be sensible to provide a secondary hospital or some facility in Palmerston that could take some of the pressure off Darwin. With a growing population, it was for many years - and it still is in some measures - the fastest-growing municipality in the country. With those times of rapid growth, for year after year, the expectations grew; the connections in the community seemed to separate a little so it was not so clear where you would go. Out of that came the provision of the Farrar after-hours medical clinic. It was positioned so it could be accessed by those in the growing rural area as well. The population was expanding. It was an area where you had fewer GPs per head of population than anywhere else in the Northern Territory, including remote Territory. It was a real problem and it required longer-term planning. Recognising that the centre of the population growth had moved to that area, it required longer-term and careful consideration of those trends and how you would respond to it.
It was the Country Liberals, in 1999, that put down the stakes for what is now the health precinct. There was the expectation that, at any time you had an emergency, a family knew where to go. That certainty was judged to be critical. For a period of time, that did exist. I still have photographs of the signs that were there to help families know where they were to go in their time of an emergency, that time of anxiety.
There was the change of government in 2001. For a government that is not known for its swift decision-making, one of the fastest decisions it has ever made was an assessment of the 24-hour clinic in Palmerston was conducted and it decided to close it. It was a very swift review and decision, most uncharacteristic of what we have come to know as the Territory Labor government in its 10 or more years. Then we had confusion. Was it 24 hours, which was a provision of something that was expected by the community, or was it now less? No, it became after hours. What hours? When a parent wanted to know where to go, they were uncertain about where to go.
Then, moving along, about 20 000 signatures of concerned families and people in the Palmerston and rural area were presented to this parliament. They wanted certainty, clarity, and that their concerns were being taken seriously. I still remember the response at the time was not to extend the availability of health services in Palmerston, but to actually stop it - or reduce or remove the subsidy that allowed the after-hours clinic to operate. In a sense, the Palmerston and rural communities were being used as political playthings.
It was confirmed when Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, then announced a super clinic to save the day. The super clinic was then spoken of, and it sounded like it was something to meet the needs of Palmerston. There seemed to be some kind of political manoeuvring going on, playing with the concerns of families wanting to meet the needs of their kids, and after-hours medical services was being engineered so we could have this thing called a super clinic. It was certainly over-sold, as is typical of the Labor administration – it was very well publicised and promoted. When it finally arrived it did not seem to match the description of what was on its way.
We now have a situation where there still is a need for a longer-term response for the people in Palmerston and the rural area to be taken seriously. They need a hospital. We announced a hospital, as was fitting - recognising and hearing the community, there needed to be that response. It was announced in the campaign of 2008, described then by the current Chief Minister as a cruel hoax. Then, after a year or so went by, it was announced - almost identical, but the location is different. That is the background.
The issue is when decisions are being made for a community, to me, in my time as a local member and a resident of a community, getting a sense of what we should do responsibly, we need to ensure we ask some very serious questions and allow the community the opportunity to engage around those very genuine questions so the right decisions can be made on their behalf, and not on behalf of some process around whether it is a federal campaign, it is a super clinic - whether it used to be something run by the CLP, let us change it. These things are just the playthings and, ultimately, the community judges those types of decisions quite harshly. In fact, it erodes any confidence people have in the political process because it is meant to serve the interests of the people.
A hospital, which was once a cruel hoax, has now been identified and I understand is being designed. However, when there was a presentation in Palmerston, the alarm bells rang. There is just a deep annoyance in Palmerston and the rural area about this hospital.
A basic question I do not believe has been asked or answered: is it positioned to meet long-term requirements? What process have you gone through to identify, in an objective sense, its positioning in light of projected numbers, the type of service it would offer; whether it be specialisation you would be aiming for in the longer term, whether it be general? The decision on the location has also caused some concern. What process has the government gone through in identifying this site as the best location?
There are some important longer-term questions. I can see the short-term sense, but I believe the community - particularly the Palmerston and rural community – is fed up with the short-termsim. We already have a CBD. Okay, it is not the fault of the current government; the CBD is the fault of a former administration not a Labor one. We have a mess there and we have to live with that. However, we have been mucked around with health.
Some questions need to be answered regarding the location, and it is time for a genuine public forum to engage on these things. How does the decision to locate it there articulate with the predicted growth trends in Palmerston and the rural area? How does it relate to Weddell? These issues need to be presented in a coherent way. I have seen a presentation in Palmerston. I believe it requires the minister to come out and explain these things to the residents because it certainly did not provide the residents with the answers to the questions they were seeking.
Another question over the location: is that location suitable for access, given you have, I assume, asked the longer-term question of what is the shape of this catchment area? What is its demography? How should it articulate and connect to Royal Darwin Hospital? What are the longer-term plans? What is the design and on what basis was the design chosen? Does it have scope for growth? What level of genuine engagement has been undertaken with the community? What questions have been asked of the community - that is in Palmerston and rural - and also the health profession? How have they been involved in this process so we can look ahead and, in five, 10, 15, 20 years time, actually see something? The decision that is made today has some coherence, but it appears it is fragmented and a response to a short-term requirement.
Dare I say, do not ever let it happen, but it appears that you want some kind of announcement before 25 August over this hospital. I do not believe the right questions have actually been presented, or the community been given the opportunity to engage those questions in a thoughtful way. The only consultation that appears to have been taken is: ‘Let us come together and work out the name of the place’. Guess what name they came up with? Palmerston Hospital!
We need a bit more honesty over your desire to genuinely engage the community. What I started with, in 1989, 1990, was a connection; people knew why something was there, when it was opened, and what services it provided. However, in the last 12 years, there has been such fragmentation, and issues like health have become the plaything of politics, which has eroded that connectedness within the community. I know it for a fact, because people do not know where to go anymore, and they have lost their confidence in the things that have been oversold and under-delivered. That is health.
Now to education: I said at the outset this is to do with CDU, and I hold government in a position of responsibility here. I accept there is a need for additional housing in Palmerston and the rural area - make no mistake about it. The Chief Minister cannot stand up and say: ‘Oh, well, things are going to go gangbusters. We have to prepare for 70 000 people’. Well, we certainly do. We have much more planning to do than trying to work out how we can position ourselves for 25 August. We have much more serious issues to deal with.
So, when it comes to a decision to take some of the university land and make it residential, I have no problems with that. None of my colleagues have any problems with that basic response; there is a need. However, what is required, though - and this is the difficult work of a government - is to satisfy the deeper concern, that deeper obligation of: on what basis was that decision made? How did it come to be that was the right amount of land? What assurances does the government have that decision was made on a sound basis? Do we just take your word for it? Do we just take the university’s word for it?
If that be the case, there has to be a level of honest engagement with the community because the contract has been entered into; that is, in 1994 that land was gifted to the Northern Territory university. It was 154 ha of land. It was gifted for a specific and explicit purpose and, if that purpose has changed, there needs to be an explanation. Whilst the explanation is that it provides general benefit to the enterprise of tertiary education in the Territory - which is fine - the land is situated in Palmerston. I would have thought a responsible government which cares about such things would have seen that as an opportunity to engage and speak directly to the community about things that really matter to them: the long-term planning around tertiary education delivery at Palmerston and in the rural areas. However, that has not happened. There has been some discussion, some nod and a wink it appears, between government and Charles Darwin University. The outside observer is uncertain whether the decision-making on these important matters about long-term educational requirements for our kids has been explained.
I will make it clear: there is no problem with land being turned over for residential development in Palmerston. I have no problem with the Charles Darwin University; I am a proud and long-term supporter of the university. Professor Barney Glover is doing an outstanding job. What is required is to see this as an opportunity - an opportunity that has almost slipped. We can do something special here. You can take this opportunity to strengthen the connection with Palmerston and the rural area by engaging, in a genuine way, with that community about your plans, hear the aspirations the families in this area have for tertiary education, and respond.
I assume the amount of land which has been set aside is based on a plan. That plan needs to be communicated to the community. Something special can come out of this. It is a shame that government, in its panic to try to find some land to release, overlooked this requirement. It is not this or that, you can have both. However, the most important requirement is to ensure you talk to people about things which really matter to them
They are concerned about health, and I do not believe you have treated them seriously. I was at the forum, and I have never seen a minister turn up to any of these things. They will send someone along to have a chat. The seniors were asking such important questions that I thought it was sad the person who was standing out the front of the seniors’ forum was quite exposed – as a part of a process that had not genuinely engaged the serious questions around health delivery in Palmerston. There is an opportunity there now. Do not miss it! For goodness sake, do not lock yourself into the process, once again. A little warning for you - I know the member for Johnston likes to give political advice - do not do it! Do not take the temptation of resorting to glossy brochures and ads saying, ‘Boy, have we got a deal for you’ because, when it comes to health, the people of Palmerston and the rural area are over it. They can see right through you. The health area has been oversold and sadly under-delivered and people do not trust it anymore. They want some honesty and genuine engagement and a response which is coherent and is not a political response.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a wonderful opportunity with the university. I put on the record that I am more than happy to throw myself into this and work with the Vice-Chancellor and the local community to develop a plan which builds the confidence of local families in Palmerston and the rural area, and ask some of those nagging bigger questions regarding Palmerston. Government seems to be preoccupied with Weddell, but Palmerston health and education issues are critical. I urge government to start to talk about how those things interact with each other and take the community seriously. This is a matter of public importance, particularly for families, now and into the future.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not a temporary Territory resident. I have a great deal of red dirt and the green tropics in my blood. That will remain the same no matter what happens.
I have been working with the Durack Residents Group for over 18 months. Durack is part of my electorate and part of this MPI. First, I will touch on some of our health needs. It may make it a little uncomfortable for some of the former and current ministers on the other side. It is clear, when we look at the future needs of our communities - whether that be Gunbalanya, Elcho or any of our other communities - we need to ensure we plan clearly for future growth and need, not for today. When we only plan for today we seem to find ourselves always falling short. Unfortunately, we saw that with our housing growth demands. We seem to target what the needs are today. We found ourselves falling short in the Territory, with people who were, essentially, homeless, or they were double- or triple-bunked in someone else’s house to try to get by. Subsequently, those people left.
What we need to do with our health needs in Palmerston, as the current Health Minister knows, and as the former Health Minister also knows - the former Health Minister, Dr Chris Burns, an eminent young man, unfortunately, in 2008, called the Country Liberals’ proposal for a hospital in Palmerston a cruel farce. That was disappointing to hear, because I thought he was a man who would plan for the future, not back to the future.
