2009-04-28
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise you of the death, on 24 February 2009, of Mr Tony Fitzgerald, a long-term Territorian and strong advocate for human rights.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Fitzgerald’s children, Mr Gus Fitzgerald and Ms Nina Fitzgerald, and his sister, Ms Shane Fitzgerald; also many friends and colleagues, in particular, staff from the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that on completion of the debate, I will ask you to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Mr Tony Fitzgerald, a leading advocate for human rights in the Northern Territory, and tender its profound sympathy to his family and friends.
This morning, we mark the passing of a very special Territorian. Much is made, and often exaggerated, about Territorians being an independent-minded bunch of people who are prepared to speak their minds. We are said to be suspicious of authority, as well as being good to our mates. We are said to be prepared to help those less fortunate than others. If those things are typical of Territorians, there can be few finer examples of those traits than that of Tony Fitzgerald, who passed away in Darwin on 24 February this year.
He was all those things. However, there was another trait to Tony Fitzgerald, as pointed out by many of the 400 people who gathered at his memorial at Pee Wees at East Point. It was not only a moving memorial, but a very uplifting memorial at a place that Tony loved so well. Tony was many things but, in many parts he was a stubborn bloke.
His enduring passion - human rights and equality - demanded that sort of stubbornness. Tony, or Fitzy as he was universally known, was the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner from 2002. However, that is only a small part of his contribution over three decades to the Northern Territory. It was a contribution which covered the legal and sporting arenas, and much else beside. It was a contribution which, more than anything else, expressed his love of the Territory and its people, and Darwin in particular.
Tony spent his early years in Sydney but finished his education in Melbourne, including a law and commerce degree. It was these early days in Melbourne which demonstrated his stubbornness. In the heart of VFL country he insisted on playing Rugby Union, no doubt to the derision of many Victorians around him. Years later he was to return as captain of the Territory Rugby side. Very much a secondary sport and regarded within the Territory as an extremely small fish in an Aussie Rules pond, the Territory side was relegated to playing on an obscure suburban playing field. The Northern Territory gave Victoria a thorough flogging.
Very early on, he found the stultifying world of law, as practised in a place like Collins Street, Melbourne, was not for him. He abandoned his articles at a law firm in favour of finishing his legal apprenticeship with the Victorian Tenants Union and the Fitzroy Legal Service. He then took himself to Darwin to work for the North Australian Legal Aid Service in May 1978. From that point, both in legal aid services and in private practice, he dedicated himself to working as a lawyer who favoured those who often had least access to justice. His work at NAALAS was, in later years, followed by a stint at the NT Legal Aid Commission, and he also practiced privately in the Northern Territory.
As he said himself in the lead-up to working for the Anti-Discrimination Commission:
This view carried through to a later part of his career as a mediator, nearly four years of which was spent with Resolve, a branch of Anglicare involved in mediated family dispute resolution. From 1996, he used those skills in that context as well as many others, including training mediators from UNTAET in East Timor.
I have known Fitzy for many years on a personal level, but I would not have described myself as a great friend. Like many people in Darwin, I knew Fitzy and quite often stopped to have a chat with him or share a coffee with him. I recall the lead-up to the 2001 Territory election. I had been elected in 1999 and Fitzy was doing the rounds of elected members putting the case for an advocacy and mediation service to be funded through government budgets to mediate neighbourhood disputes and stop them spiralling out of control and ending up in the court. He spent about an hour with me putting a very well-constructed, passionate and decisive argument that not only would there be savings for government in formal legal costs which ended up in the court system, but it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to sit people down who were having a dispute, get them around the table with a professional mediator, and work things out so people could walk out of that meditation session and feel the process had been fair; that it had ended up in reconciliation between the two parties and people could shake hands and move on with their lives; as opposed to going through an adversarial winner-and-loser court process.
He did such a great job in articulating his case that, when we came to government and the submission finally came up through Justice, it was a no-brainer; everybody said yes, budgets are tough, it is hard to find money, but the power of Fitzy’s advocacy made that particular mediation service come to light in the Northern Territory. It still exists and all of us, as local members, often refer people to that particular service. Fitzy left his mark in many walks of life in the Northern Territory.
These skills served him well in his role at the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Whilst there are areas of the law in which argument prevails and determination is required, Tony passionately believed in this alternative road of mediation - not just as a matter of cost but also as a matter of delivering equity and justice.
The list of services carried out by Tony is a tribute to a man who believed in giving back to the community he lived in. He served on sporting tribunals, including the NTFL and the NTRU. In the Territory, he served on bodies such as the Community Housing Advisory Committee, as well as the NT Public Housing Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the Community Living Areas Tribunal. He taught at Charles Darwin University, as well as facilitating victim/offender conferences for police and Correctional Services. He was a member of Reconciliation Australia. That service extended nationally and he did considerable work as a consultant on Aboriginal Legal Service issues, as well as mediation work on native title claims.
He returned briefly to Melbourne in the late 1980s where he set up a practice with Greg Borchers, now a magistrate in Alice Springs, who recalled that, to the conservative, modern legal profession, ‘it probably looked like we were setting up a knock shop rather than a legal practice’. Commissioning a 12 m mural Richmond Aloha on the main drag through inner suburban Melbourne was odd to say the least but typically, stubbornly, a Fitzgerald act. As Greg Borchers recalls, the exotic wall portraits of Aboriginal, Greek and Vietnamese women were a tribute to his adopted home town of Darwin. He even conscripted three Darwin-based artists to carry out his commission, ignoring the pool of talent the Melbourne art scene might have had to offer.
His love for Darwin, place and people, was palpable. From playing touch footy on Mindil Beach to running the length and breadth of East Point, it was a home town he enjoyed and loved to the full. Over the decades he accumulated a diverse range of friends from all walks of life, including strong relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, both here in Darwin as well as out bush.
We also acknowledge today the Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Lisa Coffey, and many of the staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Without your efforts, particularly in the last months of Tony’s life as he became increasingly ill, he would not have been able to continue in the role. I have been told he often referred to you all in very positive terms. On behalf of government, we thank you for your considerable efforts during this very difficult time.
I have mentioned Tony’s stubborn nature; it was a stubbornness he brought to his work as much as he did to the sporting field, or hiking in Arnhem Land in the last year of his illness. It was a trait he brought to bear, where necessary, against politicians. There was nothing Fitzy loved more than taking it up to us on this side of the House on certain issues. It was a stubbornness, I am advised, against reason, as witnessed by his never-ending, unsuccessful attempts to play virtuoso tenor saxophone. However, it was that trait which kept him going for the 10 years he promised his children, Gus and Nina, after he found he had cancer. Taking on the words of Dylan Thomas, he did not ‘go gentle into that good night’, but fought against ‘the dying of the light’ for a valiant 13 years in giving to his family.
We should not forget that those final years were also spent serving the Territory community as a lawyer, a community worker, a mediator, and a reconciler of differences.
My condolences to Fitzy’s son, Gus; daughter, Nina; sister, Shane; and his many friends throughout the Northern Territory. I believe all of us, in life, want to look back and think that whatever we did, we made a difference. Certainly, for many thousands of people across the Northern Territory, Fitzy did make a great difference, Madam Speaker, and he will be well regarded and very sorely missed.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my condolences for Tony Fitzgerald.
Tony was a man who has left an imprint. He had an effect and an influence on all of us who had the good fortune of knowing him. He was a man who, in the words of John Stuart Mill, ‘one with belief has greater power than 99 with mere interest’. He had belief, and he believed in a fight that was worth having. It was a fight for the underdog, a fight for those who did not have a voice - he gave them a voice. When we look at his later years as he physically changed, and we bore witness to the struggle that he was having, it was also a testimony to the underlying passion of the man that sustained him through those times. We all witnessed that change, but we could see the man just kept going. What kept him going was that underlying belief, that passion.
Madam Speaker, my parliamentary colleagues, and friends of Tony, that is truly inspiring. That is why this man leaves a legacy and those who have seen his life will forever be grateful and mindful to respond.
There is also recognition that it is not the people of process who effect real change, but people of action - and Tony was a man of action. I am mindful of a story – it has probably been recounted many times but it is a metaphor that describes the passion of this man, something deeper inside that drove him – about the Birdsville Races, when he saw a melee. All were observing it and, by instinct, he got himself involved on behalf of one who looked to find himself in a very unfortunate position at the end of some large fists. He put himself between the underdog and the over dog, let us say. As a result, he wore a black eye. The story goes that he walked around the Birdsville Races with that black eye and wore it like a crown, because that was something which motivated him. From that story, we see the same pattern where passion would take him into a fight and sustain him, because he was fighting in the interests of those who needed representation. That is what carried him, and that is what is inspiring.
As the Chief Minister said, it was that same passion that played a part in resolving community disputes. Both the Chief Minister and I were elected on the same day. About that time, discussion was occurring in our community; the CLP was in government and Tony had that clear look in his eye, that intensity behind the argument, the need to find a better way. Of course, being a new member to parliament and having had some experience in community resolution, working in my own electorate and community, we spent a lot of time together. I did not need much convincing, I could see and understood the sense of what he was saying. However, there were some disappointments. Even though the arguments were strong and presented so passionately and he felt he was making some progress, he would report back to me that, even though he felt he had been understood, he had had a setback.
I have an AFL background and I have seen photos and heard stories of him playing Rugby. I am sure he got knocked down and got straight back up again; he kept on going. Many times I would meet him at airport lounges or walking across to a plane, and he did not waiver. He never backed down no matter what discouragement he faced on this very important matter of trying to find a better way of sorting out the business that goes on in our communities. It was passion he saw as the fuel needed to help resolve these issues. Once again, he was a man not of process but a man of action driven by passion and a deep desire to help make the place better.
We have both had – the Chief Minister and I - a part in that; hearing that story and witnessing his tenacious drive to bring about that kind of change. He was a man who recognised when crime and injustice hurts, then justice must heal. That deep interest - sustained, passionate, and determined interest - in victim/offender conferencing and trying to find a way where there can be a deeper resolution so we can move to a better place, was truly inspiring.
Tony leaves a legacy and we should pause, as we will, to reflect upon that legacy. It should inform each of us, as members of this Chamber, not to be captured by process but be driven by something deeper, as we saw in Tony - driven by passion and a desire to effect real change and to leave this place better than when we entered it. May the passion and tenacity of this man have an effect on our performance in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my condolences to his family at this sad loss at such a young age, and for his workmates and for those who knew him. May he rest in peace.
His decision garnered a fair amount of press at the time; however, for the people who knew him, it was hardly unexpected. Governments did not escape Tony’s eye either. There are some former and current ministers of the Crown, at both Territory and federal levels, who have learnt exactly what Tony thought about a particular policy or decision to cut funding.
I acknowledge the hard-working and dedicated staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission who are here today, who helped Tony maintain an impressive workload and support for the community despite his serious illness over a long time. I also acknowledge the support of his colleagues and friends in the Department of Justice.
Madam Speaker, this House sends its sincere condolences to Tony’s children, Gus and Nina; his sisters, Shane and Sally; his huge group of friends and colleagues, and all those who remember his determination, courage and support for the underdog. Tony’s contribution to the Territory was a relentless pursuit of human rights and basic justice for all Territorians. May he rest in peace.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and offer my condolences to Tony’s family, friends and work colleagues. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his memorial, but I did hear the stories that it really was a celebration of a life well lived.
I met Fitz when we were on a committee together. It was the Community Housing Advisory Committee in the mid-1990s; he was the Chair. The committee was, essentially, made up of representatives from the housing sector and we assessed applications for community housing. It was a good committee and we all thought we did very good work. Fitz, however, was a very frustrating chairman. If there is anyone here who sat on a committee with him, they will attest to this. He had a view that everyone with something to say should be heard, regardless of how far off the point they were and how much time they took putting their views. Eventually, I realised that that was him. His view was that everyone had a right to speak and be heard. It was, of course, completely consistent with the life he lived and views he expressed and believed in, well beyond our committee.
I should say for the record - although I suspect everyone in the Chamber knows - that his appointment as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner raised some eyebrows and temperatures in conservative circles in the Northern Territory. The Labor government, obviously, announced his appointment. I knew - although it was clear to me that many of the people I knew did not know - that Fitz, in fact, had been appointed by the former CLP government on at least one committee that I knew of, and that he had undertaken consultancy work for the government. My view was, at the time: why should the Labor government not give him some work? My view is that, when both sides of politics give you a gig, you have done very well, and it is an expression of the regard in which you are held by both sides of politics.
For my part, I thought his appointment was a sensible one. In many ways, he was the obvious candidate. He was a lawyer - so am I – which, I believe not surprisingly, is crucial for a position such as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. He had extensive experience in advocating in a variety of ways for - as he described – ‘the needy’. He worked for legal aid organisations, and his work was neatly balanced, I thought, by his time in private legal practice. He knew how government worked and most of the issues most people faced, particularly the vulnerable and those who needed help. He had a history of advocating for them, so his pedigree, quite frankly, was perfect for the job. That is not to say, however, that we always agreed. Often, we did not. I remember having a number of discussions with him, one in particular, where both of us stated our views strongly and passionately and eventually agreed to disagree.
His work in mediation has been talked about this morning. It was extensive and impressive. I remember talking to him many years ago when he became incredibly enthusiastic about the possibilities of mediation in the Territory. I think it was probably about the time he had completed the LEADR course and some other courses. It can be said that not only did Fitz make a significant and valuable contribution, but he led the way in the Northern Territory in promoting mediation as a viable and practical alternative to dispute resolution. His work is well documented, well recognised, and greatly appreciated.
I also know he liked Alice Springs which, in my book, is always worthy of great praise. He enjoyed being there and he had some long-time friends there – Greg Borchers is one of them. I was very pleased when he decided, in his role as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, to attempt to extend some services of the commission to Alice Springs by opening what could probably be described as something of a shopfront co-located at the Ombudsman’s Office.
I note that he lamented in his introduction in his 2008 annual report that his efforts to persuade the government to provide a permanent service in Alice Springs had not been successful. He noted with some regret that, ‘Central Australians continue to be denied access to the level of justice afforded to those north of the Berrimah Line’. Those comments demonstrate his commitment to access to justice, to Alice Springs, and that he was independent and very much his own man, both in the job as Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and beyond.
He was a likeable bloke, and one of the few who went beyond merely talking the talk. He was committed to social justice and to achieving better outcomes for the poor and disadvantaged.
It is fitting, Madam Speaker, that this parliament recognises his contribution to the Territory in this condolence motion, that we express our thanks for it, and mark his premature death with deep and profound sadness.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion. Tony Fitzgerald loved the Northern Territory, in particular Darwin. I acknowledge his family and friends in the gallery today, in particular his sister, Shane; his children, Nina and Gus; and their mother Ursula Raymond, the staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission, and also friends and colleagues from the legal fraternity.
Tony was a lawyer who was concerned for the law’s apparent inability to deliver social good. He was a fighter who directed his considerable energies towards the defence of the underdog. Yes, he wore his heart on his sleeve but, even so, he had friends in all walks of life, from right across the political spectrum. Tony Fitzgerald was passionate, an optimist, opinionated, argumentative and, at times, obstinate. However, Tony was also a man of the people who possessed a rare level of compassion along with a genuine streak of egalitarianism, plus a formidable drive and love of life.
In the more than 30 years following his arrival in Darwin in 1978, he established an extensive network of friends and acquaintances which included politicians, lawyers, sports people, environmentalists and business people. The hundreds who attended his funeral reflect the diversity of Tony’s life. Given Tony’s notion of justice and his natural inclination to champion the cause of minority groups, it was inevitable that he would develop strong and enduring relationships with so many Aboriginal Territorians.
His friends will also testify that, during the 13 years Tony spent battling cancer, he was extraordinarily resolute and showed a rare toughness. He never complained about his disease; in fact, he rarely mentioned it at all. He also gave his time trying to help young cancer sufferers come to grips with the road ahead. When diagnosed with cancer, Tony focused his determination on living at least another 10 years so that he could grow up his children, Nina and Gus. Fitzy survived a couple of years longer than the 10 years he set himself and, like most things, he did a fine job with his children. As with most things in his life, he did it his way.
There was a certain irony that Tony Fitzgerald should die relatively young. He was a fitness fanatic who, before the onset of his disease, ran almost daily. Much of that running was done in the East Point area of Darwin. His love affair with East Point saw him become a founding member of the East Point Landcare Group. There is no doubting what his views on the proposed marina development for the East Point area would have been. Tony was not a great fan of development. As his long-time friend, Greg Borchers, observed at his funeral service at Pee Wees at East Point, Tony lamented much of the development which had occurred in Darwin over the past half dozen years or so. There was no doubting Tony’s commitment to Darwin and its people - he saw Darwin as unique, that is why he loved it.
He also loved sport and played both touch and Rugby League, but his enduring sporting passion was Rugby Union. Sport allowed Tony an outlet for his natural energy and drive, and it also provided him the opportunity to mix with average Territorians with whom he felt such a strong bond. Tony captained the Northern Territory in Rugby and, despite his illness, he attended the 2007 World Cup in France. Typically, it was not enough for Tony to simply attend the event as just one of the mob. He felt he owed his French hosts much more than that, so he tried to learn French before he went. Tony Fitzgerald was not someone who looked for easy options.
Anthony John Fitzgerald became the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in 2002. It was a natural progression for him. Born in Sydney, Tony graduated from Melbourne University in 1975 with a Bachelor of Law and Bachelor of Commerce. He spent just two years practising in Melbourne before heading north to join the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Darwin. After 3 years with NAALAS, he worked for the Wagait Association near Batchelor which, amongst other things, led him to the unfamiliar role of manager of a cattle station.
From time to time, Tony displayed a surprising degree of flexibility. He went on to become the foundation lecturer in Legal Studies for Aboriginal field officers at the then Darwin Community College. After a period in private practice, Tony spent the next four years with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
In 1997, Tony embarked on a different route when he left the law and embraced dispute resolution. He had come to the view that the law was an impenetrable labyrinth. As with most things in his life, dispute resolution was something he took to with passion. Mediation was to prove the stepping stone to the position of Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Along the way, Tony’s diverse professional and personal interests saw him become a member of the NT Committee for Aboriginal Reconciliation, President of the Mediation Association, Deputy Chair of the Public Housing Administrative Appeal Panel, a victim/offender conference facilitator, a trainer for East Timorese mediators, a delegate of the Commissioner of Tenancies hearing landlord/tenant disputes, and tenor saxophonist with the Palmerston Community Band - very diverse, Madam Speaker.
It is fair to say that Tony was not a naturally gifted musician but, as was so often the case, his enthusiasm and energy more than made up for his musical shortcomings.
Tony’s application for the position of Anti-Discrimination Commissioner typified his outlook. In part he wrote:
Tony conducted himself in the role of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner - as he had in all aspects of his life - with resolution, even-handedness and a genuine commitment to justice.
I first met Tony Fitzgerald 20 years ago as a young journalist working at the ABC. From then on I came to know Tony through many interviews over the years but, especially in the last four or five years, as the member for Arnhem. I will give examples of how important the position of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner was, in terms of Tony Fitzgerald, and is with the Acting Commissioner, Lisa Coffey, to the constituents and families of Arnhem and the Gulf of Carpentaria.
The first one that comes to mind was when the Ngukurr Bulldogs won the grand final in Katherine. It had been a few years since they had won, and they experienced some racism when wanting to celebrate after the game on their way back to Ngukurr. The footballers did not know how to handle it, or what to do. First, they were feeling very proud of their win and, second, all of a sudden, they realised that maybe life had not changed too much for them. In discussions with the team and the community at Ngukurr, they wanted to know what they could do. This is where Fitzy stepped in, straightaway, with guidance and support of how to mediate what could have been a very volatile situation and, in the end, turned into a very good one. That reflects his desire and passion for wanting to reconcile the differences and the needs of Aboriginal people with white Australia. He certainly proved that, time and time again, in the many cases he worked with.
He proved it again when the Borroloola softballers came to Darwin wanting to stay at a particular location, which they had booked. When they turned up, they were turned away. Again, it was believed to be on grounds of racism and, again, Fitzy stepped in to work a situation through which could have been volatile, and ended up being a good situation for all concerned. The businesses in those two examples learned very clearly and very quickly of the changing tides and attitudes here in the Northern Territory; if we do not have that respect for one another, where are we going as a society? He was certainly a big champion of wanting to see that kind of reconciliation - not something we read in books and talk about in committee meetings, but something we live in our day-to-day practice with the values we have.
I am told that Tony, together with a group of friends from Darwin, once flew to the Birdsville races. Tony was not a punter but the notion of a typically Australian event at an iconic spot like Birdsville appealed to him. Not long after arriving, he and his mates came across a crowd watching a brawl featuring a non-Aboriginal man and a much smaller Aboriginal man, with the bigger man clearly on top. It was all too much for Tony, who leapt into the fray to help out the Aboriginal fighter. The crowd turned on him and, if not for the fact that a burly, former Rugby League team mate from the Brothers Club in Darwin also happened to be in the crowd, there is little doubt Tony would have received a pretty big hiding. However, his personal safety was clearly the furthest thing from his mind when he leapt in. He was, as was so often the case in his life, motivated by the plight of the underdog. That was Tony Fitzgerald.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have known Tony Fitzgerald for between 15 and 20 years. I first met him through my involvement with the Brothers Rugby League Club. He was a player and a greatly admired and respected team mate. One thing about the Brothers Rugby League Club, they stick together like glue, and Tony was very much a part of that team. He was a very good mate to all those who played and supported Brothers over the years, and even today.
I never really knew his political views until much later in the piece. They really came across to me when I became involved in politics as part of the Howard government. It is probably fair to say that, politically speaking, Fitzy was no great fan of the Howard government. I sat on a couple of House of Representatives committees, most notably the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee. It seems when you come from the Territory and go to Canberra, automatically you are appointed to these committees. Fitzy, on a couple of occasions, turned up to give evidence and I realised that Fitzy and I really did not share the same philosophies in many areas, and we went head-to-head in a range of areas - such as illegal immigrants coming into Australia. He had very strong views about the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation - he did not particularly support that legislation.
As recently as when I came into this parliament and we had our induction meetings, Fitzy was one of those people who gave us a briefing. Again, we could not seem to help it, we always would bang heads on issues. I have to say my personal view of Fitzy’s philosophies was he was always completely off the chart. I was having a chat to a good friend of mine, the former member for Karama, Mick Palmer, and we were remembering Fitzy. Mick said to me: ‘That fellow was way out there with some of his views’. However, there is universal agreement Fitzy stood for something. Whilst it is not rare, it is not common to find people who are prepared to stand and fight hard for what they believe. There is no doubt about it; Fitzy was one of those blokes who actually stood for something. You have to admire and respect a person like that.
As was mentioned, he never complained. His stoicism in the face of his illness was something to be admired and respected. I have known the guy for almost 20 years, and I never knew he had cancer. It was not something he mentioned to me; it is not something that anyone talked about. On his passing, I was quite surprised to learn he had struggled with that disease for a long period of time. I do not know how you can go through something like that and not talk to people, unless you are a particularly strong character. There is no doubt at all Fitzy was that.
In relation to that little incident at Birdsville races, a good friend of mine was there; a bloke called Bobby Hanna who was, at one stage, captain of the Territory Titans Rugby League side and also a great mate of Fitzy’s. You are quite right, Fitzy had gone into this melee supporting the underdog and copped a bit of a clip. The way I heard it, Bobby Hanna came striding through the crowd like a god, cleaned up a few blokes, then looked down at Fitzy and said: ‘What are you doing fighting at the races, Fitzy?’
As I said, there will be many people - particularly at the Brothers Rugby League Club and also in Territory Rugby Union - who will greatly miss Fitzy. He was a great bloke to sit down and have a beer with. In the later years we could not help going toe-to-toe on many different issues. I believe it was something he loved and I certainly enjoyed it. He will be greatly missed and I know all those people who had anything to do with Fitzy feel the same way. It has been an honour to speak about him today.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. There are many of Tony’s family, friends, and colleagues here today to show respect to a person who achieved much. From my perspective, Tony Fitzgerald, as well as being an outstanding advocate and committed Territorian, was a passionate, dedicated member of the Fannie Bay electorate. I knew Tony mainly by reputation - a reputation to speak his mind and, more particularly, to follow his words with actions. After I was elected, Tony took the time to provide me with some advice and counsel. I was grateful at the time, and I value the time he took with me even more now.
Tony was passionate about this great place where we live. Few probably know he was committed to replanting the banks of Ludmilla Creek where it runs beside Playford Street. He did this on a regular basis, and not always with permission of the Fannie Bay race track management. He also planted many trees on the corner of his house block, which was actually the city council’s responsibility. However, like many others, they ended up letting Fitzy do his thing because it was easier than arguing with him.
Tony was a regular at the Parap Markets on Saturday mornings, and his friend, Jamie Gallacher, told me that Tony was an early advocate of the development of the markets, when many thought they might represent a health risk and he made representations to the then member for Fannie Bay, Mr Marshall Perron MLA. Like many at the time, Tony spoke of his experiences travelling through Asia and the markets he had seen.
As the member for Arnhem mentioned, Tony was also a member of the East Point Landcare Group. I could not count the number of people who told me how strongly Tony would have felt about the current development proposals for East Point which are being publicly discussed. Needless to say, he would not have been in favour, and he would have made that very clear.
Tony had many friends throughout the electorate of Fannie Bay: businessmen Dwyn Delaney and Duncan Marcroft were close neighbourhood friends; Debbie Hicks, Jenny Blokland and Sue Oliver also knew Tony well and were among the many people Tony interacted with regularly in the area. Bill Priestly was another who was often found at Fitzy’s watching significant Rugby Union matches. Bill was also closely involved with Tony in his final few days.
Tony was also very close to his former partner, Ursula and her family, particularly Patsy, Ursula’s mother. I understand Patsy spoke wonderfully at Tony’s funeral service and talked about how he was always helping her in her garden and making sure she was watering her plants.
Tony was a wonderful person outside work, but he was also a wonderful person at work. I have a few friends who have worked with Tony, and they loved working with him. Lisa Coffey, the Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, has allowed me to use some of the words she and her staff used when talking about Tony:
One last story - one I understand the Anti-Discrimination staff like to tell, as it tells so much about Tony - has him arriving at work, late as usual, for a meeting with a couple of university students from Charles Darwin University. The two students turned up dressed in their best to see the commissioner. Tony turned up late in his bike riding gear, the more holes in the shirt and shorts the better. They had, I believe, a very successful meeting. More importantly, in the interests of equality, Tony then met with a visiting interstate Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in the same bike gear - very Darwin, and very Tony.
This story highlights some important aspects of Fitzy - the generous way in which he gave his time to students, and to anyone who wanted to talk about discrimination; his principles of equality and distaste for formality but, more clearly, that for Tony what mattered was treating people on merit regardless of status or power, or race or sex, or anything else you can think of. What mattered to him was substance, not appearance. Elimination of discrimination was more that just a job for Tony; it was a genuine belief and a way of life.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Fitzgerald. May he rest in peace.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all members to stand and observe one minute of silence.
Members stood in their place in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I invite guests to enjoy morning tea in the main hall, and those members who wish to join them. Thank you very much for coming today.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 6
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 6, notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2009 sittings of the Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, have leave of absence for these sittings due to ill health. I am sure all members join with me in wishing her a speedy and complete recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I speak to the motion very quickly. Madam Speaker, members on this side extend their best wishes to the member for Arafura and hope for a speedy recovery. We fully support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Member for Greatorex
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, have leave of absence for these sittings to attend to family duties.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full sitting period 28 to 30 April 2009 and 5 to 7 May 2009 for the member for Arnhem, whose pair is the member for Greatorex. It has been signed by both the Government and Opposition Whips. I table that document.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 245 petitioners relating to the construction of a merging lane on the Stuart Highway inbound at the Virginia Road intersection. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1275 petitioners praying that the Territory Insurance Office retain the Coolalinga Branch. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 120 petitioners relating to Indigenous women of East Arnhem Land’s protest to the closure of Ward 2 birthing service at Gove District Hospital at the end of March. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
travelling to Darwin is too far away from where we culturally belong.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1224 petitioners relating to the closure of the Gove District Hospital Ward 2 birthing service at the end of March. I move that the petition be read.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update honourable members on the recent visit of Professor Mick Dodson, the 2009 Australian of the Year, to the Northern Territory.
When I heard Professor Dodson had been named Australian of the Year, I was proud that a Territorian had been bestowed such an honour. Then, at his first speech as Australian of the Year at the Canberra Press Gallery, he announced he was going to focus his year on improving the enrolment and attendance of students in schools right across Australia. When I heard this, I immediately telephoned Professor Dodson and invited him to the Territory to work with the Northern Territory government on what is one of the most critical issues facing Indigenous education in the Territory.
Attendance at all Northern Territory schools, and the attendance of remote Indigenous students in particular, is at the forefront of the government’s priorities in education. In 2008, the average Indigenous student attendance rate was approximately 80% in urban schools, and only 65% in remote schools.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the research tells us that if a child is absent for one day a week over the compulsory years of school, which is from Year 1 to Year 10, that student misses two years and one term of schooling. In the Territory there are too many children missing too many days of schooling. Regular attendance at school is the key to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students.
Professor Dodson visited a number of urban and remote schools in the Territory with high numbers of Indigenous students. It was important for him to see firsthand what the issues are, and also to see the quality programs in place and the hard work being undertaken to turn around poor attendance.
We visited Millner Primary School with our local member and saw the outstanding work the Principal, Dr Terry Quong, is doing in leading education of remote Indigenous children in an urban school. He has a program which focuses on improving learning outcomes for Indigenous students from Minmirama and Kulaluk, as well as local Indigenous Millner students. The parent and family involvement in the school is one of the keys to the success of his program.
We visited Sanderson Middle School, in particular, the Clontarf Football Academy. This program continues to show outstanding results. At the start of this school year, Sanderson Middle School had 25 out of 27 Year 9 students transition successfully to Year 10 at Casuarina Senior College. One went to Darwin High School and one went to school interstate. That is all those students successfully transferring to Year 10 - unheard of in the past and a great result. It is positive to see these students staying in school, continuing their education and getting skills. In Alice Springs this year, it was the same story. A Clontarf Football Academy at Casuarina Senior College this year has already about 100 students involved.
I then took the opportunity to take Professor Dodson to Ngukurr School where Principal, Ric Eade, is doing an outstanding job. There are approximately 300 students enrolled at the school, with morning and afternoon preschool groups, eight primary classes, three middle years’ classes, and a senior secondary class. It was pleasing to visit classes and see quality education programs in place. We saw students using smart boards and computers being taught using Accelerated Literacy. We had a whole bunch of Year 3 and Year 4 students crawling all over Professor Dodson and me, excited to read to us.
Attendance at the primary school at Ngukurr is over 90%. The Ngukurr community leaders are passionate about building a sustainable community which has a firm economic base and provides training and employment. The school is setting up VET courses this year, which will engage middle year students and lead to employment in the community.
We visited Katherine High School and received a traditional welcome from a group of Indigenous boys from MacFarlane Primary School. Katherine High School now has the seventh highest Indigenous enrolment for Territory schools and, once again, the Clontarf Football Academy is doing a great job in engaging the boys. I acknowledge the member for Katherine, who attended the game.
Katherine High School has also set up a strong Smarter Sisters program which focuses on getting the girls to school and supporting and mentoring them. Rae Brown, a long-term Indigenous teacher at Katherine High School, is running this program and seeing good results.
Professor Dodson’s visit followed on from the Education ministerial council meeting in Adelaide on Friday last week. At the ministerial council meeting, one of the main agenda items was school reporting. All states and territories are committed to increasing transparency in reporting individual school’s performance. Each school will now publish information on a national website, with each school in Australia having its own school profile page. This is controversial. It is not a league table like an AFL ladder of scores identifying winners and losers; it is about identifying best practice, investigating what is happening in high-achieving schools with attendance and outcomes, and comparing those with schools from a similar demographic and lifting those underperforming schools up.
We have a long way to go in the Northern Territory in improving Indigenous education and attendance in our schools and Professor Dodson shining the light on this issue is very welcome by the government ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I accept Professor Dodson shining a light on this area has been of some assistance by proposing an aspirational goal that all kids should attend school by a certain date or time into the future. You have to match those words with action. It is well and good to put out something such as that and have the Chief Minister detail many initiatives and activities in the area which are a response to proposing something quite aspirational.
When you say actions speak louder than words, it is somewhat curious the good professor did not speak publicly whilst he was in the Northern Territory. I look forward to hearing the professor’s observations and how what we see today in the Northern Territory matches the aspiration. We all aspire to something and we want to see results. It is quite noticeable that there is an enormous amount of energy in the area - lots of activity, lots of money spent, and references to positive things occurring.
In the absence of a clear message that parents have responsibility, all will be in vain. We will create the impression we are doing something but, if we remove the clear message at the core of this, parental responsibility, we will fail. Schooling is compulsory; it is not optional. Whilst that notion exists, all our talk will amount to nothing ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the question of Indigenous education has been spoken about many times in this parliament. Over the last 30 years, since mission education finished, there have been many people with many theories and ideas. I have heard many of them, time after time - how to get kids to school and how to improve literacy and numeracy in Indigenous communities. If you look at the results today, you have to say we have failed.
What did the missions have that we do not have today? Perhaps it was compulsion. Perhaps it was that they had a good relationship with parents and they instilled in the parents that education was important. We have to go back to the responsibility of parents making sure their children are educated.
However, we also have to ensure there is a reason to be educated. If you have no jobs on a community, no means of improving your lot in life, then why would you want to be educated? I used to say when I was at Bathurst Island, and they would train 10 young men to be welders: ‘Where were 10 young welders going to be employed on Bathurst Island?’ The same still applies today. We have to look at the bigger picture: what are Indigenous people going to do when they are educated? Can they find work on their communities? If not, what is the solution? It may be that many of these people have to leave those communities. They may not want to - and I know how Tiwis get extremely homesick for their communities when they leave - but what other choice is there if we want to give people real jobs? There will not be enough jobs in some of these communities for all the people who want them. We have to find other ways.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. To assure the Leader of the Opposition, I understand Professor Dodson did do media whilst he was here with interviews on ABC radio and Mix 104.9 FM.
I agree with everyone here: it is, fundamentally, the responsibility of parents to get their kids to school, and you have absolutely no argument from me on that. One of the key responsibilities of being a parent is to ensure your kids go to school and get the best possible education they can.
It is about how we engage those parents; how we use the sticks and carrots to ensure they take the responsibility to get kids to school. We must learn and understand what is happening at Minyerri School, Ngukurr School, and other schools around the Northern Territory where we are getting attendance of around 90% for Indigenous kids in primary schools. I believe the tide is turning but we still have a long way to go and I know we will be debating this issue up hill and down dale in this parliament for a long time to come.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I report on the progress government has made to improve building certification compliance in the Territory. In March, I released the results of a preliminary desktop audit which was undertaken on building certification for Tennant Creek. It showed there is a need to improve access to, and use of, building certification services in regional areas. This is an issue that stretches all the way back to 1993 when certification was privatised. The vast majority of certifiers in the Territory are hard-working and professional, but are simply not able to service these areas at a comparable cost to major centres.
In March, I also announced a package of initiatives to improve building certification compliance. As I foreshadowed, an independent expert team from Queensland has conducted a comprehensive review and provided advice to me to improve the certification system and service delivery.
I table the report this morning and I thank the team for their hard work in a short time frame. I discussed it in detail with the review team members, and indicated that I will be taking the recommendations to the construction industry and certifiers with the intent of amending our processes to make the system less expensive and more user friendly. This report will form the basis of a discussion paper which will go out to industry for comment on the reforms it proposes.
To encourage owners to achieve certification and to access government support, I have formally commenced a moratorium period on prosecutions for existing building owners. This moratorium will end on 30 June 2011. While I originally announced that the moratorium would only apply in Tier 2 regional areas, following receipt of the review team’s findings, I have decided to extend it over urban areas as well. My goal is to improve compliance rates across the Territory, and I take on board the review’s findings that compliance is a problem in both regional and urban areas.
Second, I want to move our building regulatory regime towards delivering a service and developing a cooperative approach. The threat of prosecution could hinder greater involvement from all stakeholders in this change of approach. The moratorium will mean that owners of existing buildings that have not commenced or completed certification will not be prosecuted. The moratorium will not apply to new construction undertaken during this time, or for buildings assessed as unsafe.
It is important to emphasise that this is not a safety issue; it is about helping owners finalise the paperwork necessary to confirm occupation. Any building deemed unsafe would need to be rectified.
The department will be writing to owners who have not completed the necessary paperwork to encourage them to finalise certification of building works prior to the deadline. For Tier 2 residential owners, this can be as simple and inexpensive as getting the builder to provide a declaration that it has been built in accordance with the building permit.
In regional areas, it is clear that many incomplete certifications are due to the extra cost owners face getting certifiers to travel to inspect the final building. Owners in these areas should have affordable access to these services to assist them to meet building certification requirements. Commencing from June, a $2 per kilometre subsidy, in addition to reasonable accommodation rates, will be payable to private certifiers to travel to these areas.
An awareness campaign will commence shortly to inform the public where to access certification services.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has also advised that some government owned and leased buildings have outstanding certification requirements. This is not acceptable. I have, therefore, established a task force to prioritise all outstanding government building certification. The task force will report to me in one month with an audit of all government buildings. It will report back to me in three months with a strategic priorities works program. I expect, within 12 months, any currently uncertified government building will be compliant. The task force will report monthly to me on progress. This will provide a substantial boost for private Territory certifiers and help sustain Territory jobs in the construction sector.
To improve the long-term sustainability of the certification system, and attract and retain suitably qualified professionals, I have also allocated $100 000 a year to implement a cadetship program in the Territory.
The Territory government recognises improvements in the system are necessary to improve certification compliance. The measures I announced in March are well on the way to achieving this goal. These latest measures will provide a comprehensive, Territory-wide approach to building certification.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is concerning that this very serious issue has only been given five minutes in a report. It is a bigger issue and problem than giving it five minutes in the Chamber. This obviously came to a head with the Tennant Creek situation, where we found over half of the town’s new buildings, including government buildings, did not have final certification.
It also concerns me that the minister stated it is not a safety issue. From my understanding, and my contacts with the industry and the Building Standards of Australia, it is a safety issue. There is one reason why certificates of completion are done - and it is not casting aspersions on the construction or the building industry - to ensure the safety and the amenity of a dwelling, particularly regarding electrical and plumbing work. It is not a slight on the construction industry, or any workmen who put these types of items into a dwelling or an office, but it is to ensure that it is done correctly and according to Australian, if not international, standards.
I ask the minister to take back that statement. It is involved with safety. Yes, it can also be the paperwork, and we know we have a shortage of building certifiers in the Northern Territory. I state on the record that I had discussions with building certifiers in Alice Springs, and twice they tried to talk with the minister’s office and the department regarding recruiting and retaining building certifiers in the Northern Territory to grow that necessary part of the industry.
It is also interesting and concerning that, in the same week, if not the same month, the Chief Minister is talking about buying and shopping locally the government appointed two external contractors to do a review and audit of the situation, including Tennant Creek and elsewhere. I know, and the minister knows, there are people in the Northern Territory who are more than capable and experienced in doing this work. It is a mockery that the government contracts people from interstate when we have people here to do it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the report. I would have liked longer to speak on this subject. My feelings on the issue are that we have sidetracked a little. The basis of this issue is why did some of these buildings not get their certificates of occupancy? What was the actual process in Tennant Creek that made this occur? My understanding is that there were some issues related to a particular person, like an agent to a company, and some of the people who were waiting for their certificates seemed to have had a disagreement with that person and they did not receive those papers.
I would like the government to clarify that situation, because it seems to be the crux of the matter which then led to finding out some buildings in Tennant Creek did not comply. It then spread to Alice Springs and now, I gather, it is all over the Territory. I worry about where this is going because I am the same position as a certain member for Nelson, Koolpinyah or Tiwi, who will be very fearful of what the government is trying to do. The old ‘spy in the sky’, the old horse shed out the back, the ‘let us go around snooping in everyone’s property’ trick.
No one denies that we should have buildings up to a certain code; that is for sure. What you have to do is ensure you use common sense. Many areas in my electorate have old dwellings that would never come up to the standard. You have to be careful where and how you apply the laws. I am not saying you should favour people, but you have to realise the situation in which parts of the Territory were developed. There is no doubt that all new buildings should be up to code; they should have their certificate of occupancy. I remember the previous Independent member for my area, one back, who would be here pounding this table ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that this debate be brought on for a full debate in accordance with the rules which …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I have a motion ...
Mr Henderson: You got up on a point of order, not a motion.
Mr ELFERINK: … that this debate be continued with the rules and conditions as outlined in standing orders for a ministerial statement. The debate before the House is a report which has been brought on to do nothing more than mask the shambles that this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, what is your point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: I am now speaking to the motion that I put …
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving a motion …
Dr Burns: You have to move suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: I am speaking to the motion. Why don’t you get to your feet and do it on a point of order? It is disgraceful what you blokes are doing in here! It is absolutely disgraceful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Leader of Government Business, do you have a point of order?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin well knows he cannot bring on a motion unless he suspends standing orders, which he has not done. It is just a fatuous point of order made to score a political point.
Madam SPEAKER: There is clearly no point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, is it your wish to attempt to suspend standing orders?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Yes, Madam Speaker. I move that this House suspends standing orders which will enable this House to discuss this matter which is currently in discussion under ministerial reports, under the same terms and conditions which apply to a ministerial statement.
The reason I seek this suspension of standing orders, unusual as it is, is that this particular issue deals with the safety of Northern Territorians and deserves to be fleshed out in this House in a thorough and comprehensive manner, rather than by the process which they are currently trying to use. They are trying their hardest to push this issue through …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: They are trying to push this issue through …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if the member wanted to be fully informed, he should take the time to read the report I tabled in the parliament this morning …
Mr Mills: That is not a point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I did that this morning so the opposition could seek some information on this debate, rather than grandstand and scaremonger politically.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, resume your seat. You have put forward a motion. I am going to put the question now.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry. Has it asked to be put? I am speaking to the motion for suspension, Madam Speaker, and I have heard no put motion yet. I have not heard anyone move that the motion be put. I am speaking to the suspension of standing orders, as is my right, Madam Speaker, under …
Madam SPEAKER: That is true. I am not trying to stop you from doing that. I thought you had already moved that.
Mr ELFERINK: I have moved the suspension. I am now speaking to the motion of moving for the suspension.
Madam SPEAKER: It is usual practice for the government to indicate whether they will accept the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we will not be accepting this motion.
Mr Elferink: Of course not! Why you would not want to discuss this matter in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: They have not even read the report. There are plenty of opportunities for them in Question Time, or if they want to move a censure later today. We are in reports now. They are the ones who are arrogant, wanting to interrupt the business of this House, and this government will not be accepting this motion. I move that the motion be put.
Mr Elferink: Safe buildings are important for Territorians, and that deserves discussion in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Continued from 18 February 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the bill is supported. This is a straightforward bill in a number of respects. I could be cheeky and refer to it as an ‘oops’ bill, noting that much of the legislation this government initially brought into this Chamber has now to be rectified – some, not all.
In any event, the amendments are straightforward and I do not propose to restate or requote the minister’s second reading speech. The bills are uncontroversial, and are designed to rectify administrative glitches that have occurred over the last few years. They affect five pieces of legislation specifically. For the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act, the amendments clarify the status of a disqualified adjudicator and ensures that the disqualification of an adjudicator will not prejudice persons in regard to time limits under section 28(1) of the act.
In relation to the Legal Profession Act, the amendment is a declaration of academic dishonesty for admission as a legal practitioner in the Territory for reasons outlined in the minister’s second reading speech. The amendment also amends the Police Administration Act 2007 and the Summary Offences Act. It repeals a 2007 increase in the penalty for giving a false report to police. The amendment will reduce the maximum fine of $200 000 or up to 10 years imprisonment down to a maximum fine of $11 000 or two years imprisonment.
It also amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act in response to Commonwealth legislative changes to allow a federal or state prisoner to travel to another jurisdiction under escort to give evidence at a proceeding, or assistance to an investigation.
Finally, it amends the Public Trustee Act. It separates the money from administrative revenue from trust money for easier management and accountability.
Madam Speaker, the bill is straightforward, as are its consequential amendments and, for those reasons, it is supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and thank the government for its briefings. As the member for Araluen said, it fixes a few glitches. That is what it is doing in some cases, however, when you read the second reading speech it looks slightly different, as it says:
One could explain that as government speak. Obviously, there is a need, from time to time, for government to fix up some bills that may have errors or need more clarification. I had some questions about the bill where the meaning was unclear, especially in relation to the adjudicators in regard to the construction contracts, so it was good to get a briefing from the government. I appreciate that. Because it was such a good briefing, I do not need to ask any questions today.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 34). Having participated, for the first time in September last year, on an earlier Justice Amendment Legislation Bill (No 3), I know the Northern Territory government, and other jurisdictions, need to keep on top of large amounts of legislation which it oversees, and that, from time to time, a bill may require some fine-tuning, as acknowledged by the member for Nelson, to ensure it is both effective and workable. As acknowledged by the member for Araluen, these amendments are uncontroversial and aim to rectify the existing legislation.
In relation to the consequential amendments to six acts, as outlined by the minister, I will not speak on all of them specifically. Some of the amendments are very straightforward, but I will make some detailed reference to a couple of them.
The Legal Profession Act primarily promotes the administration of justice in order to provide for the protection of consumers of legal services and the public generally, and regulates legal practice in the Northern Territory. It is based on a national model which, in turn, facilitates and assists with standardising regulation of legal practice on a national basis. Within the act are suitability matters which form part of admission to and, therefore regulation of, the legal profession. Some of the suitability matters, which are quite extensive, include whether the person is currently of good character or whether the person has been bankrupt. In the amendment before us today, regarding section 11 of the act, is an addition to the ‘Suitability matters’ and that is:
In this bill there is also an amendment to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. This act provides for the control and conduct of prisons and prisoners. The amendment inserts a new Division 3 into Part XVII of the act which enables the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of a prisoner and give them leave of absence from custody for the express purpose of travelling to another country in order to give evidence in either a criminal proceeding, or to give assistance with an investigation in a foreign country. Any prisoner who is given leave for this purpose remains, of course, in lawful custody and, on return, will continue with their term of imprisonment.
This amendment will facilitate the Commonwealth’s Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, allowing the transfer of a federal or state prisoner following a request for assistance made by a foreign country for that prisoner to give evidence or assist with an investigation. Up until now there has been no provision within the Northern Territory’s Prison (Correctional Services) Act to allow such a transfer.
I also speak very briefly about the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 and Summary Offences Act and proposed amendments. Essentially, the amendments in this bill will provide that the maximum penalty for an offence under section 68A of the Summary Offences Act for the offence of making a false report to police be an $11 000 fine and/or two years imprisonment. Previously, in 2007, the penalty was increased to a maximum penalty of $200 000 or imprisonment for four years. In fact, this amendment did not commence and was further reviewed, including research into the penalties imposed by other jurisdictions.
The proposed amendment we are discussing today repeals the 2007 penalty amendment made in Part 4 of the Police Administration Act. The penalty in section 68A of the Summary Offences Act is then amended to an $11 000 fine and/or two years imprisonment. The penalty recognises that making a false report to police is a serious matter and increasing the penalty from its current level of a $500 fine or three months imprisonment reflects this.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the start, this bill amends various acts within the Justice and Police portfolios, with the aim being to make the acts clearer and more efficient. With that, I commend the minister and support this bill.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, as mentioned by the member for Araluen, the opposition supports this bill; it is non-controversial and there are sensible measures in it. The member for Araluen also described it as an ‘oops’ bill, meaning ‘oops, there are loopholes we have not seen’ which have been pointed out over a number of years. This is an example of government playing catch-up. In other words, it is a sloppy government.
The government has taken its time on this. It is welcome, which is why the opposition welcomes it, but it is sloppy in its delays. We would have welcomed it a few years ago. It points to the fact that we have a government which really is not focused on the areas of justice, law and order, and crime. When I get across the Territory and my electorate - and for the last few years, this has been the case - everywhere you go, the first thing people want to talk to you about is the appalling level of crime in our community. People are sick and tired of having their houses broken into.
I heard an alarming story this morning of one of my colleagues who suffered a house break-in. In fact, in the last two months or so, my own property has been broken into on a number of occasions. We have lost something like eight bikes. On the first occasion, thieves took five pushbikes, one belonging to a neighbour down the road, and two old bikes of my kids, and two new bikes – all five of them gone. We put in an insurance claim and the insurance company paid the claim. The neighbour got a new bike and my two kids got new bikes. Within two nights, those two new bikes were stolen. We have since got a couple more bikes and, only two nights ago, there has been another bike stolen. In the last two months, we have lost eight pushbikes just from our residence. Thieves also took a very expensive camera and a GPS that was in the house as well - very disheartening. I understand that I am not alone in this problem; there are thousands - literally thousands - of Territorians across the Territory who have suffered similar and, in many cases, much worse situations than I found myself in, in the last couple of months.
People are constantly lamenting the number of drunks we have in our parks; that you cannot take your family to the local park because it is inhabited by drunks who swear, spit, carry on, beg for money and so on; the fact that people’s houses are being broken into; and the northern suburbs seem to be rife with youth gangs. In fact, the member for Karama once famously described her own electorate as a war zone ...
Ms Lawrie: I did not, actually. It was a constituent.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: There is no back pedalling, member for Karama. You can gild the lily as much as you like. The fact is you were right at the time - Karama is a war zone. And whether you are prepared to say it now, if you talk to people in the northern suburbs, they acknowledge that it is a war zone.
In the last couple of weeks there was a riot in my own electorate; something that seems to happen with regular monotony. A few weeks before that, a group of journalists from A Current Affair were interested in a block of Housing Commission units. They described it as the worst Housing Commission block of units in Australia. At the time that show aired, I was in Tennant Creek. I was looking around Tennant Creek and I thought: ‘I know the block of units in my electorate is pretty bad but, if you have a look around Tennant Creek, people cannot walk the streets after 6.30 pm for fear of being assaulted’.
The mob from A Current Affair lobbed into Darwin, talked to a bunch of residents from that particular block of public housing units and heard the most horrendous stories. People would go to sleep at night with machetes beside the bed. People would carry hammers to bed for fear of being broken into. Thieves break into their units, steal everything that is there, and good, decent, honest people cannot get a decent night’s sleep. The children in those units cannot go to school the next day because they have been up all night with the screaming, yelling, and abuse that goes on.
Another famous example was the member for Arafura. At the time I believe she was Deputy Chief Minister, and she had a night out somewhere in Coconut Grove and was alarmed by the level of violence and abuse, the bad language, the screaming, and drunkenness that occurred in areas around there. All this points to a government that has taken its eye off the ball; a government not interested in its fundamental responsibility, which is protecting the citizens of the Northern Territory. The fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the Northern Territory. I challenge any one of the members on the other side to talk to a few people who live around the Territory. Ask them what their issues are ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, Digression from subject. We have let the member for Fong Lim have his head and deliver his diatribe along political lines, but I ask that he turns to the legislation at point here. He made his point; we have been patient ...
Mr Tollner: Pardon me, I am speaking to the bill.
Dr BURNS: I ask, in the interests of efficiency - we have already lost one report today through the political antics of the opposition – for them to keep to the subject.
Ms Lawrie: There is no relevance to this legislation.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, if I could …
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause. In terms of relevance, I am not familiar with the second reading speech, but the Attorney-General is advising me this does not appear to be very relevant. If you could link your comments to the bill that would be very helpful, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, this legislation highlights the sloppiness on the part of the government to properly address the problems in relation to Justice. It was described as that by the member for Araluen. It also highlights the fact that this is a government whose members have taken their eyes off the ball. The main game for any government in the Northern Territory, other state governments or the Australian government - the first priority, the single biggest priority - is to protect the citizens of their jurisdiction. The citizens of this jurisdiction are not served by a government which is sloppy in introducing legislation like this ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member is fairly new to this jurisdiction, but Justice amendment legislation is commonplace. It occurs once or twice a year and is to refine existing legislation on the books.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, there is no point of order; the previous point of order also was not applicable. These guys are more interested in spin and getting out misinformation about how they are so focused on fixing the problem, when the reality is here right in front of them. They are a sloppy government which has no interest at all in understanding their sole responsibility - which is protecting Territorians from criminals. This legislation is an example of your sloppiness.
As I said, and the member for Karama does not like it, she once described her own electorate as a war zone. It is still a war zone, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not. I know it is not. Get out there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You are in denial. Get out and talk to some of your constituents ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should know by now he is to address his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through me.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the member for Karama could also address her interjections through you, it would be greatly appreciated as well. It may well stop me having to talk to her directly.
My shadow portfolio areas are those of Business and Tourism and, I have to tell you, when I get around the Territory talking to business people and tour operators, and ask them what their biggest concern is - government red tape, lack of planning, is there more we should be doing in the area of marketing tourism? - the answer is always: ‘No, our single priority, our single biggest concern, is the levels of crime we have in the Northern Territory. We are sick of our businesses being broken into; we are sick of having to deal with people who are trying to steal from us’. Tour operators say every tourist who turns up is sick of seeing drunks on the streets in the beautiful provincial areas of Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. What a blight on those townships and cities that tourists are constantly confronted with antisocial, drunken and criminal activity in those townships.
This is the biggest single area and the biggest single responsibility this government has, and it has turned its back on it. We find legislation coming into the parliament now that should have been enacted a couple of years ago. Why? Because they have taken their eye off the ball. Of course, the opposition is going to support it; we want to see a good justice system in the Territory. It takes the government years to come up with this - the most basic legislation.
Look around the place. What have they done to address some of the soft sentences handed out by our courts? What have they done about improving rehabilitation and keeping criminals off the street? Spend $300m transferring a prison? Why not get some of those prisoners working, actually rehabilitating them, so when they go into the community they are not going to break into your house? Give them an education while they are in there, get them working, give them a work ethic, get some prison farms happening. Borrow some of our ideas, we do not care. We just want the place cleaned up. Enough is enough.
Territorians have had a gutful of this soft-on-crime attitude exhibited by your government. It is absolutely appalling. Everywhere you go, everyone you talk to, that is all they talk about: you are soft on crime, absolutely helpless, throw your arms in the air policies. ‘What are we going to do? That is not our problem. That is the fault of the CLP government eight years ago’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could direct your comments through the Chair, and keep as close as possible to the legislation before the House.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am at my wits’ end what to do about these problems. I am confronted with them, as I am sure every member in this place is, on a daily basis, being rung up at 4 am, and at 7 pm on a Sunday night, or 10 pm on a Saturday night.
I was off to a meeting the other day. I had a 7 pm meeting; I forget where it was. At 6.30 pm, I was rung by a constituent saying: ‘There is a riot happening in front of my house, can you come around?’ I asked: ‘Have you called the police?’ They said: ‘Yes, we have left five messages with police but they have not turned up’. I asked: ‘Is it that bad?’ They said: ‘Yes, these people are stoning cars. There is trouble going on here like you would not believe. Can you get around and at least have a look at it?’ I went around there, dressed in a tux; I was off to dinner dressed in a penguin suit. I turned up and, sure enough, there were mobs running riot in the street. I was thinking: ‘What the hell is happening here?’ I was there for 15 minutes and guess who turned up? The police. The police got there 15 minutes after I got there and after five phone calls from this constituent who was at her wits’ end and decided to ring her local member. I said to the police: ‘Guys, you are a bit late. Cars have been stoned driving down this street, and people cannot come out of their houses’. One lady had to drive a 1 km detour to find a back way into her house, where she drove into her driveway, locked her gate, and locked herself inside the house in fear. I asked the police: ‘What has happened?’ They said: ‘We only got the call two minutes ago’. Two minutes ago? There would have been an interval of 45 minutes or an hour.
We had people smashing each other to bits in front of my office - and I know you are well aware of the circumstances at my office, Madam Speaker. Again, there was a call to the police, who did not respond. Shopkeepers had stalls broken up and smashed, products damaged, and the like. This was not even really followed up or investigated by police.
It is not the fault of the police. It is the people who sit there, the overarching body, the government, the elected members, the people who are supposed to be serving their community. It points to them being soft, wishy-washy soft. They have run out of ideas, they have no other way of addressing the problem than throwing bucket loads of money at it. If bucket loads of money do not fix the problem, they throw their hands in the air and say: ‘We have done all we can’.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘We have done all we can’.
Ms Lawrie: There is no reality in what you are saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, order! I remind you that this is legislation before the House. There is a lot of digression from the actual legislation, which I have allowed. However, please come to the point or I will have to ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: As I have said before, I am outlining to you the symptoms of this sloppy government. They slink in here today – or in the last sittings when they introduced this legislation. We have a quick look over it and say: ‘Well, hallelujah, about time’. I spoke at length with my colleague, the member for Araluen, and said: ‘What is this about?’ She said there is nothing particularly controversial in it. I had a look through it myself; there is nothing controversial about it. The only thing controversial about this legislation is the time that it has taken to get here.
That is my gripe with this government - and I am speaking to this bill. This is what this bill is about - it is about sloppy mismanagement in government. It is about a reluctance to deal with problems immediately; it is about taking your time; it is about taking Territorians for granted; it is about taking their responsibility as legislators for granted. It is about a sloppy, soft and weak approach to crime.
I urge the government - as they like to refer to themselves but, goodness me, it is hard to know who they are governing when they cannot even govern themselves. I urge the government to put a little more effort in. If you have dodgy staff, sack them. Get someone who has a fig of an idea, someone who is prepared to bite the bullet and do what it takes to address some of these crime and law and order problems we suffer in our community.
Look at them. I look at the member for Karama looking bored, looking away, twiddling her thumbs, doing everything she can to ignore this issue ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We can well do without these untrue attributions by the member for Fong Lim. This side is being very patient with the member for Fong Lim. He has digressed very widely. He does have other avenues to bring these issues forward, like an MPI or a censure motion, but he is completely misusing this debate and, I believe, showing arrogance and contempt of this parliament …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I ask him to come to the point and actually address the legislation, something he has not done …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! Attributions of the nature used by the member for Fong Lim are a favoured weapon and tool of many government ministers and are regularly used. With only a moment’s research, I am sure I can point to any number of such attributions from members opposite.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please. Member for Fong Lim, bear in mind it is already after 12 noon. Are you wishing to continue your speech?
Mr TOLLNER: If you are going to shut the joint down, Madam Speaker, I will cease my comments.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not what I am asking. Are you nearly finished?
Mr TOLLNER: I will cease my comments now. I believe I have made my point …
Madam SPEAKER: You can continue after Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: No, that is fine, Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that. I believe these guys know they have been soft, and they know they are not doing the right thing. Hopefully, that message will start to sink in soon.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Hon Roger Steele, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and his friend from Queensland, Mr Jeff Finch. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon break I was listening carefully to the member of Fong Lim. It is curious that government members were on their feet several times to raise issues of relevance in relation to what the member for Fong Lim had to say. During the luncheon break, I became aware that people who are listening to this broadcast had contacted members on this side of the House and said: ‘It is very good to hear the opposition raising issues that matter to Territorians in the House, despite the fact that they have to do so by using the legislative instruments before the House as a vehicle to achieve that end’.
I am sure many people in the public galleries listening to this debate would be mystified to learn that this morning we dedicated all of seven minutes to important issues surrounding the issuing of building certificates, yet the government is quite happy to see long debates in relation to what they call ‘minor legislative changes’. The question begs: where are this government’s priorities in this House? Of course, their priorities are to talk as little as possible about that which truly matters.
Whilst this bill is important in the sense that it makes minor alterations to legislation which has been passed in this House with a certain amount of ‘oops’ factor, which the member for Araluen referred to, it demonstrates clearly what the member for Fong Lim was trying to say prior to the luncheon break: this government has taken a tardy approach.
I live in the Narrows Road area, and my experience of what was occurring just around the corner from my place and, indeed, just around the corner from the house of the former Chief Minister, was a matter of grave concern to me. Well may the member for Fong Lim come into this place and use this bill as a vehicle to be able to articulate not only my concerns but those of many other Territorians.
Due to this government’s policies and processes since coming to government, they have engaged in - particularly in the area of public housing maintenance - a policy which has seen our public housing decay to a point where we have seen riots on our streets. The member for Fong Lim talked about what was happening around the corner from my place in Narrows Road, but I can say this is something I have seen before. I saw this when I was the member for Macdonnell, because exactly the same policies were being pursued in Central Australia as are being pursued now. What we are seeing is a similar outcome. The crime rates and violence that come out of it need to be spoken about in this House - and need to be spoken about at length.
There is a debate which deals with these particular issues sitting on the Notice Paper. It is buried at No 10. How far are we going today on the Notice Paper? We are going to No 2, which means that No 10 is going to be left undebated, as it has been since 18 September 2008. The item which is up for discussion in item No 10 on today’s agenda is increasing police presence and making the community safer. The fact is we, on this side of the House, absolutely know there is no chance the government will come into this place and debate increasing police presence and making communities safer, despite their promises to increase the number of police officers. Well, bully for them! Two hundred extra police officers were going to fix the problem. It does not. It may not necessarily be more police which fixes the problem. Maybe it is a bunch of other issues dealing with the way the police are managed and the powers they have, and what happens in the justice system, which will fix this problem.
However, while this Chief Minister’s hand falls like a dead weight upon this place and tries to smother the voice of Northern Territorians by burying important issues such as increasing the police presence and making communities safer on the bottom of the Notice Paper, where they will languish undebated from now until possibly eternity - because they will never be debated - it will simply fall off the Notice Paper at the next general election - we then have to find a vehicle to talk about those things which are important to Territorians. The member for Fong Lim, very adroitly, I might say, managed to find in this bill connections between what is happening on the streets of the Northern Territory and the bill itself.
Surely this government is saying to itself, in its quieter moments: ‘What exactly are we trying to achieve in the parliament of the Northern Territory when we bring business in here?’ We do not doubt, on this side of the House, the veracity and the need to bring in minor amendments to these bills; we do not object to the passage of this legislation and those other issues that surround it. What we find ourselves having to do, Madam Speaker - and this reflects on the issues before you - is bring the issues of the people of the Northern Territory back on to bills, using those bills as vehicles to talk about the issues because this government will not introduce the business which is so important to Territorians, and discuss those issues openly and honestly.
We saw it here this morning when this government wanted to hurry through the tabling statement of a document in relation to the certificates of occupancy, which has plagued this government for the last eight weeks. What was the retort? ‘You have not read the document yet’. Well, guess what? They could have delivered the document to us last week, or even yesterday, so we had time to read it - it is not that thick - and then come in here and provided a ministerial statement. On the back of that vehicle, we could have had an open and full discussion. However, that is not what the government sought to do. What the government sought to do was get it into, and out of, this House as quickly as possible. That tawdry piece of work called the ministerial report is the vehicle by which this government does not do things openly - they hide what they are trying to do. They go out and say: ‘Oh, yes, we have discussed this in parliament’. Ministerial reports are a five-minute chat by the minister with a two-minute reply …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I remind you we are discussing a bill before the House, which is Justice and Other Legislation. While I appreciate there is a fair bit of latitude which I have allowed, can you please link your comments to the actual legislation?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will not digress too far again. I will turn my attention to an aspect in the bill.
I note in the bill there is a clarification of the circumstances under which a prisoner might be released for the purposes of travelling internationally to assist with investigations and things like that. I am mindful the government would like to introduce legislation for those purposes. It would be nice to be able to debate those things in a complete way in this House. That is part of the point; that I get an opportunity to debate that matter fully - I get half-an-hour to talk about that.
In the same way the member for Fong Lim demonstrated the tardiness and inability of the government to deal with crime issues attached to this particular Justice bill, I will use the same vehicle to point out that this government will happily allow long debates on issues such as the release of prisoners, but will not allow debates on other important things before this House. It has much to do with the amount of oxygen this bill is allowed to have and the amount of oxygen other debates are not allowed to have in this place.
I am concerned that this government is now using this House as a rubber stamp for itself and, if there is any criticism to be levelled towards this government, it cannot occur in this House. Adjournment debates are truncated to about five minutes; they used to be 15 minutes. We have a situation where we see the gag motion used as one of the most common motions this government brings forward.
As long as we are talking about the niceties such as what is contained in this bill in relation to plagiarism and disclosure of plagiarism in the legal profession, this government is quite happy to talk about those things, and so am I. Plagiarism in the legal profession, or failure to disclose plagiarism, especially during the academic period, is very serious. Anyone who has studied law will know how seriously academia views plagiarism.
I have 30 minutes if I want to talk about plagiarism in academia. However, if I try to draw this debate away from that particular issue, in an environment where there is no other vehicle for me to talk about plagiarism in the legal profession or anything else, or to talk about other issues that matter to Territorians, what happens? As a person who is elected to this place, I have my voice stifled because the government cannot brook criticism ...
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rot.
Mr ELFERINK: They cannot brook criticism, cannot accept it and, more to the point, arrogantly refuse to listen to it. I am disappointed the vehicle by which we have to make these observations has to be based in, basically, an omnibus bill so I can make criticisms of the bill and weave into it other material which some members would deem to be extraneous.
However, there is no other way for me to talk about government policy other than by this vehicle, so I am stuck with it. If I am stuck with it, then this House is stuck with it. As far as I am concerned, this House has become nothing more than an extension of an arrogant and tired government which is running out of ideas and would rather not have any criticism levelled at it at all. History has examples of governments that have tried such things - and none of those stories have ended well.
I am profoundly frustrated by the way this House operates in this day and age. This government used to say that it would introduce an open, honest and accountable system of governance in the Northern Territory, but it has brought its dead hand to bear on the rules of this place increasingly, over time. On every occasion, the intent behind the changes and the rules have been to stifle the voices of members who sit on this side of the House.
Madam Speaker, if you want an example of that, just look at the gag motion which was run this morning when, by the vote of the Australian Labor Party in this House, other Territorians voices were utterly silenced on an issue of the greatest gravity: the safety of the buildings in which we live and work.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow opposition for Justice. Of the opposition members, she was the only one who made any sense whatsoever in her contribution to this legislation. I also thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to the legislation debate. We are here to debate legislation, and that is the most important debate a parliament can have. That has always been the most important debate a parliament can undertake. There has been no stifling whatsoever in this Chamber on this debate.
Madam Speaker, your forbearance has been remarkable regarding the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin straying far and wide; having little or no relevance whatsoever to the legislation we are debating.
I am very pleased that at least the shadow Attorney-General understands this legislation, and has provided opposition support. Justice and Other Amendment legislation such as this is quite commonplace and is an important tool of a justice system. The Department of Justice goes through legislation across the government’s books and looks at how that legislation could be improved and refined to reflect a more workable outcome for that legislation, after listening to stakeholders who deal with the implementation of the legislation at the coalface. That is what we have before us today, and that is why we have a range of acts amended by this bill. They are all, essentially, technical amendments to acts that sit within the Justice or related portfolios; we had one in the Police portfolio, for example.
Justice legislation amendment bills are an opportunity to rectify minor issues or any inefficiencies that arise during the operation of any Justice legislation. The government prepares a number of such bills each year. I am advised that there are usually one or two bills per year of this nature in the Justice portfolio. It is very normal and a very appropriate thing to do.
This bill specifically deals with the Construction Contracts (Securities of Payments) Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Public Trustee Act and the Summary Offences Act. All the amendments relate to practical problems identified within the public sector by agencies or persons involved in the administration or the development of the legislation. Accordingly, there has not been a great need to have wide consultation, but I certainly understand that the amendments to the construction contracts were referred to the government’s Business Round Table.
There has been no adverse comment made by members of the public since the introduction of the bill, and the proposed amendments were addressed during my second reading speech. However, in summary, the effect of the proposed amendments - just so we are sure, because there has been a very diverse debate in the Chamber today - are as follows.
The Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act is amended to ensure that the disqualification of an adjudicator on the grounds of conflict of interest will not unfairly prejudice persons, subject to the time limits imposed for reapplying for adjudication. In other words, it is a very fair way of stopping the clock so that people are not adversely affected.
The Legal Profession Act is amended to make it clear that academic dishonesty constitutes a suitability matter for the purpose of admission to the legal profession. This came about as a request from the legal profession itself.
The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 is amended to repeal the increased penalty provision which consequently amended section 68A of the Summary Offences Act. In lieu of that amendment, this bill amends section 68A of the Summary Offences Act so the new maximum penalty is $11 000 and/or two years imprisonment - and that more appropriately fits within the penalties regime confined within that Summary Offences Act.
The Prisons (Correctional Services) Act is amended to reflect the operation of sections 26 and 27 of the Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. These sections enable a prisoner to travel to a foreign country to give evidence in foreign criminal proceedings or criminal investigation. The amendment enables the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of, and give leave of absence to, a prisoner for the purpose of giving evidence or assisting in an investigation.
The Public Trustee Act is amended to specify that only those fees and levies collected under section 24A and section 28 of the act are to be paid to the Public Trustee’s dividend account. This was brought about by advice from Treasury.
Madam Speaker, the bill really just makes these minor amendments to six acts - five within the Justice portfolio and one falls under the Police portfolio. It seems quite ridiculous grandstanding from the opposition but maybe there is a leadership challenge going on and the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin are doing their numbers and jockeying for respective deputy or leader positions.
Legislation is, genuinely, one of the most important things we do as parliamentarians. Refining and improving legislation is an appropriate activity to undertake. I sincerely thank the officers of the Department of Justice, and officers from Police, Corrections, and Treasury who have been involved in these amendments. They put a lot of effort and work into these legislative amendments, and they have done a very fine job. It goes to improve the workability of these acts.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 12 February 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for introducing this amendment legislation.
Hooning is a problem across the Territory. I have had deliberations and discussions with many members of this Chamber, many people in my electorate and across the Territory about their concerns in relation to hooning in the Northern Territory. Hooning does have a description within the act, but it covers a number of things in general terms: speeding, loud noise, tearing around the streets, drag racing, doing time trials, and all those types of things. People who participate in these activities are a nuisance to society. We see it on an everyday basis, but little seems to deter these people. Much the same can be said for many of the offences committed in the Territory - antisocial behaviour, law and order complaints, or the like. The material the Minister for Transport has put in place in these amendments regarding hooning legislation will go a long way to deter people from hooning.
Since his second reading speech on 12 February this year, I have paid particular attention to the hooning I see in our streets. Cars go past the front of my office in Gregory Terrace in Alice Springs and people take off from the lights very quickly and hoon all day, every day - you could put that down to speeding or hooning; it could be construed either way. There are examples right throughout my electorate. Patterson Crescent, where one of the members of this parliament used to live, is a street in Larapinta I frequent. The hooning on that street is very dangerous. I continually see people doing burnouts up and down that street and driving around at ungodly speeds; it is a danger to society and, in particular, to any children who run out on that street. I am aware that this happens in a number of locations across the Territory.
It is unfortunate that when you call the police, no one answers the phone. You do not have any opportunity to get a response out there to chase these people. Despite knowing the address of the property, nothing can be done. However, this new legislation should allow me to dob in someone after the event has occurred, and enable the police to chase it up. That is a positive thing to counteract hooning.
The idea of being able to confiscate the car much more easily for a period of 48 hours is a positive step. The forfeiture of a vehicle will go a long way to deter people from being idiots on our streets. The police will put in place a process which is fair and reasonable in assessing whether it was hooning or driving stupidly. The police will make a judgment on that. The ability of a senior police officer to review the notice to take a car for 48 hours is a good process.