What we now see is the current government promising what we had promised in 2008, that is, a hospital for Palmerston. That should be applauded. However, what must clearly be done, and under public scrutiny, is a business plan - a model that will demonstrate what is required for the growth needs of Palmerston and rural, including Weddell, and whether that hospital on their proposed patch of land will have enough space for growth. It must have enough room to grow. We know our current hospital is getting pretty tight. It has some fantastic new facilities there - doesn’t it, Health Minister? He is playing on his iPad ...
Dr Burns: He is researching.
Mr BOHLIN: He is researching on the iPad. The thing is we know the current plan for the Palmerston Hospital is perhaps on too small a block of land. We have not seen what the projected growth and the demands are for that hospital. We need to ensure that is part of this rigorous planning process, because Palmerston, rural, and the Northern Territory, needs to know its needs are being met by whichever government is in power at the time.
I move away from that now on to CDU education requirements. This is the area I have spent most of my time in the last 18 months, focusing, working with the community groups. The Durack Residents Group has been a very active group over a long period of time. It is quite a substantial group. What we see here is 18 months worth of work from the community, supported by their local member – me - but we do not see a minister. We see letters, questions being asked, obviously media releases being issued, DCA meetings occurring, questions being put, objections being put, objections by the Palmerston City Council being put to the DCA, yet we still do not see a minister hitting the ground to explain to the people of Palmerston what the government intends to do. It is the minister’s responsibility in the long run; it is not just the DCA’s. It is easy to hand it over and say: ‘That is a DCA decision, we cannot get involved’. The reality is, that side is government and the DCA is an arm of that government. They have a role to play.
It has been disappointing for a long time during a long, quite sedate, concerted effort. These people have maintained quite a dignified approach to this. We still have not seen that minister, unfortunately, although Professor Barney Glover has done a great job within the university, offering a great future for Territorians. That has also been a little quiet. There has been a call, for some time, for a master plan for the Palmerston Campus. It is pretty much like that of the hospital, to demonstrate to the people - the primary users of the facility and the only reason the facility exists. The facility at CDU was created for the people, therefore, it should be accountable to the people. It is there for the people, created for the people, and should be accountable to the people. There have been calls for a master plan to clearly define the projected growth needs for a university in the Palmerston area.
I will move back to 1998 and the development of Durack; what was then called Fairway Waters. As part of that development consent, it was a requirement for a master plan to be drawn up for the Palmerston CDU Campus. That master plan was drawn up. In fact, last week in Palmerston, I displayed that master plan to the DCA meeting and asked the DCA members to bear in mind that in 1998 a master plan was required when giving approval for the development of another portion of the university land. It is not the first time it has happened, and it included a school at the time, which is now well and truly full – Durack is a beautiful school.
What I pointed out in the master plan from 1998 is 50% of the land intended to be developed into housing - and we need housing; we definitely need affordable family housing – which is now proposed, was campus. The master plan has the whole area covered in buildings. In 1998, the then Vice-Chancellor, and the entire board of CDU, decided this was going to be the growth. It disappoints me that I do not have a copy of that with me today. This was going to be the growth requirements for the Territory and for the broader reach of CDU. When I say broader reach, I am talking about reaching to our close neighbours, offering opportunities for educational outcomes across our seas as well as interstate.
However, in 2011 - starting late 2009 into 2010 - there was no requirement for that master plan. All we have heard is: ‘Yes, there is plenty of land. No worries mate, she’ll be fine, cobber. Trust me’. First, we have not seen the minister so we cannot say it is a political twist on words, but a company has been contracted to do the job - ‘Trust me’. We are talking about a large amount of money - millions of dollars.
In 1998, there was a requirement for a master plan. All the community is now asking - and it was asked at the DCA meeting - let us have a master plan to demonstrate to the people whether this land is going to be left. This one-third of the existing land, is that going to be enough to service not just Palmerston but rural education needs in the future? I am not just talking about the next five years, guys, I am talking about the next 20-plus years. Let us get out of this cycle of thinking it is a political five- or four-year gain time. Let us talk about serious planning.
That is what they are asking. They know when they are asking this question, they are asking not just for Palmerston rural, but they are asking for the rest of the Territory. They are asking for those young people, and some not-so-young people, all around Australia or from overseas, who want to get a good education from Charles Darwin University. We have had proud ties with overseas countries in delivering education outcomes through CDU. We should be proud of that, as Territorians. However, let us see a proper master plan for this. It is important to have it. It is important to ensure we have enough.
Is there enough land? You have to remember when they say there is plenty of land there, which is some 33 acres or something similar to that figure, we have a big lake on that land, some tennis courts, two football ovals, some swampy land, and some existing facilities already. What is left of that 33 acres? Is it only 15 acres? Is that enough without imposing on the street frontage? We have Karawa, a beautiful place, a great cooking training facility. But, does it want to be surrounded by buildings so compacted that it cannot breathe?
The people in Durack, the Durack Residents Group, and the greater Drysdale electorate, are asking a very logical question on behalf of Territorians. First, they want to know why a minister has never bothered to show up anywhere. They want to know where a master plan is. If we can see that master plan, I am sure many of those people will be greatly satisfied that, if anything in life, they have achieved something that may have a meaning for Territorians for years to come; that they have done their bit, their lot in life, to ensure the educational needs of our people are met. Obviously, that master plan would want to include reasoning why it is greatly different from the expected growth needs from 1998. It is a stark contrast when you see the layout of the proposed building site - the land mass, the footprint - compared to what is now promised.
It is going to be exciting, though, no matter what, having growth in Palmerston – the fastest growing city in Australia. It is always exciting. As I said, it has been an absolute joy to be part of that growth and the community that actually cares enough to ask these questions. It is not always easy for these community groups to stand up and say: ‘Hang on, I do not feel right about the decision that has been made here’. Then, to get together and take a lot of energy and time to actually do something about it. That is good hard work that needs to be recognised, and it deserves a result which is a good, quality master plan, so we can see clearly now that the Palmerston Campus of CDU is fit for the future, and it has a great team backing it up. We know we have some great educators here; we just need to ensure they still have the right tools and the right space to grow into.
Please do not dismiss the requirement for good planning. Please do not get trapped into this thought that planning is only the next five years, just over the horizon of the next election. That is not far enough when planning our health needs and our educational needs. Minister, with your ears on, with your new directions - I cannot remember the phrase he likes using - a new beginning, a new era. Minister, with your new era, let us get back to some basics and get some serious planning happening and some accountability. If the replies I have had from you are an indication, your planning ability is pathetic. We need to be more careful because this is the future of all Territorians. No matter how long you sit in that chair, these are long-term decisions which are vital.
I thank the member for Blain for bringing on this MPI, because it is a matter of public importance. I repeat, it is not just a matter of public importance for Palmerston, Madam Deputy Speaker, but for the people from your electorate as well. It is for all Territorians and beyond.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to improving health and education services for all Territorians, no matter where they live. Our record is strong and we are proud of it. We are pleased to speak on this matter of public importance and the long-term strategic plans this government has in place for Palmerston and the rural area. I am pleased to be able to speak on just how important the Henderson government believes health and education are for the future of the Northern Territory.
Since we came to government in 2001, we have made record investments in health and education. We have increased the health funding by 149% since 2001. We delivered the Territory’s first billion-dollar health budget in 2009. In 2011, the health budget was standing at $1.12bn. This has provided record numbers of doctors and nurses throughout the Territory - 720 extra nurses, 250 extra doctors, and an additional 187 hospital beds. To name just a few major highlights, there are expanded facilities in primary care, super clinic, renal dialysis units in every major centre, speciality services such as the hospice, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and the birthing centre. In addition, we opened the Northern Territory’s first-ever full medical school in partnership with Flinders University, Charles Darwin University and the Australian government in February 2011. We have developed a clear pathway for Territory kids from preschool all the way through to senior school and into university, to train to become doctors without ever having to leave the Territory.
These achievements can only happen with a long-term strategic view to plan and develop the Territory. We have launched our vision for the future with our Territory 2030 strategic plan. There are six core priority areas in Territory 2030 with education, health and wellbeing key amongst them. Work is already well under way in these priorities.
Let me now turn my attention to health. Within the health priority, a commitment to provide and improve access to essential healthcare services is reinforced. The new hospital in Palmerston is a key priority in our Territory 2030 strategy, with $110m being committed to this project in partnership with the Australian government: $70m from the Australian government and $40m from the Northern Territory government.
The member for Blain asked questions about the planning of the hospital. I am going to give him some answers. Since the funding was announced in May last year, we have embarked on a comprehensive planning process integrating service demands for the greater Darwin region, including Palmerston and rural areas, to identify the service scope for the Palmerston Hospital. We have committed to two hospital campuses for the broader Darwin area, although the Royal Darwin Hospital will continue to function as the main tertiary hospital for the Top End Territory hospital network. Palmerston Hospital will not duplicate the highly-specialised and intensive services such as ICU, coronary care, or the cancer centre, but will address the needs of the region, bringing care closer to where people live.
A project task force comprising the Department of Health, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the Northern Territory Treasury, and an independent health planning infrastructural expert, has been established to oversee the project. Our planning process includes comprehensive consultation with clinicians, stakeholders and the community. A survey of Palmerston and rural residents was conducted last year to gain an understanding from the community about perceived health needs. A total of 183 questionnaires were completed. Key findings from the questionnaires included accident and emergency services as the highest ranking health priority for the Palmerston community, with almost nine out of 10 responses ranking it as a top priority. Other priorities identified were maternity services, outpatient clinics, children and youth services, general hospital services, and day surgery.
The service planning phase has been completed to align the required services with the changing pattern of demand through population projections and current service uses, plus any innovative model of care. Over 70 stakeholders were involved in the consultation last August and September to detail the service requirements. I do not know where the members for Blain and Drysdale were, because they either missed out, were not aware or, probably, did not turn up.
The Australasian Health Facility Guidelines have been used throughout the planning phases and have resulted in the plan for the Palmerston Hospital to provide the following services: an emergency department with short stay beds including paediatrics, two inpatient wards with up to 60 beds, maternity services, day surgery facilities, outpatients clinics, 24/7 medical imaging, pharmacy, and pathology.
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has undertaken the concept master development plan to include site investigation, site master planning, transport patterns, site infrastructure assessment, economic appraisals, staging expansion options, and social amenity including car parking. The multidesign consultancy contract, including the provision of architectural consultancy for the full range of planning and design services, has been awarded to Darwin-based firm, MKEA Architects Pty Ltd, which will partner with Suters Architects, experienced health facility architects based in Sydney and Melbourne. The early works tender has closed and has been evaluated to award. We expect to commence headworks this Dry Season.
The forward time line for the Palmerston Hospital is shaping up with the construction tender being advertised late in 2012 and awarded in early 2013. It is expected that construction will be completed in late 2015, with its fit-out and commission in the period to follow.
The site has been selected for the Palmerston Hospital on land adjacent to the Palmerston Super Clinic. This will make a hub of health and community services for the Palmerston and rural regions close to transport and retail centres. The Palmerston Super Clinic complements the existing services at the health precinct, including mothers and baby clinics, renal dialysis unit, public and private dental clinics, a general practitioner clinic, family planning, immunisation, community health, and domiciliary nursing.
We are committed to providing for the future health needs of the Palmerston and rural region. We have already delivered the $10m Palmerston GP Super Clinic to increase access to primary healthcare around the clock. Over 30 000 patients have received treatment at the daytime multidisciplinary service, and an average of 35 patients per night have received care at the urgent care after-hours clinic. The super clinic has been supported with the delivery of a new 24/7 ambulance for the Palmerston and rural region in our Budget 2009-10.
We have a strategic plan for Palmerston Hospital, staged to match changes in the greater Darwin population. As the population grows and changes in the region, we have the flexibility to expand services to meet the demands. We are currently negotiating with the Australian government for the appropriate level of resources to support a full range of health services for residents in the detention centre, including adequate ambulance services. Our planning process also provides opportunity to consider future investment in the Royal Darwin Hospital site to ensure the required service capacity across the whole region.
We do not believe in closing or scaling back the RDH like the Leader of the Opposition wants to do and, as he said on Mix 104.9 FM on 8 September 2011:
- To have the major hospital, Royal Darwin Hospital, stuck up so far away from the centre of population growth, I think the real issue is that we need to have a serious consideration about where the major hospital will be built and I don’t believe the right spot is Casuarina. That should be a secondary hospital ...
Let us have a look what the CLP has planned for health and education. Let us look at their recently launched manifesto 2012. There is nothing for health and education - no plans, no ideas, no policy, no funds. This is the record for the CLP. In the 2008 election, they made a weak attempt to build a hospital in Palmerston based on the promise of $100m - and no planning and no beds for 15 years. The only plan they had for the hospital was a car park - that is it. No other plan to address the demand on our health system: no super clinic, no more doctors or nurses, no additional beds until 2023.
Mr Abbott, the federal Leader of the Opposition, wants to scrap super clinics. The member for Solomon has never supported the northern suburbs super clinic, as she said in the federal parliament on 3 November 2011. There is little doubt they would scrap any effort to deliver on the northern suburbs super clinic. The CLP just do not care about you or your family’s health, and they have no plans for meeting the future needs.
The CLP situation with education is no different. They have no interest in providing quality education for Territorians. Only a few months out to the elections, and still they have no credible education policy. The government has said many times education is our No 1 priority. We say so because we know this is a key to delivering social, cultural, and economic development to benefit all Territorians. We know Territorians strongly believe education and training should be the government’s No 1 priority. They made that clear in Territory 2030. That is why we will continue to invest heavily in this area, with a record $930m budget in 2011-12.
We are a government that has a plan and a vision for education in the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategic planning has been at the core of the innovative approach we are taking to education, so we have the best schools and our students have the best opportunities ahead of them. Unlike the CLP, we take education seriously. We are serious about offering quality education to all Territorians, no matter where they live. We apply this equally to students in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, and the rural areas. We acknowledge there will be significant growth in demand for education services in Palmerston and the rural areas as the population continues to expand there. We are a forward-looking government. We are very strategic in the way we go about gearing up for growth.
To this end, education has played a significant role in managing Darwin’s Growth Steering Committee. The Department of Education and Training is already planning ahead to ensure adequate enrolment capacity, given the densification of Berrimah Farm, Darwin City, Coolalinga and Virginia, as well as new developments such as Lyons, Muirhead, Charles Darwin University village, Zuccoli, and Weddell. A number of precinct planning groups have been planning for population growth and, therefore, an increase in enrolment demand. This will be expanded in 2012 to a cross-sector education authority precinct planning group to map the needs for Palmerston, rural, and Weddell.
Precinct planning groups involve school principals and, where appropriate, executive teams that include developers and planners. Together, they consider current infrastructure needs, current operating capacity, and options across individual schools and precincts to support densification of existing, and development of new suburbs. As part of this process, DET has contacted every school and is collating data in order to obtain school capacity information following the conclusion of the Building the Education Revolution which provided new facilities and new classrooms.
The members opposite squirm in their seats at the mention of BER because they opposed it. They opposed $270m of infrastructure in Territory schools and said they did not want these facilities. However, like the hypocrites they are, they turn up at all the openings for a piece of cake and a photo for their newsletters.
Strategic planning is in progress to ensure the investment of social infrastructure for education. It is targeted at growth areas and delivers where there is demand. In relation to new schools in the suburbs of Palmerston and rural areas, planning is highly dependent on population growth, yield, and density. Strategic infrastructure planning also includes working with the non-government sector to meet demands for choice in education services and, therefore, maximise the investment of both government and private investment in infrastructure.
The non-government sector plays an important role with investments in Palmerston such as the new Lutheran middle school at Howard Springs, the new Mary MacKillop Catholic College, and the St Francis of Assisi School at Humpty Doo. DET has commenced a review of all school capacities in the greater Darwin area, including Palmerston and rural, and analysing current 2012 enrolment data with the recently published population projections in order to test and evaluate the overall demand and utilisation of assets. This is important post the Building the Education Revolution, as the nation building project provided opportunities for DET to increase school capacity in Palmerston and rural areas.
This current review and analysis will provide evidence-based data for DET to plan for, and government to invest in, new schools and school expansion projects. DET has delivered the key elements outlined in the Palmerston Strategic Infrastructure Plan of 2007, including establishment of the Palmerston Senior College, the new middle and primary schools at Rosebery, and the inclusion of an additional cyclone centre for Palmerston, funding and support for the new Catholic Education middle school, and a new special school planned for Bellamack.
Planning is progressed for new schools at Zuccoli, and land has been set aside for educational purposes. The Catholic Education Office has expressed interest in building a new school at Zuccoli. Currently, planning is based around in-principle support for a co-located but separate Catholic and government school. DET has been involved in the planning and design process for Weddell and has provided advice on the quantum of school infrastructure required to cater for a future population.
The Henderson government has a proud record of investment in education infrastructure in the Palmerston and rural area. The following works have recently been completed in government schools in Palmerston and the rural area: new state-of-the-art Rosebery Middle and Primary School at a cost of $57m; new Farrar childcare centre funded by the Commonwealth at a cost of $0.1m; new classrooms worth $1.3m at Woodroffe Primary, Durack Primary and Bees Creek Primary Schools; Palmerston High School received $12.9m for construction of a new senior wing; and Taminmin College has been the recipient of $13.4m for middle years schooling and a trade training centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has planned for Palmerston, will continue to work with the community to fulfil its plan for Palmerston, and the only people who express any concern about Palmerston is the opposition, which has no plans at all.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak on this MPI because it mentions the word ‘rural’. I cannot let that go without saying a few words.
I have listened to some of the discussions over the evening about strategic planning for Palmerston and rural areas. There are certainly some concerns in the rural area. Perhaps I could give a summary of how much growth is occurring in the rural area at the moment. The Good Shepherd Lutheran school is expanding – I think it has about 650 students - and is going to go to a full primary school, as well as a full secondary school. We have new subdivisions, the INPEX construction village, the Howard Springs pine forest is being targeted as a future rural subdivision, the new shopping centre and subdivision at Coolalinga, and the development of the prison.
The government has not quite planned quickly enough for the development that is occurring. If I threw in the MacKillop Catholic secondary school on Lambrick Avenue, one can get an understanding of how much the traffic is being escalated because of the development that is occurring in this area.
I heard what the member for Blain said about the site of the hospital. I remember the CLP originally wanted the hospital located on the corner of Lambrick Avenue and the Stuart Highway. Unfortunately, that is a heritage site called the 17 Mile - it has another name which escapes me at the moment – where the American Army was camped during World War II. I always felt the site should have been straight across the road from that site, on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The reason for that site is because this hospital is not just about Palmerston. The member for Blain said the government’s only decision, more or less, was to decide what name it is. I actually think it should be called the Palmerston rural or Palmerston and district hospital, because that is what it is meant to serve.
You need these hospitals on the main highways because anyone who has tried to get to the hospital at Casuarina from the rural area gets seasick by the time they get there. It certainly is not the hospital you want to get to when you are in a hurry because there really is not a direct route to it. The reason I always felt the hospital should go on that intersection near the corner of Lambrick Avenue, Howard Springs Road and Stuart Highway is because it would easily be accessible to Palmerston people by Lambrick Avenue and the Stuart Highway, and for people in the Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, and down the track areas because it would be right on the highway.
There was the issue about whether there was enough planning. I look at the Darwin hospital today and ask who planned for car parking at the Darwin hospital? It is certainly a difficult area to find a car park. I know there has been some work trying to move some of the staff cars away from the area closest to the hospital. However, I wonder when I go past Palmerston whether there is going to be adequate car parking where the hospital is going to go. There is not a lot of room, and you want to allow some places for trees to grow. However, I believe an alternative would have been on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The land is Crown land and would have been accessible for both Palmerston and rural residents.
In relation to the rural area, the government has issued its Greater Darwin Plan which talks about social needs assessments undertaken to ensure provision of land for long-term planning for health facilities. It talks about health and wellbeing. One of those areas we need to look at is aged care, because the Greater Darwin Plan talks about services for senior Territorians and people with a disability or requiring rehabilitation.
There are two things that are needed in the rural area at the moment. One is a retirement village/aged care, and one is a full-time ambulance service at Humpty Doo. We have the fire service, the police station, but there is a need now to complement those services with an ambulance service. We have, for some time, had the Humpty Doo Cadets, and we are now developing a new group, the Livingstone Cadets, which is terrific. However, there is room for a full-time St John Ambulance presence in the rural area. The rural area is supposed to be the fastest growing area, yet it does not have some of the facilities that other areas of a similar size would have. That is something that would be beneficial. To have an ambulance service that would service both the Cox Peninsula, the Marrakai region, and as far down as the Batchelor area - although Batchelor has its own ambulance - would still complement the coverage for that area. That needs to be looked at.
In relation to education, the Greater Darwin Plan the government has released says:
- Social needs assessments undertaken to ensure provision of land for long term planning for education facilities.