It is very interesting to see the type of people who are hooning, in terms of the minister’s second reading speech when he said 27% of people who hoon are between the ages of 16 to 20 years, or that 35% of people who hoon on our streets are over 26 years of age. I found that quite surprising; I thought it would be just the 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Clearly, it is not.
The minister quoted in his speech some statistics about hooning. We hear hooning incidents go up or down, and the government states that it is a measure of the reporting statistics or the ability of police to catch people. However, that sounds very typical of their terminology and explanations about law and order in general in the Northern Territory. We all know that law and order is out of control in the Northern Territory and hooning will be no different. The government will say hooning has gone up or down. It will depend on whether they catch people and how well that is reported. The measures within this legislation, as proposed through the amendment, are good measures. How well they are implemented will come down to how well police are able to respond to instances of hooning throughout the Northern Territory.
I particularly like the model of forfeiture of a vehicle, because we know that tough, punitive approaches are required in certain instances to send a clear message. Government fails to do this, especially in the areas of law and order, but in all aspects of their governance they are lame. The idea of forfeiture, quite interestingly, was brought up by me as an amendment to the Traffic Act in the debate on the alcohol ignition lock legislation last year. I moved a motion that people who are repeat, high-range drink-drivers should have their cars forfeited, to be sold or disposed of by the government. The government was not keen on that idea, and did not accept that amendment; they voted it down. It is interesting they voted down a forfeiture motion for a high-range drink-driver - a repeat offender - but they consider it okay to put in a forfeiture clause for hooning. It bewilders me that they think hooning needs a more punitive approach than drink-driving.
Anyone who watches or hears the news continues to hear about the negative effect of drink-driving in the Northern Territory. On a daily basis, people are drink-driving in the Territory but you do not hear about it. If you were interstate you might hear that someone was picked up at 0.1% and it would make the front page of The Age, the Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Courier Mail. In the Northern Territory, people are getting picked up at 0.25%, 0.3%, every day. If the police ran a blitz 365 days a year, we would get 10 to 20 to 30 occurrences a night. In fact, we are only getting as many instances as the police apprehend. The nights when the police are not there, you do not get a report, but when they are out there you get 10 or 20 of them. Only this afternoon, at 2.09 pm, there was a media release about a road train rollover on the Victoria Highway yesterday, saying that the driver of that vehicle had been drinking. There was another one last night in Alice Springs, where someone came out of a hostel and drove up the wrong side of the road drunk.
This is happening all the time, but the government does not seem to think this is important. They seem to take a soft approach to drink-drivers by not imposing punitive measures, just imposing small fines and not sentencing anyone to gaol - which happens despite what the legislation says in relation to drink-driving. This is important, as it reflects on hooning. Despite what the legislation says, you can sit in any court and watch the people who roll through - drink-driving, drink-driving, drink-driving - 10, 15 offences; and they all get let off. Nothing happens to these people; there is no tough love approach to drink-drivers. That is where the government is soft. We had 75 people killed on our roads last year. Drink-driving was involved in half of those fatalities but the government has done nothing. They put an alcohol ignition lock system in, which nobody has yet ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: That will take months.
Mr GILES: It will take more than a month; it will take at least a year. No one has an alcohol ignition lock yet.
There are soft clauses in the legislation that say: ‘If you live out bush and it is a bit hard to get an alcohol ignition lock installed or serviced, you will be right, you will just get another fine’. Then they roll that down: ‘Because you did not present for your sentence, and we did not pick you up under warrant, but we picked you up four years later, that sentence is now suspended, and you are right to get your licence back’. That is exactly what happens in the court system. You can go into court any day and you will see this same thing happening.
Although we did not vote against it, the softness of the alcohol ignition lock legislation, which I would like to see work in the community, was another example of government not taking drink-driving seriously in the Northern Territory. Every morning I get up and listen to ABC radio, and wonder: ‘How many people were picked up for drink-driving last night?’ What was it, Easter weekend? I have written it down. There were 44 drink-drivers, people driving under the influence, picked up on the Easter weekend just gone. There were 55 on, I think, 20 December last year. The numbers of people who get picked up are astronomical. And they do not get picked up at 0.051%, they get picked up over 0.15%. They are all getting picked up on a higher range but I have not seen the government put anything forward. While I recognise there is a new Transport Minister – it may have been your first day when you made this speech and introduced this amendment bill - and it is good that it was introduced, but you could have taken a tougher approach.
Fortunately, the community knows that the Country Liberals are the people who are tough; the people who will take a tough punitive approach and send a clear message to the community that we need change and want change. If we are going to have change in hooning, we need change in drink-driving - there is no two ways about it. That is why we have moved amendments to this hooning legislation, to reflect that. While we believe the hooning amendment will go a long way to supporting change in people’s behaviour on our roads in relation to hooning, we believe the amendments should also reflect what can be done for drink-driving. That is why we have said in the amendments which have been circulated - I assume the minister has a copy - that anyone who is a repeat drink-driver, three times in five years, will also have their cars forfeited, disposed of, or sold by the police after the court process, exactly the same as the government is proposing for hooning.
We will put in place prescriptive or technical measures in our amendments to separate the two classes, hooning and high-range drink-driving. We will use exactly the same deterrent for drink-drivers. The government does not have any excuse to weasel out of this, unless they want to be softer than they already are.
It will be interesting to see how soft the government is, because last year there were 75 deaths on our roads and half of those fatalities involved drink-drivers. It is simply not good enough. I have been waiting for the government to do something. It seems the only time they do something is when I issue a media release and get on the radio and television, then the government says: ‘We better put a DUI out’. They put it out the front of my house. When I get on the radio, there is a DUI in front of my house every night. I let everyone know, do not drink and drive, very important.
That is why I have introduced the amendments to this legislation, to take the positive effects of the forfeiture amendment to hooning and to apply it to drink-driving. I believe it must be known that the Country Liberals are tough on drink-driving, and let it be known that I support a tougher approach on changing our road toll statistics and reducing the number of drink-drivers on our roads. It should also be known that Labor is soft on drink-drivers. I said it before, and I will say it again: we have a different approach to drink-drivers. They would rather focus on forfeiting a boat if the owner takes too many fish, or forfeiting a car if someone does a burnout, but does not care about drink-drivers. It is the drink-drivers who are killing people, not the extra barramundi in the back of a trailer. It is the people who are driving at 0.30%, half-dead, who kill people on our roads.
That is why, under the Country Liberals, if you get caught three times in five years, and one of those times is high range, you forfeit your car. It is as simple as that. The courts will make the ruling, but that is it - you forfeit your car; exactly the same as the hooning legislation. These are based on the hooning amendments through sections 29 and 56 of the Traffic Act and Regulation 91. While Labor tends to be soft on forfeiting cars for the provisions of hardship, let it be known to the public and the court system that, if this amendment goes through, it is my intention that these amendments be not treated lightly.
The purpose of these amendments is to send a tough message so that people do not drink and drive. These amendments for forfeiture will send a clear message to the community that Adam Giles and the Country Liberals are tough on drink-driving and we mean business. Get blind and drive your car, or anyone else’s car, unless it is stolen, you will lose your car. No ifs, no buts. Take some responsibility.
Madam Speaker, you and other members may be aware I recently raised a discussion forum in the public arena regarding minimum mandatory sentences for drink-drivers who kill or maim someone. That discussion is still in the public arena. I have been speaking with stakeholders and a number of people across the Territory, asking them what they think about minimum sentencing because, clearly, the sentencing being given to people in our community who have killed or maimed someone with a high-range drink-driving level has not met community expectations or standards.
Between now and the next General Business day, I will be putting together information reflecting community views and opinions about how we should approach this matter.
You should also be aware that I have introduced a bill today for discussion at the next General Business day, which will look at how we apply stronger penalties to people at low-range drink-driving levels. If you get caught for the very first time at a low range, you do not just get a $100 fine; you will also be put on a probationary licence for three months with a no alcohol restriction. That bill will be debated tomorrow.
This is a broad-ranging approach identifying and articulating how tough the Country Liberals are on drink-driving. I do not want my family killed by a drink-driver; I hate it when people drink-drive. We need to send a tough message to the community. If people know they will lose their car - I do not care whether it is an old 1987 Commodore or a $500 000 Ferrari - if you are drink-driving, the message is you lose your car. That is what it is about.
I know the member for Nelson wants to have a say on this, so I will sit down and save the rest of my comments for the committee stage. I thank the minister for bringing on this hooning legislation. I hope he considers the negativity of drink-driving and he comes along with us and hardens up with the Country Liberals, and gets tough on drink-driving.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): What an entertaining speech that was. I first acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Ms Nyree Slatter, the electorate officer of the member for Fannie Bay. It is her birthday today and we wish her all the best. I do not know how old you are - perhaps I should not go into that - but have a good day.
Boiling down the previous comments, this legislation has been welcomed by the Country Liberals. It is good legislation, it gives the police extra flexibility and powers which they need to curb these problems. Sadly, young drivers have three times the rate of crashes and fatalities as other drivers in the Northern Territory, and the demographic most likely to be involved in hooning driving behaviour is young males aged between 17 and 26.
We need to change the culture of this behaviour of young drivers. Some sobering statistics came from the Road Safety Taskforce Report: 16-year-olds to 20-year-olds comprise 6.3% of all drivers in the Territory, yet they are involved in 18% of all crashes; 21-year-old to 25-year-old drivers comprise 10% of all drivers, however, they comprise nearly 18% of all crashes involving a fatality. That is a very telling figure. It is not unusual with young males, testosterone and a lack of skills on the road. We certainly have to address those figures.
Hooning involves young people illegally racing their vehicles on public streets or participating in burnout displays, placing themselves, their passengers, spectators and other road users at risk of serious injury. This is not just about young people; hooning is unacceptable behaviour which puts the lives of Territory families at risk. We have great facilities for youths with respect to motor vehicles. Anyone who has been to the Hidden Valley complex knows there is a range of motor sports on offer. I went there to the mud racing recently and I have been to the V8s, the go-carts, and the drag races. There are also other sports events with motor cycling, and novice drivers with classic cars. Motor sports is very big up here, and anyone who has attended the V8s realises that. However, that does not give the green light for people to take it out onto the road, and we have to ensure that people understand.
In the Territory, there is great involvement and interest from young people. I went to Taminmin High School the other week and looked at the new VET facilities there - the massive shed which has been constructed, and classrooms for the woodwork and metalwork areas and also the mechanical area. I saw the level of interest of those young boys, and one girl as well, in getting involved in mechanics, not only with generator engines, but also with cars.
I know hooning is a particular issue in the rural area, and I am sure the member for Nelson will go to that point. From my personal experience, I know of a young person who, sadly, was involved in a car accident resulting in a loss of life, and he is scarred for life. He will never recover from that. It is something all of us have been involved in as young people driving around. It is just not acceptable, and we have to send a clear message. These measures certainly go to it. They give the police the power to act on a complaint from the public, to issue infringement notices, to impound vehicles for two days and take it even further to getting three-month impoundments up to a maximum of six months. That certainly sends a message to people that, if they want to play up on public roads, disturb the neighbourhood, endanger their own lives or the lives of other Territorians, it is just not acceptable. This government will pass this legislation and give the police more powers.
We also have additional funding of $1m which has been allocated to programs associated with defensive driving for young learner drivers so they can actually build up their skill level. We are seeing more of that, and it is something we need to do more of. The defensive driving training I received when I was a teenager has stayed with me throughout my driving life.
This legislation, which was initially introduced in 2004, needed some enhancements, some strengthening, and I congratulate the minister for presenting it.
I welcome the minister’s comments that 391 traffic infringement notices for hooning have been issued for a first offence since 2004 when that legislation first came in. The existing act provides the powers for a court to make an order to take offenders’ vehicles for 48 hours for a second conviction. For subsequent convictions, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle impounded for up to three months, and, for a fourth conviction, have the offender’s vehicle forfeited to the Northern Territory.
It is a responsibility that the act contains review provisions after five years to ensure the hooning legislation is keeping our roads safe. It will be interesting to hear how the opposition debates this legislation, and how they will try to cover up failings on their side …
Mr Giles: Read the speech first. Read it before you say it.
Mr KNIGHT: There are a few failings on your side, member for …
A member: Braitling.
Mr KNIGHT: Braitling. Sorry, I keep thinking of Loraine Braham when I think of Braitling, and it just does not fit with you.
This is good legislation. It goes to the heart of snapping those young people in line. Forfeiting a vehicle, or completely crushing or disposing of a vehicle would affect many rural people - sometimes it is not their own vehicle; it might be a borrowed vehicle or a parent’s vehicle – and would make it very difficult in the rural area where there is limited public transport and large distances for people to get to work, to go shopping or to school.
This is a very measured next step for this legislation. From my experience with police officers in the rural area and the bush, I believe it will be welcomed. It gives them extra power and flexibility to use it - obviously, with discretion. Police officers are members of the community and they know young fellows who are getting into trouble. They know when they need to go a little further to get them to wake up; that there are laws around, they are on public roads and they need to curb their behaviour.
I congratulate the minister for presenting this. I will be getting the message out to constituents in rural parts of my electorate and in regional towns that this law will now exist and they can have those infringements brought against them. It is pertinent to say that we must support our motor sports industry and encourage young people to go there, to let out their energies on to the race track in a controlled environment where there is safety and training, and they can do whatever they need to do with their cars. I will be watching, minister, and supporting you in getting this legislation and message out.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister. This is the first legislation he has put through parliament and, I imagine, there will be a few more before the next election. The minister is possibly a bit nervous because there will be a few questions asked as this bill goes through the committee stage.
I suppose I am a little cynical because, in February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament, which was partly based on the Queensland model, which amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles. In that was the ability of police to actually take a car off the road for 48 hours. Unfortunately, when the government introduced its own legislation, it decided to remove that section I had put in the act.
I welcome what I see today. I heard some comments from the government on how terrific this new change is, but it is hard not to smile when you go look at some of the previous ministers’ statements as to why, when I asked for the 48-hour impoundment, it was not any good. The minister said she believed an infringement notice was the appropriate way to handle the offence; that was said to me a number of times. In fact, the member for Daly just mentioned the figure of 391 traffic infringements. What he did not say was how many impoundments on the second offence occurred after that ...
Mr Giles: Three.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was obvious the legislation was not working. If you look at the legislation in other states and the figures they have, you will see that it makes a big difference if you impound vehicles the first time around.
Whilst I congratulate the government on introducing an amendment which I have been pushing for a number of years - the last time I put this same motion forward was 2 May 2007 - I had a laugh to myself when I heard all the reasons why this could not happen and, now, it is happening. It is great that the government has decided to introduce these changes.
This bill covers a number of issues and the member for Braitling will discuss his amendments as well. He made a number of statements regarding alcohol and, in general, I support what the member for Braitling said and what he is trying to do. I have not had as much time as I would have liked to deal with these amendments. I am hoping you will explain some of those amendments in more detail in the committee stage.
Even if the amendments the member is putting forward are not passed, many hooning cases are associated with alcohol, so you will catch some of those people because that is exactly why they are hooning. I cite a recent case outside the Howard Springs Tavern on Wednesday night – a very famous night, Wednesdays – two young blokes in a flat tray ute, two cartons of beer in glass bottles, who did the old burnout and left the glass bottles all over the road. They had to go back and get another two cartons and that forced them to drive a lot slower. There is a relationship, in many cases, between alcohol consumption and hooning. There are also other reasons: peer group pressure, and showing off is a constant reason. There was, unfortunately, the death of a young girl last year. A young person fishtailing down the highway lost control and a young girl was killed – hooning is really what it was.
We need to send a message out there that we are not talking about the odd minor burnout at an intersection; we are talking about people dragging their cars down the road, doing donuts in the middle of the intersection, doing Ss up and down the road with very little control, putting pedestrians, horse riders, bicycle riders, and other motorists at risk, as well as the life of the driver of the car who is hooning, and his passengers.
I remember a traffic accident at BP Palms some years ago – a drag race. They turned off the lights of the cars, went through the lights, and one car crashed into a tree and caught fire. A young man died and a girl was seriously injured because of hooning. I have had some really bad experiences in my area with hooning. If you go down certain roads in the rural area, have a look at the amount of rubber that covers the road, Bronzewing Avenue is one. Thankfully, Bronzewing Avenue is now closed and it has quietened down over recent times. Hicks Road in Girraween, McMinns Drive in McMinns Lagoon, are just a few ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Nelson, unfortunately the Hansard is not working. Oh, we have been told Hansard is now working. Sorry. We have not been able to hear you for the last five minutes.
Mr WOOD: That is all right, I am sure Hansard is greatly relieved.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you can give them a copy of your speech. Please continue. We can give them a copy of your earlier speech.
Mr WOOD: Do you want me to do a quick summary?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that might be worthwhile for Hansard. Perhaps we will give you an extra five minutes if you require that.
Mr WOOD: I will not need all that time. I will start quickly again.
I thanked the minister for introducing the first legislation he is delivering to this parliament. I wished him well and believe that he might be a little nervous because he has to answer a few questions later in the committee stage. He is introducing what I regard as very good legislation. As I said, I had to laugh because I tried to introduce the same legislation, with this particular change - the 48-hour impoundment, which is the main change to this legislation - in February 2003, over six years ago. So, I am very happy to see this legislation come to parliament today.
I also said that the government, at that time, gave reasons why it would not introduce this particular amendment but now has made that change saying yes, it is a good idea to introduce it. What really highlights the fact is that the member for Daly mentioned 391 infringements - or yellow tickets as I call them - but he forgot to mention how many impoundments occurred after that. The member for Braitling said three. It is obvious this is not working and the change is for the better because hooning affects the lives of Territorians.
I agree with the member for Braitling that the issue of alcohol is very important. He is introducing amendments which, in general, I support, although I would like to see in more detail how they would actually operate. In many cases, hooning does involve alcohol and, as I said, there was a recent case of young blokes screaming out of the local pub out our way, with a couple of cartons of beer in the back. They decided to show off in the process and their cartons of beer were no more; they were all over the road. They went back and got some more, and drove out more quietly.
The reality is that a lot of the hooning we see is mixed up with the abuse of alcohol. It is also about peer group pressure. Kids hop into a car and want to show off to their girlfriends or their boyfriends, and they charge down the road doing silly things they probably would not do normally. Unfortunately, that has been the cause of a number of deaths in the rural area - one recently at Freds Pass, and one a couple of years ago at BP Palms. Hooning puts people’s lives at risk- not only the driver, but also the passengers, other road users and, in the rural area where people walk on the side of the road because we do not have many footpaths, people who ride horses ...
A member: You have buses?
Mr WOOD: We have a few buses, but not as many we would like. That is another issue.
We have people who use the roads for walking or jogging, and you have people doing donuts, Ss, or drag racing. That puts people’s lives at risk.
We even had cases in the Howard River Park area of people being intimidated by hoons who were upset that they had been reported to the police for their actions. In one case, a resident had a Molotov cocktail thrown into his yard. He had horses in that yard and he was pretty concerned about the consequences of that occurrence. It was not just about hooning, there was other criminal action in the form of intimidation for those who dared to ring up the police to try to stop that action.
Fortunately for Howard River Park, it has actually died down quite a bit. There were a number of meetings with police and residents and, in the end, perhaps the young fellows got sick of being repeatedly reported. The Palmerston Police did their best, but it is not easy. One of the things I mentioned previously in this debate is why we cannot get money spent on portable CCTV cameras. They are available, but they are difficult for the public to use because they have to be approved by magistrates with the dates so they can be used in court. I cannot see why police, who get reports of constant hooning, cannot set up these cameras in a way they cannot be seen, and use those wherever needed to try to reduce the amount of hooning - especially now we have this particular law. All you need is a number plate. You do not need the driver for the 48-hour confiscation. You do for the next step up, for up to three months and the forfeiture, but for the 48-hour confiscation, you can get people off the road quickly. You have 14 days to act on it, so if we can pick up people in known problem areas using portable CCTV cameras, that is what we should be looking at.
Hoons are very hard for police to catch in many ways, because police either have to be there when it happens, or rely on at least two people to be witnesses to it, and that is not easy. At night it is not easy to be outside just at the right time; they are there one minute and gone the next. These CCTV cameras can operate at night, and the new ones can operate for weeks on hard disk, digital-type cameras. I would like the government to consider using these as a tool to help this legislation. It is no good having legislation if you do not have the tools to make the legislation work.
A constituent rang me and wanted to know if this legislation would apply to people driving quad bikes and motor bikes. We certainly have an issue in the rural area with people driving quad bikes and motor bikes along verges of roads. I do not have a problem with kids going out bush; that is fine. However, what annoys many people is people flying along on unregistered bikes - which is an offence in itself – ripping up the verges, tearing around corners, and causing dust. There is nothing worse for a bitumen road than someone driving up and down the gravel verges all the time creating dust. It makes you wonder why the heck you have a bitumen road. Someone asked me whether this legislation will cover that type of offence. My feeling is it will, simply because the road reserve goes from fence to fence.
When this legislation was first introduced, it was to also cover damage to road surfaces. The rural area has roads which are graded, and you can bet your bottom dollar the word would get around within five minutes of the grader leaving that there was a nice fresh road to be dug up. You would see donuts dug into the ground so the road would become rutted; people would do s-bends and residents would get very quickly upset that the roads they had been waiting to be graded for the last six weeks had been ruined by certain people. As the member for Braitling said, they are not always young people. I know that because I know some of the people who occasionally do this. It is like old rockers; they never fade away. I would be grateful if the minister could tell us whether this legislation would also apply to quad bikes and motocross bikes.
I am also happy that there is a review. There was a review of the last act, but it took a long time to get back to parliament because it had to go to the Road Safety Council. I presume this amendment came from the Road Safety Council and the police. My understanding is the police wanted this as well.
The other area we have missed in our discussion so far is at the back of this bill; a very interesting piece which not much publicity has been given to, even when the government spoke about introducing this legislation. It is clause 29AU, Excessive noise from vehicle:
That is interesting and it will be interesting to see whether that is just a nice little piece found in other jurisdictions. I believe Queensland has something similar. I know people do get sick of the boom-boom, doof-doof. I do not mind a little but when the house starts to shake, you have to worry. I sometimes sit in my office at night and someone is parked in the car park, and the windows just about start shaking. I am not against people having a bit of loud music every now and then, but this is to do with respect for other people. If you are driving down the Stuart Highway, who cares? However, if you are going around in a suburban area of Darwin, doof-doof-doof-doof, and people are trying to get to sleep or can hardly hear their televisions, it is not a case of whether you like the music or not, it is about respect for other people.
In many cases, it is the noise from motor bikes. Part of the issue this lady had about quad and motocross bikes is that they make a pretty big racket and can drive people a bit silly. I understand that kids have a good time on them and I am not trying to spoil that. However, if you have respect for your neighbours you will not be riding up and down your boundary fence at 5 pm on a Sunday night, full bore on a noisy motor bike.
Now there is the ability for the police to say, ‘Hey, turn your bike off’, without having to worry about noise legislation or going to a magistrate to get a court order. I imagine the police will use this wisely. I do not think they will go around saying everyone is a problem. There are times when a Harley goes full bore when it is not always appropriate, such as at 6 am. Some Harley Davidson riders are quite understanding that at 6 o’clock in the morning people do not want to hear a Harley going full tilt up the road, and will go up the road quietly until they get on the highway. There are other people who could not care two hoots about how much noise they make; it is nearly a badge of honour that they drive up the road making a lot of noise. Sometimes, the police need the power to say: ‘Hey, do something about it’. Many people like a bit of noise but, again, it is where the noise is, and what respect you have for others - whether they are neighbours or other people on the road.
It is interesting legislation and, in the review, I will be interested to see how many times it has been enforced. As I said, it takes away that difficult issue where people do have noise and they have to go to a magistrate to get a court order.
I have been going through the CLP amendments. I understand where they are coming from, and I actually support them because I like to believe that not only should cars be forfeited where people have infringed drink-driving laws, but this could also apply to people who drive unregistered cars. If you are driving an unregistered car, you are not insured. It also applies to those who drive without a licence.
I am not saying it should happen on the first or even the second offence but, maybe, on the third offence. If you are continually driving your old unregistered bomb up the road, well, you will not have the old bomb any more because it will be taken from you. If you want it back, well, pay the rego and get your car up to standard and you can drive down the road. The unregistered car can be just as deadly because it is not up to standard - the brakes, the lights, or the tail lights are not working. The government should possibly look at continual repeat offenders who drive unregistered vehicles also losing their car. In this case, it is simple, you just impound it. If they want it back, they get it registered and then they can have it back.
There is scope for a range of this type of penalty. I believe that the member for Braitling is right; we are not necessarily tough enough on continual drink-drivers. I do not think it is only about being tough, of course. This whole issue of alcohol in our society has many facets, and drink-driving is one. Another is the abuse of alcohol leading to domestic violence. Another issue we have to deal with is health problems, with people in hospital as a result of continual drinking through their life. Young people get into strife when they drink too much, because they go on binges at parties.
We need to be tough in some areas, and clever in other areas. If that means we have to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising on television, so be it. I will give my two bob’s worth on the alcopop tax - it will not work, and it has not worked, simply because people go out and drink spirits. They make their own alcopops. We are better going back to what the Territory government had years ago, where there was a higher tax on higher alcohol drinks, and a lower tax on lower alcohol drinks. We encouraged people to drink low-alcohol beer and it seemed to have some effect. Some of the money we received from higher taxes was put into Living with Alcohol programs.
I agree with the member for Braitling: we should be tough, and this is one way to be tough without putting people in gaol. You take the car away, and that is a good punishment; we are not paying $140 a day to keep someone in gaol. We have hit them hard; they do not have their vehicle. The thing with that particular issue - which is a question I will probably ask during the committee stage - is when it comes to impoundment or forfeiture, the driver must be the owner of the vehicle; and if he is not the owner of the vehicle, the person who owns the vehicle must have knowledge or have given consent to that person to drive that car.
If my best buddy says: ‘No, I did not give consent and I had no knowledge he was taking my car’, then he can get off. That is how I read the legislation. He may not get off for stealing the car because, if he is taking it without consent of the owner, he could be charged with stealing the car. There is an area there which may cause some problems in how this legislation is applied.
For instance, mum has gone for a nap in the afternoon and little Johnny has pinched the BMW and gone for a bit of a run up the road, done a couple of burnouts, and the police have picked him up. He does not own the car; mum was asleep and he took it for a bit of a burnout. What is the punishment then? Is that a loophole? I can understand why we have it there, because mum did not know he was taking the car and she does not particularly want to lose her BMW.
When it comes to forfeiture, the magistrate can look at hardship and say that a car will not be forfeited. I wonder if people knew all they have to say is: ‘It is not my car’, or, ‘I took the car without the knowledge or consent of the owner’, then they do not lose the car. What would happen as a form of punishment if that was the case? I am interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.
I appreciate what the government has done. I believe if this is the only part which is passed today, it is an improvement. However, I say to the member for Braitling, I believe what you are doing is the right way. I need to look at it more clearly because you have given me a series of amendments: 2(a), 2(b), 1(a) and 1(b), and I will have to try to chase up the other legislation that goes with it ...
Mr Giles: I will talk you through it.
Mr WOOD: Okay. In general, I support the amendments and I ask the government to consider making it even wider to deal with people who are continually driving unregistered vehicles, or driving unlicensed.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, if that side does not wish to talk, I will. Thank you to the minister for bringing this bill forward again. It is a good bill; I commend him on that. The actions we need to take to prevent road deaths are not always favourable to all parts of the community.
I have been involved with what some have described today as hoons for some time. I have worked with those young people through ‘Beat the Heat’ to try to remove them from the illegal side of hooning and take them to legal venues where they are safe – where there are ambulances and controlled environments. I urge people to consider that. If they are going to do hooning of any kind, take it to a legal venue and enjoy the facilities the government provides.
I thank the member for Daly who earlier discussed motor sports, because motor sports is an area in which people can vent their frustrations, excitement, or testosterone, but do it at a safe venue. In the Territory, we are blessed with some of the best motor sports facilities in the country. Those committees work hard trying to encourage young people - and middle-aged and older people - to use their venues. It is not as stereotypical as people might think.
Hooning is not about young people. Hooning is about people who misuse their privilege of driving, misuse the privilege of having fantastic roads, and doing it in an inappropriate place. As these pictures here show, in Patterson Crescent in Alice Springs – I know people cannot see this, and I apologise for that, but take my word, there is rubber from burnouts all over these roads. Lyndavale Drive is not the place for this sort of behaviour. A legalised venue is the place to go. I urge all people who are motor sports enthusiasts to continue to use those legal venues. We saw the launch of the drag racing season on Saturday night. That is the place to go.
I support what the member for Barkly has put forward - if you do the wrong thing, there may be a consequence. In this case, it is suggested one of those consequences is the forfeiture of your car for a period of time. I hope those people who have their car forfeited learn from it. However, if the basic principle behind the idea of forfeiting the car is for them to learn from their behaviour and by having a penalty applied to them, then we should also do that with high-range drink-drivers. We should be seriously considering, on both sides of parliament, that if you drink and drive and you get caught once, twice, a third time, with one of those being a high-range drink-driving offence - you lose your car. It is better for you to lose your car than for you to take someone’s life, or your own life, with that car.
Too many times last year, Territorians and visitors to the Territory lost their lives through drink-driving. Had there been some tougher penalty - a real penalty - removing that weapon, the car, from their possession, maybe that would have prevented such high numbers. In most cases, it was not the young man driving his Nissan ZX, someone driving their $70 000 SS Commodore; someone driving their RX7 or any other type of so-called hoon car as we stereotypically see them; it was people who drove whilst intoxicated who took their own or someone else’s life.
We should embrace the amendments made by the member for Braitling, because they are the people who are killing our Territorians; the people who most need to have a lesson taught to them; and to whom we may be able to make a difference. We may be able to help save some lives. The statistics, unfortunately, prove unanimously they are the problem people. Therefore, I support the member for Barkly in his amendments.
I urge the member for Barkly to understand the problem of drink-driving and the need to do exactly the same as he is suggesting for a person hooning to someone who is driving with alcohol in their blood. If you cannot see the connection in the type of offences they pose as a danger to society, and they should have the same type of offence applied to them, then you should go back to school. I believe the amendments are logical. Since this was last mentioned – I believe it is three months or so - letters to the editor in the newspaper have given considerable support to the idea. If the people of this Territory think it is a good idea, open your ears and start to consider it as well. We are sick and tired of burying our people because they drink and drive, or someone else drinks and drives and takes them out. It is not acceptable to allow it to happen anymore.
The argument has been used in this Chamber before that this would unfairly penalise the family. The same argument is then applied to what you suggested: these so-called hoons are not the stereotypical 16-, 17-, 18-year-old; at times they are 24, 36 and older, and they have families. There are 20-year-olds with families, and it does not excuse their action. However, it negates the argument used by the other side against the member for Braitling’s amendments. It is about penalising people so they, hopefully, can learn and we can educate them to amend their behaviour so they do not cause the loss of another Territorian life. If someone drinks and drives, and has gone through the processes and has their car taken from them and it affects their family, I would rather it affect their family by losing their car than losing their loved one or having the burden of their loved one taking someone else’s life applied to their family. They are very powerful, very heavy things.
Do you understand what I am saying? You must realistically agree with the theory behind it? We must do more. It is not harsh, it is reasonable. We are not saying the first time you drink and drive we will take your car from you, or the second time; it is the third time and includes a high-level reading.
I will tell you of an incident related by the member behind me. A gentleman in Howard River Park had thrown some explosive cracker device at a family and was tied back for hooning. I was one of the officers involved investigating that, and there was an outcome. We chased down that young driver because the family identified that person, and we arrested him for drink-driving. A young man and his mates in their ute were drunk, and we put that matter before the court. Beyond that is not my issue, but I must say alcohol was the cause.
Was it hooning or alcohol? I suggest the problem was the alcohol. I suggest their continued behaviour in that street was predominantly always around alcohol. I suggest, had there been the threat of having the car taken from them for the alcohol offence and an applied factor for hooning, it would have a much better result.
Also mentioned was the issue of if a vehicle was seized and the driver was not the owner of the car, if they could get the car back. That is the same case with alcohol restricted areas already. It needs to be looked at and tightened up, because there is an escape clause in the sense that: ‘Aunty owns the car because aunty is the one who gets the royalty, so aunty always buys all the cars’. Aunty does not have a licence, but she buys all the cars. The nephew is always the driver; the car is never in his name. If the nephew, let us say, is caught hooning, and he says: ‘That is not my car, it is aunty’s’, there needs to be an added section that would tighten that up so that it is understood that the onus is on the driver to prove they are not the owner of that vehicle or predominant user of that vehicle. If that is the excuse, the original part of legislation needed is they are not the predominant user of that vehicle.
This could be considered as a further amendment later. I believe we need to do so, because some of these so-called hoons do take mum’s car with permission, but it is still mum’s car. So when it is seized, they can say: ‘That is mum’s car’. Mum did not give them permission to do the burnout or hoon, but mum did give them permission to have the car, and there is still going to be that excuse provision. I am sure the magistrate will err on the side of caution.
I will also pick up the member for Daly’s comment about 395 infringements. Is that correct; 395 infringements for hooning?
Mr Knight: Three hundred and ninety-one.
Mr BOHLIN: Three hundred and ninety-one. Yet, at Easter, we had 44 DUIs over one four-day weekend. With 391 infringements for hooning, 44 DUIs just over Easter, basic maths suggests if we had six or seven Easters in the year we would have already covered our quota. Six weekends like Easter - and we definitely have six weekends - is DUI a higher concern than hooning? I believe it is. We need to continue to look at what the member for Braitling has put forward, be serious about it, and we will support you in that motion of pushing forward - if you are a repeat drink-driver, you lose your car, because the odds are that, at some stage, you will take someone’s life.
I am sure there will be further talk, so I will not continue much longer. I support the proposal. On face value, it will make it easier for police to do their job. I support the police officers; they do a fantastic job and do everything they can. However, when there are vehicles involved, it is always difficult. If someone chooses to run from a police officer in a vehicle, it becomes a deadly event and not something a police officer enjoys getting into. It is a very dangerous event and the burden is always put back upon the police officers. I would like the government to consider this: if a person runs from a police officer, once the police officer engages his lights and sirens and begins a pursuit, if that person is caught, that car is instantly seized. You have just endangered the lives of everyone on the road. You should consider some much tougher issues around that. There are changes in other states being made. There is even mandatory sentencing in Western Australia of 18 months if you engage in a pursuit and someone is hurt - 18 months straight up.
There are some good changes. If the member for Barkly opens his mind, accepts his duties, and sees there is a real need and a growing acceptance by the public that more must be done to prevent drink-driving and accepts the member for Braitling’s amendments, then together we can stand proud and say we are doing something to prevent further injury and loss of life in the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the warm comments from the member for Nelson. Yes, this is my first legislation and, yes, I am very nervous. I have more notes here than the Mitchell Library.
I would like to respond formally, and thank the member for Braitling for supporting anti-hooning legislation. The member for Braitling was able to supply examples from his own electorate, in an urban area in daylight hours, and highlighted specifically the dangers of hooning behaviour that represents antisocial behaviour in our community. This legislation supports community members reporting antisocial behaviour on our roads, to report hooning to the police, and there is a very effective process to deal with that.
The member for Braitling was a little cynical when he talked about age groups. Age groups in hooning behaviour is very important in our community. This legislation deals with that cohort. From my research, this legislation is based on national data from important research for the design of legislation. Therefore, those age groups are effectively researched; they represent the cohort we are dealing with in this legislation. However, this legislation is broad enough to support the whole community in this very important matter.
I also highlight the member for Braitling’s examples of police response and the matter he raised about driving under the influence. As an MLA and, now, the Minister for Transport, I have put in excess of 33 000 km on a Toyota. I stand here proud of being breath tested at Easter. When the two police officers breath tested me, I went through the procedure and then I thanked them. I thanked them for giving up their Easter to look after Territorians; for the overtime they would be doing that weekend; and for their efficiency and their professionalism. Funnily enough, they thanked me. That was the deal done. That was our police on the road looking after Territorians over Easter. I have nothing but praise for the police. We keep that debate very positive whenever our NT Police are brought into it.