There are two issues which have been raised by the member for Drysdale; one was the university. I have also written to the minister in relation to the development of the university at Palmerston. I agree that we need to ensure there is adequate land for any expansion of the university in the Palmerston area, and that the amount of land being set aside is shown to the people to be adequate for future growth. That is the biggest concern for residents in that area. The university land borders on to my electorate around Tiger Brennan Drive, and rural people will be using those facilities as well. They, at least, need to have some comfort the university will have enough land to expand into the future, because Palmerston is not the only place that is going to expand. The rural area is going to expand; Robertson Barracks is probably going to expand as well. There is a possibility there will be partnerships between the university and Robertson Barracks as time goes on.
That the people in the Palmerston area, especially Durack, have not been given sufficient proof that enough land has been set aside for future expansion of the university, before a decision is made about subdividing the rest of the land into residential, is of some concern. The minister, in his role as the minister who would approve the rezoning of that area, needs to take that into consideration.
The big school in the rural area, besides the Good Shepherd Lutheran school, is Taminmin College. It is already over capacity and there is a great need for a new school, not only to be planned but to start to be constructed, possibly in the Weddell area. Taminmin College is already stretched to the limit. There is a requirement for good planning, not just for five or 10 years time, but to start building an extra secondary school now. The Good Shepherd Lutheran school and the MacKillop Catholic secondary school will take some students in the rural area, and that would probably take some load off Taminmin, but from the point of view of government schools, there needs to be urgent consideration for a secondary school. I suggest it has to be near Weddell to service not only the future township of Weddell but also the region nearby. People from Adelaide River, Batchelor, Dundee, Cox Peninsula and the southern part of the Litchfield Shire would find a public secondary school in that area a great facility, and it would give children an opportunity to go to school without having to travel long distances.
The government cannot sit around for too long and hope that Weddell will eventually happen; it needs to build the school now. Once it has decided on a plan for Weddell, it does not have to wait a long time for houses to be built there before it builds a school. The school can go out in the bush for the time being and let the development of Weddell come around it. If the government is serious about planning for the future then it has to do something about a new school.
Girraween Primary School has actually reached total capacity. It now has 15 classes. I was there the other day for Harmony Day. It has a great range of facilities. It has a new outdoor learning centre that is not quite completed that needs a kitchen. The new school council will be looking to try to raise funds, and I hope the government can perhaps contribute, even dollar-for-dollar, to get that facility up and running. It is a school that has nearly reached its limits. It is a very popular school in a growing area and it is desperately in need of facilities. For years, I have been asking the government to find out ways to open up the small district centre at Girraween itself. They do not have a day care centre in that area, and that is something that is urgently needed for residents of Girraween and around McMinns Lagoon.
This MPI raises some good issues. There is no doubt the government has brought out its Greater Darwin Plan and, whilst it is a good attempt, I must admit I think it is too broad, it is too aspirational. What it needs is a bit more guts in it, and it needs to deal with the issues as they are today, and those issues are changing all the time. There is talk about taking gravel from near Robertson Barracks and having large trucks travelling up and down Thorngate Road every 10 minutes. They are all the things that actually have not been planned for, because I am fairly sure that, in the documentation I saw about future major trucking routes, Thorngate Road was not included. So, things are changing fairly quickly. The government cannot always be relying on some plan that goes way into the future to do its planning; it actually has to keep its feet on the ground, because sometimes things change much quicker than the government has planned for. A classic example would be INPEX because of the change of plans about getting gravel.
The Good Shepherd Lutheran school is growing very fast. Many people are using that school, yet the facilities, the infrastructure, like the roads, are now becoming quite congested. Part of the reason for that is because of the increase in the number of people who come from Palmerston and drive their children to that school.
That planning is, somehow, missing at times. It might look good in a document, but on the ground nothing much has changed. I hope in this budget there will be some consideration for upgrading of roads such as Whitewood Road to take the increased traffic from trucks that are moving sand and gravel from that area, and the increased number of vehicles that are going between Palmerston and the Howards Springs area. Whether they are going to the MacKillop school, Good Shepherd Lutheran school or Howard Springs Primary School, there is much traffic on the road mixing with all the peak hour traffic. Anyone who has sat by the side of the Stuart Highway at 7.30 am at Howard Springs and notes how much traffic heads into town can only wonder where is it all going to end, because it is bumper to bumper at 7.30 am. It is a sign that the rural area is certainly growing. Government has at least been trying to offset some of that with park and ride facilities and trying to get people to catch public buses. However, the reality is, there are many people who use the roads in the rural areas to get to town.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for bringing forward this MPI. It is important that we plan. I get a bit worried about the planning of the hospital. I know the experts are looking at it, and we are told they have this all in hand. However, I sometimes feel we should have, perhaps, allowed the planning of the new hospital to go to a Public Accounts Committee. It would have been an ideal way of including the public in the planning, and it would have been a good way to look at options to see which was the best place to site the hospital. However, obviously, the government has made up its mind. The only thing I could say is, if you have made up your mind, maybe you can change the name of it, because Palmerston Rural will reflect the people it is going to serve; it is not just Palmerston Hospital.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I contribute briefly to this matter of public importance. My colleague, the member for Casuarina, covered the areas very thoroughly. There are a couple of issues I would like to touch on. One of them relates to something the member for Blain said about my words in 2008 that the CLP’s proposal for a hospital in Palmerston as being a cruel hoax.
I did that on the basis of two things when I was Health minister; one being the time frame this hospital was being promised in, which, from memory, was about 21 or 23 years. It was nothing more than a scoping study being announced by the Leader of the Opposition in 2008. Second, the money being put on the table by the Leader of the Opposition certainly was not for any reasonable hospital or what the man in the street, or the citizens of Palmerston, would expect in a hospital. We know the expense of building, maintaining, and staffing a hospital, and the whole issue around the specialists required, particularly if you are going to have accident and emergency, theatres, etcetera. My comments were based around that and, to some degree, I believe they have been taken out of context.
The second issue I will address briefly relates to the member for Drysdale, and others - the member for Nelson also touched on it – about planning issues and the proposed developments by the university on university land in Palmerston. There are a couple of things to lay on the record here. First, Charles Darwin University has its own act, has its own autonomy under the act, and has its own university council. There are some very eminent people, not only on that university council, but also advising it in a business sense. Justice Sally Thomas is currently the Chancellor of Charles Darwin University and preceding her, of course, was Mr Richard Ryan who is well-known to members in this House. He has made a great contribution over many years to the development of the Northern Territory. Richard Ryan certainly would have been in there advising and pointing to opportunities for the university, principally around the issue of being able to expand their student base.
One of the limitations on the expansion of their student base is accommodation. We have talked about this. There are rental pressures in Darwin, particularly for students, and difficulties for students to find accommodation. My understanding of the proposed development at CDU in Palmerston is it will provide quite a bit of accommodation for students, including overseas students.
I commend Charles Darwin University for the way it is engaging with nations to our north, in Asia and beyond, and trying to encourage students to study at Charles Darwin University. The university rankings recently published point to the fact that Charles Darwin University is becoming a more and more desirable destination for students from overseas. However, one of the impediments to that, of course, is the whole issue of accommodation for those students. Whilst there are other elements to the proposed development by Charles Darwin University, I say to members that a big part of it is expanding the student base.
In relation to the very important issue raised by the members for Drysdale, Nelson and Blain about ensuring there is enough land with the capacity to hold future developments for Charles Darwin University, I agree with that. In my discussions with Barney Glover, I will be alluding to the discussions in this Chamber tonight and putting forward the quite reasonable view put forward by members.
I am not being critical of the university or Barney Glover, but it is evident here tonight that the university probably should be engaging more with the community and explaining what its plans are. When that is done, many of the community concerns could be allayed. That is an important element.
The other thing to say about this whole thing is the finger is being pointed at the minister for Planning. Ultimately, as the member for Nelson said, the minister will have a final say, probably, on any rezoning application in relation to that development. I am sure the minister will exercise all the wisdom; he will gather the advice and take on board what has been said here tonight. However, ultimately, I do not think it is a good thing for Planning ministers to become too closely involved with processes at certain stages. It is good for ministers to hear what is being said, but some members opposite really need to have a good look at the Planning Act and see what the role of a Planning minister is. There is a bit of a misunderstanding by some members opposite about what a Planning minister should and should not be doing. There is no doubt that a Planning minister has powers which should be exercised appropriately at the right time, based on the right advice. I have every confidence in our Planning minister; that he will take all these matters into consideration. We have a Planning Act that has statutory processes in it, and it behoves everyone to understand what those processes are, and respect them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether there are other speakers to this MPI, but I commend the member for Blain for bringing it forward. There are important issues he has raised here tonight, and every member who has spoken tonight has spoken well. It is a very important issue, and these issues are ones the government has, and will, take on board. I have given my undertakings in relation to issues that have been raised within my portfolio area.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to an outstanding individual in the rural area, and the years of hard work and dedication to our rural lifestyle. I pay my respects and compliments to Mary Walshe, who has been the Litchfield Council President for over 10 years. I have known Mary and other members of her family for many years: Patrick, Danny, Joanne and Cecilia. Possibly, there are many more I do not know about, but it is a big family I know and talk to regularly. They are a great family and have done so much for the rural area, as well as the Territory generally.
Their parents, Neville and Helen, went to the rural area in or around 1967 when Humpty Doo was mostly dirt roads and considered a long way from Darwin. Mary’s parents were well ahead of their time and could see the potential for growth and, as a consequence, set up a small store on the side of the road, then turned their plans to a hotel which they built and, today, is the living legend I am sure Neville intended it to be; that is, the Humpty Doo Hotel.
It takes much commitment and hard work, and more so in those days of yesteryear, given where they were located and the transport methods. It shows me, and should show this House, that the family has been committed to the Territory, in particular the rural area of the Top End, for many years, if not many decades. To my knowledge, all, if not most of the children of Neville and Helen, live in the rural area, as do their offspring, and I am sure they would live nowhere else. From this background of hard work and commitment, love of the bush, and family upbringing of all giving to community, it was not surprising that Mary put her hand up for President, as it was called then and, now, the Mayor of Litchfield Council.
Since being in this job, I have crossed paths with Mary numerous times at events, sporting fixtures, meetings and socially. Whether it was Anzac Day, Australia Day and her being cheeky to the new Australians, watching family at polocrosse, to school end-of-year assemblies and the Freds Pass Show, Mary was charming and friendly always and happy to have a chat or put the record straight on many an issue we discussed. When I was first elected, Mary helped me understand what council did versus what NT government did and, in hindsight, it was the best advice I received, as many people in the community get the responsibilities mixed up and want government to fix something they cannot, and vice versa.
I always considered Mary’s position, first and foremost, was for the people of the rural area. She was only too happy to go in to bat for us and blast those who tried to either pick on us, downgrade us or, generally, not support us in a way she thought we should be supported as a community. Being an elected local government person and, in particular, being a mayor is not an easy job. In some ways, it is very much like a member of this parliament: people want everything fixed yesterday; do not understand why they have to pay rates; and have high expectations on all manner of issues, subjects, and rural issues.
However, from where I sat, Mary handled them all. I know that sometimes people thought Mary was a little tough, but fighting the good fight often needs a high level of toughness, particularly when fighting for grant money or fighting governments - whether it be the Northern Territory or the Commonwealth government.
It is my view that Mary is, and was, and will continue to be, an inspiration to all women and has performed exceptionally well in a difficult role. There is no doubt the rural area is facing increasing pressure. Mary was acutely aware of this and worked diligently and assiduously at getting us the best deal. Yes, many of us disagree where the rural pool should go, and, yes, we grumbled over our rubbish dumps - it is interesting how rural people value their dumps. However, some decisions were made and sometimes they are difficult decisions, yet Mary was not afraid to take on tough issues and make tough decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to Mary Walshe for leading the Litchfield Council over the last 10 years, and for her enduring commitment to the rural area. I am sure Mary will pop up again in a community role. I wish her, her family, and her extended family, all the very best in the future.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about Alice Springs, where my heart is, and where my family and life is based. At the sittings in February this year, the Chief Minister talked about Gearing Up for Growth in the Northern Territory. At the time, I raised the issue that not one mention was made of Alice Springs in his statement. Not one mention was made of Central Australia at all in this statement made by the Chief Minister about gearing for growth in the Northern Territory.
It is with much sadness that I bring it to the attention of parliament tonight that we commiserate 49 businesses closing in Alice Springs over the last few years - businesses owned and operated by people like me who have come to the town to have a go and to make the most of the wonderful opportunities in the town. I provide that information with much regret.
Last week, there was discussion in the media about the fact that two very distinguished businesses in town, the Alice Springs Memorial Club and the Town and Country Tavern, had closed. The Chief Minister responded by saying the people were talking the town down. The Chief Minister accused me, and the members for Greatorex and Braitling, of talking the town down because we dared to speak openly and publicly about the regret we had around yet two more very important enterprises in Alice Springs closing.
That seems to be the only response the Chief Minister has to anything that happens in Alice Springs that is not of a favourable nature: he routinely accuses us of talking the town down. Well, in this Parliament House of the Northern Territory, in which we are appointed to talk about these issues, you cannot accuse people of talking the town down when they are talking facts. It is not about a perception or an opinion; it is about fact. The fact of the matter is Alice Springs is facing a very serious crisis in its economy, in where the town is heading, and some of the problems we are facing. It is not talking the town down when we look at these things as brutally honestly as we possibly can. That is what we try to do in this House of Parliament, we flesh things out, debate them, analyse them and, sometimes, our assessment is not what the government wants to hear. That is when we are accused of talking the town down by the Chief Minister and various other members of government.
What we fail to hear from the government is any vision for Alice Springs, any plan forward, or how we are going to deal with these very difficult issues. It is very much based on the Chief Minister not wanting to take responsibility and be proactive in trying to address these issues.
Gina Rinehart came up with an idea which was quoted in the media about a month ago. She said that Alice Springs, like other major regional centres throughout Australia, could be used as a centre for bureaucracy; that instead of bureaucrats flying in and out of Canberra, they could, in fact, live in places like Alice Springs, contribute to the community, and work out of the town, and that would do a lot for regionalising Australia across the board. Gina Rinehart, who lives in Western Australia, has, I suppose, business interests throughout the country, and the world now. She was able to come up with a good idea about Alice Springs which I was very impressed with. I wrote her a letter commending her on having a vision this government sincerely lacks when it comes to Alice Springs.
Last week, the Police Commissioner was on radio in Alice Springs. He said there is an insatiable demand for police services in Alice Springs. He was very honest and very open. In relation to crime in Alice Springs and the problems we are experiencing, he said ‘there is an insatiable demand for police services’. I commend the Police Commissioner for saying that. It is probably the most frank and honest I have ever heard him speak when it comes to Alice Springs. He was not trying to dodge the bullets or pretend, as the Chief Minister does, that things are not as bad as they are. He was not flipping it over to the people raising the issues and accusing them of talking the town down; he was fairly up-front. He said, as I have repeated now, there is a problem and the police are confronted with an insatiable demand for their services. I commend the Police Commissioner in this situation and these circumstances for his frankness; for being honest with the people of Alice Springs. That is what we appreciate in Alice Springs and Central Australia: people who are honest and open because, in our circumstances where we are faced with such dire problems - and they are dire because they affect each and every one of us, either directly or indirectly - it is important there is some level of openness about how we discuss and address these issues.
However, we are not hearing from this government what its vision for Alice Springs is. The truth of the matter is, it does not really have one, nor has it ever had a plan for Alice Springs. It is really the poor cousin down the track, and that was truly reflected in the Chief Minister’s statement in February, Gearing Up for Growth in the Northern Territory. Alice Springs did not get a mention.
This government has been hell-bent on centralisation. It has been hell-bent on closing as much down in Alice Springs as possible and moving it up to Darwin. The Ombudsman’s Office closed several years ago. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment closed. Various key positions - for example, the Police Media Liaison position – were moved out of Alice Springs. One that was very important in the work I have been undertaking of late, the Childcare Regulator position, was removed from Alice Springs, which was inexplicable. There was no explanation; there was no real reason for that.
I happened to be at a meeting of childcare workers last Monday night. It was quite interesting, there was a lady there who had been newly recruited to a key position in the childcare industry. She, obviously, did not know the history of the position, and she advised the meeting the good news was that the Childcare Regulator would be visiting Alice Springs once a month. Those of us who had been around for more than six months really could not even think of words to respond to the poor woman, who was really quite ignorant of the fact that we used to have a full-time Childcare Regulator in Alice Springs. That is just one example.
You can attribute the downturn in the Alice Springs economy to many things. You can talk about the global financial crisis and the high Australian dollar, which is reeled out at every opportunity. However, the social problems in Alice Springs play a very significant part in the problems of the economy of Alice Springs. They are very closely linked; you cannot talk about one without the other. You cannot talk about reasons for 49 businesses closing in Alice Springs over the last couple of years without talking about the social problems in Alice Springs, and about law and order.
My job is not about talking Alice Springs down; it is about presenting the truth to this parliament. I would appreciate the truth coming back from the government. I would appreciate hearing its vision for Alice Springs; what it would like to see; what it intends to do. We have not heard it for the last 11 years. Perhaps, leading up to the election in August, we might hear some hope and confidence from this government when it comes to Central Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will also say a few words about Mary Walshe. The member for Goyder spoke about Mary, and it was a very good summary of what Mary was all about. I will come more from a local government aspect. When I was President of Litchfield Shire, Mary was a councillor. She took over the council when I left to come into this House.
Mary might not have been a perfect president, but she was a good president who really represented Litchfield in everything she did. She was a fighter for Litchfield. I will give you one example of fighting because it has been in the paper occasionally - I am mentioned in the same breath. It was about the establishment of a regional waste facility to take over from the Humpty Doo tip. The member for Johnston will remember the debates we had in this House. For some reason, the NT News tends to believe the government when it comes to the issue of a regional waste facility, and likes to put the downers on both Mary Walshe and me in relation to where this new tip should go.
However, Mary did fight hard to get a different site for the tip. Unfortunately, that debate was not won, and the government decided to close the Humpty Doo tip down. The only option the Litchfield residents had, and still have today, is to take their rubbish, eventually, via their transfer station to Shoal Bay, which is a long way away for rubbish to travel, especially in the southern part of the shire.
Mary fought hard and copped much criticism from the NT News about dog registration. Once again, the NT News did not understand the difficulties in trying to introduce dog by-laws in rural areas. It is not the same as the city, and not the same as Palmerston. It is difficult to enforce. Also, there was a misunderstanding by people outside Litchfield that Litchfield was founded on a philosophy of having very few regulations because its motto was ‘Community Effort is Essential’. You try to sort your problems out yourself without having piles of legislation and, on top of that, you get piles of administration and, on top of that, you get piles of costs, which end up being reflected in your rates.
Mary took her time with the issue of dogs and, when the dog legislation was eventually brought in as part of Litchfield by-laws, it was probably the appropriate time because, by that time, the council’s population had grown considerably. As you know, you can probably multiply the number of people in the shire by two and get the number of dog that live in the shire. People have accepted there had to be some control over dogs as the numbers increased. Mary put that through.
Mary was the one who helped promote and get the new transfer station at Humpty Doo established, which she recently opened. I was there to watch that happen. Yes, it is an expensive facility but, once again, Mary drove that and the facility is now up and running and gets plenty of praise from local residents about how it has been constructed.
I did not agree with everything Mary did, but that is part of politics. I am talking here (1) as a local resident, (2) as a local member of parliament, and (3) as a past member of the council. There were things the council did I, obviously, did not agree with, but that is life. One of the things people forget when it comes to the president or mayor of a municipality, is they represent the wishes of the council. If Mary decided there was not going to be a swimming pool at Freds Pass, it was a decision of the council.
We sometimes forget that is the case, and presidents and mayors have to promote a policy they may not totally agree with. I remember George Brown had that trouble one time as Mayor of Darwin. To me, people like Graeme Sawyer are excellent people who work very hard for the city of Darwin. You might not have always agreed with him, but he worked hard; he was passionate about Darwin. He reflected the wishes of the council. Of course, when it comes to an election, sometimes they only see that person being the person who is the cause of what they disagree with. In the case of Graeme, that may have been one of the reasons he was not re-elected. That could also have been the same reason with Mary.
I put on record that Mary was a good president. The residents of Litchfield, obviously, believed it was time for a change. It should be noted that she worked hard, she was passionate about the rural area retaining rural identity, and that is what she should be remembered for. If you want to put it in a more stylish way, she was a loyal servant of the people of the rural area. She should be remembered for that.
Just quickly on to another issue, I recently went to Katherine for the Bombing of Katherine Commemorative Service. I congratulate the member for Katherine, Mr Willem Westra van Holthe who, with the Katherine Museum, put together a top-class commemorative service - just as good as you see in Darwin for the Bombing of Darwin ceremonies.