The member for Braitling made a very important point about drink-driving. I believe we stand united on drink-driving and I am proud to be a member of this House where drink-driving is totally unacceptable. I support the member for Braitling’s passion. It is very important that the member for Braitling brings on a bill to deliver his aspirations and plans for Territorians and safer communities in relation to drink-driving. I encourage him to do that.
I welcome the member for Nelson’s comments and value his participation in the debate. It is important that he mentioned this debate has been active since 2003. I remember well, member for Nelson, on 20 October 2008, when you moved your plans for anti-hooning legislation in this House. I am proud to stand here today and say we have worked together on this. I am proud to say that the opposition is united in the concept of anti-hooning behaviour, which is the legislation before the House today.
Yes, there was time taken dealing with the amendments, and it has been a long road. However, it is important to get it right. The good ideas are the ideas that get through. It is important that we work together on this.
Member for Nelson, I am happy to pass on your ideas about portable CCTV to the Police minister. Regarding the issues you have raised about motor bikes and quad bikes, unregistered bikes, rural roads, anti-hooning and noise abatement, I can say that unregistered vehicles are covered under our legislation in the Northern Territory; that anti-hooning relates to rural roads and to unsealed roads; and that a noise abatement notice delivered by a police officer will incur a traffic infringement notice which directly relates to a penalty. This is a good move, and I know that you support it.
The natural justice provision is important for the member for Nelson’s concerns about this legislation. I quote from my notes: car owners cannot recover their vehicles when they are impounded by police for 48 hours. I stand here today also as a father of three sons, and my three sons, by gender and age group, feature highly in the statistics of hooning behaviour. If my three sons are involved in hooning behaviour and are caught and progress through the legislative process, then it will be of value to my family to incur the punishment. We will be in a great position to move forward. We will be addressing an antisocial issue, a dangerous issue, and a behaviour that has been brought to my attention as a parent and a responsible member of the community.
However, owners have to be given notice when police intend to seek forfeiture or impounding through the court, and the court cannot order a vehicle be impounded or forfeited if the hooning happened without the knowledge and consent of the vehicle owner. Owners and other interested parties can also raise severe financial or physical hardship as a reason why a vehicle should not be forfeited. A provision of natural justice, but still a very tough law.
The members for Drysdale and Daly, who I commend for their very positive approach and support for this legislation, were united in a great community strategy for our young people and our young males to keep the speed on the track. I know the member for Drysdale has extensive experience in motor sports, and he has great ideas about how to do that. The member for Daly also suggested this is an avenue to promote motor sports to our young people – males and females - and we have these opportunities throughout the Territory and regional areas.
I also commend the member for Drysdale on his police background, his really good perspective on this legislation, and his awareness of its effect on our community down to the individual level. I thank him for his support of anti-hooning legislation. His comments on drink-driving, once again, share the concerns of all Territorians and I commend those. As with the member for Braitling, I encourage him to participate in forming a bill to bring to the parliament addressing the issue of drink-driving.
Regarding the forfeiture issue, we have legislation to deal with this, and I have outlined that briefly. I will conclude by reading from my notes, and this will reinforce the position that is here today in the legislation before the House. This legislation targets reducing hoon behaviour on our roads. This legislation does not deal with drink-driving offences. The government is sending a very clear, tough message to hoon drivers. We are dealing with anti-hooning legislation here. This is not a debate about drink-driving legislation. These are very different debates.
With the passage of this legislation, we will have a very tough new penalty regime in place for hoon drivers in the Northern Territory. If you are caught hooning, the police will impound your vehicle for 48 hours. If you are caught hooning twice in two years, you will have your car impounded for a minimum of three months by the court. If you are caught three times, you have your vehicle forfeited.
Madam Speaker, I thank the House for their support of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage through the House today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr GILES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.16 to clause 5 and the Long Title of the bill together.
These amendments relate to the creation of a separate class for people who are drink-driving, as opposed to those who are hooning. The purpose of my amendments, as people in this Chamber know, is to replicate the forfeiture clauses of hooning to high-range or repeat high-range drink-drivers. We recognise those forfeiture clauses for hooning, at this point, appear adequate enough to be replicated for drink-driving.
To do that, we must make amendments to clauses 29AA, clause 29AB, proposed Part VA, clause 29AD, and also a new clause represented in amendment 9.16. The purpose of creating those different classes is to ensure that, in the hooning component of the legislation which has been put forward by the minister, there is a special class that just focuses on hooning. That is what we refer to as Class A in my amendments. Classes B1 and B2 are the amendments which classify the drink-driving component of the legislation, as it would relate to forfeiture.
For many of the amendments it is more a technical aspect to clarify the difference between hooning and drink-driving, rather than coupling them together. Your hooning amendments reflect a two-year period, where the drink-driving amendments I am putting forward are a five-year period, so it is important to try to reflect the difference between the two.
Amendment 9.1 will change the title of the part to reflect the intention that this part will deal with issues other than hooning although, as you can see, the main intent of the part providing for impoundment or forfeiture of the vehicle remains undisputed.
Amendment 9.2 amends the objective of the part to reflect the impounding and forfeiture is the intention of Part VA of the Traffic Act. It will change to read that the object of this part is to:
Amendment 9.3 relates to section 29AB, which is amended to clarify the definition for the use within this part. As mentioned earlier, there needs to be a distinction between a hooning offence and a drink-riving offence. Amendment 9.3 defines a Class B drink-driving offence in two parts. Part Class B1 contains offences which are considered high-level drink-driving offences; and B2, all other drink-driving offences. It also redefines ‘subsequent offence’ to mean either a subsequent Class A hooning offence or Class B drink-driving offence.
Amendment 9.4 is to draw a distinction between a Class A hooning and both Class B drink-driving offences of Class B1 and Class B2, discussed earlier, provided by regulations. The purpose of this, as I explained a minute ago, is to separate hooning from drink-driving so it has the appropriate opportunities to replicate the forfeiture, but not cross over between hooning and drink-driving, so that hooning can be reflected within a two-year period under the forfeiture rules, but drink-driving is ascertained under a five-year process where, on the third occasion where one offence is of high range, the vehicle will be forfeited. That is the intent of these amendments which are to be taken together, Madam Chair.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the proposed amendments, amending the legislation for the purposes of including drink-driving offences is not the nature of the legislation. The legislation before us, as I said, targets hooning behaviour on our roads. Impounding and forfeiture provisions and linking them to drink-driving is not the aim or nature of this legislation.
I am going to repeat myself often, as the member for Braitling said a large portion of these amendments are technical issues relating to a very basic issue: trying to link drink-driving to the anti-hooning legislation before the House.
Mr WOOD: Member for Braitling, I have one concern right at the very beginning which I did not look at as well as I should. The actual Short Title of the act is Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2009. I would have thought that would have to be amended first if you were going to bring forward a series of amendments which are something more than just the hoon behaviour bill.
Mr Giles: I cannot hear, sorry.
Mr WOOD: At the beginning of the bill, the very first thing is what we call the Short Title. The Short Title is Part 1 clause 1 of the bill. It says that this act may be cited as the Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Act 2009. I am not saying that I do not support what you are trying to do, but I believe that that would need to be amended to give a different name to a bill that is not what the government intended at the beginning because we have added something else to it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, amendment 9.16 amends the long title of the bill. If you refer to the back page of the amendments, to remove ‘all words after “legislation”, substitute ‘to provide for impounding and forfeiture of vehicles in relation to certain offences involving vehicles’.
Mr WOOD: I am not referring to the long title. I am referring to Part 1, section 1, Short Title. That is the part which starts the act. It is an act that specifically talks about hoon behaviour, and we are adding in confiscation of a vehicle for alcohol-related offences. From my point of view, I would have thought that would need to be changed to be consistent with what you are doing now.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, that question was put to Parliamentary Counsel, who advised it was not necessary to do that. We were prepared to do that, but that was the advice from Parliamentary Counsel. I am happy to move either way.
I pick up on the points the minister has raised. Yes, I understand that this came across as hooning, and I heard when he said that I should present a private member’s bill to address drink-driving. Last time I looked, I was not in government, I was in opposition. You are the Transport Minister and you should be the one coming forward with measures to address drink-driving. Yes, I do this passionately, because I do not want to see people drunk and killed on our roads; I want to see something done. There are too many drink-drivers. You know that and I know that, and I know you know that.
I apologise for the lateness of the amendments. I only finalised them early this morning. You say the opposition has to come forth with a bill to address drink-driving, when you are the Transport Minister. I have said that your hooning legislation is not too bad; I will back you. However, here are some amendments to try to fix drink-driving, and you say: ‘No, do not worry about it’. Regarding your previous comments where you said someone could be hooning or drink-driving, and what is the difference between the two. Well, let me say that a person who is run over by someone who is drunk and doing donuts, fishtails, s-bends, or speed racing, lying on the ground with their head split open, is not going to wonder if he was hit by a hooner or a drink-driver.
The point for us and government is to put forth legislation, work together collectively when we share a common view - and I believe I see a common view with you in drink-driving – but, once again, you have taken a soft approach. You have advice from your government to stand around a bit limp and not do anything. Drunk-drivers are everywhere. You have the power right now to say: ‘We will support you in taking a harder approach to drink-driving’. You have said to me: ‘No, get your own bill; take three months until your next General Business Day’. And how many more people die on the roads due to drink-drivers because you are telling me, in opposition, to solve your problems? I am sure that is what I heard: ‘The shadow minister has to solve the problem of drink-driving’.
I am trying to work in partnership to do that, and offering some amendments to make it tough. We know Labor is soft and we are the tough people with the punitive approaches, but to say you are prepared to wait three months for me to come back on another General Business Day to present legislation that you, as a government, will probably knock back anyway, to reform the drink-driving system of the Traffic Act is wrong. That is a negative approach.
If you are serious about stopping drink-drivers on our roads, you will take this opportunity right now. You talk about how this has come in now, amending the name of the act and all that sort of thing, and this is about hooning and not drink-driving. This is about making our roads safer. Call it what you want, I do not mind - you can call it the Giraffe Act if you want - but it is about making our roads safer and the Territory safer, and getting drunks off our roads. I do not know if I take offence. I am very surprised that you are not prepared to move forward to address the insanity of drink-driving happening on our roads - the high-range drink-driving. I cannot believe people would drive around at 0.30%; you get three or four people a night and it does not even hit the front page of the paper. In any other jurisdiction, it would be the worst thing in the world. Yet, you tell me to go away for three months.
I remind the minister - who was not the minister the last time this issue was raised - that during the alcohol ignition lock legislation debate, I raised exactly the same point. For you to say this has just been brought up is false. You knew three, four or five months ago - I cannot remember when the debate was held, I do not have the date in front of me - this was the thing I was pushing. You knew I would raise it again. You have all spoken about it; we know how it works. You knew I was going to talk about forfeiture of vehicles for drink-drivers, but you walked around limp-wristed, not doing anything. Be a man about it. You cannot have a limp-wristed approach to drink-driving. It is very sad that you have done that.
I hope I have answered your question, member for Nelson, about the title.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you had earlier.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I support what the member for Braitling has said in this place. He is entirely right. I am surprised the member for Nelson has fallen into this to a degree. Whilst I appreciate the technical argument - ‘Oh my God, it is the wrong bill!’ - my understanding is that the member for Braitling raised these issues three months ago.
This is one of the things that bother me about the way this government works. Whilst we signal well in advance our concerns with certain legislation - they do not go far enough, etcetera - the more immediate response is to seek advice: What are we to do? What should we do about this? Ultimately, if we take these matters seriously, surely we can pick up the phone and talk to each other? Surely, the minister in his wisdom - he is the top of the tree as far as this is concerned; he only has to take it to Cabinet and get it rubber stamped - can pick up the telephone and say to the member for Braitling: ‘We think you are onto something, so much so, we will accept your amendments’.
However, the normal politics of this situation is that the government will not accept any opposition amendments. Okay, well, here is another option. Pick up the phone and ring the member for Braitling and say: ‘We quite like some of the things you have said because this is about protecting Territorians lives. Do you mind if we introduce the bill, which reflects exactly what you are saying? Can we get your support so it is a government bill?’ The member for Braitling, I suspect, would say: ‘Yes, absolutely’.
It has been done before. I used to do it with Peter Toyne all the time - well, not all the time but on occasions. Peter Toyne stood in this place as the minister responsible when amendments were put through and, although he went through the machinations of defeating my bill earlier, he acknowledged when he introduced his own bills that he had spoken to me, and the inspiration and source of the bill he brought into this place was actually the member for Macdonnell at the time, John Elferink.
We are so entrenched in our positions, as politicians and as political analysts, it is as if we have actually lost sight of the fact that we should not be worrying about the titles of bills as a vehicle by which to avoid meaningful legislative change. I just find that fascinating.
Another thing, for the member for Nelson’s information, the headings in legislation under the Interpretation Act means those headings cannot be taken into consideration for legislative purposes – well, for interpretative purposes in courts. However, that is by-the-by. The member for Braitling made the point perfectly well that a person lying in the street with a tyre mark from their toes up to their head, bleeding in the gutter, is not thinking: ‘My goodness gracious me, have I have been run over by someone who was a hoon or who was drunk?’ It is a futile, silly argument. It just does not make sense to approach these things in this fashion. Sometimes, I think it is worthwhile getting out of our trenches, actually talking to each other, so that we might actually construct a legislative instrument that will work. I am disappointed that the minister – whilst I appreciate him being a new minister - has not taken a step back and looked at the totality of this and thought to himself: ‘Is there actually a vehicle here by which I can do something better than is happening at the moment?’
I am disappointed that his defence against these amendments is that it is not actually the hooning legislation we are trying to fix. Well, we have had months to deal with this. Pick up the phone, talk to the member for Braitling. He has signalled his world view; he signalled it months ago. There is no shame in casting a wider net than the department, or even the advisers, as to where good ideas can come.
We have a statement coming up shortly saying all our good ideas are coming from non-politicians; this is the 2030 statement. There is no problem in that, there is no shame. We are not going to be saying you are a silly little man for ignoring a good idea, or for stealing an idea. What we are going to be saying in this type of situations is: ‘Good idea, thanks for helping us get the good idea up’. Peter Toyne used to do it. He did not get bagged publicly, he did not get reamed out, it did not cost him political points. In fact, I believed it gained him political kudos. He also had the courage, when he did those things, to stand up and acknowledge where the source of the thought came from. I am supportive of these amendments, and I trust that the counsel we have received from Parliamentary Counsel has been sufficient to address the issues you have raised in defence in this instance.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response, first to the member for Port Darwin: I learn from everyone in this House, and the member for Braitling would do well to learn from your experience as well, member for Port Darwin. If I can just deconstruct that to some great advice you have just provided, I was in my office at 6.33 am today and I received the amendments from the shadow, the member for Braitling, at 8.55 am, and had my first very important meeting of the day at 9 am. Member for Braitling, no, I do not take that personally, nor did I take it personally when you were parked in my car park last night outside Parliament House.
It is far more important, as the member for Port Darwin has reiterated, to address some key words from the member for Braitling; taking up on the points that we are all new here and, yes, with power comes responsibility. I take this responsibility very seriously. I am the Minister for Transport, and I am here to ensure the passage of the Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Bill. I am not here to pass other legislation. Member for Braitling, you can do with some great advice from the member for Port Darwin on how to introduce a private members’ bill on such a very important position today in the House.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I understand what the member for Port Darwin was saying, but we debate these things in stages. We have just debated the second reading, and that is where we put our philosophical view and say what we think about the bill and whether we support it. I have said I support the member for Braitling’s amendments, and the intent behind it is good.
However, we are in the committee stage. The committee stage is about the technical side of the bill. It is no good introducing a bill that is flawed. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, the reason we have this stage - and the committee stage in a unicameral system is one of the most important parts of parliament because it is the only time you can scrutinise the bill thoroughly. The issue of whether this is the right name for the bill or not - the information from the member for Braitling says it does not matter; that is fine by me - does not mean that I do not agree with the concept of what the member for Braitling is saying. However, I reiterate; do not let us be carried away. We have already said what we believe in the second reading. Here is for the nuts and bolts of this legislation. Each part of the legislation the member for Braitling is putting forward as an amendment, in theory, can be discussed letter by letter, dot point by dot point, because that is exactly what this committee stage of parliament is for. I have always thought this is the only time one has to scrutinise a bill thoroughly.
I understand what the member for Port Darwin is saying, but ensuring the nuts and bolts of the legislation are correct is just as important, because you might have some great ideas but, if it is flawed from a parliamentary or legal point of view, then it is not worth worrying about. You need to have both: your belief, and what you are putting forward to ensure it can be carried out properly in legislation.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I endorse what the member for Nelson has said. He has been very even-handed in his comments. I really cannot enlarge further on what he has said, and the advice he has given, in a very genuine way, to the member for Braitling.
I will comment, however, on the tumescent scale that seems to be emanating from the member for Braitling: you are hard, we are soft; you are tumescent, we are de-tumescent …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I remind this House that this is a government that commissioned a wide-ranging report into road safety and took some very difficult political …
Mr Giles interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Please give me the courtesy, member for Braitling. … took some very difficult political decisions around that - and we all know what they are. They were comprehensive; they remain comprehensive. It was a very comprehensive report handed to government. Not only that, this is a government that actually invested funding into the area. We reconstituted, if you like, the highway patrols and put resources into the traffic area, in cars, staff, and police officers.
This is a government that has actually taken many steps and some very hard decisions in relation to road safety. Therefore, I do not think it is entirely correct - whether you agree with it or not, member for Braitling - to say this government is somehow soft on issues related to road safety and the carnage on our roads.
Furthermore, picking up on what the minister just alluded to - we know that you have worked hard to bring these amendments forward; you have been through Parliamentary Counsel and tried to expedite it as quickly as you can - the minister received them this morning. However, there is a process around all of this, member for Braitling; that is the Cabinet process. But, no -- alluding to what the member for Port Darwin said …
Mr Giles: Well, who passed the law?
Dr BURNS: If you just hear me out. … Cabinet does consider GBD items and other items and amendments. It is not up to the whim of an individual minister to waltz in here one day with a bunch of amendments he or she was handed that morning and say: ‘Yes, that is a great idea, let us go with that’. There needs to be Cabinet discussion and decision, particularly when there has been a very clear policy position by government on this issue. I know you do not agree with that policy issue about drunk drivers and confiscation of vehicles, but that is the government’s position.
Full points to the member for Nelson - and the member for Port Darwin - who talked about acknowledging the contribution of others. Anyone who has been in this House as long as I have knows the member for Nelson has been very steadfast in this. He has repeatedly brought forward - even when I was Transport minister - this issue. It has taken a long time, and the member for Nelson said it has taken too long. He is probably right, but government has listened to what the member for Nelson and the community has said on this issue, and we have acted.
I really do say, full points, as the minister has said to the member for Braitling for bringing forward what you feel is a very important issue, in good faith. You are bringing this forward and I certainly am not going to criticise you for that, but I do not think it is right of you to criticise the minister in saying that he is just throwing it all back on you to bring it in a private member’s bill, or an item on the GBD - which you are doing, which we will debate when we come to it - without recognising that government has actually brought in a lot of legislation, a lot of change, a lot of policy - and taken a bit of pain on some of it, I might say, in public opinion - but we did what we believe was right. I believe we were quite courageous in doing that.
I am pleased that, in this calendar year, the road toll is a hell of a lot less than it was last year. I hope and pray – and I know all members, whether you have divergent views or not, we all hope and pray - that the road toll in the Northern Territory will continue to decline and the horrible carnage we see on our roads will diminish.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I heard what the member for Nelson said and it is good that the member for Johnston recognised that we should just stick to the points - and then came out and gave a big government spiel. I thought that was really good - just sticking straight to the points. I recognise those tough decisions you had to make when they recommended the speed limit be dropped to 110 km/h on the Stuart Highway, and you did not take the tough decision because you put it to 130 km/h. However, that is beside the point.
There are two ways we can do this, Madam Chair. We can go straight through the amendments, dot point by dot point; government will roll over and get tickled on the belly because they are soft on drink-drivers and knock everything back. I will take instructions from the Minister for Transport that the government is not going to do anything on drink-drivers: ‘You come up with your own private member’s bill’, and come back in six months. We will just hope everyone has not been killed or maimed on our roads by drink-drivers and repeat offenders because the government was too slack to take it up. Then, when I bring it back they might listen - but they will not because they are government - more people will keep drinking and driving on our roads. That is probably the best way we can do it.
I will say one thing as a passing shot at the member for Johnston. The road safety review which was done and the measures you put in place such as demerit points and speed limits – great job - the road toll went from 38 to 75 in two years. You did a really good job.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to finalise with some observations. The member for Nelson is quite correct in some respects in that this is the nuts and bolts section of the legislative process we go through in this House. This is when we put the magnifying glass over legislative instruments.
I pick up on what the member for Johnston had to say; that this has to be a Cabinet decision. I accept that for the mechanics of the process, but I hope the government was not too enslaved by a system where it was not able to respond more effectively in certain circumstances. For the purposes of the argument today, I accept that. However, Cabinet could have made this decision if there had been a quicker response from the minister when the member for Braitling indicated, quite publicly, what he would have preferred.
The comments I was making were not so much about the process we are in now, but the process that could and should have occurred months ago. What the member for Braitling is proposing could have been worked up as a Cabinet submission by the department and put out to a few of the punters – however, you wanted to send that Cabinet submission through the system - and found its way to Cabinet. It could have been costed in relation to its effect on the budget - all those sorts of things. It could have been done through that process. The problem was - and this is the comment I was trying to make - you blew it at the first instance when the minister had an opportunity to pick up the phone to the member for Braitling and say: ‘Let us work something out’. That is when the mistake was made.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, a question on the nuts and bolts here. I need to debate clause 29AH and I am not sure where the member for Braitling is going with this section. He has taken a lump, we might say, and I need to go back to clause 29AH. I want some guidance as to when I can ask about that.
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move opposition amendments 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 to clause 5 together.
These amendments change references to prescribe driving offences that are in the government’s bill to preserve the intention of the government’s amendments and ensure only a Class A hooning offence is captured when deciding an impounding determination or order. Likewise, the number of offences and period of time those offences are considered relevant differ between Class A hooning and Class B drink-driving offences for determining a forfeiture order; a term for ‘prescribed driving offence’ needed to be clarified within each of the government’s proposed sections as a Class A driving offence.
What this is saying is similar to the last amendments I moved in that we had to separate hooning from drink-driving as it relates to forfeiture but, more importantly, about the impounding nature of the hooning legislation which is before us.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, I have to reiterate: we are here today to debate the legislation that deals with anti-hooning. You have already mentioned that all your amendments link and, unfortunately, I cannot accept them. The matter is of such importance to Territorians that we need to deal with it, and you need to deal with it through a private members’ bill. I encourage you to do that.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, it could get everyone out of a lot of pain right here if the minister said: ‘We will not support your amendments to drink-driving and the forfeiture’. We could just call it a day if the minister is prepared to do that.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, in your words, let us not get personal, let us listen. This legislation targets reducing hoon behaviour on our roads. It does not deal with drink-driving offences. The government is sending a very clear-cut message to hoon drivers. We are dealing with anti-hooning legislation here.
This is not a debate about drink-driving legislation. These are different debates. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a very tough, new penalty regime in place for hoon drivers in the Northern Territory. If you are caught hooning, the police will impound your vehicle for 48 hours. If you are caught hooning twice in two years, you will have your car impounded for a minimum of three months by the court. If you are caught three times, you can have your vehicle forfeited. This is tough legislation, good legislation. As Transport minister, I am here today for carriage of this legislation through the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, minister, well read. Minister, we have actually come to a point where this could easily be resolved. All you have to do now is say that you would support - you guys bring in the bill, that is my suggestion. Go and run this through the department, run it through Cabinet. All you have to do is indicate now that you will support the policy - just the policy - in principle, subject to minor amendments; that you will seek to have cars forfeited when people are drink-driving. That is all you have to do. Stand up and say: ‘We support the policy’. Then, we will not whinge too much about you killing off the amendments to the amendments as proposed by the member for Braitling. All you need to do now is say: ‘We support, in principle, the seizure and forfeiture of cars for repeat drink-drivers’. If you are prepared to do that at this point, then this whole issue disappears - it evaporates in a puff of smoke. That is what I would like to hear from you now. If you can position yourself - you have said yourself this is an issue of particular importance to the people of the Northern Territory - and say: ‘We condemn drink-drivers; we think they are awful’.
Is the current legislation working? I suggest it is not. Why would I suggest that? Well, we had 44 people locked up - last weekend, was it, the week end before?
A member: Over Easter.
Mr ELFERINK: Over the Easter weekend, there were 44 people locked up in Darwin, alone.
I noted with interest what I read in a report - a budget document I believe it was, or a Treasury document - the fifth most common cause of death in the Northern Territory is transport and related accidents. It depends. There are slightly different figures for Indigenous and non-Indigenous. We are talking about a serious cause of death. Seventy-five people died last year, and many of those deaths were the product or a direct result of alcohol-related driving. Clearly, the current legislation is not sufficient to deter people from getting into a motor car and starting it, at the peril not only of themselves, but of other people in the Northern Territory. So, it is time to look at something a bit tougher.
The policy being suggested here is simply one that says: ‘All right, if you are going to repeatedly abuse the privilege we give you when we give you a driver’s licence, then we will not only take your driver’s licence away, we will take away the weapon of your malfeasance’. That is what we are proposing here today. All I am asking of you is to commit to the policy the member for Braitling is proposing and say: ‘Yes, I am going to take that to Cabinet; it has merit and it is certainly worth looking at. We are going to send it off to the department and they can run their ruler over it. We going to send it off to have its budget implications looked at’. So long as you commit to the principles of the policy being proposed here today, we will be satisfied with the results of this debate - and, better still, if you can commit to a time frame of not more than six months. The reason I say that is because of our failure - our failure - to pursue the proposals recommended by the member for Braitling, this legislative capacity which he is suggesting will be denied indefinitely. If, however, you say you support the proposal, plus put a time frame on it; we will be satisfied over here, I suspect.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, this government does not make Cabinet decisions on the floor of this House.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not what I am asking. In other words, no. Where is your courage? Where is your spine?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I will close my comments and remind the Minister for Transport that, in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, 6169 people were picked up driving under the influence: 18% of those people were second or subsequent offences; 37% of the 6169, or 2308 people, were picked up at more than 0.15% - that is, more than a third of people picked up were at high range, by far exceeding anywhere else in the country. Run those figures of 2300 people who tested more than 0.15%, as opposed to the 391 people who were picked up hooning or the three people who had their cars confiscated for 48 hours in the four years between 2004 and 2008 since the legislation came in. And you want to debate semantics about the timing of the legislation and put it back on to me to produce a private members’ bill? That is ridiculous. The member for Nelson had a question specific to a topic …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, now is probably the opportune time to ask that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I was going to talk on clause 29AH. I will have a little opening burst.
I always wonder about the system of government we have for 25 people. We split this into two halves and call it the Westminster system. The member for Port Darwin and the Minister for Transport would probably agree on doing something about this, yet we have this system where we cannot get together as a group and get rid of this system which inhibits this place. We have 25 people who represent the whole of the Territory – a very small parliament. South Africa wanted to have a parliament of national unity; I do not know why we could not have a parliament of Territory unity. We have councils in Australia which have 25 people. They get together and pass legislation as a group. As Territorians, we are split down the middle because one side is Country Liberals and one side is Labor. I hear people on both sides. The minister cannot say for sure that he supports you, but I get the gist of the minister’s passion in this; that we can get together and come up with legislation that would really do something for the Territory. That is what we are here for ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr WOOD: Yet, we battle against this system - for a small parliament of 25 people. It is tiny. The English invented a system which runs the whole of England, Canada, and Australia, and we have it in this little parliament here, which inhibits the very reason I want to be here: to do things for the Territory. Yet, you get stuck for a long time - it took six years to get this amendment through. You have to be patient under this system, member for Braitling. I do not reckon we always should be; we would be able to move things a lot faster as a unified group.
The member for Katherine is a great bloke; the member for Macdonnell is a fantastic lady. I have just been to South Australia with her to look at container deposit legislation and she and I are working together for the benefit of the Territory. I do not go down there as ‘an Independent, she is a Labor person’. Sometimes I think: ‘Gee, can’t we make this system better? It is all about parties and politics when we really need to be helping the Territory’.
That is enough of my bleeding heart, Madam Chair. I will have to deal with this legislation’s nuts and bolts as it is. The nuts and bolts are related to the clause 26AH(5) which says:
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised that, in the circumstances you have stated, there are different avenues that the courts can decide relating to the outcome of the vehicle. The person can be charged under various sentencing regimes, and that matter will be dealt with under the jurisdiction of the court.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will finish up with these observations. I listened to the member for Nelson; I believe he is right. Those of us with a little corporate history around this place will remember the time that Shane Stone rang up Syd Stirling and said: ‘Mate, I want to go and look at this zero tolerance policing stuff. Do you want to come to New York with me?’ ‘Absolutely’, said Syd, and they jumped on the plane. The contribution that Syd made to those debates was vastly improved because the government of the day was of a mind to ring the opposition of the day and say: ‘Here is an opportunity; let us go and explore it together’.
When Peter Toyne was minister - and I am not going to go back into it - he and I had discussions around a campfire, literally sitting in the Todd River, talking about various issues. I had introduced a bill which was defeated because of the normal politics of this place. It came back in a different form under Peter Toyne, it was passed, and he acknowledged it.
We have lost something in this place. It is partly because of the entrenched environment - it has always been here. I wish there was a little more courage - without reflecting on any individual in this room - and that there was a preparedness to pick up the phone and talk to people, particularly from ministers to other people around this House - not just on this side of the House, I am talking about the member for Nelson as well - because something valuable can come out of it. Ultimately, those members who sit in Cabinet and who run the Northern Territory from that citadel have to reflect, from time to time, on how they choose to do that job; whether it is going to be an entrenched position, and that citadel is going to be fortified to resist all attackers, or whether the drawbridge will be lowered once in a while so that other members in this House, and other people in the wider community, can have greater input.
The members of this House are in a privileged position, in that we get to read, if we choose to take the time, nearly everything that happens in the Northern Territory in the various reports that come through the place. We are probably the most attuned group of people to the issues in the Northern Territory. For that reason, I suggest we are probably some of the best positioned people to advance the Northern Territory. We are well informed, as a general rule, and we are well positioned to know what is going on - people tell us what is going on.
Whilst Cabinet runs the Northern Territory, the laws of the Northern Territory are made in this place. If members opposite think the Cabinet runs the laws of the Northern Territory – no. Cabinet’s function is to run the Northern Territory within the law. It is this place that makes the law, and there is nothing that should be preventing this House from doing so. If members opposite think that Cabinet is the ultimate legislative instrument of this jurisdiction, then they have misunderstood their role.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will go back to clause 29AH(5)(a). A part of the hooning legislation punishment is to remove a vehicle. In the case of the driver not being the owner, are you saying there is another avenue for the confiscation of the vehicle?
Mr McCARTHY: No.
Mr WOOD: All right, you are clear on it. The second point is clause 29AH(5)(b), which is that the offence happened without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the vehicle. I will ask you again: if it can be shown that the person who has driven the car without the consent or knowledge of the owner, then the car cannot be confiscated, but the driver could be charged with traffic offences, and/or perhaps theft. Would that be correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: With this legislation, once someone knows that all you have to do is tell the policeman, ‘It is Aunty Freda’s car’, and Aunty Freda never wants to see her son get into trouble, so Aunty Freda always says: ‘No, I had no knowledge he had the car’?, is it possible we have a loophole to get around the law we are trying to enforce?
Mr McCARTHY: The answer is no, there is no loophole. This is about punishing the hoon, not the owner of the vehicle.
Mr WOOD: That is correct, minister. However, hooning is a menace. Hooning causes disruption to the neighbourhood due to smoke burning, noise, and danger to people. The essence of the hoon legislation is to remove the vehicle, as the driver without the vehicle has a lot of trouble doing burnouts. We can do it for 48 hours, but are we failing in this legislation to carry out what is the essence - to get rid of the ‘vehicle’. The ‘vehicle’ is the problem; that is, a car or bike or whatever that is disturbing the neighbourhood. You have one chance and it is taken away for 48 hours. The next punishment would be to take it away for a longer period, say, three to six months. The next punishment is to forfeit the vehicle. I understand, minister, what you are saying, but is it not the essence of this hoon legislation to take away the thing - the ‘vehicle’ - that is causing the problem in the neighbourhood and threatening the safety of the people on the road?
Mr McCARTHY: This legislation is to punish the hoon and a vehicle will be confiscated. It is not the intent of the legislation to punish the innocent owner of that vehicle.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, speaking to the same point, the minister mentioned this is about punishing the driver, not the owner of the vehicle. Surely the current legislation is punishing the hoon rather than the person who owns the vehicle. A forfeiture provision has been added to punish the owner of the vehicle. I understand there are hardship provisions, but the point the member for Nelson made is whether it is a loophole if someone says they are protecting a family member or someone similar by saying that they were not allowed to take the car - or they were allowed to take the car. How do you overcome that loophole in this legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: First of all, regarding good legislation by government, this was requested by the police. It is legislation that deals with an immediate punishment; a punishment that will make a difference to hoon driving and antisocial behaviour.
Ongoing offences incur records through our point system, and demerit points will register that record. Consequently, the hoon is the target of this legislation. There are very distinct methods of appeal through the courts should the innocent owner of the vehicle want to pursue the case. From my reading and understanding, I believe this is good, tough legislation. It has the principle of natural justice incorporated within it, and the principle of natural justice is dealt with through our court system. I believe in our court and judicial system.
Mr WOOD: I believe you are right, minister, in relation to the forfeiture of a vehicle. I am just trying to find it. When it looks like a vehicle could be forfeited, the courts have the power to look at whether hardship could occur. I am concerned that someone could use this same excuse time and time again, and the car is still around. Much as I understand the hardship, perhaps there needs to be a clause there which says if there is repeated use of a vehicle by someone and it is the same vehicle and you get the same excuse that ‘it is not my car’, then it allows the court to have the ability, where it is repeated, to actually impound the vehicle. Some people who are hoons could use this as a way of getting out of losing the vehicle. They might still get into trouble, but they would not lose the vehicle.
I understand where the minister is coming from. There can be some difficulties because you do not want to take the car from someone who genuinely had no knowledge of that person taking that car. Of course, that car could be the person’s livelihood. However, I also hope that someone did not use this particular clause as a convenient way of getting out of trouble. I will leave it at that, Madam Chair.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, like the minister, I have confidence in our court system. It is not a perfect system but, I believe, generally our courts get things right. Regarding people who might pretend the car was taken without their permission, the courts would want to get to the bottom of that. If someone did go before a court and lie, we know that is a very serious offence; it is an offence of perjury to the court. I have confidence that our courts are very skilled at getting to the truth in all sorts of matters, not least of which the type of matter we are talking about here.
That would entail someone going to court and lying to the court. I know our magistrates and courts are very skilled in separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were, in identifying people who are telling the truth and those who are lying. Occasionally, they get that wrong and people hoodwink courts about a whole range of issues. However, it is very serious for someone to go to a court and lie to that court. I believe the court has means of inquiring and asking questions of people, and the courts can usually very easily determine if someone is telling the truth or not. That is one aspect.
Regarding the aspect of people repeatedly crying hardship, I believe the courts would very quickly come to the conclusion that there was someone trying to put something over the courts, and they would react accordingly. These are matters for determination by the court. I fully endorse what the minister is saying; that he has confidence in the court to determine such matters.
Mr ELFERINK: I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Johnston. The courts have demonstrated themselves to be fine vehicles by which to discover perjury and such things. Just ask Justice Einfeld. How many times …
Dr BURNS: Where is he now?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, in the slammer. How many times did he fudge the speeding tickets he was getting? Many times. I can understand why the member for Nelson may have some reservations in this area.
Dr BURNS: You do not have confidence in our court system? Is that what you are telling us, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I do have confidence in the court system. It is not, however, the slavish adherence that the member seems to have. I understand it is a system which is run by humans for the policing of humans, and it is far from perfect.
For the member for Nelson to inquire about the vehicles the court may have at its disposal and the instruments by which it has to work - this is the technical stages of the bill - is not beyond the realms of unreasonableness. The courts are not the perfect monolith that you seem to think that they are.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, to clarify, the member for Port Darwin is asserting that I said something; that I have some slavish adherence to the 100% wisdom of the court. The Parliamentary Record will show that I said the courts do have failings; they do not get things right 100% of the time. I have an overall confidence in our courts.
Most members in this House are aware that, with time, all legislation is reviewed. This is a government that has given that undertaking continually. This is legislation that we will review in future. As I said previously, regarding the initial legislation around hooning behaviour, we have listened to further representations from the member for Nelson and public feedback. As a local member, I get feedback about hooning.
This is a government that is responsive to changing legislation. This is the legislation that has been put forward, as the minister has said, on advice from the police. There has also been advice from Justice. The government believes that this legislation is sufficient for the purposes for which we are applying it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, it has taken a while. Based on the matter that the member for Nelson raised, and on the statements by the minister that this should not cause a problem regarding the loophole we spoke about, I would be satisfied if the minister could give a guarantee that he will instruct his department to review this specific section of the hooning amendment in 12 months time, to find whether the loophole is being used by people. Minister, if you could listen and just provide advice.
Mr McCARTHY: In response to the member for Braitling, of course we would review the legislation. As the member for Johnston outlined, the legislation is reviewed as part of Northern Territory legislation. Should there be any flaws or problems with the legislation, then we would review it.
Mr GILES: In particular, minister, if you would review that loophole in 12 months time to see whether it has been exercised would be a good thing.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, I do not believe there is a loophole. However, I celebrate the active debate in this committee stage to thrash out the legislation. The member for Nelson is always good at that. I have been here a short time but I have seen his participation in debate - a very active participation. This legislation is good, tough legislation. Should the workings of this legislation prove to be problematic then this House will review it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, are we still on my amendment, or what are we doing now? We seem to be all over the place.
Madam CHAIR: I have not put the question yet, so if you have …
Mr GILES: Do we throw it open to anything, or just these amendments?
Madam CHAIR: You have been speaking to the amendments that you moved: 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I advise that I have received advice that the member for Arnhem will be paired with the member for Araluen from 5 pm until the close of parliament.
The committee divided:
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I have a number of these amendments before me still to go, and I am wondering if these are dependant on the last amendments. The government had indicated its intention not to support the process and has already voted against amendments to keep drink-drivers off the road.
I propose the remainder of these amendments not be heard, because it will be silly to try to move some amendments without the whole package. The government is clearly not going to listen to them, and is clearly soft on drink-drivers. It will be best if I did not put these forward now.
What I will do, at the behest of the Minister for Transport - he has a copy of my amendments and he knows what I want to do. He would have been aware, through the alcohol ignition lock legislation amendments I put forward, that I want drink-drivers off our roads. At his will, I will go back and let people drink and drive at high-range on our roads. I will bring this back in six months on our next General Business Day, because the government is soft on drink-drivers. Nothing will happen until I do it.
Thanks very much, Minister for Transport. I hope no one is killed on our roads as a result of high-range drink-drivers because of your inaction tonight.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I put on the public record, as the Minister for Transport, that this government is not soft on drink-driving ...
Mr GILES: You are the softest government I have seen. You are soft. You are more flaccid than - I will not say.
Amendments negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Territory 2030 – Draft Strategy
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minster): Madam Speaker, I place before this House the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy released by the Territory 2030 Steering Committee yesterday. In placing this on the record, I am urging this House to formally begin the public debate on the ideas outlined in this document, and to encourage widespread debate and discussion across our community. I am hopeful that, over the course of this debate in this House, members will feel free to add to this work, and to contribute their ideas and their views. I am hopeful members will feel free to disagree with the document where they feel an alternative view should be put. I will ensure that the Parliamentary Record of this debate is placed before the steering committee as part of the public contribution to the development of the draft final plan.
In my Address-in-Reply to the Administrator at the beginning of this parliament, I signalled a renewed commitment by the government to grow the Northern Territory, as well as preparedness to adopt fresh approaches and new ideas on the ways we can achieve this objective. At the centrepiece of my commitment to a fresh approach to government was the emphasis I placed on two things: first, to bring a new approach to the way government was conducted; and second, to set in place longer term plans for the future of the Northern Territory. As I have said before and repeat again, a failure to plan is a plan to fail. For this reason, I have reshaped our approach to the way we govern to one in which we are prepared to accept strong external involvement in our decision-making, and to ensure we plan for the medium and long term with clearly defined and transparent objectives.
Members would be aware that, immediately after the government was returned to office, I established a Territory Growth Planning Unit based in the Chief Minister’s Department to drive the growth and development of the Territory. Its primary focus was the immediate and medium term. Working with other agencies and dedicated public servants, much has been achieved in a short space of time. Members would be aware of the recent announcements in relation to Housing the Territory, and the growth modelling that accompanied government decision-making on the future direction of developments and the creation of the city of Weddell.
To provide a longer look forward, I established the Territory 2030 Fresh Ideas - Real Results process. If the global financial crisis teaches us anything, it teaches us the need for communities to have a vision of what they want to achieve with established goals and plans to achieve those goals. I saw Territory 2030 as a means to do that; to ensure that we make the big decisions today for a better Territory tomorrow.
The government believes we need a plan that is clear on outcomes and purpose, and designed to adjust as the world invariably presents new challenges and opportunities. The key to the process was the appointment of an independent steering committee to develop the plan and to lead the community engagement process. In my view, the success of Territory 2030 rests on this level of independence and the capacity of this group to listen to fellow Territorians. The document you have before you today is their document. It has been shaped by Territorians through their submissions, but it is the recommended approach of the steering committee, and it will be seeking ideas for the establishment of a final plan. We are very lucky a tremendous group of people agreed to take on this role. They undoubtedly have the right qualities, experiences and characters to do the job, and I thank them for the work they have carried out so far, and for the work they are yet to undertake.
The Territory 2030 Steering Committee is made up of:
Vicki O’Halloran (Co-chair, Social Inclusion). Ms O’Halloran is the Chief Executive Officer of Somerville Community Services
and sits on a number of government and non-government boards and committees;
the Australian and global finance and banking industries;
Northern Territory Land Development Corporation; and
I also tasked my department to provide secretariat services to the steering committee so it had access to whatever and whoever it needed to do its job.
What has been happening? I first met with the committee in November. Since then, the committee has met almost fortnightly except for a break over the Christmas period. This is an astonishing level of commitment from very busy people. They started off by getting to know each other, and discussing their own aspirations for the Territory. It is fair to say that they are a diverse bunch of Territorians.
The committee then moved to a comprehensive period of oral and written briefings on a vast number of issues and opportunities for the Territory. At that point, public submissions were called and there was a fantastic response, with 77 groups and individuals providing their insights into the future of the Territory. The committee also met widely with Territorians - more than 300 individuals and key groups and communities - and listened to what Territorians had to say. All this information became the foundations for the workshops on Territory 2030. I also met with Territorians and members of the committee in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin.
The ideas from these stakeholder meetings and the submissions were used to develop a structure for the plan; its themes, objectives, and targets. This saw the creation of a skeleton document - a base document designed to focus discussion. This was used in a series of workshops with Northern Territory government agency chief executives and senior staff. I am grateful for the effort undertaken by our agencies.
It all culminated in the development of the draft strategy released by the committee yesterday. This strategy is designed to focus discussion across the community on what is important going forward. It is a hybrid document reflecting the breadth of feedback from Territorians. Territorians have already provided plenty of good ideas. Many are projects and initiatives which have been picked up and brought as statements within the draft report. These views are not lost. Part of the next stage of the process will be to flesh out the draft and refine it as a living, flexible document which will guide us over the next two decades.
We will all have a slightly different perspective on the deliberations of the steering committee, but we can all agree that it is one of the most valuable documents outlining the aspirations of Territorians for the future. It provides a vision we can work with in the coming months for finalising Territory 2030. The committee has stated its vision for the type of community we would like to be, in the vision for the future on page 5 of the strategy. In summary, it envisions a state where healthy Territorians have equal opportunity to achieve their capacity. Lifelong learning and quality education will be an essential part of our everyday life. Closely connected to Asia and home for a well-planned, engaged multicultural community, the Territory will be a cultural heart of Australia. Our economy, underpinned by a strong private sector, will be strong and diversified, ensuring our natural heritage is balanced with our growth. It is a vision which we can all share.
The steering committee identified one major priority and five focus areas as we move ahead. As the committee rightly points out, the goals identified will not happen by accident; we need to plan ahead to make them a reality. The centrepiece of Territory 2030 is education, which the committee has identified as an overarching priority and one which must be at the heart of all the focus areas. I agree with them on this point. It is my view that we must strive towards continuous improvement in education to ensure that we progress as a community and a society. A well-educated and skilled community will be able to move ahead equitably. The committee has left us in no doubt that to achieve a step change in education, a great deal of reform must be done in the way education is delivered. This view again coincides with my own. I believe that we, as a community, must commit to pursuing a quality agenda in education. We cannot accept ‘a near enough is good enough’ approach with the future of our children.
The government is not averse to sensible education reform. Since coming to office, we have worked hard to deliver a better, higher quality system than that which existed in the 1990s. We have developed a proper secondary education system for the bush, reformed secondary education through a system-wide middle school approach, delivered a world-class distance education system, lifted the training effort by more than 50%, and improved staffing and resourcing to our schools.
Indigenous education does need a step change. Our efforts to lift attendance are beginning to bear fruit, but more needs to be done. The government is committed to providing a high-quality education system now and into the future. If education is the overarching priority, the core focus areas identified by the committee are:
and understanding the value of our culture and creativity to our overall wellbeing and education.
As the steering committee has rightly pointed out, ‘action’ and ‘transparency’ are the two words which have summed up its approach. The committee said: ‘We cannot afford to be long on words and short on substance’. The steering committee has done a great job in this aspect.
Whilst the government is not yet adopting a formal position on any of the recommendations, it is worthwhile to pull out a few ideas and suggestions for discussion as it helps people understand how this fits together.
The committee tells me that housing is an issue across the Territory. From my own discussions with Territorians, I agree with this observation. The key issue is affordability, and it is the committee’s view that we must improve affordability as part of our overall message of opportunity. I agree with this sentiment. We market opportunity and lifestyle as the key difference between us and the rest of Australia, and the key reason why people should stay here or move here to live and work. We have to back this up with real drawcards, and affordable housing is an important one. The government has made some major announcements recently in this area, but the ambition expressed by the committee is for achievement of better than national levels of affordability - a worthy challenge.
Jobs: similar to housing, jobs are a very important drawcard for the Territory. This is especially the case at a time of financial crisis across the country. Continued economic growth is seen as essential in protecting jobs and building our base. The committee also told me that Territorians were very clear on the need to see our Indigenous communities developed as sustainable and vibrant economic centres. There is no doubt that the future of remote Territorians is in the development of key hub growth areas such as Maningrida, Galiwinku, Nguiu, Papunya and others. Just as states such as Queensland decentralised and strengthened their regional and remote areas in the first half of the 20th century, it is now time for the Territory to harness the natural growth of these communities and develop them as major centres. The challenges are obvious: the way land tenure is administered, the economic isolation of communities, and the backlog in infrastructure needs - just to name a few. However, the committee is right. Unless we address these challenges, the gap between Indigenous Territorians living in remote towns and communities and Territorians living in towns and cities will remain wide and will widen.
Lifestyle: this is never lost on Territorians, but there were concerns there is less time today to enjoy it. The committee has suggested that we try for a four-and-a-half day week, or perhaps more positively, a two-and-a-half day weekend. I imagine this will excite much comment.
Regarding health, the committee has pointed out in its briefings that we need a fresh look at health; we must move away from a sickness system to a wellbeing system. This is a challenge to the community as well as to the government. The committee’s view is clear: we must all take responsibility for health. The cost of lifestyle illnesses especially will be unsustainable in the long term, and Territorians need to step up to their responsibilities for managing their own health outcomes.
Regarding the environment, the committee recognised that we will need to live very differently by 2030 if we are to be responsible to future generations. This has to be achieved in the context of a community of 220 000 people whose population growth over the next 20 years will expand the carbon footprint of our whole community. The environmental challenge is one of the most significant ones we face as we seek to balance development and growth with the needs of a fragile planet. It is clear that we have to grow in a sustainable and much smarter way than the traditional growth of those states which industrialised and developed over the 20th century.
In regard to community engagement, the strategy is now out for public comment, with plenty of opportunities for Territorians to have a further say on its content and development. There is an interactive website where you can vote on an area most important to you, and even edit the objectives of the plan. There will be a series of presentations with peak groups, community forums, and community visits. The Territory 2030 Steering Committee will lead the engagement process. They will listen and, then, refine their draft into a final plan that is expected to come to the government in early July.
In parallel, there is much work to be done on measurements, establishing the ongoing frameworks, developing the scorecard and building the performance management systems. This is critical, because the final plan will have clear targets and measures. Unlike this draft strategy, the final plan will be an official program of government and the community. Once we receive the draft final plan, the government will put the document through extensive internal comment, and will subject it to the usual highly scrutinised and tested Cabinet process. The committee is aware that the document reverts to government decision-making at that point. To date, we have worked hard to ensure that the ideas elicited from the committee and the community are free from the commentary of the government.
We have come a long way and there is still a long way to go, but I acknowledge the efforts of key people along the way. I thank Vicki and Bill and the whole steering committee; also to Mike Burgess as my chief executive, who has steered the project; Terri Hart, who is the team leader for Territory 2030; and her secretariat of Penny DeSouza, Rachel Fox, Kassia Woodcock, Margarida De Araujo, Jared Collins, Tim McManus, Nick McTurk, Robyn Manners, Jane Alley, Ross Muir and Dave Malone, who have all provided support along the way. I am very proud of these public servants, who are all part of the Chief Minister’s team. The hours they are working and the effort they are putting in is phenomenal, and I am extremely grateful for it. Thank you also to the people in every agency who have worked incredibly hard to make the contributions that were needed to reach this point.
I also thank those Territorians who have already made a personal commitment to prepare a written submission, responded via the website, or who attended one of our meetings. This is your draft plan as a result of your commitment to the Territory. The Draft Territory 2030 Strategic Plan reflects what Territorians have told the Territory 2030 Steering Committee. The committee has taken a wide diversity of information, crafted it into a document that helps focus our public debate about the challenges and opportunities for the future. Real and genuine progress has been made in what is quite a short period of time. The document is being released in a period of unprecedented uncertainty but, as I have pointed out, this demonstrates why it is so important to have a plan that looks beyond the here and now to ensure we remain focused on building a better Territory.
I encourage every member of this Assembly to contribute to this debate and discussion and to think deeply, not just about what we need to do, but how we describe what success looks like. I congratulate the committee, acknowledge its work up to this point and wish it every success in moving from this intermediate stage to a draft final document. I am sure the committee members are already focused on doing just that. Territory 2030 is clearly in good hands.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for the opportunity to comment on the Territory 2030 statement and, in particular, thank the steering committee for its work and commitment to energising thinking about how we frame the future of the Northern Territory.
I note the comments made by the Chief Minister with regard to those involved in a project of some importance. The work they undertake will, undoubtedly, provide plenty of opportunity to consider that which is possible for the Northern Territory. They will be doing their job well, and I thank them for the efforts they have made in designing or describing what could be for the Northern Territory. They have been well selected and supported.
I hope the community contributes to the debate. I hope they are involved, and I encourage the community to continue to do so. From discussions that we have as local members, we know that there are plenty of people out there with big ideas, and there is still that yearning for the ‘can-do’ to describe something that could possibly be, and put a plan in place to achieve that. This is critical to unlocking the great potential the Territory has and, given the opportunity and support, Territorians will get on with the task. However, when we are describing such things, we have to ensure that we are not going to sell Territorians short. We must be ever vigilant that the attitude of cynicism does not grow around this process. People have been involved, again and again, in projects of this nature - granted, not at this level where we are designing something over the horizon – such as community consultation and various forms of engagement. I have been involved, as local member, for nearly 10 years in a number of community engagement projects.
I endeavour to be as objective as possible but the local government reform, the review into secondary education, and the changes to school-based constables are three examples that come to mind. In the exercise that the communities were involved in, and were asked to contribute their ideas to, it did not take too long before the view that this was a process being used for effect rather than used to produce a result or an outcome, started to grow. People had a sense that they were being manipulated and were going through a process just for the effect that it created, rather than the result that may be produced by being involved.
The Chief Minister and I both attended the 2020 Summit - not quite as good as this summit because this is the 2030 Summit and it goes a little further. There was much excitement about the 2020 Summit. The attitude of cynicism was there, but there was a lot of excitement because there was a new Prime Minister – change - and there appeared to be genuine engagement about empowering people: ‘Give us your ideas and we are going to run with those ideas’. I made my contributions, as others made theirs and, bit by bit, there was a sense of whether this was a real process or an exercise to create an impression. Was it a giant marketing exercise? There were some delays in that process.
We now have nine big ideas; we will see what happens with these ideas. I am not a cynic by nature; in fact, I am an optimist. Having worked with young people in particular, if you are going to raise the expectations of people that leaders are engaged in a process that is genuinely for their benefit, then that will be transmitted and the attitude of cynicism will be eroded.
We cannot allow cynicism to grow in this process. The government, led by the Chief Minister, has designed this process. Not for a moment do I reflect on those who are involved, who contribute to, lead, and design this process. The construction of the vehicle has been put in place by the Territory Labor government. That is the very important point I make in this regard: make absolutely clear that this vehicle is to benefit the citizens and not the political process. It is not a system that will allow a distraction from the issues of today and be caught up in something over the horizon, in the sweet bye and bye, in 20-plus years.
People are desperate for leadership. You can construct the grandest of visions, you can have the best constitution in the world, but you can have appalling leadership that lacks courage to cut through, and you will let people down. From my position in opposition, I will endeavour to ensure that these grand plans have connections down to the ground. You can reach for the stars, but you have to have your feet on the ground. What will ensure that we can keep people engaged positively in this? If there is positive engagement much can be created because the power to achieve is in people not in processes. We must ensure that this is connected to the ground and that there are steps, one after the other – logical, coherent plans - that take you from where you are now to where we could possibly be. That is absolutely critical.
Anyone who has led a community, whether it is a school or community group, knows that you cannot go into a butcher-paper exercise where you write out what is possible. You will have people saying: ‘Yes, but how are we going to deal with this now?’ We need the connection between now to there. I accept there is going to be that response. However, we have to weigh it and test it, because the last thing I want to see is good people getting involved in the process such as the 2020 - with all due respect - where hopes were raised and have been deflated. I believe it was a PR exercise to create an impression and rise off some emotional experience, rather than genuine endeavour to roll up your sleeves and get on with the business of courageous leadership. It is only leadership that is going to cut through.
Let us bear in mind where we are on the ground now. Remember poor old Mark Latham? He had this ladder of opportunity. We seem to be focusing on the top rungs of this great ladder. What I am going to focus on are the rungs from the ground. I hope there are no missing rungs. I hope that when people put their feet on the first, second and third rungs, it will hold them, because we want to climb up that ladder and reach the top. You are not going to put your foot on the second or third rung if the first one is dodgy or it does not exist.
Territorians will judge a person’s character. Territorians have judged the character of this government. They know that they have a government that will stop at nothing - even though they received a very strong message on 8 August - with regard to how it presents itself to the community - with spin, gloss, process, and talk but no action. A strong message was delivered. Since the last election, we have more of the same spin and glossy brochures. I cannot believe how many glossy brochures are issued. You keep them coming, because Territorians are weighing up the character of this government. These are designed for presentation purposes to create an impression. Territorians know darn well what is going on. I will speak on behalf of Territorians who want to trust this 2030 process. I will not speak ill of those who are involved in this process who have been called in to create something for the future. I am talking about the architect of the processes itself - the Territory government.
If you search on Google you find there are 2030 summits all over the place. Kenya is embarking on the same process. Abu Dhabi has a 2030 summit or vision, and dreaming for the future - interesting places. The Northern Territory government has the same plan; it is not new. It is a little process, a vehicle that could suit the purposes of the Territory government. Could it? I hope not. I hope that when the Chief Minister stood there on 9 August and said he heard what Territorians had to say, that this is a genuine process and there is the leadership capacity to connect this from where we are now to where we could possibly be.
However, we see this audacious move with glossy brochures, which is like a marketing exercise - propaganda flowing out to create some kind of impression. There are ads on the radio. Good heavens! You would think we were going to an election in six months time. Then, we have this incredible move. Not only do we have glossy brochures and TV or radio ads - I have heard the radio ads; I do not watch much TV - we now have those who are political aspirants, or has-beens, paid for by Territorians, to run political strategies to promote the Chief Minister in Palmerston, Katherine, and Alice Springs. Will they stop at nothing? You can see how this community will judge the character of the government, as they would judge the character of a person. Are we fair dinkum or not?
I pass no negative comment or judgment on those who are involved in this. They are good people who have been called upon to do a task, and I value the work they have done. I only hope that this is not captured by those who are intent on creating impressions, with a greater interest in themselves, and how they present to the community, than they have in Territorians. If that is the case, Territorians will sniff it a mile off, and they have seen the actions - eight months since the last election and how many glossy brochures?
Walking around Palmerston you would think the former member for Brennan was re-elected. He is on a better salary walking around Palmerston promoting the Chief Minister and has the audacity to say to the community: ‘It is a part of a political strategy. Thank you, good folk of the Territory; we thank you for paying for this political strategy’. Unbelievable that you can conduct that behaviour in front of a community. What do you think they are doing? Give us another election, let us pass judgment. It is the same in Katherine.
You can see the nature of the beast. With that kind of behaviour, I find it incredibly difficult to approach this in any other way than I believe is the right way: to ensure that I defend those who dare hope in a process. I fear, after the behaviour of this government over eight years, it is not the slightest bit interested in what the community thinks, wants, or feels. It is more interested in itself, and it will happily reach into the pockets of Territorians to fund strategies, programs and plans - similar to that done in Kenya or Abu Dhabi - to create impressions.
The difference is going to be leadership; the capacity to cut through and to make a difference. I was looking around Australia at leaders I have admired. I can list them. I think of the time in Victoria when, with all of his faults, Jeff Kennett came in and provided leadership. Growing up in Western Australia, I saw Sir Charles Court come in and take Western Australia somewhere. It is that leadership which cut through and made a difference. There are others I could mention. It is the leadership component that Territorians will want to see as a part of this process as well.
The Chief Minister said in his statement that ‘a failure to plan is a plan to fail’. You have already failed for eight years. People will judge whether you have actually planned, because you have failed to plan and we have the issues of today. We are going into uncertain territory and there has been a failure to plan in the interests of Territorians. There is nothing left to assist us to travel through the difficult times. It has all been used in the years of plenty and, when the lean times come, the cupboard is bare. That is not planning in the best interests of Territorians.
You were asked to ensure you put some aside. The GST will not last forever; it will not flow in the magnitude it has for forever and a day. But you would not listen and continued to spend the lot. That indicates a greater interest in your own positioning and your own needs, rather than the needs of those who we are elected to govern.
When it comes to planning, this government really does not have a real plan for Darwin. If it had a real plan then what it said about Bellamack would come to pass. I know the history of this. Once you had one position and, then, when you held a focus group you found: ‘Oh my goodness, we are on the wrong track. Let us shift because we have to appear popular’. The government made the shift but it did not follow it through with the capacity to cut through. There has been delay upon delay. In this strategy, housing affordability is a key point. Well, well. This is a key issue. Of course, it is. Is that new? No. We can only hope you will address housing affordability. How can that be if you continue to lock up land, driving housing prices ever upwards? You are doing it right now.
We have to get involved with the process and think that, magically, over the horizon something marvellous is going to occur when, after eight years, we have staring at us, poor young families facing incredible pressure because this government did not have a plan to unlock the land. Yet, we have to believe that something is going to happen in the future.
I am asking you to add leadership to this, otherwise we are going to let people down. There is a lack of land for heavy industrial development. There is no plan for the Darwin foreshore. The ambiguous response from the government on Arafura Harbour leads me to believe it is not really interested in making any decision based on principle, rather it is self-interest. The government is more interested in trying to manage how it appears in public than to take a course of action. The signs are worrying.
The government is reducing public housing stock and raising rents; it has failed to have a long-term investment strategy for ageing Power and Water infrastructure – it was good to at least hear an admission on that front today - and electricity price hikes. Where is the dam in the rural area? I was shocked to hear the Chief Minister say, at a presentation last year at the convention centre, that: ‘Perhaps we will not go ahead with the dam but will dig further into the aquifers’. That indicates there really is no plan.
There is no plan for Alice Springs, which has an ageing sewerage system, and there is no long-term plan for urban growth in Alice Springs; a real plan responding to something that is a problem today and working ahead from where we are now, rather than over the horizon and back.
There is no real plan for the Territory - no real engagement strategy for the Asian region to build strong trade and business links. It is a no-brainer to say: ‘We are strategically located; we are close to Indonesia’. That is an interesting thing for this government to say. It appears to me that Indonesia has been wiped off the map, and there is only China. We have completely forgotten Indonesia and dropped our plan and vision. We then wonder why it is challenging for Garuda to sustain their flights to Darwin on a commercial basis. They are very polite; they are not going to blame anyone; that is their nature. The truth is that there has been a diminishing of any vision for engaging Indonesia; you have forgotten Indonesia. The result of that disengagement affects all levels and you find a decline in interest and traffic. It makes it more difficult for Garuda to operate. That is a part of the story you cannot ignore. You have no plan or vision for our immediate neighbour and the result is what we are living with today.
These things do not happen by accident - a slogan I have heard from the other side. They do not happen by accident or sweet spin; they happen by sweat and hard work. In recent times, I recently jogged across Sydney Harbour Bridge and I saw a vision realised. It was something that many people contested. There was for and against; it was controversial. However, what amazed me was that it was a vision that was contested and argued and, as a result of strong leadership, it comes to pass. The Clerk said the bridge was built in 1930-something and it was built wide because there was a plan looking over the horizon. In 2009, driving across, there are double or triple lanes, space for a train, and for pedestrians on both sides. What foresight was shown in 1930 to build something like that? That is leadership.
Not far away from it, there is another story in the Sydney Opera House. Was that designed by a committee saying: ‘Let us have some really nice big building; have a colouring-in competition and see if we get something that everyone likes,’? You would end up with something like the Kremlin if you went down that path.
Something extraordinary can be achieved, but you cannot just have the plan, you need courageous leadership that is prepared to fight for something based on principle. Otherwise, you will end up with some grey blob or, worse than that, you will not have hope or belief that anything is going to happen. It does not happen by process; it happens through courage and by inspiring people to be involved.
Education: I am encouraged that the steering committee has focused on education being the lynchpin of the Territory in 2030. That is good and correct, but it should not take a vision document for this government to recognise that the central role of education is to build a stronger Territory. It has been said again and again, but the results are not there to demonstrate that this government has the capacity to turn a plan into action.
There has been no adequate explanation of the sacking of the Education department CEO, or of the strange behaviour of this government towards an award-winning CEO. Little things like that feed into the community’s view of whether this government is actually fair dinkum and if this visioning project is real. They will match up the character of the architects of the process and make their judgment of whether they are really serious about education. There has been no adequate explanation.
Regarding attendance rates, the government puts their hands on their hearts and says: ‘Yes, it should be this, and kids should go to school’. They take out ads and things like that, but only the people who are compliant and recognise their responsibilities will respond to those ads. You also need to have the other edge; that is, to drive through that notion that schooling is not optional; it is compulsory. There has to be that component, that tough part, as well as the nice part. However, we do not see the punitive aspect to that whole message. We do not have that because Labor does not have that approach, as it does not really believe that anyone is really responsible for anything. It is like society generally; if you spend enough money on things then everyone will feel good and, ultimately, we will all start skipping off to school. You have to get hard. The bottom line is: individuals are responsible, and so is this government.
You cannot have a big process which is exciting, like Kevin’s 2020, and not match it with something that is real; that the people designing this project – which is the government - are up to it and have the ticker to make it happen. The citizens will play around with it and say: ‘That is very interesting, that is great. Yes, that is a good idea; we will re-engage Asia’. But, whether we really will give our heart and soul to this, I do not know. We have judged the character and the nature of the beast for eight years, and we might contribute to the good ideas part of it, but we do not have much hope that, when it comes down to the rubber on road, much will really happen.
Interestingly, the great Territory lifestyle is mentioned. It is a great Territory lifestyle, provided you turn your eyes away from the terrible things that happen in the suburbs and you are silent on law and order. We can talk about fishing and other activities - and I love it, I love the Territory - but I cannot ignore the problems with law and order. If we are going to have any confidence in this process, we have to also recognise the architects of the project, and those who are going to be given the responsibility of implementing something that will positively affect the Territory lifestyle. Violent crime is at incredibly high levels, which tells you there is something desperately wrong. Does this government have the capacity to turn that around? Have they shown a change? No. Perhaps a glossy brochure might fix it. Property crime is increasing; there is lawlessness in the streets. Even the home of one of my own colleagues in this Chamber has been broken into twice. There are riots in the street. I have been a local member for 10 years and I cannot believe the extraordinary levels of traffic that is coming through my door. What do I get from a government that is very interested in process? What I have now; this is the visionary leadership, the leadership that really cares for people.
Until recently, I was able to deal with a person - this is a government of process, not action - who came into my office, who had a problem with housing. My office could liaise with the local office and we would try to resolve it, usually within the day, in their best interest. This person came in crying because something had happened next door; there had been terrible goings on in the street - and some of it is terrible. But, now the minister has said: ‘No, Housing office, you are not to liaise with the local member’.
For nine years, I have been dealing directly with the Housing office so we could sort the problems out - no politics involved, just sorting people’s problems out. With a government of process, what happens now? This is the beast we are dealing with. A person comes into my office and I have to write to the minister who writes to the Housing office. The Housing office responds to the minister who then writes to me. I then write to or call the person who came to see me a month before. This is the outfit that we are meant to trust with a process like this, that is going to effect dynamic change. Who are you really interested in?
This is about securing Territory lifestyle and not the interests of the Territory government. That is what I find distressing in this. I am becoming increasingly angry at the behaviour of this government when it comes to its capacity, its prodigious appetite for self-promotion and the creation of exercises and processes which they pretend to genuinely believe in. Perhaps they do not go to that depth. They think: ‘This is a really good idea. They have done this in Kenya and Abu Dhabi, let us do it in Darwin, in the Northern Territory’.
I will finish by offering my full respect to those who have been called upon by this government to be involved in this. I am referring specifically to the issue of the place and the role of leadership in ensuring that which is dreamed of, devised, and designed can be achieved, and we do not breed cynicism.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, that has to be one of the more cynical speeches in this Chamber in the years I have been here. The Leader of the Opposition is becoming rather bitter in a debate around Territory 2030, which is a range of innovative ideas and thoughts brought together by a committee that stands aside from the government but has a strong connection with the government through the executive subcommittee of Cabinet. This is an innovation not seen before in the Territory. I sit on that executive subcommittee of Cabinet with the Chief Minister.
I am absolutely horrified by the cynicism of the Leader of the Opposition because I know the Chief Minister has embarked upon the Territory 2030 process to genuinely garner the ideas of Territorians. He put eminent Territorians at the heart and centre of the Territory 2030 process, with the exception, but brilliant addition, of Bill Moss, capably co-chaired, exceptionally and brilliantly, by Vicki O’Halloran, to drive a process at some arm’s length from government so that people genuinely contribute their ideas without feeling fettered in anyway, and to encourage that think tank committee to look at the ideas, innovation and thoughts coming forward.
There has not been the cynical arm of the government suppressing any of it. There has not been a cynical view of what the pure politics is in this, or what politics there can be in this. This has been a genuine process, right from the inception of the idea by the Chief Minister, to embark on a vision for the Territory - a vision that takes us to where we want to be in 2030.
I am appalled at the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition who previously called for a vision. This is a vision to have a genuine process created by the Chief Minister, with trust and foresight, and put in the hands of a group of very talented Territorians, with Bill Moss, to allow and encourage people across the various Territory communities to participate in bringing forward innovative ideas. I know the Chief Minister has gone out of his way to participate in the process by visiting the Territory 2030 Strategy forums. He set up an executive subcommittee of Cabinet to give it the executive arm and the grunt it needs to drive forward, to have that point of interface with the most senior members of the Cabinet table.
The Chief Minister would not have gone through all that genuine process, looking at the strength of the characters who are sitting on that committee, if they were people who could be led down any particular political path. Each of them, in their own right, is a very strong, capable person, and they could not be led down a process that was to create an impression, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe. He is extreme in his views on this subject, and I find it disappointing. Neither side of this Chamber has the right or hold on following and nurturing the aspirations of Territorians, and trying to deliver them. Both sides of the Chamber genuinely go in to parliament seeking to do that.
We do it through different ideology and processes, but both sides of this Chamber, I believe, genuinely pursue that. Yet, currently, there is this obscene view from the opposition members - fed by the arrogance that has crept back in - that they alone have the interests of Territorians at heart, and they alone would pursue to deliver the aspirations of Territorians. That is obscene and patently wrong. There are many of us, from this side of the Chamber, who have been born and raised in the Territory, who I know will stay here and pass away in the Territory. There are also many of us on this side of the Chamber who chose to come here, fell in love with the place, and are contributing countless hours to the service of Territorians because they genuinely love the Territory and are raising their families here.
I do not think it serves this Chamber well for the debate to sink to the depths to which the Leader of the Opposition took it, by comparing it to political football, a commentary on spin, on glossy brochures, and on political offices, all of which, if you hold a mirror up every now and again, you will see the reflection thrown back at the CLP in what they do in their appointments, courtesy of the taxpayer, in their own political office - past and present.
It was a disappointing contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about leadership and the importance of leadership. This is one debate where I thought this parliament might rise above the petty politics that are flung incessantly across the Chamber at the government, and actually embrace a debate and discussion of the ideas Territorians have brought forward and are encapsulated and enshrined in the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy.
The steering committee has strong leadership in Bill Moss and Vicki O’Halloran. If anyone in here thinks they can be led up a particular path for any political purposes, they are kidding themselves. They are both capable, brilliant, and strong characters. The Chief Minister’s choice of co-chairs was inspiring. Knowing the members of the steering committee - I know most of them personally through having been a minister for a period of time and some I know only by reputation - are very strong and capable Territorians and experts in their particular fields. A very great and august team of people will plot the course the Chief Minister has set, and will take us to where we want to be in the Territory in 2030.
Even in the toughest of times – and I believe it is most important in the toughest of times - you have to raise your head above the parapet and look out to see where you can provide vision and hope. It is particularly important in the toughest of times. The Chief Minister started the Territory 2030 process prior to the global financial crisis. It holds the Territory in a very good stead that we have an opportunity to inspire Territorians in identifying their aspirations for the future and future generations of Territorians, during a very bleak time for not just the Territory, but our nation. It is the toughest of times; we have not had economic circumstances like this since the Depression in the 1930s. It is these times when people need to know there is a way forward, that there is hope and, with new endeavour and effort, they and their families will see a time of greater opportunity. This is when tough visions such as the Territory 2030 are most important.