Katherine was bombed on 22 March 1942. One person was killed. That person, whose name has only been recently discovered, was an Aboriginal called Dodger Kodjalwal. The ceremony had its formalities, with various speakers. Melissa Brumby, I think who is related to Dodger Kodjalwal, did the Welcome to Country, the RAAF cadets did the flag raising, the Katherine South School and the Casuarina Street School did the National Anthem, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, addressed the gathering, and Willem Westra van Holthe, the local member, welcomed everyone there.
We had a guest speaker, Ms Mim McGinniss, and her sister, Mrs Ludwig, whose first name I cannot remember. They both spoke about their time in Katherine when they were schoolchildren, and how they would have to jump into the slit trenches to get away from the bombs if they were coming, because they, obviously, had air raid sirens. Their stories were great. Another guest speaker was Squadron Leader Mr Damien Fairhurst, who talked about one of the squadrons that were operating in that area during the war. There was plenty of historical readings by one of the local schools. I will get the ladies name who was involved with the museum – Kerryn Taylor. Then, finally, Katherine South School sang the song Pack up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit Bag, which many older people knew and joined in ...
Mr Elferink: Hey! I knew it. You are calling me old now, are you?
Mr WOOD: Yes, well, older.
We then went off to a group of rocks near the old Katherine airstrip which was the one that was bombed by the Japanese - and we have to remember they think that 91 bombs were dropped on Katherine. Most of them were dropped on the airfield, but a few went astray. The think one of those bombs landed near one of the large rocks which has a large number of shrapnel holes in it. That is where they think Dodger might have been killed. The member for Katherine and the Brumby family went there with many other people from Katherine and crowds of media to unveil a small plaque which was placed on the rock to commemorate the day and Dodger Kodjalwal.
It was a great day. It was great to see the Brumby family there who were related to Dodger, who was sometimes called Roger. There was a fair amount of effort required to find out who he was. The local member, Willem Westra van Holthe, put a great deal of effort into trying to find out the history of this man and where he came from. I know the member will give this much more coverage than I have because he has a better knowledge of what happened. I congratulate the member. There are several reasons for retaining and remembering our history: from a heritage point of view, from a personal point of view, to remind the young people what really happened, but also to develop the Territory. This history is important to the Territory, both from a historical and economic point of view. The member for Katherine has done a great job in doing all those things with the commemoration he organised last week.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will also speak briefly about the 70th anniversary celebrations in Katherine recently. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend. I was at Mulga Bore for the community meeting in my electorate. However, I was told, and have just heard from the member for Nelson, what a fantastic event it was. During a trip to Katherine recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine Museum and meeting with some of the ladies there - Kerryn Taylor, the museum manager, and Kaye Marsh, a volunteer at the centre in Katherine.
Karen told me the story of the old man who lost his life during the bombing. As we have heard, 91 bombs were dropped on the town and the surrounding area during the bombing of Katherine. There is still a great deal of that history around. I spent an hour or so at the museum but you could spend a day there just looking at history. There is an exhibition at the moment about the Tapp family. There are some great old photos and a lot of history being shared for those who want to visit and read about it. The story of the old man who lost his life during the bombing was very moving.
I understand around 300 locals turned out to mark the day in Katherine last week. As part of the ceremony, as the member for Nelson said, the old man’s daughter, Ivy Brumby, unveiled the plaque at the rock to pay tribute to this tragic loss of life.
I congratulate Kerryn and her team on a most successful day and thank her for working tirelessly to ensure this special occasion was honoured. It was an important event for the Katherine community. It is a town, as we heard, which has many challenges, but it is these great and important events that bring people together. I was very pleased to be able to offer some financial support towards the day. The bombing site near the rock has now been listed as a World War II heritage site and will add to the many sites located throughout the Territory, which locals and tourists can visit and learn more about our past.
Moving a little further south of Katherine to Mataranka where, last week, I had the pleasure of attending the convening of the Federal Court in a special outdoor ceremony to mark the handing down of the native title decision over Mataranka. There were many people there representing the three Aboriginal groups of the region which were awarded native title under the determination. The decision is only the third consent determination in the history of native title to cover a town area. I congratulate the three Aboriginal groups and the claimants in this momentous occasion.
I also say thank you and congratulations to the people of Mataranka for putting on a great event at the Territory Manor, a fantastic venue for this event. Thank you to Darryl and Yvonne Martin and their son Ryan Martin and his partner Eleanor White from the Territory Manor for their hospitality. It was beautiful setting for such an important day. Also, thanks to the many people from the Northern Land Council who were involved in doing a great deal of the groundwork, as well as those staff providing support on the day, and the people of Sunrise Health for providing the much-needed cold water on a hot day at Mataranka.
I was also able to catch up with many Roper Gulf Shire Council staff at the function, including Virginya Boon, the shire Service Manager and Clair O’Brien, who was the Deputy Mayor before the elections over the weekend.
While in Mataranka, I also visited the school and met with the Principal, Rex McLean, along with teaching staff and students. We had a great morning at the school and it was a great opportunity to speak to the students about my job as their local member and as a member of the parliament, but also talk about the significance of their determination to the community of Mataranka and what that means for their future. Thanks again to Rex and the staff for giving me a warm welcome to their school and the opportunity to speak to their students and staff.
I visited the health clinic and met staff there, including the Acting Clinic Manager, Vanessa Markham, and Sue Edwards and Cheryl Birch. To all the staff at the clinic, I thank you as well for sharing a cup of tea and some great photos of the determination event.
Finally, I respond briefly to the claims from the member for Araluen about Alice Springs and this government’s neglect. As the only government member in Alice Springs, I am very proud of this government’s achievements in Central Australia, particularly over the last four years. Some of these key achievements include the following: upgrades to the Alice Springs Hospital; opening the Alice Springs Police Beat in the Todd Mall; improvements to the Tanami Highway and the Mereenie Loop Road; upgrading Traeger Park and the opening of the new Alice Springs Aquatic and Leisure Centre; opening the Red Centre Way; West MacDonnell Discovery Centre at the Alice Springs Desert Park; headworks commencing at Kilgariff; land release for the subdivision at Mt Johns Valley; the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; and $150m invested into the town camps in Alice Springs. These are fantastic commitments by government.
Also, in Alice Springs, this government has recently awarded a tender for a new building of 2500 m2 in Alice Springs CBD. This will enable the Greatorex building redevelopment in Alice Springs to take place, and would be, of course, taken up by Territory government agencies.
Regarding the Memorial Club, I have met with representatives of the Memo Club recently and had discussions with them about their future. I am saddened by what is going on there, but I will do what I can to assist the Memo Club in getting through this tough time.
Alice Springs is not the only place that is feeling the effects of the global financial crisis and a very strong Aussie dollar. As we know, one of the key industries in Alice Springs is tourism, and that is the industry that is particularly feeling the brunt of these global issues.
Times are tough for the Memo Club. As a member, I am certainly saddened at the way it is going at the moment. It is tough times, and real leadership means you do not go out and talk a town down; you need to keep on top of it and work with the community at a grassroots level to see people through these tough times.
As a government, we have a proven track record of supporting businesses. In Alice Springs, to date this financial year, seven Alice Springs businesses have been supported with more than $19 000 in committed funding. In 2010-11, $79 000 in grants was provided to 20 businesses in Alice Springs to develop strategic plans to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration.
It is important to note there are businesses that are also thriving in Alice Springs, and new ones are opening. Major companies seeking to invest in Alice Springs show there is great confidence here. I acknowledge those great companies such as Bunnings, Best and Less, Lasseters Casino and Kmart, to name a few.
The member for Araluen had an opportunity to talk a bit about the vision of her party, the CLP. Reading through their manifesto - if you are a Territorian, I am not sure if she can understand that word, ‘manifesto’. However, the CLP’s vision is interesting, isn’t it? Their environment policy only had 68 words to say what they are going to do for the environment.
However, let us look at Alice Springs. Their manifesto shows how much the CLP takes Alice Springs for granted. There is not one idea or commitment aimed at Central Australia besides a juvenile boot camp. In fact, in this manifesto they have reneged on promises made to Alice Springs over recent years. The member for Greatorex, who has been ranting and raving over the last couple of years, has been promising 20 extra police for Alice Springs. This manifesto says there will be a review - no extra cops as the member for Greatorex rants and raves about, but a review. There is a huge backflip already.
Another one is they have also promised to put the police call centre back in Alice Springs. We hear about it all the time in this Chamber, but can you see that commitment in their manifesto? Not at all. Not to be seen. Here is another one; they will bring in a youth curfew for all Territory children under the guise of a night safe strategy. This is a curfew. Again, the CLP is relentless in running down the town and portraying Alice Springs as a place to avoid.
Dr Burns: Oh, here we go. Are you going to talk about the manifesto?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You can relax; I am going to talk about Graeme Sawyer briefly, and Katrina Fong Lim.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will ignore the member for Johnston as long as I possibly can. I want to place on the record my thanks to Graeme Sawyer, the outgoing Lord Mayor of Darwin who, whilst engaged in the odd element of controversy in his tenure as Lord Mayor, was a genuine and hard-working Lord Mayor for the people of Port Darwin. It is worthwhile acknowledging Graeme’s contribution to the people of Darwin as a whole over the term of his incumbency as Lord Mayor.
However, times change and, the moment I heard Katrina Fong Lim was standing, I thought to myself there were many worried cane toads out there. I understood, and pretty much expected, the result was going to occur, did occur - and that is the way democracy works. Many people do not realise it, but the Lord Mayor is the person with the largest electorate in the Northern Territory, I believe. No, Natasha Griggs is, but the Lord Mayor comes second.
There are now issues facing Katrina Fong Lim. I used to bang on Graeme Sawyer’s door about this and, now, I will be banging on Katrina’s door. One of the things I raised during the campaign - and am grateful to see Heather Sjoberg and Helen Galton in particular picked this up, as did Jamey Robertson - is the situation at the waterfront which needs to be resolved. The people at the waterfront deserve to have local government representation and to be included in the municipality of Darwin.
There is currently legislation before this House which will further entrench the separation between the two. I urge Katrina Fong Lim, as one of her first announcements and acts as Lord Mayor, to open the channels and negotiation with the Northern Territory government with a view to having the waterfront brought under the umbrella of the Darwin City Council. I am a strong believer, as the Leader of Government Business is well aware, that people who pay taxes should have a right to elect the organisations to which they pay taxes, which is currently not the condition the people at the waterfront find themselves in.
I will be contacting the new Lord Mayor shortly on this issue and other issues, but this one in particular. I am sure Katrina will become well and truly sick of the sound of my voice complaining about local government issues. Graeme was always responsive and did his best and I expect no less from Katrina.
Katrina is from a long, long, long-term Darwin family. There is no need to remind honourable members of her pedigree in relation to her role as Lord Mayor. Alec remains one of the most fondly remembered Lord Mayor’s in the history of this city. I include myself in having fond memories of Alec. As Katrina pointed out, if she is half the Lord Mayor her father was, then we will have a good Lord Mayor.
The second issue I wish to raise tonight is the matter of Flagstaff Park. Dare I stand up here and talk about Flagstaff Park? Yes, I do. The minister for Planning, last year during the Estimates process, promised he had found $6m in the upcoming budget for Flagstaff Park, which is exactly the same amount announced in August 2008 by the then Planning minister, but now Treasurer. Without having allowed for the effect of CPI, we will actually be spending less on Flagstaff Park. However, I want the government to keep its commitment to the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park and allocate the $6m the minister promised last year to that commitment. I will be looking out for it, particularly and specifically, in the next Territory budget.
The second component of this, of course, is the old hospital site which, once again, was launched with great fanfare, reviewed by Mickey Dewar at some expense to government and, then, the remodelled old hospital site was relaunched - and it remains a large vacant lot ...
Dr Burns: Are you going to sell it?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. The government has done nothing with it. The best they can do is to run some tawdry little allegation that we are going to sell it. Well, no, we are not. So, before you start peddling that nonsense out there, we are on the record ...
Dr Burns: I am just asking.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know. Well, nobody has ever suggested that anyone was going to sell it and, now, all of a sudden - this is the old trick. This is what the people of Port Darwin need to be aware of: the people opposite will simply fabricate a story that suits them at the drop of a hat so they have something to peddle out there. Well, no, so let us kill that one dead.
Before you start fabricating anything else, Leader of Government Business or ALP staffers on the fifth floor, just put it away. Put it away and run an honest and decent campaign, and keep your promises. That is my request of government. When you promise to redevelop an old hospital site, redevelop it. When you promise to deliver Flagstaff Park, do it. Make good on your promises. The minister opposite will have cheap shots all he likes. All I am asking for is government to keep its promises. What I will be looking for is a government that keeps its promises in the next Territory budget. Do what you promised with Flagstaff Park.
Get on your horse and get something organised in relation to the old hospital site because, as far as I am concerned, the government has decided to ignore that area, and it diminishes our capital city. It is about time the government delivered, instead of just producing hot air in this place.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the container deposit legislation ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Of course, I heard the very clear interjections from those on the government side who just want to crawl under their desks and hide from what people say about this container deposit legislation.
In my role as the shadow minister for Youth, I have already received much feedback from angry members of various youth and charity groups, not to mention parents and young people themselves who are upset at the collapse of this ill-conceived, poorly thought out, and incompetently implemented legislation. If the matter was not so tragic, if the amount of money wasted in implementing this failed scheme was not so great, if the number of young Territorians affected was not high, this would be a laughing matter. Instead, it has just highlighted this government is a laughing stock.
Sadly for all Territorians, though, it is just another fine example of this government’s failure. This container deposit legislation is the NT government’s pink batts scheme. It is the latest in a long line of failures for which this government is responsible. It is another example of Territorians’ tax money going down the drain, which went the same way as the huge amounts of money and funding used to implement the Banned Drinker Register - another failure. I ask the minister for the Environment how much money this has cost Territory taxpayers and where has the money gone?
It was not just slabs of alcohol that rose in price by up to $10, Territorians were hit in the hip pocket with price rises for soft drinks, flavoured milk and fruit juice. The scheme has failed. Container refund centres have closed in Darwin and Katherine and, now, the lawyers are involved. Kids in charity groups, schools and childcare centres who had faith and were collecting cans for pocket money and to raise additional money to support their members, are bitterly disappointed. Hard-working Territory families have had to cop these price rises and, soon, there will be nowhere for them to collect the refund.
The tragedy is the legislation already existed. All the government had to do was copy the existing South Australian legislation - a simple job of cut and paste, and still they messed it up. As with the Banned Drinker Register, the most important issue for the government was having a good headline in the newspaper, and perhaps seeing their faces on television.
To the minister for Environment, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, I say, shame on you. It was more important to have positive media coverage than to take the time and get it right. The container deposit legislation was rushed, it was ill thought out and it has shown how incompetent they are in implementing their own legislation. In a nutshell, the legislation is another example of an ineffective, inefficient rushed job which has become the trademark of this government. Now your time will be spent fixing another mess instead of focusing on governing. Tell us where the money has gone; tell us your plan on fixing this mess!
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, hard-working Territory families, Territory charities, and Territory kids deserve better.
What prompted me to stand up was my recollection of Question Time today and the way this government shamelessly comes in here talking about its Banned Drinker Register and the Enough is Enough campaign. The Treasurer, now the minister for Business, cranks on about how they are doing such a wonderful job with the Enough is Enough campaign. They spent a significant amount of money on that campaign. Some $10m has gone into that campaign and I think more than half of it has been spent on scanning machines so they can inconvenience every Territorian who goes to the Bottle-O to buy a bottle of wine, a carton of beer, or something like that. They seem to think it is good use of resources.
She said the police say this is a good tool for combating public drunkenness. I do not know what sort of a political creep verbals police like that, but the police I talk to …
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will moderate my language.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, I concur with the observation from the member.
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe ‘political creep’ was a little too close to the mark. In any case, the fact is the Treasurer seems to think what the government is doing with drunks is, somehow or other, a good thing. I do not know what world the Treasurer lives in, but when I walk onto the streets of Darwin and see the number of drunks we have in parks, littering almost all of the parks, littering the beaches, causing mayhem and grief all around shopping centres - goodness me, every morning at the shopping centre I operate from, the landlord has to hose all the filth and other nonsense off the footpaths because of the drunks from the previous night. That goes on in almost every single shopping centre across Darwin.
If we think things are bad here, you just have to go for a trip to Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs to see how bad things can be there. Our problems here in Darwin pale into insignificance in comparison to some of the concerns people have in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. In actual fact, I do not think it is any secret at all that public drunkenness is the single biggest problem the Northern Territory has. For goodness sakes, have a look at that last report. People are afraid to go out on the streets at night; they do not feel safe; drunks are everywhere. This is one of the reasons people are marking Darwin down.
The Chief Minister, the Treasurer, and those on the other side seem to think it is their duty to stand up, gloss over all the bad things and say how much they love Darwin, but fail to recognise the problems out there. We are seeing a huge amount of money spent inconveniencing a huge number of Territorians, but we are not seeing anything happen to the drunks on the streets.
We are told there are now more than 2000 people on the Banned Drinker Register. Well, I tell you, it has not stopped any of them getting a drink. They are always accessing alcohol. Let us see how many of these drunks do not get a drink. I tell you, there are not too many of them. In fact, any one of those people can walk into a pub and drink if it is their desire. There are no problems at all with them doing that. The Banned Drinker Register does not stop them getting alcohol. This whole notion that Labor is, somehow, turning off the tap is the biggest, cruellest joke they have tried to commit on Territorians. It is just twisted. Are these people blind? You walk outside the door and all you see littering our streets is drunks. You do not even have to walk a 100 m from Parliament House almost on any day of the week and you see drunks. All along The Esplanade there are drunks. It is just ridiculous.
I see the member for Blain is here. I remember a couple of years ago going out to Bakewell looking at the drunks in that park and seeing what happens with kids as they leave school having to walk through - almost half the school has to walk past a park full of drunks on their way home. What is happening about it? Absolutely nothing! Meanwhile, we have moribund, useless government members sitting here blowing their trumpets saying they are doing something about drunks. Toughest alcohol laws in Australia, they say. Well, they are the toughest, there is no doubt about that. They have inconvenienced almost the entire population. They have spent an enormous amount of money and done absolutely nothing. They are the toughest laws - they are tough on all of us. What are we getting for it? Nothing - absolutely nothing.
What Territorians need, and are demanding, is a government with some intestinal fortitude to get out there and do what is required. That is to grab these drunks, mandatorily detain them, and rehabilitate them. That is what is required. Everybody is calling for that. They want to see some real action on this stuff, not some namby-pamby, leftist policy that penalises the entire population and, yet, provides all sorts of revolving door services to drunks. Goodness me! I have to say I am glad to see the shake-up on council, because this idea of giving free massages, haircuts and what not to a bunch of street drunks – hopefully, the days of that nonsense is over.
People have had a gutful in Darwin – absolute gutful. And they have had a gutful in Alice Springs. You see the alcohol-fuelled violence and crime that occurs down there. They are in the middle of a crime wave in Alice Springs, most of it caused by alcohol abuse, and what is the government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They are penalising the whole population, but this government will not do what is required. Doing what is required is enforcing personal responsibility.
That is what my good friend, the member for Sanderson, has been banging on about for so long. I am proud to say that is what my good friend, the member for Blain, has been saying since prior to the 2008 election. We are 100% united on this. A Country Liberals’ government will lock up drunks and rehabilitate them, mandatorily. If you are picked up three times drunk on the streets in a six-month period, you are going to get rehab. You can voluntarily check yourself in and, if you do not turn up, we will grab you and throw you into mandatory detention and rehabilitation. No drinks, no smokes, no drugs - nothing for three months. You will dry out because that is what mandatory rehabilitation is about. This is not about punishment; this is about sorting people out, trying to get them back on the rails and giving them a chance to enjoy a decent life.
What I am saying tonight is I am horrified at the way this government is treating Territorians and conveniently ignoring the biggest problem we have. We have to sit through Question Time and listen to puerile responses from the Treasurer banging on with nonsense about what they are doing with drunks when everybody knows - Blind Freddy knows - the drunks are not being affected at all. The only people being affected are decent, hard-working Territorians who have to front up with ID, as they would have to in communist Russia or communist China. if they want to get a drink.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the socialists have to go! We need a government with some brains, some drive, and some will to get rid of drunks off the streets of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, and all the other places in the Territory that have problems with drunks.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about some of the candidates for the Labor Party for the next election. It was great to see on page 4 today, Alan James, very well-known in the Darwin community and the electorate of Port Darwin. His mother and family lived there and he grew up in that area. His mother was an evacuee during the Bombing of Darwin. Alan is well-known in the music industry. I am proud to say Alan is a friend of mine; I have been out sailing with him more than a couple of times. He has a great sense of humour, is a very warm personality, and will draw people to him. Perhaps he will draw the 2.6% required as a swing to unseat the current member for Port Darwin. He is a great candidate and will campaign in a different way. It will be interesting to see the contest for the seat of Port Darwin.