I congratulate the Chief Minister and the steering committee members for having their focus throughout this whole process on engaging and involving the Territory community. They have gone to an enormous effort to reach out across the regions to meet and listen to as many people as possible - individuals and organisations from a diverse range of sectors in our community - to hear their ideas about where they want the Territory to be in 2030. There has been genuine participation by Territorians in the strategic plan and how it has been developing and evolving.
You can scoff and say: ‘Well, Kenya is doing it and Abu Dhabi is doing it’. That is not why the Territory is doing it. We did not Google ‘2030’ to ask: ‘Who is doing 2030?’ You can scoff and be cynical like the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chief Minister stated he wanted to take the Territory in a positive direction. He wanted it to be inclusive and involve the Territory community. He has pursued the fresh approach of charting a long-term future for the Territory through the Territory 2030 Steering Committee; an eminent and capable body of people with their own ideas and views.
Its success is due, to this point, in large part to the strong leadership shown by the Chief Minister and the independent and very inclusive leadership of the steering committee. I sincerely thank Vicki and Bill and the steering committee team of Michael, Jan, Ted, Jonathan, Steve and Denis, for their willingness to accept this role. They are all incredibly busy and important people in their chosen fields, yet they care enough about the Territory to give up their time to participate across the Territory to listen to the views of the people. It is their hard work, dedication and commitment over the past few months that has seen us get to this stage of the draft. Through my role in this, and my participation through the executive subcommittee in Cabinet, I know they have been working long hours in reaching this point. The Chief Minister thanked the secretariat support people within the Department of the Chief Minister. I echo his thanks to Terri Hart, Mike Burgess and the team.
There is one thing we can all agree on: the Territory is the best place to live in Australia. That is one thing we all tend to agree on. We love this place, we love living here, and we love raising our families here. Yes, we are fortunate, even in these worst of economic times. We have high employment but we have a strong economy despite difficult global times. We have a fantastic lifestyle; it is an outdoor lifestyle. We embrace our beautiful environment. We enjoy our sports and our recreational activities. We are friendly people; we are known for our friendliness. Whether you are in Central Australia or the regional towns or the Top End, in the remote communities, we are known throughout Australia as being friendly people. It is an embracing, fun, energetic, and dynamic place with very friendly and open-minded people. On the whole, it is an amazing mix and diversity. We know we are multiculturally diverse.
We know that Indigenous people have enormous diversity within their cultures and traditions, and we know how much they enrich our culture, and how the world and the nation is quite interested - and interest is growing - in Indigenous cultures. If only we can harness that interest in more ways and also harness the interest in the beautiful Territory wilderness. It is such an exciting time.
I was born and raised in Darwin. I have seen this place grow. Before Casuarina existed, the suburbs stopped at Alawa and, beyond Alawa, there was scrub. There was no Casuarina Shopping Square; it was scrub. It was the best place to grow up. It was so much fun swimming in the creeks, chasing mud skippers, shooting buffaloes and wild boars, and watching old Croc Man chase and catch crocs. What an amazing experience. Also, watching the thriving, cosmopolitan growth as it evolved across Darwin. I know people like to think that it is now this horrible, ugly city. I disagree. Every day I drive into work from the northern suburbs, through the beautiful stretches of green environment and into our emerging, cosmopolitan, energetic, dynamic but still young bustling city. Every day, I thank my lucky stars for having been born here and having the opportunity to be back working here.
We have achieved so much over the decades across the Territory, from watching the town of Alice and the regions grow to the way we are better at engaging and taking services into the regions. What are those economic, dynamic, diverse, powerhouses of the regions going to look like, and where will they be in 2030? What will the life conditions of the people living in the regions, as well as in our major urban centres, be like? These are important questions to embrace regarding the opportunities for Territorians.
There is no doubt we face some of the biggest challenges of our nation in the Territory. We are a developing jurisdiction; our road network is 23% sealed; we are not at the point of development of the southern states. However, we do not want to make the mistakes or, necessarily, want to develop the way they developed. Territory 2030 gives us an opportunity to look at those fresh ideas, and at how you deliver real results on the path to 2030; how to be healthy, educated, be an inclusive society, grow economically, and pursue our political independence - because there is still the issue of statehood for the Territory.
The Territory 2030 Strategy is about providing an inclusive vision for the future that we think everyone should have the opportunity to contribute to. This draft strategy shows that many Territorians have come forward with many innovative and great ideas and that, generally, the undercurrent is they love their home, they love where they live. As the Chief Minister noted in his speech, this strategy was designed to focus discussion across our community on what people believed was important in going forward. People want to see the focus on education as that is central to our future. The government has always said that the number one priority is education. It is good to hear from others that this is the path they want to see us stay on and not just stay on, but take leaps and bounds in broadening our economic and cultural base.
We know that the full benefit of education only fully bears fruit over generations. You can start now and put all the effort in now - and we are putting an enormous effort in. The previous ministers for Education in the governments I have participated in since 2001 have all taken steps in delivering more opportunity and reforming education, particularly in delivering it to Indigenous Territorians where it was lacking previously, while not taking the eye off the opportunity to reframe, reshape and better deliver education in our urban centres.
A classic example of that was the introduction of middle schools, quite aside from delivering the opportunity for secondary education in the bush for the first time. Whilst we have done all of that, the vision and strategy of 2030 is where we need to keep going and where we want to end up. I am very excited about the ideas coming forward, particularly in the area of education, and in the important areas of early education and lifelong learning.
I welcome the steering committee’s focus on improving housing affordability for this and future generations of Territorians. It has always been a cyclically tough one in the Territory. We have dynamics that occur, particularly in Darwin and Palmerston but, also, to a greater extent elsewhere, with the impact of the movement of Defence personnel in and out of our town. It affects the rental and home ownership markets. It is important to pursue housing affordability so that there is an opportunity for Territorians to get that step up into home ownership, which is a key shift in that poverty cycle. You can overextend people and they can be trapped in poverty as a result of spiralling interest rates when that occurs.
In good times, like now when we have low interest rates, there are opportunities to be seized that will take us towards 2030 in affordability. Everyone has the aspiration of being able to settle down with their kids in their home, and watch their kids grow up in a place with some certainty in where they live and how they improve it.
The government is not ignoring them now. Debate in this Chamber was that it is good to have a vision but what about the now? We have a very strong, expansionist land release program. We have been reforming and making the most innovative changes in housing policy, particularly for affordable housing. We know that there needs to be a real focus on young tradies and what sort of affordable housing is there for them, as well as young families who want to get a leg up into the market, and also what is affordable rental.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the steering committee. I am running out of time to discuss the future fund, which I would have done. It is an exciting idea which, as Treasurer, I am engaged in. I look forward to further discussion on the idea of the four-and-half-day week and flexible working hours. The old unionist in me is very interested in how you balance work and family life. Congratulations to the steering committee and the Chief Minister.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on the Chief Minister’s statement. Like the member for Karama, I also grew up here. I go back a little further as I remember when Bagot Road was a dirt road and a trip out to Casuarina Beach was a whole-day expedition. Yes, we did swim in the creeks in those days. We swam in every creek, possibly, from here to Katherine. Sadly, these days, you cannot do that anymore for fear of crocodiles in our waterways.
The Deputy Chief Minister also mentioned how it is a pleasure to drive from the northern suburbs into her workplace in the city. That may well be the case, but I can assure you that it is not a pleasure driving from the rural area or Palmerston into the city - as I have done in the last few days and in a previous job - because of the intense traffic flow coming from Palmerston and the rural area. There is huge congestion on the roads which has not been alleviated due to the poor planning of this government to put road systems in place and to put extra traffic diversions in to and out of the city.
Yes, we do need to plan. We need to plan very carefully and meticulously in where we are going. The Territory is a growing economy. I align it to the analogy that we have not quite grown up yet. Some of the other states have grown up and have suffered in some ways as a consequence, I believe, and in others they have reaped many benefits. We are a different economy to the other states around the country. We are very much dependent upon our resources, whether they be seafood, agriculture, horticulture or mining, and that leaves us very vulnerable to what may happen in times of the current global crisis - financially and otherwise - because we suffer from the effects on commodity prices, whether it be minerals, cattle or other commodities that we export.
There is no doubt that the Territory has challenges that other jurisdictions in Australia do not have. We have a large land mass and we are remotely located from the rest of the country or, as some people say, they are remotely located from us. Our demographics are that we have a young population with an average age, I believe, of about 30, which brings with it particular social issues. It is spread out. We have a high Aboriginal population based in communities in all parts of the country - east, west, north and south.
In the statement, which I have gone through briefly, and as highlighted in the Chief Minister’s speech, the key and fundamental issue is education, and how we must get our children into preschool, keep our students at school, and ensure that the outcomes are positive and good. I have difficulties balancing this with the current situation.
This might be fine in 2030, but I am currently struggling with an issue in my area where I cannot get the government to organise a school bus to go to the Humpty Doo station on the Arnhem Highway to pick up nine Aboriginal students to take them to Taminmin High School and Humpty Doo Primary School. I have tried through the department, and I will keep trying. If we cannot get these nine students to school, who vary in age from about Year 3 through to middle high school, then I do not see how they are going to have a strong and robust education. I will keep taking it up with the government and the minister to see how we can overcome that problem. If there is that one small problem in my electorate then, no doubt, there will be other issues in other electorates of children not being able to get to school because of their location. It is not that far out. They had a school bus picking them up but, now, for some reason, it has stopped.
In the future, we have to ensure that the funding for our schools is realistic, based on the school population, the demographics, and the special needs of some of the students who attend these schools, whether urban or remote. It is important that the funding keeps pace with changing technology as well, that all students, regardless of location, have the opportunity for schooling that is fair and delivered in a positive manner.
The draft strategy also talked about statehood. I am a strong supporter of that, as is my counterpart, the Minister for Statehood. We embarked on a trip to Canberra not long ago to talk to federal members about the path toward statehood. I would like to have seen some stronger words in regard to the push for statehood. In fact, I would like to see the government take a stronger line in talking to federal colleagues about statehood and the path to statehood, and not to be obstructionist, as I believe some of them are. That is my view, following on from some of the meetings. They seem to have quite a few hang-ups about statehood and they seem to be obsessed that we might want 12 Senators, and we might want this and that - overlooking the fact that we are not equal in our constitutional rights. I urge the Chief Minister to be strong with his federal colleagues, and to try to eradicate some of these obstructionist views that some seem to harbour.
However, it was encouraging in our discussions with a Greens Senator that she was very encouraging and welcoming in her interest in statehood. We will be working with the Greens more in that regard because they seem to be very positive about where we wanted to go.
The statement talked about affordable housing and of course, safe housing, as I call it. Safe and secure housing is a fundamental right for everyone, not just Territorians. Sadly, this is not happening in the Territory. There is much play on this word ‘affordable’. It is not affordable for many people. They cannot get into the market for a variety of reasons, but predominantly because there has not been a systematic and methodical release of land for people to take up a housing package.
We are yet to see the final tender documents signed for the Bellamack subdivision development. I understand that no surveying has been done. I do not think we will see any housing lots come up there this year, if not early into next year. I urge the government to get their act together when it comes to housing. We have a crisis in the public housing system; in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and elsewhere. Whilst there has been some funding come through, it is not coming through quickly enough. We also have some serious problems with tenancy and property management.
The statement talked about safety for all Territorians. One of the outcomes discussed was wanting fewer people to die on our roads. I thought the objective would be to have no people die on our roads. It is a bit like saying: ‘We only killed 10 people this year. As we killed 20 people last year, aren’t we doing a good job?’ The objective should be to have no people die on Territory roads for any reason; and to keep all people safe, whether on the roads or in workplaces. It is not the first time I have spoken about safety in workplaces, and we continue to speak about it. NT WorkSafe does need to be separate in its own department and not subsumed into some other mega department. It has lost its way a little. Safety in our workplaces needs to be ramped up more than this government is doing.
The strategy talked about the economy and I agree that we need a strong economy. We need to have a strong resource base as it is from this that we will have the wealth generation to build the roads, schools, facilities and infrastructure to make us a stronger economy in the future. One opportunity is in the service industry for the oil and gas industry - not for the oil and gas industry itself, which can bring great benefits, but the service industry. We need to be prepared for when the commodity prices and the global financial situation improves – and, hopefully, it will sooner rather than later – so that we are in a position to meet the demands and challenges of a resurgent resource industry.
There is a comment about smoking, lifestyle and illnesses, and how this is bad and we have to get rid of smoking problems. I do not believe this government has gone far enough when it comes to smoking. Yes, it has been banned in government offices and in places where you eat food. However, smoking is still allowed in our hotels, pubs, in front of the hospital, some other public facilities, and our gaols. If the government is serious about getting us into a healthier lifestyle and not having the illnesses associated with smoking, then they need tougher legislation. Consistently, we receive the Dirty Ashtray Award from the Australian Medical Association. This is an indictment of how wussy our legislation is and how serious this government is regarding smoking. People underestimate the damage it does, to not only people who smoke, but to society in general.
Madam Speaker, I have other comments in regard to this document, but I would like to go through it carefully and also talk to stakeholders who have been involved, to hear what they think about the final document. I am sure there will be opportunity later on to comment further.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the draft of the Territory 2030 strategy released by the Territory 2030 Steering Committee yesterday. As the Chief Minister has said, the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy is an incredibly valuable document. As it is finalised in the coming months with the help of all Territorians, the 2030 strategy will provide the direction and vision for a smarter, better skilled and more prosperous Northern Territory. I congratulate the Chief Minister on his vision in establishing the Territory 2030 - Fresh Ideas, Real Results process.
The independent Territory 2030 Steering Committee has done a fantastic job in drafting the Territory 2030 Strategic Plan. Importantly, as the Chief Minister has said, the draft plan is not just the work of one or two individuals; it represents the goals, aims and visions of all Territorians. Already, 77 submissions and 300 individuals and groups have contributed to the draft strategy. Over the coming months, the steering committee will seek input from many more Territorians to finalise this plan. Like the Chief Minister, I also encourage all Territorians, including members of parliament, to have their say, read this document carefully, provide feedback to the steering committee, and contribute to creating the vision for the Territory.
I am sure, as Territorians have a look at the draft strategy, there will be vigorous and valuable debate on the proposed key initiatives including establishing a wellbeing framework and an Institute of Education and Child Development. Already, there has been discussion in the media about the future fund which aims to provide long-term funds so that we can continue building the Territory.
The six focus areas that form the heart of the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy will, when finished and successfully implemented, contribute strongly to many of my areas of ministerial responsibility. I am pleased to note that the steering committee recognised that education is the key to our future, and that the education theme is the centrepiece of the draft strategy. Across all of my ministerial responsibilities, education is the key to success.
In Business, Tourism, Asian Relations, and Trade, education is the key to improving skills which will enable more Territorians to contribute to the productivity of the Territory and, in turn, the prosperity of the Northern Territory and everyone who lives here. Education is central to developing a skilled and competitive Territory workforce, which is essential if our businesses and industries are to continue to prosper. Improved numeracy and literacy for Indigenous students and adults will increase work opportunities and enable Indigenous Territorians to participate in wider economic opportunities and enjoy a greater share of the Territory’s prosperity in the future. Indigenous education must remain a priority.
A focus on lifelong learning will enrich the Territory, open new opportunities, and contribute to prosperity. In addition to this, education is an important export industry for Australia, and further growth of this sector based on our tropical and desert expertise and experience, including remote delivery, needs to be a focus as well. We are already working with Chinese universities and other institutions on joint programs which will help make the Territory a world leader in education.
Last week, I met with Professor Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University, and had an in-depth conversation with him about the possibilities and his directions in this important aspect of the Territory and its links with our Asian neighbours in education - not only for students to come to the Northern Territory, but for Northern Territory students and staff to go to locations overseas in a joint project. There are a number of things that he is examining at present. He is very new to the position of Vice-Chancellor, as everyone knows. I was very impressed with his background and experience in other universities and the path that he has already plotted in taking Charles Darwin University into this realm. I am excited about being involved in this. We need to further develop these opportunities and, as our expertise in education grows, we can export and share our knowledge with the world.
However, education must begin at the grassroots in the community with community-based training and education for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians. This will also build the local workforce and improve the knowledge and skills in a range of areas, including health and technology. Over the next 20 years, as the steering committee noted, we need to continue to develop our education workforce to meet the unique challenges and the aspirations of all Territorians. This may be through increases in the number of Indigenous teachers and support staff, as well as teachers and school-based staff from other cultural backgrounds.
The social development of the Territory is a clear theme in the draft strategic plan. In that context, achieving statehood is an important step and should be supported by all. Including statehood in the draft plan and encouraging greater participation in our system of government are essential. Investing in and valuing our people has long been the focus of this government and must remain so.
Action to develop the Territory workforce, including through workforce development plans such as Jobs Plans 3 and follow-on plans, are aimed at assisting employment growth throughout the Territory and achieving a more highly-skilled, expert and flexible workforce needed to meet the needs of new and existing industries and the community.
As a key industry sector, the future of the Territory is inextricably linked with the health of the tourism industry. Over time, as the Territory develops a more robust economy, other new industries will grow to reduce our reliance on tourism. However, we must continue to invest in the tourism industry which provides jobs for thousands of Territorians. The 2030 vision to expand our strategies for core industries such as tourism, the sustainability of our industries, and the Northern Territory as a destination, must be built on cooperation between our environmental, social and economic activities. This is a common point, emphasising both the tourism strategic plan and the 2030 vision.
The Territory is not a massive tourist destination although we do attract visitors, as everyone knows, from overseas and within Australia. We must maintain and build our reputation for unique experiences and quality through the entire industry. Through innovation and collaboration, we must develop new products and enhance existing ones. That has been something I have seen in our tourism industry, particularly post-2001 and the problems with 11 September. I see a robust industry that is continually renewing itself and its products and offerings to people in Australia and overseas. The Northern Territory is considered a remote destination by both domestic and international travellers. Efficient and effective air access into and within the Territory is vital to sustain growth in our tourism industry. This is a key issue raised in the 2030 vision.
The social development of the Territory, the expansion of our employment market, and the continuing growth in our prosperity depend on affordable housing for workers - especially skilled workers - being available. Action on this issue is under way. The draft plan’s objective of ensuring that all Territorians have access to affordable and appropriate housing by 2030 is important. Within my portfolio area, the Land Development Corporation’s current work on these issues, and on the availability of sustainable industrial land to meet the development needs of the Territory, is an extremely valuable contribution. We need to continue to build on this, and related work in other portfolios, to ensure that the land needed for residential, commercial, and industrial development is available. This will provide a further requirement for current and future growth, and contribute to the prosperity theme identified by the steering committee.
The draft strategy’s recognition that we should aim to maintain the Territory’s growth rate at levels above the national average is appropriate. How this translates in the measures in the final Territory 2030 plan will require careful thought, and avenues to achieve the identified economic growth will need to be evaluated. In this and other areas, the Draft Territory 2030 Strategic Plan overarches and complements the current Economic Development Framework, with its 2015 time horizon. The Economic Development Framework may need to evolve further to incorporate the objectives and measures to be included in the finalised 2030 plan and the current actions being taken.
Indigenous, regional, and remote economic developments are important objectives which could have had even greater emphasis in the draft plan. Action in these areas must continue to be a major focus of the Territory government, and will continue to be a major focus. Continued high levels of public sector investment in economic and community infrastructure such as schools, ports, and roads also need to be ongoing priorities.
It is fundamentally important to ensure that we secure and develop the Territory’s competitive business operating environment and the level of private sector investment that underpins economic growth. Our low tax environment, proximity to Asia, improved infrastructure such as the railway and port, and relatively healthy economic climate, are key factors in securing private sector investment in the Northern Territory. I am pleased to see that these aspects are highlighted in the draft plan.
Growing local industry is also important. Initiatives such as building the Northern Territory Industry Participation Policy, designed to ensure Northern Territory businesses are able to participate in major Territory projects need to continue and, where beneficial, they should be expanded.
Promoting the Northern Territory as a regional supply and service centre will also assist to grow our local industry further. This will be complemented by the expansion of shipping and aviation links, and the provision of vital infrastructure for increased trade success. The draft strategy aims to establish Darwin as a centre for operation, maintenance and workforce development for the mining, oil, and gas industry, and this deserves strong support. The focus on the expansion of the Territory’s manufacturing sector will broaden the Territory economy and strengthen international trade. Downstream gas-based manufacturing will contribute significantly to growth in our export trade.
As highlighted by the steering committee, increasing the capability of Territory businesses will maximise our ability to remain competitive and take full advantage of emerging and new opportunities. Expanding our existing programs and developing new ways of assisting industries and entrepreneurs will encourage more Territorians to start valuable new businesses, including Indigenous and joint venture businesses. The steering committee’s proposal that we support the expansion of the Defence support sector will also achieve further Territory economic development in the period to 2030.
In the time I have been Defence Support Minister, I have been very impressed with the local Defence support industry and seeing how active and proactive it is. It is innovative and forward looking, acutely aware of every business opportunity, and works closely with governments, both federal and Territory, to establish the industry.
While growing our existing industry, we must also take every opportunity to broaden our economic base by exploring new and emerging industry sectors, and capitalise on our competitive advantages, including geographic location, unique skills, and knowledge base. This should include developing sustainable, environmentally compatible and environment services industry growth opportunities. This will position us to help all Territorians to improve sustainability and reduce our impact on the environment, as well as open up export opportunities.
We also need to build our creative and knowledge-base industries, as identified in the draft plan’s knowledge, creativity and innovation theme. We have a number of advantages in this area with desert knowledge, tropical knowledge, savannah research and Indigenous knowledge and expertise already well established, as well as the CRC for Aboriginal Health that has been established at the Menzies School of Health Research for a long time.
We need to build on these strengths. Our environment is naturally healthy and clean, but we must also respond to the increasing issue of climate change. This challenge also provides us with many opportunities. Our isolation from major metropolitan centres has meant that we have found new ways to do things based on the latest technology. Knowledge- and research-based industries will benefit from Australian and Territory government and business investment in research and development. As our reputation grows as a smart, environmentally friendly Territory, people from around the world will continue to visit the Territory because of our relatively pristine environment. As identified in the draft plan, to ensure we maintain our pristine environment, there needs to be an increased focus on research, innovation and teaching in fields such as creative industries, desert knowledge, solar technology, natural resource management, sustainable tropical living, health, education, and child development to name a few.
Many of these industries use and, in some cases, rely on high-speed broadband telecommunications to develop and expand. The draft plan’s focus on seeking access to high-speed broadband and the following on technology likely to emerge through to 2030 should be strongly supported. Early action to achieve this is particularly important. Upgraded and strengthened broadband infrastructure - and I am sure my colleague, the minister for Communications, will speak on this issue - is required for business and homes throughout the Northern Territory, especially regional and remote areas that rely even more heavily on reliable communications technology.
All the aims of the draft strategy will combine to see a strong focus on economic developments and a vision for increasing opportunities for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, as the Territory 2030 vision is finalised and we begin to implement the plan, we will unlock the potential of the Northern Territory, as we tap into the unlimited resource of caring, innovative and knowledgeable Territorians. I certainly support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition speak on the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement today, and I heard a passionate and informed debate, only to have what he submitted to this House labelled as cynicism by the Deputy Chief Minister. Frankly, the Deputy Chief Minister was right; there was cynicism in what the Leader of the Opposition said, as there will be …
Mr Elferink: With some justification, I suspect.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Quite right. … as there will be with all the contributions from this side of the House. The reason for that cynicism is that over the last eight years this government has been in power, it has shown itself to deserve nothing more than scorn and disdain, given how the members have decided to conduct government in the Northern Territory. The government has systematically moved away from a system of real community engagement. It has taken upon itself to govern with little input from the community. This is now showing, and was reflected in last year’s election result where, within 40 votes, the government came close to being kicked out of office. That was a revolt by the people of the Northern Territory. It should be taken as an indication to the government members that they got it wrong, and have had it wrong for the past seven years prior to that.
One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result each time. I refer to many things the government does. Let me quickly talk about recruitment of police and nurses and how those strategies on their own simply do not solve the problems the Northern Territory faces. I read or heard earlier today that there were 337 more police officers than 2001, yet the crime rates in the Northern Territory have skyrocketed. On its own, that is a no-brainer, indicating that simply throwing resources at something does not work. You only have to look at increased recruiting of nurses and, then, look at the appalling state of the health system in the Northern Territory and how people of the Northern Territory are the big losers.
In today’s paper, on page 2, is an article with the title ‘54 cops joining beat “to make streets safer”’. I read it and thought it is good to have more police on the beat and, if those 54 police officers were all going into general duties, that would be even better. However, given past history, putting 54 cops on the street will do very little to solve the law and order issues faced by the Northern Territory today. In some strange way, probably on a subconscious level, the government actually knows that, because a little part of this article says that the Territory will get two new magistrates and hire more prosecutors to deal with increasing court lists. That is an acknowledgement that throwing resources does not solve the problem; all it does is put more people through the court system.
They realise that more coppers - yes, you have to have them – is going to equate to needing more magistrates and more prosecutors. I have worked in the system so I have a fairly good practical understanding of how that works. Just in case the understanding of the government members’ is at some subliminal level, I bring it to their attention so that it is now on their conscious level. The strategy you are employing with this is simply not working, and has not worked for a long time. I am cynical. I do not think I have quite reached the stage of being sceptical, because I still believe that the government is, for all intents and purposes, trying its very best to achieve something that is probably beyond its level of capacity to achieve. A sceptic would say that nothing is happening on that side of the House, and will not happen. I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I maintain a healthy cynicism for what they are doing.
I note in the draft strategy, at page 9, it says that chronic disease, violence, lifestyle-inspired illnesses, and generational disadvantage are likely outcomes of a future without change. If this government does not change its strategies - and we know those strategies are not working - then chronic disease, violence, lifestyle-inspired illness, and generational disadvantage will be outcomes in 2030 under the current regime. There is nothing to indicate that the government has any fresh ideas at all. That is simply rhetoric and unfortunately, sad as it is, I believe the members on the other side of the House actually believe their own rhetoric. They seem so hell-bent on following their particular line that they are unwilling to accept the ideas that flow from this side of the House. They seem incapable of accepting the ideas that flow from the general public, and that is evidenced in many ways across the Northern Territory, and was shown at the 2008 election when they got a bit of a routing.
I note on page 9 of the report a graph with anticipated growth rates. I see the NT is going to grow, the Indigenous population will grow, so will Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and Alice Springs. I note – it is pretty hard to discern on the graph here - it looks like Katherine and Tennant Creek are either going to diminish in size or stay the same. I would like to know what strategies contained within here are actually proactive strategies designed to get around the idea that is certainly apparent; that those regional centres will not grow over the course of the next 20 years. It beggars belief that a place like Katherine, for example, is considered by this government as a no-growth town. That is what they are saying: in the next 20 years, Katherine is going to be the same or get smaller. Katherine is a hub and should be considered so ...
Dr Burns: That is what it says in the strategy.
A member: Mate, it is a slap in the face for Katherine by this government; that is what it is. The same for Tennant Creek and Gove.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is exactly right. It will only grow by 500 people; I cannot see any growth in there at all. Where are the proactive measures that will be put in place to deal with growing regional centres of the Northern Territory?
As the Leader of the Opposition described, this is just another glossy brochure - not quite as glossy as some of the others I have seen ...
Mr Bohlin: Could not afford a map this time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … probably to cut costs because we have been criticising all the glossy brochures, which is fine.
Dr Burns: See what it says about Katherine on page 38.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is this the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, member for Johnston?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The issue is the fact that people of the Northern Territory need to start believing in something. Everyone needs to believe in something, whether they are religious people or otherwise. We all like to think that there is some higher authority and we would all like to think that the government is a higher authority - not necessarily the highest, but certainly a higher authority. The people of the Northern Territory are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the way this government is running the Northern Territory. I hear it across my electorate; we all hear it across our electorates. The sad part is this government constantly and consistently shuts down debate from this side of the House.
This side of the House, unlike the last period of government, represents 50% of the people in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that if you put all the votes together into one big box, pulled them out and counted them on the Labor side and the Country Liberal side, we will be 50% of the Northern Territory representation. What a height of arrogance! How long was the Country Liberal Party in power – 20-something years before this mob got in? It took us that many years to get to the degree of arrogance that we did. It has taken this government eight years to get to this degree of arrogance where they are quite happy and willing to ignore 50% of the population of the Northern Territory in favour of their own ideals.
This is not representation of the people of the Northern Territory; this is a bunch of ministers and MLAs banging on about how they are going to protect their jobs into the future. That is all it is. These are politically charged ideas and decisions that they make. They are designed to do nothing more than protect themselves; they are not looking out for the interests of Territorians. They still refuse to have proper community engagement.
Let me talk a little about community engagement. When the Chief Minister advertised that he was going to Katherine to engage the community in this 2030 forum, he advertised that there was one meeting. There were two meetings that day. The Chief Minister came to a morning meeting for invited guests only. The general public did not have access to the Chief Minister, despite the advertisement in the paper, where many of them believed that they would actually be meeting with the Chief Minister. I did not get an invitation to that either. I thought that because I represent 8000 or 9000 people I might have had a guernsey, but, no. That is all right. This secret meeting was held in the morning.
In the afternoon, all the locals rocked up to the so-called Chief Minister’s public forum, only to find that the Chief Minister was not there after all. Many disappointed people went away thinking this Chief Minister and this government were not really interested in engaging with people in the Northern Territory.
Let me give you another example of how this government would like to engage with people. Recently, the Office of the Chief Minister opened in Katherine. You would think that, with an office of the Chief Minister, you could walk up to the door, push the door open, go in and talk to the receptionist and say: ‘Hey, I would like to talk to the Chief Minister’s representative’. But oh, no, you could not do that. I believe the problem has been rectified. However, I gather, ratified by the government, the way they do things is that to get into the Chief Minister’s Office in Katherine you had to press a buzzer to gain access. So, ding dong! and the receptionist or whoever was in the office could vet who came in.
It was not until the issue was raised that that has now been rectified. That reeks of the insensitivity and the lack of thought process that goes on, on that side of the House, when you are talking about community engagement. There you have it. They have their now highly-paid, failed three-times Labor candidate sitting in the Office of the Chief Minister in Katherine - jobs for the girls.
I was not around when the Chief Minister earlier alluded to - I think it was the Chief Minister, it might have been the Deputy Chief Minister - the fact that the CLP had done similar things in the past. Well, let me ask you this: if the Chief Minister wants to criticise the Country Liberal Party for things that they have done in the past, then why in God’s name are they replicating the same behaviour? We would all like to think - would we not? - that governments would not do the same; that governments would get better at their job as time goes by, learning from the mistakes they make, or past governments made. But no. What we are going to do is: ‘Oh, you made a mistake and we think that that is now a pretty good idea because we can make the same mistake as well’. It does not wash with me, and it does not wash with Territorians. They can see through this veil. It is a failed attempt to come up with some sort of plan that I suspect, like many other plans that the government has come up with, will never see the light of day again. It is not good enough; there is simply the case here where the government pays lip service to these issues. It is not interested in real engagement with Territorians. The government should be ashamed for perpetuating the type of behaviour that almost got them kicked out of government eight months ago. They have not learned their lesson, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they will pay the price.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, what a woeful speech from the member for Katherine. All he can think about is a buzzer. We are talking about the future of the Territory. We are talking about the next 20 years, and all he can think about is a buzzer – a poor little buzzer in Katherine. Again, he keeps talking Katherine down endlessly. People in Katherine should know what he thinks about Katherine, and what he thinks about the 2030 committee as well. He virtually said these people are political hacks. Ted Egan is a political hack; Bill Moss is a political hack ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Not only did I not mention the names that the member for Daly is pointing out, I certainly never said ‘political hack’. I ask him to withdraw those comments and apologise.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw those comments, but I will go back over it. He did say these were political ideas. These are politically charged ideas, it is a politically charged document. Well, it is not. It is a document which has been developed by a steering committee in consultation at community functions across the Northern Territory, with members of the public. We have eminent people on the committee. He is casting aspersions on the people on the steering committee.
Vicki O’Halloran is highly respected in the non-government sector. Bill Moss, is a nationally respected economics expert. We have community representatives; Michael Berto, for example. It is strange the member for Katherine would run down a member of the Katherine community who is on the steering committee. Perhaps he should have a chat ...
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Much as I love listening to the member for Daly, the member for Katherine did not run down Michael Berto. I ask the member for Daly to retract those comments, thanks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. He cast aspersions on Mr Michael Berto. Perhaps he should have a chat with Michael: ‘What is this 2030 all about? What can you tell me? What do you think of it? Do you reckon it is politically charged ideas? Do you think it is a worthwhile document? Do you reckon it is a worthwhile committee you are on? What have you heard from members of the community across the Territory? What have you heard? What did you read in the 77 submissions? Was the contribution from the Northern Territory Resources Council a politically charged idea? Was the contribution from the National Seniors of Australia, Alice Springs, a politically charged idea? Did Carers NT offer politically charged ideas?’
What a load of rubbish! How disingenuous the member for Katherine is about this document. This is owned by the Northern Territory people …
Dr Burns: He is cynical about it.
Mr KNIGHT: He is absolutely cynical. All he can talk is buzzers. This document is owned by the Territory people because they had a chance to contribute; 77 organisations and individuals bothered to write quite lengthy submissions about the future of the Territory.
This document, if you bother to read it, member for Katherine, is quite comprehensive. It provides some vision about what we should do every day as a government, and what community organisations and people need to be thinking about for the future. Much of it is tied up in where we are going to be. He did not even bother to read page 38 when he said ‘What about Katherine?’ It is here, member for Katherine; as a regional hub. Katherine is a regional hub; it always will be. Perhaps they had better get some decent representation; someone who is going to drive the Katherine community instead of crying about it all the time.
The cynicism and scepticism on the other side of the House needs to be put away. This document is owned by the Territory people. It is driven by a highly competent steering committee. It is released for public comment. It is not a politically charged document. It provides a vision for the future. Some of the figures are provided for the first time about where we will be in the next 20 years; what we will need. It is thought provoking for government and residents across the Northern Territory. We will need 786 new teachers with a growth rate in Darwin of around 2.2%. It provides some impetus; it is looking into the future. It is a valuable document.
The old Foundations for Our Future document was politically charged. It was driven from the CLP’s policy bunker. They were politically charged documents. This document is owned by Territorians. It truly is.
I will talk about the 2030 plan in respect of my portfolio areas. There will be growing demands for power, water and sewerage services in the future, and that ties into my responsibilities as the Minister for Essential Services. We already have a capital works program valued at more than $1m over the next five years - a very good start. A reliable and efficient utility is essential to grow the Territory and protect businesses and jobs. We need to plan for a more energy efficient future to conserve our resources and protect our environment. We must limit our resource use and focus on energy and water efficiency in our homes and gardens.
The Draft Territory 2030 Strategy sets these goals. The framework includes targets for energy efficiency and sets the objective that, by 2015, we reduce our per-capita carbon emissions from power generation by 20% compared to 2009 levels. An ambitious target, but we will deliver new power generators that are more energy efficient and, therefore, reduce emissions. The Territory has one of the cleanest energy supplies but we can, and will, do more.
I note the draft strategy includes a goal that, by 2020, renewable energy sources contribute 5% to principal power grids and 10% to remote power grids. This will require a greater investment in renewable energy technology and the provision of products to customers so they can make the choice to pay a little more to do their bit for the environment. We already have a solar power buy-back scheme, and I expect this scheme to grow into the future.
The Territory 2030 Steering Committee has included a goal to improve environmental health in remote communities to a standard similar to the rural and urban communities by 2020. This will be an enormous challenge. However, my recent announcement that we will be investing $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities, including $18.9m for infrastructure, is a significant move forward. We will commit to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and improving essential services in the bush is a critical part of this strategy.
I move on to housing. Targets and objectives for housing outlined in the 2030 draft strategy are ambitious, assuring that every Territorian has access to appropriate accommodation by 2030, assuring housing affordability for purchase and rent exceeds the national average from 2015, and ensuring the Territory has the most affordable housing from 2015 onwards. These targets highlight the importance of continuing to deliver on much-needed reforms in our housing sector. Access to adequate and appropriate housing is central to all facets of community life for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians alike. A stable and safe home means better health, education, job outcomes, and flows on to a safer community.
On 4 March 2009, I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing the most comprehensive overhaul of the Territory housing sector. This government is committed to ensuring there is more affordable housing available to buy and rent, and the Housing the Territory Strategy sets out a package of reforms to get the balance right with more land to grow, new places to buy, new places to rent, and new public housing.
The growth of the Territory’s economy and population in recent years has been felt in the property market with the value of homes rising across the board. That has been great news for homeowners and investors, but the government recognises it has made it tough for people to find an affordable place to rent, or to make the first step into the property market. We need affordable housing to be part of our future to ensure that key workers can continue to be attracted to live and work in the Territory. We know that if we are to improve access to affordable housing, the gap between the public and private housing market has to be bridged. We know that doing what we can to improve affordability will reduce the demand for public housing also. Due to a range of factors, this gap is not likely to be met by industry alone.
As part of the Housing the Territory Strategy, the government has announced its intention to create an affordable housing rental company. The company will provide quality and affordable rental to medium- and low-income earners, filling the gap between the public and private housing market. The company will be allocated up to 200 units in the Parap Gateway redevelopment as its first project. Details about the structure and operation will be announced later this year.
An important element in the government’s commitment to ensuring access to more places to buy at an affordable price is our policy on land release. Housing the Territory sets out a 20-year plan for land release, and government has made clear its commitment to allocate 15% of land release projects to public and affordable housing.
It is a commitment evidenced in the release of land at Bellamack. This will include a $10m 44-unit public housing seniors village. In Alice Springs, 36 lots at Larapinta Stage 2 and Rydges Estate will have six blocks set aside for first homebuyers and one for seniors public housing. Public housing will continue to be an important accommodation option for the poorest Territorians, and is helping Territorians to transition into private rental markets.
We have announced a wide-ranging review of public housing across the Territory, including the type of housing provided and the role non-government organisations might have in the future. There are more than 5000 public housing properties across the Northern Territory and, if we are to achieve the objectives for 2030 - that is, to ensure Territorians have access to appropriate housing - we must plan for the future. That is why we are investing in the construction and upgrade of public housing to meet the highest demand areas, including seniors and singles. For example, $20m has been allocated to the seniors village at Bellamack; the upgrade and redevelopment of the Parap Gateway includes affordable and seniors accommodation; proposed redevelopments of sites throughout Darwin and Palmerston will deliver senior-specific accommodation; and seniors accommodation at Larapinta Stage 2.
As a result of the Australian government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan - which the Liberals on the other side of this House voted against - we have been able to secure much-needed funding to improve public housing and protect Territory jobs. $4.1m will be invested in upgrading 136 Territory homes, including $2.35m to upgrade 47 houses and units that will be put back into the market for Territory families. Those 47 homes include properties in Moulden, Gray, Katherine, and The Narrows. These are upgrades that families will benefit from - that members opposite voted against, sadly. An additional $7.1m has been approved to construct 20 new homes across the Territory in the Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs regions. All these projects will help protect Territory jobs in the construction industry and deliver real results for Territory families.
For many Territorians, enjoying stable and secure accommodation is about more than just the physical house or unit. In order to successfully maintain their tenancy, they may need the services offered by our housing support sector, whether for mental or physical support, support in times of family crises, or short-term or transitional accommodation. As Housing Minister, I am passionate about working with this sector to grow their services. For many providers, access to properties from which to deliver and expand their services is paramount.
Early this month, I was pleased to announce the allocation of two properties in Alice Springs for short-term accommodation, with a total of 43 beds. I was also pleased to approve the allocation of Priest Street to the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Support Services. It will use four two-bedroom units to provide transitional accommodation for youth aged between 16 and 21. Aboriginal Hostels has the other property in Alice Springs, which was the Mt Gillen Hostel, to provide short-term accommodation to homeless Indigenous people and families who are …
Mr Giles: Is this 2030 or is this the buzzer?
Mr KNIGHT: You need to listen, member for Braitling. You obviously do not know what 2030 is all about, so you need to sit quietly and listen.
A member interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The property at Mt Gillen Hostel will be used by people visiting town for medical treatment. Both of these programs will provide valuable services for Central Australians needing housing support. The government will continue to look at opportunities to deliver similar partnerships with the housing support sector.
In addition, through Territory Housing, the government currently leases more than 330 properties at a subsidised rate to community organisations, saving those organisations around $2.5m a year in rent. Working in partnership with non-government organisations helps drive growth in the private sector to deliver better services for Territorians. The new housing support working group will provide valuable feedback to government on issues affecting the sector as we deliver the Housing the Territory Strategy. I look forward to working with that sector, both individual providers and peak bodies such as NT Shelter, and to grow the non-government housing sector.
If we are going to reach the Territory 2030 Steering Committee’s objective of ensuring every Territorian has access to appropriate accommodation by 2030, we must continue to tackle the challenge of Indigenous housing head on. Early works have begun on-site in three places across the Territory, which is part of the $672m SIHIP program. Those areas are Tiwi, Groote Eylandt and Tennant Creek. Community engagement is well under way in these smaller communities, and the new areas of Galiwinku, Maningrida, Gunbalanya and Wadeye are the next communities off the shelf, and they will be having their works started as soon as they get those packages together. There are significant job opportunities being created in those areas, and I believe we will see hundreds of people employed in the program over those five years.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on one of the later points …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, I will not be long. The recent announcement by this government of an in-principle agreement with the Northern Land Council about the Kenbi land claim is historic. This provides great potential for the growth of the Territory ...
Mr Giles: Why is that important for 2030?
Mr KNIGHT: Just wait, member for Braitling. What was announced - and I know you are the shadow for Indigenous Policy - was the hand-back of that land in two portions – one was Aboriginal Land Trust and the other was NT freehold, enabling development on the Cox Peninsula. That is for future growth opportunities. We have announced Weddell, which can cater for around 40 000 people. However, the Territory is growing so quickly, Kenbi, in an initiative around providing greater employment opportunities, will also set up the Larrakia people for economic opportunities into the future.
As a resident there, I believe it is great news. From the discussions I have had with Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups there, I believe people have some trepidation, but they are not against it. They want to be involved in planning for their future. I believe that will be accommodated and we will see a whole new city created on the other side of the harbour.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement brought forward by the Chief Minister in the presentation of the draft strategy for 2030. It stimulates debate and it needs to. We need to be focused on 2030 …
Mr Giles: What about housing in the Kenbi land claim?
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Giles: What about housing in the Kenbi land claim as part of this?
Mr KNIGHT: It would be a land release, member for Braitling, to accommodate up to 100 000 people. The land is owned by traditional owners. They will be as big a stakeholder in land development as any development you can name around Darwin. It is historic; it will put them in a financial position, and they will be key players in the Territory for a long time. Houses will be built as normal subdivisions like any other city in Australia.
This is a historic document and, as such, challenges us. It sets the goal ahead. It talks about where we are going with our population, what needs to flow around that and where we need to be and I thank all those people …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am interested to learn about what you said about Cox Peninsula and housing; if you could elaborate on that and how it fits into 2030.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order; this is not Question Time. You have the floor, minister.
Mr Giles: I was not asking a question; I would just like to get some information.
Mr KNIGHT: I am happy to have a private conversation with you, member for Braitling.
There were 77 contributors - not only individuals but also organisations and peak bodies - which have sat down and thought about where we want to be in 20 years. For them, it is an opportunity to feed in and to have some aspirations.
I thank all those contributors. I thank the people who came to the meetings across the Territory, and the steering committing members for their dedication and time. I have a bit to do with Vicki O’Halloran in my role as the Housing Minister and her role with Somerville Community Services. They do a great job. She is very passionate about the non-government sector. This is genuinely thought-provoking, and everyone should contribute to it. You may knock it, but it stimulates good debate. I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear what the member for Daly had to say. I know it was not Question Time, but visionary opportunities this document presents gives people more to talk about in general. The idea of a bridge from Darwin to the Cox Peninsula - we are talking about 20 years’ time - does not commit anyone to policy. I am very interested to know. I feel the Kenbi land claim was a good thing.
This document is a good one. Having been a manager in different areas and taken part in different projects, I see that producing a document like this is a good way of doing business. It is a very sensible way of going about the process. I congratulate the committee, Vicki, Bill Moss, Michael, Jan, Ted, Jonathan, Steve and Denis. I know most of those people. I have had a fair amount to do with some of those people and the work they have done is good. Any strategy is good as it outlines the vision for the future and gives people a sense of belief or hope that something is happening. This strategy has a sensible approach. People may not sit around and talk about it at a barbecue, or have a cup of tea about the 2030 strategy but, somehow, it goes to people’s minds that we are going somewhere.
I congratulate the Chief Minister. This is something very positive. I believe the process could have included all of us in parliament, including the Independent. Collectively, we can agree on futuristic, visionary ideas. In providing some critique on the document, there are ideas that are visionary in how we move forward and what we might look for in the future; small things that could possibly be done relatively soon; and other areas that are chicken-feeding, that we would want, such as reducing smoking. Well, that is pretty obvious. Another is reducing the road toll. We would like that. There are a number of ideas in there that are a little ordinary - well, not ordinary but generalistic in nature - that we would all aspire to, no matter the colour of our politics.
However, I will go through this very slowly because I would like to point out some things that are good - and some things that are bad. I believe the idea of all the main trading partner economies having a focus - well, not a focus, but seeing China grow by 487%, I believe, is a very good thing, as we experience through the Asian region and the whole expansion trade through Indonesia, Japan and China. It is a very positive move, and is a place we should be positioning ourselves in, in the future. That is our obvious growth market, and we should be working strongly for that. I was surprised to see Japan slipping down.
On a negative, the comments the member for Katherine raised about the potential population growth outlined on page 9 and also the back page of this document, is a negative. It is highlighting, to me, a grave concern I have in my shadow portfolios of Regional Development and Indigenous Affairs, but mainly Regional Development; that is, I believe this government now has a bad lack of focus on regional development. This is signified by saying that, in 2030 we think Katherine will still be the same size in population. That signifies that, despite the rhetoric of what is happening now or within this document – both positive and negative - it is not real.
I believe it was the member for Johnston who was talking about page 38, Develop Katherine. I am assuming it was in reference to ‘developing Katherine as a regional hub for the Top End: tourism, transport, agriculture, mining and government services’. I aspire to the same thing. When I talk about collective partnership, I believe that is a very good thing especially in agriculture, mining and government services. They could be done out of Katherine. However, if you are going to pursue such an approach, it would amaze me to think that Katherine would not develop as a population base or as a region. I do not believe this government does a very good job on regional development. I am very critical of this government on that.
What it identifies on page 38 is very good, but how you put that in place should see a growth in the population and see Katherine become a more sustainable and enjoyable place to live. Somewhere there is a disconnect in that approach. I would be happy to work with you on developing Katherine to that type of industry model, because I believe that is a good way to go.
The scary thing about $8 for a litre of petrol - we know the Territory has the highest petrol prices in Australia in a capital city and jurisdictional base. I do not know what this government is doing about it. I know petrol is a tough issue; I understand how the petrol cycle works. I believe there are some gaps in your petrol process in the Northern Territory, and I will be talking about those at a later date when we find time. Seeing it go up to $8 a litre identifies the need for alternative fuel sources; a 530% increase clearly identifies this.
Those of you who listen to media - presumably the members for Johnston and Casuarina - would have heard me either reading your media alerts or talking recently about broadband in the regions, and making reference to a national broadband network via the Prime Minister on 7 April. Whilst I do not agree with putting our kids in debt to fund a project now, broadband is important to open up access to services in the bush – goods and services and the potential supply of telemedicine, business development and education through e-learning and the like. This paper - and I cannot remember what page it is on; I have read it a few times, but I have lost the page - identifies the need for broadband in the bush and that is a very good thing. This government should hammer the Australian government regarding broadband for the Northern Territory. The way that broadband will be rolled out in the NT, not focused on communities with fewer than 1000 people, is virtually going straight down the road and missing communities along the way.
A perfect example is Tilmouth Well. You cannot get broadband at Tilmouth Well, but it is one foot from the road. Yuelamu cannot get it; there is no diversion to Papunya. It is going up the highway, and will not stop at Wycliffe Well, Dunmarra, or head out to Top Springs, or pull into Ali Curung. That is exactly how it works; it will not deliver those services. If the federal government is looking at increasing broadband speeds up to 100 MB per second, surely, they could at least try to get 1 MB or 2 MB per second in some of these regions. There is new wireless technology that can be put in the Territory that is not part of the NBN, the wireless CDMA, or the satellite which costs a fortune, even under the broadband guarantee. There are much better things that this government can do. This document identifies the need for broadband. That is why this committee has done a good thing on this strategy.
As I said before about the growth targets for Katherine, I also think that is a negative for Tennant Creek. There is not a large focus in here about how to sustain or grow Tennant Creek. I suspect the population increase of 8.6% would largely be Indigenous. I am basing this on anecdotal evidence, but that would be largely based on Indigenous population growth, with a potential non-Indigenous decreasing population, which is a concern. There is not a focus on industry development in Tennant Creek. Potential mining or tourism would be the obvious way to go.
The focus throughout this strategy is education. We all know that the Northern Territory is dragging its feet on education. That was put right at the front: education should be a major focus of how we move forward in the Territory. I am not so sure about the idea of the knowledge nation, the education nation, or the Territory education focus but, as a broad strategy, putting education front and centre is the way we should be going, and I applaud the committee for doing that.
However, we must not lose sight of the need to service the business sector and industry development, because there is no point in going to school if you do not have any jobs at the end of it. That is the how most of the Northern Territory inner regions are now. The movement forward by this government, as it seeks to supposedly develop the Northern Territory, is seeing a continual lack of focus on the regions of the Northern Territory. What we are seeing in the Northern Territory right now is the continual population drift from bush to town - whether that is in the smaller towns of Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, or larger towns like Alice Springs, and starting to come to Palmerston and Darwin. The population migration or urban drift to these locations is something that is not really focused on here.
The importance of developing the regions is ensuring we have sustainable communities with jobs, education, and health services but, more importantly, business growth. I have not seen much business growth in this, but it would be very good to see that happening.
The Chief Minister recently, and also within this document on page 39, identified that there should be a focus on promoting new initiatives to encourage Indigenous start-up businesses, like the Indigenous Investment Tax Credit Scheme. That is a very good idea and I have spoken about that for a number of years before I came into parliament, and since I have been here. Recently, I heard the Chief Minister - I am not sure whether it was a copy – say the same thing. That is a very good approach we should be looking at. The potential opportunity for the establishment of economic zones with a special tax base to get finance from outside that community, to start to create real economies instead of false economies, is a good measure.
This is an important aspect within this strategy. It is not something that should take until 2030, though; it is visionary and could be introduced sooner. The next thing that the committee should really do with this strategy is to take the fat out of it. There are visionary things, there are fluff things, there are now things, and there are some in between things. If we can rationalise what the aims are, and the examples of success, and put in place some flexible but concrete pathways to achieving those aims, the strategy will be improved when it comes out as final in July.
The idea of increasing home ownership in the Northern Territory is a positive. If we are going to achieve improved living standards for all Territorians, then we need to increase home ownership in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and right throughout the Territory. The benefit of home ownership is an increased amount of wealth brought into the Northern Territory, especially through the mortgage process, and it helps grow the Territory. That will have substantial benefits for the Territory.
The investigation of a rail line option from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek is a great idea. That is already costed. There can be many more, subject to whether the federal government will help us out.
While I believe that this is a smart approach, there is more work that needs to be done. I know there is more work being done. Take the fat out of it and bring it down to some important priorities. The government really needs to put in place some plans about what it is going to do now to fix things. There are a number of negative things in the Northern Territory now that are not being fixed. Even though we talk about this strategy and regional development, there needs to be a 2009 strategy for what this government is going to do now.
They went to the election in August 2008 with a platform that nearly rolled them over. In that platform, there was nothing about regional development, and since that time we have seen nothing about regional development. It is not just a portfolio about regional development; it is about how that fits into all portfolios.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we saw a petition today from your good self - or two petitions - from about 1200 petitioners regarding the birthing centre at Nhulunbuy. The cultural aspects of that petition are very important to those people. The way the funding stream works regarding where people are born is the main point. If people have to leave Nhulunbuy to birth their children in Darwin, it increases the population, or the birthing characteristics, of Darwin as opposed to Nhulunbuy, and it has different models throughout the process. Regarding regional development capacity, people need a birthing centre.
It is the same in Tennant Creek – women cannot give birth in Tennant Creek. They have to get on the bus late at night and travel to Alice Springs to give birth. It is a bad model; it does not support regional development. I see you two over there looking in amazement. These things happen. People in Tennant Creek are cranky about this all the time. I get as many phone calls from the Barkly region as I do from my own electorate and these are some of the things that are raised.
We need to have a large focus on the regions. We are talking about 2030, but part of 2030 includes 2009, or at least 29 April 2009, which is tomorrow. I will tell you about some current regional development issues; health and alcohol issues in Tennant Creek. I will talk about the sort of things that annoy people in the regions. This is where we talk about Labor’s lack of commitment to the regions. In the 2008-09 budget - and I have the paper here somewhere - there was a statement in the budget paper Regional Highlights, on page 8, under the Barkly area. In a section titled Infrastructure Highlights at item 6 was: ‘$1.3m for a new sobering-up shelter in Tennant Creek’. I am sure if I went to the Katherine area, which might have been on the page after, it had the same thing. Unless I am wrong, there was $1.3m for a sobering-up shelter in the Katherine region. This is where it comes to the nub of regional development and the characteristics of a good local member to fight for their region, and remove cynicism out of government - especially a Labor government, which I know is difficult.
Around 30 December 2008, the local Barkly Regional Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, BRADAAG - the member for Barkly would know what I am talking about - received notification of the $1.3m dedicated to the new 26-bed facility for sobering-up in Tennant Creek to replace the outdated 16-bed facility which is currently so overcrowded that if more than 16 people are brought in, they have to be put in to the police station. I do not have the police officer’s name here - I cannot believe I have misplaced that paper – but what is happening is that if there are more than 16 people the extras are being put in the watch-house. That not only creates an unhealthy environment for the person who has been put into the watch-house, it also creates extra work for the police and makes the role of BRADAAG more difficult in working with these people. This is happening …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for 10 minutes for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77; for the member to have the same courtesy extended to him as was extended to the other side.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, my friends from the other side.
BRADAAG received a letter on 30 June last year that said: ‘We are having a hard time trying to find this money but we will write to the federal Health minister, Nicola Roxon, and ask her if she has any money; there is plenty of money flowing around for the intervention’. The NT government wrote to Nicola Roxon and waited for a reply. BRADAAG was thinking: ‘We were promised this money and we have just elected ourselves a new member for Barkly who is now Transport Minister and minister for Corrections. Surely, he will be able to help us; he will be able to get us the $1.3m, keeping in mind that Katherine, just a 700 km drive up the road, has $1.3m. They will be getting it and we will get it because Katherine has a Country Liberals member and Barkly has a Labor member who is a minister. Surely, we will get it’. I see the member for Barkly smiling.
On 23 March this year - you would not believe it - after all the pomp and grandeur with the stimulus money before Christmas we had money hanging out our backsides. The government was so keen to throw money at people. Most people in the Territory now have their $900 bonus. We are going into debt by $200bn or $300bn or whatever amount of money it is. We have $12m on roads that we heard about today which will build 24 km of road. That is really good. Maybe the Stuart Highway verges will be mowed from now on - I am not sure, Transport minister. With all this money going around the country, with the focus on the intervention, we have said sorry to Aboriginal people.
The Northern Territory Health department wrote to the federal Health minister asking: ‘Can we please have $1.3m because we have blown our budget? We have been such bad economic managers we have no money at all. Can we have $1.3m?’ Do you know what the federal Health minister said? ‘No, we have no money’. The letter I have here came to BRADAAG on 23 March 2009 saying: I am sorry but the federal Health minister has no money:
This is where the stinger comes in. This part is great; I like this part. This is where you talk about regional development:
We had a $1.3m shelter being built in Katherine, and a $1.3m shelter being built in Tennant Creek, in the Barkly, the home of the Labor minister, the big new man who took over from our former minister, Elliot McAdam, a great bloke and, I am sure, a friend of the member for Karama. I am sure the money was going to be there but the Health minister wrote and said: ‘We have no money in the kitty, it is empty. The member for Karama, the Treasurer, has spent it all; there is nothing left in the kitty’. When they wrote to the federal Health minister she said: ‘We have nothing either. We have nothing for you. We have nothing for the people of Tennant Creek, the home of the Labor heartland’. Nothing for Labor. Then, what does it say?
I assume it means the sobering-up shelter:
It was in the budget. What happened? We are talking about regional development. Is this a regional development stuff-up, a health stuff-up, or a local member stuff-up? I do not know. Does it have something to do with the cynical approach with the former Labor candidate for Katherine being put into the newly constructed Chief Minister’s office in Katherine and needing to shore up Katherine a little so the government has a chance. ‘We have Barkly in the bag, let us go for Katherine’. Is this what is happening?
We are talking about 2030, but what about now? What about the poor people who are drunk on the street every night and have nowhere to go? If you have done a tour of the 16-bed facility at BRADAAG, it does need an upgrade. The money was committed. I support $1.3m going to a sobering-up shelter, or a SUS, in Tennant Creek. However, Labor has put out all its propaganda, taking the votes from the Barkly, putting in a new man who has done nothing. The member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport, and Corrections, cannot even get the money for his own community.
I will tell you how gob-smacked I am. When I go to Tennant Creek, I let people know I am coming, and who do I get phone calls from? I am expecting my usual suspects: my friends and Country Liberals members. Come in for a cup of tea, come and have a coffee, have a burger, whatever. Who rings me? The Labor mob. They come in and have a chat: ‘I have been one of the reds for years. I was around when Whitlam was here and he gave out the free money and he handed the dirt over. I have always voted Labor, but right now I have had a gutful. I cannot get anything out of Labor’. Health comes up fairly often, so does Education, surprisingly.
More and more, they are talking about economic development, which is good. This is the Labor heartland. These are the people who support BRADAAG. These are people who sit on the board of BRADAAG. It is surprising that Adam Giles, the member from Alice Springs, would get a BRADAAG letter about a sobering-up shelter. That slips off the back of a truck; that is surprising. It is surprising to see that Labor forgets.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I said that this is a good approach, and I mean it. It would be good if we all worked together and came up with a solid direction for going forward. The ‘now’ stuff is political, so it is very hard. The future stuff is good. However, you cannot be serious in talking about 2030 when you cannot get your stuff together now. It is about developing the regions.
Do you really want everyone to come in from the bush, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and move to the northern suburbs? I know what it is like when you head to Fannie Bay or to the Parap shops at night and you see people who are homeless. It is a problem. I know what it is like when you go Nightcliff or Casuarina, because I deliberately spend time going around everywhere I can in the Territory to find out exactly what is going on. We are seeing increased violence in town because people in town are homeless, and violence, antisocial behaviour and drunkenness are going on because you are not developing the regions.
The member for Stuart, the Minister for Regional Development, is a good bloke. I like him. We have a beer every now and then. He is a good bloke, but you need to wield a bigger stick, mate. You have people in Tennant Creek who have been promised something in the budget and it has not been delivered because the kitty has been raided and it is all gone. There are people in Gove complaining about childbirth facilities. That stuff should never be a problem. It increases community disenchantment, and regional development falls apart.
There is no other jurisdiction in Australia that can survive on five towns. Ring New South Wales and ask them if they need Dubbo anymore: ‘Can we shut it? We are going to move everyone to Sydney’. Shut down Wollongong, Newcastle, Gosford, Townsville, Mount Isa and Cairns. You have to grow the whole Territory. This has some lovely statements that make me all warm and fuzzy, but get rid of the fuzz and get the real stuff in there and work out how to do it, and we will back you. That is what it is all about.
In closing, Madam Speaker, unless someone can give me another five minutes …
Dr Burns: No.
Mr Elferink: I could attempt to move that standing orders be suspended, which would enable you to talk as long as you like.
Mr GILES: I pass on to the Chief Minister that, for a long period of time, the government has not been successful. This is a smart approach. There are people in government – bureaucrats - who could have done this. The people on this committee are good people and I know they have a lot to offer. If you get a chance, talk to Bill Moss about some of the previous opportunities that arose at Macquarie Bank for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I have plenty of stories that would help the Northern Territory out, from Bill Moss and Macquarie Bank.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us work together on this, move it forward and cut the fluff, and we will take the Territory in the right direction. The way you are going at the moment, there is a poor aspect on law and order, a poor aspect on regional development, bad health outcomes, and the MAP figures in education are really bad. There does not seem to be a strategy for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or any year up to 2029, so pull your fingers out and let us get on with it.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Chief Minister for his vision and initiative in setting up the Territory 2030 and putting the committee together. These are Australians the Chief Minister has brought together to put this document together. It is a vision from outside of government. It is a vision that has the trail of education through every aspect of the document. It is a document that was put together by people that is going to encourage the government to drive forward.
The member for Braitling was talking about regional development, education and health. This document is about developing the regions. It is based on having good quality education, improving health services in our hub towns and regional towns, and encouraging participation in all aspects of life for Territorians. It is about involving us and giving us a vehicle, and not just looking at five years but looking to the year 2030.
It is really encouraging to see people from different areas, all walks of life, sitting on this committee giving us the guidance to do the right thing in the Northern Territory to get the results we all want - the growth in our regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and eradicating or silencing the antisocial behaviour in our hub towns. It is about encouraging economic development and growth. It is encouraging participation in the cash economy of the country through a good education system for non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. I take this opportunity to congratulate the steering committee.
The Chief Minister said that we have a long way to go. We do have a long way to go, and this is a moving feast. This is a document that is alive, that will encourage us, if things are not working five or 10 years down the track, to keep repairing it. It is a living document, a moving document, that will allow us as a government to fix things up as we go along. It is long-term focus and encourages Territorians to participate in it.
When I hear negative attitudes towards the 2030 document, it really gets me down to think that in this House we do not appreciate the minds and the thoughts of the people on the steering committee who have been growing this document. They are from all walks of life, and I would have thought that, as local members, we would be saying thank you to these people and encouraging them for participating in the forward thinking and the forward focus and the vision for us Territorians. I appreciate the steering committee and that they have put this document together.
The Chief Minister has always said quite openly that when you talk about Indigenous education it is not something that you are going to fix overnight. He has said that the problems we see with Indigenous disadvantage is a hard case and we are not going to fix it overnight. We know we have people with social issues; we see them in the long grass in Darwin, and the antisocial behaviour that is evident in all the hub towns of Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Katherine.
As local members and as politicians in this House, we should be working towards the opportunities this document is giving us to drive the Territory forward. This is an exciting time for the Northern Territory; to have so many good people put this document together on our behalf. I thank the steering committee and the Chief Minister once again.
We have to work hard towards solving all the problems we face in the Northern Territory. This document quite clearly states that we need to focus on health and antisocial behaviour, all with the element of good quality education going through the whole process, along with employment opportunities for people in regional towns, in our hub centres, and also take into consideration the vast areas our remote Aboriginal communities cover. The member for Nhulunbuy placed a petition in this House, as the member for Braitling commented on, from people wanting to have their babies on their communities. Tennant Creek has also had that view. This document gives you all that.
This document is about bringing everything together. It is about focusing on a long-term strategy so that we can start dealing with the real issues that we have identified in this House over many decades. If you go look at the Parliamentary Record, we are not the only people who will be talking about these issues. If you go back in the Parliamentary Record, you will see your colleagues and our colleagues have sat inside this very House and debated and discussed the same issues that we are talking about today.
With Indigenous issues, it is a really hard case and it has to be a two-way responsibility, not just of the government, but of my people as well to come forward to meet the government halfway on any kind of economic development on their lands – opportunities for education, employment and housing. We tend to discuss Indigenous issues, not knowing and not placing ourselves in the situation of the Indigenous person. Unless you have lived and breathed that life, you cannot solve that problem, except talk rhetorically about how you can solve the problem.
I see it all the time with the crisis of overcrowding in houses. It is part of the culture that if the mum and dad move to a new house, the children also move, so the 14 people who have lived in the first house will all move - all 14 of them - to the second house.
It is about education; all through this document you see this. You see that education is mentioned in every aspect of this document. These clever people we put on the steering committee have thought about that. You have people on the steering committee from business, and people like our former Administrator, Ted Egan, who has been a patrol officer on Aboriginal communities and has many dear friends in Aboriginal communities. There are ordinary people, too, people like ourselves.
It is a great opportunity for us to take the responsibility and ensure we endorse this document with full support. It is not just a document that belongs to the Chief Minister or to the Northern Territory Labor government; it is a document that belongs to the Territory people. It is very encouraging to see that someone has thought about streamlining every aspect of every program, whether it is regional development, employment, health, housing and ensuring that education is taken into account in all those areas.
I go back to the area of Indigenous people. This document gives us the foundation to say to Indigenous people: ‘You have the opportunity through the use of your land to have economic development. Join as true partners with the government in developing your land. Make sure we take our children to school every day’. Education is the key to knowledge, education is so important. This document tells us all this. If our people cannot get involved in the economy of the country, understand the cash economy, or get themselves educated then, in decades to come, after we have gone out of this House, people will be standing in the same place we are standing, talking about the same issues.
This is the greatest opportunity we have had as Territorians to have a look at this document. It is driven by the committee that has consulted throughout the Northern Territory. This is not just the views of the group of people on the committee; these are the views of people in the Northern Territory. They have simply put this document together to present to us, as politicians, and as the government. We should all work together in this House to ensure that we can all work towards this strategy …
Mr Elferink: Cast a wider net than that.
Ms ANDERSON: I beg your pardon?
Mr Elferink: You will have to cast a wider net than that. But I agree.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am just thinking whether after …
Madam SPEAKER: At nine o’clock, the standing orders say that we adjourn the House. Is that what you are asking me?
Ms ANDERSON: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I have had representations from members - opposition members in fact - regarding having the discretion of the Chair to allow an extension of time. From here on, you can either adjourn your speech at 9 pm automatically or, if you wish, you can speak for up to 10 minutes …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, from whom did you get those representations? Just out of curiosity.
Madam SPEAKER: I received them from …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a difficult issue, because these issues were raised within the Standing Orders Committee by your representatives. As you are aware, because of privilege issues, it is difficult to speak about it. Madam Speaker is right. These representations were made by opposition members and the government undertook to consider those matters. Within the discretion powers that the Speaker has, she has the power to grant that extension.
Madam SPEAKER: This would be for all members on every evening.
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get your direction as to where that occurs in standing orders, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get a direction as to where your discretion exists in the standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: I have sought advice from the Clerk regarding this and, in looking at the standing orders, his advice to me was that I already had the discretion.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, can I get a direction as to where that exists, from you?
Madam SPEAKER: You can come and speak to me afterwards, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking you now, Madam Speaker, because I am unaware of these arrangements …
Madam SPEAKER: It will be …
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on. This is not an arrangement that I am privy to. I have just been told that this was done in the Standing Orders Committee, which is privileged. We already have a situation where adjournment debates are truncated for this side of the House. Now, I am being told: ‘Whoops, by the way, it may not be’, that you have some discretionary power. I would like to know from whence you draw this discretionary power and can you direct me to it, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it is very similar to at lunchtime when I allow members to continue speaking after midday. It is an identical situation, and it has been drawn to my attention …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, can you direct me?
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying to you it is the same thing as at lunchtime, and occurs here every night and every lunchtime for every debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Under this discretion then, Madam Speaker, do you also extend the other side of adjournment debate so that we go to 10.15 pm or 10.20 pm?
Madam SPEAKER: To whatever time it is, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker, no reflection on the member for Macdonnell who was speaking, but we have been gagged at 9 pm when we have been doing an MPI, which is just as important.
Madam SPEAKER: From now on this will be the situation where there is the discretion of the Speaker to allow an extension of time for every member no matter what it is that is being debated - whether it is an MPI or any other matter.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am a little confused because the member is quite right. That discretion has not been used up until now; in fact, debates have been shut down.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: So what has changed?
Madam SPEAKER: I had representations made to me. I sought advice, and on that advice I have decided that I will allow discretion ...
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I formally request that you provide the direction to the source of this power that you are asserting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Minister, would you like to continue? You have until a maximum of 9.10 pm, or would you prefer to adjourn straightaway?
Ms ANDERSON: You can pull me at 9.10 pm, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I urge all Territorians to really think about the future they want for themselves and their children, and to give us their ideas for an even better Territory. I support the draft priorities set by the 2030 committee. In particular, I agree that the overriding priority needs to be education. It is the key to our future, especially in remote towns and communities where a lack of education is the key factor holding back our people.
We have heard from the Chief Minister about the way the Territory 2030 committee has identified priorities that cover the big issues for the Territory, including statehood, jobs, lifestyle, education, health, the environment and knowledge, creativity, and innovation. My formal responsibilities focus on healthy environments, creativity through the arts, and the issues affecting Aboriginal people that are embedded throughout the 2030 draft strategy. In responding to the Chief Minister’s statement, I want to recognise that all the issues are connected and cannot be approached independently.
In relation to the environment, my 2030 vision is of a Territory that has worked out how to manage its landscape in an integrated and responsible way. We will have large areas managed to maintain their natural and cultural assets, and be accessible to people from around the world who will come to learn about the experience of natural and cultural heritage of the Territory and its people. The areas of the Territory that are suitable for more intensive production will be used within their capacity, and part of the wealth generated will be used to care for the much larger areas to retain their natural character.
My vision is that these undeveloped areas are connected to each other and to other parts of the nation, so they continue to produce the biodiversity on which our prosperity depends – the clean water, the clean air, the stores of carbon, productive soils, and the biological diversity that holds it all together. We will have a protected area system including lands and seas, which is the envy of the nation. It will be built on the combined efforts of government, industry, private conservation interests, and Indigenous people.
Our system will be recognised not just for its maintenance of natural and cultural values, but also for its critical contributions to regional economies. Territorians will continue to enjoy enviable lifestyles built around outdoor activity and healthy environments known especially for the health and beauty of our rivers and wetlands. Our aquatic systems will support productive recreational and commercial fisheries.
In relation to creativity through the arts, I envisage a Territory where creative Territorians shape a distinct identity which draws on our unique physical and social environments. We will build this sense of identity and sense of place by our art and cultural workers, being local people who are directly engaged with schools and communities, enabling all Territorians to embrace the range of experiences and placing art at the core of Territorians’ lives. We will encourage local festivals and public art, and mount regular travelling exhibits and performances to promote greater recognition of the Territory and the unique experience we can offer visitors.
We will also have special places that house globally-significant collections and exhibits of our natural and cultural treasures, and develop strong linkages with similar interests in Australia and overseas. These physical expressions of culture and identity will be complemented by online systems that provide access to the database and virtual exhibits throughout the Territory, including remote areas.
Most of the people in the remote regions of the Territory are Indigenous, and therefore most of the jobs involved in the management of natural and cultural resources will be taken up by Indigenous people. Increasingly, they will use opportunities available through land management and cultural activities to access other employment options in the Territory economy. Indeed, most Territorians, regardless of location, will contribute in one way or another to the maintenance of natural and cultural assets because they understand and value the contributions they make to their livelihood and their lifestyles.
Care for the social and natural environment will not be seen as a distraction from the real business of development, but as a facilitator of genuinely sustainable development. We have already begun to work towards many elements of this through initiatives such as Living Rivers, Eco-Link, the various Daly River development and conservation processes, support for Indigenous land and sea rangers, review of key laws like the Water Act, commitment to develop new laws on management of native vegetation, the Darwin Harbour Strategic Management Framework, the development of a climate change policy, support for the Environment Protection Authority to develop principles for sustainable development in the Northern Territory, support for the framework of the Northern Territory screen industry, the development of a strategy for building our museum sector, and much more.