In my electorate, Ken Vowles has been nominated for the Labor Party. He represented and captained the Northern Territory in cricket, and was raised in the electorate of Johnston. He attended Jingili Primary School, and has huge family connections through that electorate. He is already working hard, out doorknocking and attending functions.
Jodie Green, the candidate for Sanderson, as everyone knows is Principal of Sanderson Middle School. She has a young family, is very passionate about education, working hard, and has already started doorknocking. She has received a great reception doorknocking and at functions, and will give the member for Sanderson a run for his money in the electorate of Sanderson. They will be interesting contests.
People put their hand up and there is a process within the Labor Party. People are disappointed, but it has been harmonious. No one has spat the dummy; no one has really been upset; there has been no division within our party around those preselections, and others.
There is a contrast with the CLP. Unfortunately, the member for Drysdale has not been reindorsed for that seat. I like the member for Drysdale. I did not think I did when I first met him, but he grows on you. He certainly spoke very well tonight. He is well-liked in the electorate; he has worked pretty hard. He has been to many functions I have been to - and I am a bit of a function goer; I see who is there and who is not.
I just saw this lovely picture of the member for Drysdale with the members for Blain and Brennan playing croquet. They had great big hammers in their hands and croquet balls. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition did not use his croquet hammer to hammer in support of the member for Drysdale. There has been an inability of the member for Blain to support him in being renominated. I come from the Labor Party, I am not factionally aligned, but I reckon that has ‘faction’ written all over it. There has been factional politics come into play regarding the member for Drysdale. The Leader of the Opposition has not been able to really defend him.
I talked about Alan James on one side of the paper. Quite sadly, on the other side of the paper is an article on the difficulties the member for Katherine is facing in Katherine. He is being challenged in that seat in quite a bitter contest. I agree with the member for Nelson and commend the member for Katherine over the Bombing of Katherine celebrations. I was very impressed by what I saw there. However, I am dismayed by what I see in the paper. It appears the Katherine Branch is deeply divided; the member for Katherine has threatened to sue his own branch chairman for defamation. There is the former candidate, Ms Cummings who is running against the member for Katherine. This defamation threat this month was prompted by a conversation Mr Jansen - who is the branch president in Katherine - had with the Coomalie Caravan Park owner. Mr Jansen allegedly had been digging dirt on the politician. Well, it is not being done by the Labor Party; this is all happening within the CLP.
There is no doubt rumours are abounding about the member for Katherine about his activities. It is coming out of the walls, really. There are all sorts of things being said about the member for Katherine. I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition - this is something he said on 18 August 2010:
- … we live in a world where rumours abound, but rumours don’t amount to anything as far as I’m concerned until they are verified.
That is so true - a lot of wisdom there, member for Blain. It is probably a bit prophetic as well, because it appears people are trying to dig up dirt on the member for Katherine. If you believe what is being said, they have all these dossiers and all this stuff is going to tip out. However, I will leave that to the CLP to work out. They are divided. They have been divided almost from 2008, with the Leo Abbott affair. We have this division around the member for Katherine. I just wonder whether the member for Blain has the strength; whether he will get that croquet hammer out and protect the member for Katherine in this process.
When you come down to it, both the members for Drysdale and Katherine are supporters of the Opposition Leader. We know, currently, there is a group of four - the gang of four. Underneath the manifesto there is a gang of four. The gang of four is still there; we know it is still there. If you count out two, that brings it a little closer - that is six. Two away from the eight, which brings it to six.
Then, in that case, the member for Macdonnell has the balance of power. Who knows which way she is going to go? The point I am making …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Blain is laughing here, but I ask Territorians to consider this: stability. Stability is so important, and these troubles within the CLP point to massive instability. There is instability there. The members opposite can point to the Queensland election and say the same is going to happen in the Northern Territory. I do not actually think so.
I have named some of the candidates who have been nominated for the Labor Party; they are quite decent candidates. I believe there will be a contest come August. There is no guarantee all the members opposite are going to win their seats.
What I am trying to say is, in that case, even leading up to and past the election, support is waning for the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader. There is no guarantee he will be Chief Minister for very long after the election if they were elected. The money is firming, if that were the case, with the member for Fong Lim. It is sad what has happened to the member for Drysdale. I commend him; he spoke very well tonight. I sometimes ask his advice on mechanical things and other stuff. He is pretty knowledgeable as far as that goes. I know he is very keen on his motor sport and I know, after this life, he will spend more time with his motor sport. I wish him well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very dirty situation which the member for Katherine is in at present. There are, obviously, people from his own side of politics trying to dig dirt, who are spreading rumours about him. They reckon they have all this evidence which is going to spill out. Once again, I will quote the Opposition Leader:
- … we live in a world where rumours abound …
Listen very carefully, Leader of the Opposition:
- … but rumours do not amount to anything as far as I am concerned until they are verified.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to frolic in the same muddy pool which the member for Johnston seems to delight in during the last days of his illustrious time in parliament. It is a shame he spends his time in such places ...
Dr Burns: I study your words.
Mr MILLS: No, you study much more than that.
I will report on a trip I took to Jakarta in January. I have not really made a report on this because I did not take the trip for the purposes of a report; I took the trip for the purposes of building and strengthening engagement with our near neighbour.
As members may or may not know, one of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory over 22 years ago was because of my conviction that we had a very special obligation and opportunity with Indonesia. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia has ebbed and flowed over time. In my time in the Northern Territory, we have had a boom time when Indonesia was regarded as one of the economic tigers of the region, and there were a number in that group. That is when the Northern Territory led the nation in engaging our near neighbour. It was the Country Liberal Party which provided that national leadership.
Then, there came a time when the economic activity and the strength of Indonesia seemed to fade as they fell into an economic crisis. That coincided with a change in the level and nature of the engagement with Australia and Indonesia, sadly, because it is still our neighbour. Then, at about the same time, we found that China began to rise, then we became fixated on China and pursuing the economic opportunities.
It has always been my view that there will be changes within the region. However, given that Indonesia, with a population of 230 million people, and the Northern Territory are so close and with such an historic engagement, we can put ourselves in a very smart place if we strategically engage and maintain quality relationships. That was the purpose of my visit. It is not to play one off against the other, but we have to work in this space in a sophisticated and knowledgeable way to build mutual advantage.
I made the decision to go to Jakarta because the first trip I took last year was in direct response to the deep concern I felt when the decision was made to impose a blanket ban on live cattle trade and what effect that would have in Indonesia and on the Australian/Indonesian relationship. I am still mindful of the diplomatic capital that has been established over time. It has not completely eroded between Australia and Indonesia in Indonesia’s mind, particularly Darwin. Darwin is still held in high regard, and there are still memories there with some very senior and influential former politicians, business leaders, and academics who know of the very important relationship Darwin has had with Indonesia, and are actually looking for that to be resumed.
I had nine different meetings. I went there the first time because of that prompt to try to find a place where we could acknowledge that Indonesia had been slighted in that kneejerk and panic reaction from Prime Minister Gillard, with the Chief Minister nodding behind the Prime Minister at that time, and then trying to find another place to stand. It really was the opposition which created that space where there could be a unified position taken in this parliament.
At that time, Indonesia was slighted, as I said, but they were wanting us, as a neighbour, to assist them in their reform programs. They want to improve their practices. There is excellent practice in Indonesia in the slaughter of cattle and they would like that strengthened, but not to be humiliated and have their food supplies threatened by having a blanket ban to satisfy a domestic political situation.
This time I went solely not to place pressure on Indonesia to reconsider its quota, but I thought the first thing we need to have is to strengthen our capital. I met with some very significant people, and it was a great honour to be able to meet Harry Tjan Silalahi who was a senior Soekarno and Suharto minister. He is currently a businessman and founder of CSIS, which is a think tank and research unit highly regarded and very influential in Indonesia. He is a man who met Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and Gough Whitlam, at the time just after Vietnam fell. He came under persuasion from both Whitlam and Gerald Ford to go as a proxy into East Timor. He recounted the time and he told me the conversations he had. He is still influential and active, and acutely aware of the great opportunities we have within the region, and acknowledges, as I brought up in conversation, the role that Darwin could play.
I also met with Kwik Kian Gie, legendary politician, a Chinese Indonesian, highly regarded as an activist and a person who speaks up for the poor in Indonesia. He was a former Minister for Economic Development and National Planning, and is still very enthusiastic and keen to see Australia be involved, and maintain and develop a close relationship with Indonesia so, together, we could strengthen our strategic alliance.
I met Fuad Bawazier, who is a former Minister for Finance, also a mentor to young politicians in Indonesia. There is still much political activity in Indonesia about the development and the strengthening of this phase of democracy. I also met the Deputy Head of the National Chamber of Commerce, which is a fascinating story. Bambang Sujagad is a very wealthy businessman, very involved in politics, and is No 2 at the National Chamber of Commerce. He has a special connection and affection for Darwin, because in 1973-74, he studied English here at the community college, and was here when the cyclone struck. He helped in the recovery, he served coffees at the Capri Caf, and he packed prawns at Fishermans Wharf. He has not really been back to Darwin, and he is really keen to come back and look for opportunities for investment.
Everyone of those people, and the young politicians and senior journalists I spoke to, are all very aware of Darwin. They are aware of Obama’s visit to Darwin. They are perplexed by that decision to bring troops into the region. They all talk to me about that; it made for interesting conversations. All of them expressed their fondness for Australia and their desire for a stronger relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
I tested the proposition that Darwin could well be the place which could facilitate that relationship and provide national leadership. Darwin is strategically placed and, with Indonesia liking Australia and wanting to work more closely with Australia, we need to engage and start talking to each other. Rather than have Jakarta talk to Canberra, it is my view Darwin could be the place where those conversations could be facilitated.
To that end, I have spoken to Professor Barney Glover with an idea I developed in Indonesia; that we need to develop a much higher level capacity to bring people together and allow us to discuss contentious issues. The first one would be to allow senior academics and influential figures in Indonesia to come to Darwin to have a discussion with someone from the ANU, someone from DFAT, and perhaps someone from the US Consulate, to talk about how each of us view the Marine presence in Darwin. It would be a useful way for us to develop a better understanding of each other and to explore and understand the views of each of us so we can come to a better understanding, rather than standing far off and not understanding each other’s view. There is a real opportunity there ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: I will talk more about this later.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016