In the area of Indigenous policy, I strongly endorse the committee’s view that Indigenous communities need to be developed as sustainable and vibrant economic centres. The draft strategy outlines the vision for Indigenous Territorians by 2030:
This is an admirable and, I believe, achievable goal. We have already made some progress and I am pleased to see 2030 integrates and builds upon our existing commitments to address Indigenous disadvantage.
The work of the Australian government and the Territory government is already making a difference to the lives of Indigenous Territorians in the areas of housing, education, health, jobs, safety, culture and governance. However, the 2030 vision also puts an onus on Indigenous Territorians to action. To enjoy the fruits provided by a modern society, Indigenous people must seize the opportunities that are available to all Territorians. We recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that Indigenous Territorians have the confidence, the resources and the resilience to not …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has now expired.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the item of business before the Chair is now adjourned and the Assembly does now adjourn.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, Jack Berryman joined as a firefighter on 29 May 1963 with then Northern Territory Fire Brigade. Jack completed a short recruit course in Darwin prior to commencing duty as an operational firefighter in Darwin. During his time with the fire service, Jack served at all of the old fire stations in Darwin including the Daly Street Fire Station, the Nightcliff Fire Station which was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy, the Casuarina Fire Station, the Winnellie Fire Station and the Palmerston Fire Station. Jack was qualified in all aspects of operational firefighting and, although he never aspired to become an officer, he was one of Fire and Rescue Service’s more knowledgeable firefighters when it came to fire response operations, operation of equipment and fire appliances.
When the Winnellie Fire Station closed down, Jack was one of the first members to transfer to the Palmerston Fire Station which, at that time, was the busiest of the Darwin fire stations, especially during the Dry Season. In those days, it was not unusual for crews from Palmerston to be called to their first grass fire by 9 am and not return to the station until after 6 pm, after responding to fire after fire in the rural area throughout the day.
Jack retired from the Fire and Rescue Service on 6 February 1992 at the age of 65. In those days, 65 was the compulsory age for retirement. Jack did not want to retire. He loved his job, was extremely fit for his age, and he could have continued working as an operational firefighter for a number of years.
A short time after his retirement, Jack was doing what he loved best – fishing. A boat he was holding, whilst waiting for his mate to back the boat trailer down to the beach, was lifted by a wave and struck Jack heavily in the head. Jack suffered a severe stroke as a result of the hit to the head. Jack’s speech and walking ability were badly affected by the stroke. The stroke Jack suffered did not stop him fishing or camping with his son Glen and some of his old friends. He continued to enjoy life in the Top End until just recently.
Jack Berryman passed away on 11 April 2009. He will be remembered by Fire and Rescue Service members and all of those who knew him as a really top bloke, a genuine hard-working member of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service. Vale Jack Berryman.
I was honoured to be invited to attend the special Anzac Day Assembly at Leanyer Primary School last Friday. It was a grand occasion, with the whole school getting involved with laying of wreaths and poppies at the base of the flag. Representatives from the three Defence Forces attended. Two classes hosted the Assembly, 4/5 Baldock and 4/5 Maddock, and all of the kids did a wonderful job. The Ode was read beautifully by student Nathan Betson, and the two classes recited the poem Flanders Field, and Gabrielle White recited the poem In Flanders Field. Anzac Day is a day to reflect and many schools across the Territory took the opportunity to do that through school assemblies and gatherings.
In March, 3/4 Dobrini from Wanguri Primary School visited me at Parliament House. This is the second Wanguri class to come and see me. It is always wonderful to see the kids come to Parliament House to learn about how parliament works and it is great to be able to catch up with them all. They were all fantastically behaved and were a credit to both Mara Dobrini and Wanguri Primary School.
Also in March, 25 Year 6 kids from Christopher Charman’s class at Leanyer Primary were lucky enough to be visited at the school by the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit to take part in Parliament of the Wizard’s day. Although I could not make it to the school on this occasion, I hear the day was a great success enjoyed by everyone.
The upgrades at Leanyer Primary School are well under way, with the contract being awarded to Darwin company, Northwest Constructions. The upgrades will deliver a new four-classroom learning module, a new drop-off zone, visitor car parking area, and an upgrade to the current assembly area. The works are expected to be finished in September and are part of this government’s record investment of $246m into Territory schools. Leanyer also installed two new playgrounds recently, and it was only through parent and teacher assistance that they were put in place. I thank the following people and, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, seek leave to have the following 20-odd names incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, who helped during the working bee.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, parliamentary colleagues. A huge thank you also to Hamish Fairchild and Coates Hire for the donation of the much-needed and loved equipment for use during the day.
I welcome Jenny Robinson back to her role as Principal of Wanguri Primary School. Jenny took a rather nasty fall some time ago and discovered that she had broken her shoulder. After plenty of rest and time off work, Jenny has returned to the helm of Wanguri. Again, Jenny, I wish you all the best; you run a fantastic school. Thanks must also go to Leah Crockford, Assistant Principal who stepped in and took over Jenny’s role whilst she was away.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I extend condolences to three families in the rural area for their recent loss of loved ones. The first person I pay tribute to is the late Mr Bill Bacon.
Bill Bacon died a few weeks ago. He was a long-time resident of the rural area, Humpty Doo in particular. He was a true bush bloke. He was diagnosed with cancer earlier in the year, and it was only a few months until he died in Adelaide at a hospital with his wife and family around him. He had a long and distinguished career in the Navy, both in Darwin and elsewhere. When he retired from the Navy, he took up, with great passion and zeal, Navy history, and was a great help to many people who wanted to track down various incidents of Navy history, including the sinking of the HMS Sydney and things associated with that.
He was a founding member of the Humpty Doo Golf Club, when the Humpty Doo Golf Club was not fashionable. There were many Humpty Doo golfers at his funeral service at the Uniting Church, which was a very sad, but memorable occasion, which an enormous number of people attended.
His wife of many years, Bobbie, is a true character and I know that she misses him dearly, along with his children Billy, Danny and Bindi. My condolences to them.
One of the speakers - I think it might have been a family member - spoke about the kind of father and family member he was. He took his family on many travels around the countryside, camping and living in cars and caravans. The story that took my fancy was, being a Navy bloke, they described how, as children growing up he would come to say goodnight to them. However, instead of saying the usual goodnight, he would stand at the end or the bed and use semaphore flags to wish goodnight to his children. I thought that was pretty funny and indicative of the kind of fellow he was - a bit of a larrikin and a true blue Aussie. My sympathies to the family on the loss of their husband, father and grandfather.
Another family I would like to pay tribute to is to Kay and Les Moody and to Brian Forrester on the loss of their daughter and wife, Laressa. I spoke about Laressa some time ago. She went to Adelaide with cancer. She had inoperable cancer but she was a fighter to the very end. It was sad that her family, husband Brian and her children, Tegan and Finnis, had to relocate to Adelaide for her treatment. She had to undergo chemo as well as two months of radiotherapy. They had to move the family, place the children in school, he had to find work, and they had to find somewhere to live. It was with great support from the Cancer and Bowel Research Trust that they found accommodation and the children were put into a school nearby, so they could all be together during those tough times.
Whilst I know from my conversations with her mother, Kay Moody, that it was inoperable, she was definitely going to fight and she was not going to go easy. One of her last wishes was that she could go to a place in Queensland and swim with the dolphins, which she did. She wanted to come back to Darwin but, unfortunately, she did not make it back alive - but she did come back. They had a lovely and moving ceremony at the Anglican church at Freds Pass. It was a life cut short; she was only in her 30s. She has left two lovely children and her husband, Brian, behind. I hope they hang on to her love and memory forever. My condolences to the family.
The next person I pay tribute to is young Briony Goodsell who is the daughter of Charlene O’Sullivan and Craig, her partner. She was the young girl who was taken by a crocodile in the Lambells Lagoon creek system. As we know from all the media reports, she was an extremely young girl. She was only 11, a Humpty Doo school student, and was taken far too young. She was bright, attractive, popular at school, a delight to her family, and it has been very sad for all her family especially for her mother, Charlene, her sister, Bethany, her friends who were swimming with her, and the two young friends who tried to save her. That family has been severely affected by the trauma, and my heart, and everyone’s heart goes out to them for a life cut far too short. Our thoughts are with you for the loss of your young child.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to our schools in Darwin. Nearly every cluster combined to raise money for the recent Victorian bushfire appeals. Special thanks goes to Tony Milhinos from the Nightcliff Shopping Centre for his generosity and his pledge to double the funds raised in Darwin for such a wonderful cause.
I pay tribute to Nakara Primary School, Alawa Primary School and Dripstone Middle School communities. Nakara Primary School raised $2644 for the bushfire appeal, while the Alawa Primary School raised $910, and Dripstone Middle School raised $1890. Together, these three schools in my electorate of Casuarina raised $5445.55 to help the families and victims of the bushfires. Congratulations to the students and teachers who helped this wonderful cause.
Harmony Day is a celebration of the multicultural society that make up the Northern Territory. It is a day when we appreciate each other’s culture and customs, and share and enjoy each other’s tradition of music, dancing, and food. It is a fantastic celebration. It all started with our children, so it is wonderful when our schools celebrate Harmony Day with celebrations in primary, middle and high schools. These primary and middle schools in my electorate - Nakara, Alawa and Dripstone – are microcosms of Darwin. It is the only place you will see kids from Greek backgrounds sitting next to kids of parents who were recent refugees from Africa, to some of the older Indigenous families in the Territory.
Nakara Primary School had another fabulous exhibition of cultural activities to entertain the huge group of students, staff, and families that attended. Most Nakara students came dressed in costumes, and the students paraded many gorgeous traditional costumes at their assembly. The huge crowd was entertained with traditional Aboriginal dancing and didgeridoo playing by the One Mob Aboriginal dancers, who were joined by some of the young students. The Greek students again entertained everyone with their Zorba dance and the young African ladies danced their traditional dances to the drum beat. The whole morning was dedicated to everyone sharing traditional dancing, music and food that represented the multicultural society in the Territory.
The Alawa Primary School’s Harmony Day was celebrated with a presentation of students’ art. The art exhibition focused on the theme, You + Me = Us. Throughout Term 1, the Alawa students learned about diversity and embracing the various cultures and differences they have in their small community. On Harmony Day, students presented their work of art in an exhibition held in the assembly area for all to see. Following this wonderful celebration, students and families were invited to serve picnic lunch in the assembly area.
The main feature of Dripstone Middle School’s Harmony Day celebration was their whole school assembly run by the school captains. The assembly included messages about cultural harmony, a PowerPoint presentation featuring the cultural diversity at Dripstone, and their own talented singers, Susan Crute and Maria Romilo, Greek dancers and Aboriginal music performed by Phillip Harris and Caiden Holt who played the didgeridoo and the clap sticks.
I would like to finish with congratulations to my constituents, Mr Merv and Mrs Margaret Brown, who recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My special congratulations also go to Alan and Willa Mitchell, who will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in June this year.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak briefly about a number of things in Katherine. Saturday was Anzac Day and we had a number of services in Katherine. The Dawn Service was extremely well attended with nearly 500 people attending. That number is growing every year. That is a testament to the way Katherine people are pulling together and becoming involved in the community. Specifically, I thank Wing Commander Rohan Gaskill from the RAAF Base, Tindal for his provision of all sorts of resources and troops on the day, and Mark Hagger and the organising committee from the Katherine RSL Sub-Branch in organising such a wonderful day.
The second service at 10 am was better attended, and I suspect there were probably 600 or 700 people there, which is an excellent turn-out for a town the size of Katherine.
I also advise of the progress the wallaby fence in Katherine at the Tindal air base, speaking of RAAF matters. I understand that the wallaby fence is nearing completion and that Pearl Aviation will conduct risk assessments within the next six weeks or so with a view to returning full-time flights to and from Katherine. I only hope that the department of Health does nothing in stymieing attempts by the contractor to return to Katherine. There have been a few issues with resourcing and I hope they do not impede the return of aeromedical services to Katherine.
I also mention quickly, seeing we do not have very much time for adjournment debates these days, that last weekend, or the weekend before, some 93 people were taken into protective custody in Katherine on a Friday night. That is an absolutely horrible number of people to be locking up in a small town like Katherine. The evidence I have been provided indicates that the money people used to spend up big on grog on that night was none other than Mr Kevin Rudd’s $900 stimulus money. On top of the calls from anti …
Mr Tollner: The alcopops did well.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, the alcopops too. However, on top of the anti-gaming lobby in relation to the spike in gaming revenue, given Mr Rudd’s first package, and also the number of drunks that were locked up on two successive Friday nights in Katherine after Mr Rudd’s first stimulus package, I can say safely to Mr Rudd: thank you for making the job of police in Katherine so much harder. I am sure they appreciated having to run around chasing after drunks until the early hours of the morning, and filling up the cells. It does nothing to support policing in the Northern Territory, and certainly shows a lack of understanding and respect for the good work that our police officers do.
In closing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, regarding Katherine generally, I report to the House that the overall feeling in Katherine is one of great positiveness at the moment. There seems to be a quite a buzz in town. There are some nice strong economic indicators, despite the fact that this Northern Territory government has done little or nothing to boost regional development, particularly in the Katherine region. All credit goes to the people of Katherine who are working hard in the face of great adversity, and having to fight the difficulties they find in red tape and planning, Power and Water issues, and everything else that they have difficulty with in Katherine. They work very hard at doing this. There are shops that are expanding, businesses that are growing, and all despite the fact that this government does nothing for the regions.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Sorry, member for Nhulunbuy, I was ready …
Ms Walker: I am a bit slow.
Mr GILES: I did not think I would get it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass on my best wishes to the member for Arafura. I hope she is well. I understand that she has some problems. I hope she is getting better or doing the best that she can. I want to let her know that, despite political differences, I am thinking of her.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I admire the previous Deputy Chief Minister for some of the things that she has done. We should all extend best wishes because we are work colleagues in this place.
I also pass on my condolences to the Hargrave family for the loss of Ed Hargrave on 3 April. In a brutal attack, Mr Hargrave, it appears, was murdered in Alice Springs late at night. He was not in my electorate, but his family is from my electorate. Mr Hargrave was a family man, a passionate sportsperson. He was right into the thick of all the motor sports and the things that I love so dearly. He worked in an organisation known as Ingkerreke Outstations Resource Services. He worked with people in outstations around the north-western side of Alice Springs. He was highly regarded by many in his workplace and in the community, as well as Aboriginal people he worked with. His death is an unfortunate reminder of the antisocial behaviour and violence on our streets, both alcohol-fuelled and otherwise.
Mr Hargrave was a welder, an engineer and a motor sports veteran. He was a person who was just an Alice Springs bloke. He has lived there for more than a decade. He was one of the people of Alice Springs I talked to on an everyday basis, and someone who many people called their friend or their associate, and who will be sadly missed. I wish his partner, Sarah, and children Billy-Rose, Darcy, and Phoenix, all the best. If there is anything I can do as a local member, I am more than happy to support the family.
I also mention an issue I have recently spoken about, but will reiterate. On reading the fine print of the federal government’s National Broadband Network roll-out that showed towns of fewer than 1000 people in the Northern Territory would miss out, it is a disgrace. This approach brings into question the Labor government’s commitment to the regions of the Northern Territory. By my calculation, at a minimum, more than 50 towns and communities across the Territory will be declined new technology broadband, not to mention pastoralists and roadhouses. This is despite the fact that the cable will go right past the door, especially when considering places such as Elliott, Adelaide River, Ti Tree and Mataranka.
If Wadeye is connected by cable from the Stuart Highway, why would Adelaide River, Douglas Daly, Daly River, Wadeye, Peppimenarti and Palumpa not be connected? Will Maningrida be connected, and if so, why not Oenpelli and Jabiru? I argue that Yuendumu should also be connected, but also completing the link to Yuelamu, Tilmouth Well, Laramba, and why not off to Papunya and Kintore? If you are spending $43bn, let us have a go in the Territory.
When you are borrowing billions of dollars of our children’s future earnings to fund such projects, I expect to see the whole Territory connected, or at least an access point installed at fence lines and major highways for pastoralists, or connection to roadhouses. Easy arguments can be mounted that broadband to the regions would exponentially improve outcomes over that of people living in large towns. This is especially the case with opportunities for telemedicine, e-learning, and business development, not to mention access to goods and services or connectivity to the world. Once again, Labor has sold out the regions of the Northern Territory. It goes to show that, while Labor appears to try to promote its bush credentials, its commitment to rolling out services in the regions is wanting.
The Territory government should join me in lobbying the Commonwealth not to turn its back on the Territory in this nation building infrastructure project to all corners of Australia, including the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate a list of the 50 communities that will be excluded from the National Broadband Network roll-out.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, late last term it was my great honour to visit schools in my region to participate in special ceremonies recognising student achievements.
On 3 March, I was invited to Nhulunbuy High School’s Leadership Ceremony to present certificates to the newly-elected members of the Student Representative Council. This included the co-presidents, Stacey Andrews and Larissa Ellis; Vice President, Amy-Lee Kesteven; Secretary, Lanka Alahakoon; Treasurer, Dana Borthistle; and the Special Education Centre SRC rep, Hayden Oliviera.
Representatives at Year 7 were Holly Sims; Mikaela Herweynen; Meg Irvine; Kieran Ellis; Sarah Pearce; and Joshua Regan. The Year 8 SRC reps were Harry Walker; Roy Kellaway; Gabrielle Birch; Brenton Ellis; Lanka Alahakoon; and April Howarth. The Year 9 representatives were Tiffany Stephenson; Kaitlin Larney; and Christopher Hunter. The Year 10 representatives selected were Brandon Grimshaw; Shaylee Harrison, Michael Mayer; and Zoe Cox. Year 11 reps were Amy-Lee Kesteven; Samuel Marrable; Lauren Dunn; and Edward Obrien. Year 12 SRC representatives elected were Dana Borthistle; Stacey Andrews; Jamie Kokles-Ridgway; and Larissa Ellis.
The ceremony also saw presentations made to the newly-created Nhulunbuy High School leadership positions. This included School Captains, Elsbeth Redenius and Dominic Bulters, who were actually hosts for the event - or MCs I should say; Middle School Captains, Roy Kellaway and Lanka Alahakoon; the Indigenous Student Leader on the leadership team, Rhiana Powers; Sports Leader, Kieran Castelli; Duke of Edinburgh Leader, Dylan Edwards; the Peer Support Leader, Taylah Keeley; and, as I mentioned in the last sittings, the Minister’s Round Table representative for Nhulunbuy, Jessica Cunningham.
The Nhulunbuy High School Sports Leaders were also announced as follows: Roper House Captains, Cassie Williams and Kieran Castelli; Roper House Vice-Captains, Jake Edwards and Emily Osborne; Latram House Captains, Jamie Kokles-Ridgway and Hazem Jebeili; Latram House Vice Captains, Cassandra Baulch and Jay Pascall; Giddies House Captains, Myphemial Bond and Luke Delarue; and Giddies House Vice Captains, Mariah McGill and Brandon Peckham.
A short time after that, I attended Nhulunbuy Primary School’s end of term assembly for its student representative council presentations. Congratulations to Year 3 reps, Jasper Farlam and Bayley Monteiro; Year 4 reps, Patrick Walker, Patrick Selfe and Keira Lymbery; Year 5 reps, Dakota Priestley, Andrew Parish and Kiarra Lenane; and Year 6 SRC representatives, Claire Chittick and Tayla Edwards.
Further to that, last week’s NPS Express, the weekly newsletter of the Nhulunbuy Primary School, announced those who were successful in elections for House Captains. I have written to each of these children to offer my congratulations but, further, wish to add their names to the public record. Mitchell House Captains were Meagan Morris and Clifford Timms; Mitchell House Vice Captains, Ellie Misob and Zak Malkinson; Arnhem House Captains, Ruby Dulvarie and Patrick Llewelyn, Arnhem House Vice Captains, Elise Anderson and Josiah Herweynen; Wirrwawuy House Captains, Mahaliah Wangurra-James and Bradley Turner; Wirrwawuy House Vice Captains, Zoe Rubesaame and Kobie Simmonds; Daliwuy House Captains, Keven Mitchell and Savanne Canobie; and Daliwuy House Vice Captains, Will Burge-Paul and Bella Marrable.
On 15 April, I attended a very special ceremony at Yirrkala CEC which saw more than 200 community members attend. My invitation came from Yambirrpa School Council, which oversees the operations of the Community Education Centre, as well as the homelands schools. It was wonderful to see Buwata Munungurr and Wunyburra Wunungmurra graduate with the Northern Territory Certificate of Education on completion of their Year 12 studies. These two young people worked hard to complete their studies and serve as an excellent role model for their peers. They were the source of enormous and collective show of family and community pride.
This was also true for the five adult graduates of the Indigenous Education Worker course, or IEW, which is run by Batchelor Institute. Congratulations to Djana Wunungmurra, Gawanawuy Mununggurr, Rurruwiliny Ngurruwutthun, Bandinga No 2 Mununggurr, and Guramin Marika. These Indigenous Education Workers provide an extremely important role in homeland communities. Their schools are extremely important in supporting young people’s education and providing a path to the future, and to employment in homelands.
I appreciate that IEWs are an important part of a team which works hard alongside non-Indigenous or Ngapaki teachers to deliver the best possible outcomes for children. Homelands are strong places where people are healthy and where culture is strong and respected, and our non-Indigenous teachers could not do their job without these workers. They are also excellent role models for students, family and community, playing an important role in continuing to develop and support the community needs and aspirations of Yolngu people. It is also important to acknowledge the strong support that Yambirrpa School Council provides to students, be they young people or adult students and, with them, the very committed hard-working staff at Yirrkala CEC and Yirrkala Homelands School.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Mr Bob Brander, who passed away on Thursday of this week. Bob was a Canadian soldier, United Nations peacekeeper and, for quite a few years, the vice president of the Darwin RSL. I had the very good fortune of working with Bob when I worked for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in Darwin.
Bob was a true gentleman. He was a genuine and very good man. Unfortunately, he passed away from cancer, and I spent some time with him early last week in the hospice behind Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a place of sadness, but a place of comfort at the same time. It offers the family some special time in private, in an area that is very well set up and designed, and a tribute to the government for building such a place.
Bob Brander was a good mate. We often found ourselves rained in at the RSL after lunch on a Friday. Even in July, we would look out the window and the rain would be coming down far too heavy to get back to the office in Smith Street! I must point out that the ABS did work flex hours, so we were just clocking off at an opportune time. It is funny how the rain stills come down in July in Darwin. Bob was a wonderful man and a pleasure to work with. He will be sorely missed by his friends, his family, and all those who knew him.
As the member for Goyder mentioned, Briony Goodsell was taken tragically by a crocodile in Black Lagoon. Briony was a tremendous young student at Bakewell Primary School for many years, and she was very well regarded by her fellow classmates. She was full of life and, tragically, taken too soon.
I place on Parliamentary Record my feelings for my brother-in-law tonight, who has just been diagnosed with inoperable spine cancer. I hope that all can be done for Gary in the coming weeks, months and, hopefully, years, to ensure that what life he has left is decent with no pain.
There are many things that I would like to talk about tonight but cannot, given we have a short period of time. There are many things that are happening in Palmerston at the moment; many good things and many things that are not so good. There are many housing issues. People continue to come into the office every day, particularly with housing issues. I suppose the Brennan electorate office has one - and I say this word lightly - advantage in its position, in that it picks up just about every person who seems to visit Palmerston. You often find you are dealing with people from all over Palmerston, the rural area, and as far away as the northern suburbs. They are out there shopping and will come in and share their issues, and you do what you can to help them out.
Housing is a big issue and continues to be a problem. One quick story is regarding a unit in Woodroffe. Territory Housing was first advised of a problem in November last year. It has only been since I took photos last week of the condition this unit is in, and the vehicle left out the front that had been bombarded, that someone has come and taken the vehicle away. Hopefully, the unit will be cleaned up. To have a perfectly good structure, although very unclean, I suppose in disrepair, left untenanted since November, when you know the tragic waiting list that we face in the Northern Territory with people waiting to get into government housing, is a sheer shame on the management of Territory Housing. Much needs to be done.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass my condolences on to my dear friend, Sue Friend. We were with Sue and many of our other friends on Friday night in town, in Mitchell Street, when Don, her husband of 49 years, 11 months and two weeks, suffered chest pains. Shortly after midnight, I think somewhere around 12.30 at Royal Darwin Hospital, Don was declared deceased. Don passed away with many friends nearby, and Sue, his wife, had many more friends supporting her. It was a shock to me, to be there with a friend one minute and, then trying your best to help your friends get this person to hospital and get him the best care possible. The staff at the hospital did a fantastic job. They did everything they could for Don but, unfortunately, his heart no longer had any life in it.
Friday will be his funeral, and I can tell you now, it will be a very sad event which will be matched with a huge party to celebrate his life. These friends of mine, who I met in about September last year, had a caf in Toupein Road, Yarrawonga, called Hill Billy’s Caf. It was a caf where a large group of friends would surround it. Don was a very community-orientated man, and Sue was like-minded. The meeting I went to was for a fundraiser for Tahnee Afuhaamango, a fantastic Down Syndrome swimmer. I went as the Sports shadow minister and I met these great people. They said: ‘We are going to put your name down on our list and you come back in a month’s time to one of our parties’. And that is what we did.
These people opened up not only their home and their business, but also their friends to me, and to everyone who was willing to come. It was a place that you could go safely, enjoy great friendship, great food, love and memories. There are many memories from those few months that we have shared together.
Don and Sue - maybe they are like an aunt and uncle, I do not know – offered a level of friendship that you do not often find, and it is very difficult for me to explain in this House. Don’s community spirit was amazing. I can tell you that his spirit will live on. The decisions have been made that these parties will continue in Don’s memory. The community spirit of bringing together like-minded people and friends from all over the world - and these chaps were predominantly South African or Zimbabwean - with common causes, common friendship and one goal in mind; that is, to have fun with friends around you.
As a little expression, I suppose, of the type of character Don was, on a Friday night we went to a party - we were at a 25th birthday party – and Don said to me: ‘You never ring me, you never phone me back’. So I stepped away, picked up my phone and rang him: ‘There you go, Don? How’s things?’ He picked up the phone: ‘Oh, Rosco’, and we laughed and carried on. It was funny; it is a good way to remember Don. He was a man always ready for a laugh and he is will be sorely missed by many of the friends of Hill Billy’s. Through friendship, strength grows. Don, your friendship will be missed.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will briefly talk about the settlement of the Kenbi land claim, which I welcome. I want to make some observations in relation to it. One of the things that I noticed about the Kenbi land claim - and I am not sure if the federal Aboriginal Affairs minister has signed off on it yet. I hope she hurries up and does it, if she has not. What I noticed about the Kenbi land claim is the structure of it. We see the mixture of both Territory freehold and inalienable freehold, constituted under two different legislative instruments in two different jurisdictions as part of the settlement.
It is interesting to note that all of the development focus for the Cox Peninsula, as a result of that settlement, occurs entirely within that sphere which is governed by Territory freehold. If there has ever been a more complete example as to why inalienable freehold is a loadstone around the investment future of land in the Northern Territory, it would have to be the settlement of the Kenbi land claim. The intent of using Territory freehold is so that that land - which will remain, as I understand it, within Aboriginal ownership - can be leased out to people on, essentially, a permanent basis.
Many people in this room would be surprised to discover that four families, as I understand it, own London. People would also be surprised to discover that about 400 families own the whole of Scotland. Everybody else who lives in London, or has premises in London, or in Scotland for that matter, does not own their land; they lease it from the landowners. A good way to make a few quid out of London, just quietly, especially in the city. The fact is that the land law as it applies in London and Scotland is more reminiscent of Territory freehold than inalienable freehold ever is.
Whilst I appreciate that, out of the proposed settlement deals, some two-thirds of the land remains under the inalienable version of title, it will be a classic example in about 20 years time, of what the two different titles mean. One form of the title means investment; the capacity to lease land in a convenient fashion, for which those leases can be sold off, and they form a form of title which is so reliable that people will invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on the possession of those leases. On the other hand, however, the other two-thirds - and I suspect this is possibly why an inalienable title has continued to be chosen - will essentially, unless I am mistaken, remain fallow - certainly remain fallow if the current philosophies that are applied to inalienable title are continued.
Half of the Northern Territory is formed by this form of private property called inalienable title - private in the sense that it is freehold, public in the sense that every one of those forms part of a trust instrument on a land trust. It has demonstrated, time and again, its incapacity to be economically effective when the investment dollar comes to the Northern Territory. There are examples where that is not the case. On the Tiwi Islands there is forestry. I notice close to Nhulunbuy more recently there has been some forestry work being done and, in the mining industry, the big players get a look in. What does not get a look in is the small players. I note that the 99-year leases have been bumped back to 40 years, which is a bit disappointing for some of these communities.
It would be just delightful to see, in places like Maningrida, or communities like that, where people who are retiring out of Sydney are looking for a place to live and invest, and that they could live and invest in places like Maningrida or Milikapiti, or any of those places where they get a nice bit of tropical coast in which to live out their retirement days and bring employment to the people who live in these remote areas.
We talk about education, and yes, education is important but, without investment and without guaranteed property rights for those people who seek to invest in traditional lands, full education will mean nothing. All it will mean is that you end up with a whole bunch of unemployed PhDs, sitting on their backsides, no more employed than they would have been if they were uneducated dolts.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to an attitude that has developed in the government that seems to position itself ahead of the needs of residents. This matter has been referred to before, but I would like to add a little more to it. It relates to serving the good people of Palmerston, particularly those in the area of Moulden and Gray, who have suffered much from unruly tenants.
We have worked hard in our office to attend to their needs in an endeavour to fix them and, with a cooperative relationship, have been able to engage the local Housing office staff, who work very hard and have a very difficult job. My office used to be right next door and I know many of these people. I know them well; they live in Palmerston and they are very professional. Together, we try our best to sort this business out.
I find stunning a most extraordinary action of the government, in recent times, which is creating a problem for the government - make no mistake - even though it may think in such a shortsighted and arrogant way that it is looking after its own interests. It is, in fact, creating a political problem for the government - there are no benefits in this at all. That aside, that is their decision. However, worst of all is the real concern that, when residents come to a local member with a concern, that member is obstructed in their free capacity to deal with that issue in a timely way.
As I have mentioned, we have this absurd situation - it would be funny if it was on some BBC show called Yes, Minister - in the Northern Territory. The place is supposed to be a ‘can do’ place. A resident came to see me with a problem of fighting next door that occurred last night, that is keeping the wife awake, and they are frightened. Once upon a time, I could speak to the office, and alert the housing officer of that issue and we could then see what would transpire.
If a person comes to me now with an issue of fighting next door and the wife is frightened and cannot sleep, I must write to the minister; the minister writes to the office; the office writes back to the minister; the minister then writes to me; and I then go and speak to the person who walked into my office. But, sadly, four weeks perhaps have gone by, and a fair amount of paper has been exchanged. The question is: is it same process for the Labor members? Are the Labor members able to access the local housing office and sort this business out? Perhaps in Palmerston, James Burke is able to intervene; is paid to represent the Chief Minister. Is he able to go in and intervene and help sort this business out? After all, it is a political strategy. You are not, in fact, interested in the people. These are the people.
These are just a few letters which represent people who have come into my office asking for some assistance. There has been a monstrous letter trail that traipsed all around the countryside through the bureaucracy. To serve the interests of the people who have come into my office? No, it is not; it is serving some political agenda to ensure that the minister does not get embarrassed and it is their interests that are put ahead of those of the people.
I have been in this job for nearly 10 years and I have never seen anything so appalling in my life as that kind of callous disregard for people and a greater regard for the process. I have issues that relate to an older person who is deeply concerned and traumatised by the person who has been living next door and is afraid to speak up. The person who has been living next door is in gaol and they want some help now, before that person comes out of gaol so that, hopefully this time, they can raise their concerns and have a relocation - go through the paper mill. Someone here has problems with cloudy and dirty, rusty water coming through their taps. I cannot deal with this. I cannot talk to the housing office. I have to go in and out and back, and the paper goes all over the countryside. Here is another person. They have vermin and insects passing between the units and a stench coming through their wall. I cannot deal with this. I have to go and write to Rob. Let Rob fix it. See if he can fix it. I do not know what sort of file he has over there.
Here is another one. This was probably fixed by the recent power shock price, the 25%. The next door neighbour keeps their air conditioning on day and night - all the time - which results in one wall in the neighbouring apartment being completely covered in mould because of all the condensation. I cannot intervene. I have to go and speak to Rob; let Rob sort it out. There is also a person wondering when the units are going to be upgraded. They have been there for 20 years and nothing has happened. There are children next door in this other place where they have been abused verbally again and again. Complaints have been raised and nothing has happened. They come and see the local member; I have to write another letter. Here is another one – fighting in the street. This is one that has been going for years.
I am running out of time sadly. I have to write another letter. Anyway, you get the point. These are just a few letters. This is absolutely appalling in this modern day and age, when we bring process in front of people and we can sort basic business out in the Territory. What are you going to do about it?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge four primary schools and the great examples they set for all of us. Last week, I had the pleasure of accompanying both the Chief Minister and Mr Mick Dodson, 2009 Australian of the Year, on a visit to Millner Primary School. What really grabbed my attention and that of the Chief Minister and Mick Dodson, was a showpiece of environmental building - the Eco Hall - incorporating all sorts of passive cooling features such as correct solar orientation, shading, clever use of plants, and ventilation and the like to provide a cool and comfortable environment without the need for air conditioning. The Eco Hall is cool, comfortable, light and airy, even on warm and humid days. It is truly a marvellous effort and one that the Chief Minister said could be used as a model for schools throughout the Territory.
I congratulate the work of the Millner School Council, and seek leave to incorporate the names in the record.
Leave granted.
All of the above have done and continue to do a fantastic job upholding that school’s great motto: ‘Building Respect and Achieving Together’. They have earned my respect and it is self-evident they are really achieving together.
Last Friday, I had the great privilege of attending Anzac Day events at primary schools in my electorate. First, I visited Wagaman Primary School where April Camposo welcomed everyone, after which Liam Slann invited the school choir to sing Lest We Forget. Liam then read the Anzac Day poem. Kiaba Tapera then spoke about the 1915 Gallipoli landing and the courage, determination and mateship the Diggers displayed. Cecilia Bernadino continued the story of how the Anzac spirit continued into other theatres of war. Ekela Buck told us of the terrible cost in lives of the Great War, after which Ben Jackson shared a moving tale of Simpson and his donkey. Jake Cole rounded off the story of Anzac Day by reminding us why we honour the Anzac spirit.
Rachel Motter asked people to come forward to lay wreaths, after which Sabrina Ciubal read us the poem In Flanders Fields. Tasha Cole gave us an insight into how the poem gave rise to the red poppy symbol. Connor Gilmore gave us a brief description of The Ode and asked for a minute’s silence, after which it was read by Samantha Martin. Darren Brown then introduced the school choir to sing the National Anthem, and gave us a stirring reminder that the Anzac spirit belongs not just on the battlefield, but in our everyday lives. Paige Parker then read the School Resolution, after which April Camposo concluded the ceremony with thanks to all concerned.
Then it was off to Jingili where Principal, Jodie Green, welcomed everyone and introduced Jay Kenna, who recited the Anzac Requiem. After a stirring rendition of Can you hear Australia’s Hero by the school choir, Amy Chittick led the Prayer of Remembrance. Students Marissa Higgins, Cohen Stephensen and community members then laid wreaths before Claudia Lee recited The Ode. After the Last Post, a minute’s silence and the National Anthem, a tribute to Anzac Day was read by Rachel Harpur and India McKaige.
Next stop was Moil Primary School where students, Carmela Reyes, Elliott Williams, Adam Tran and Tahnee Maxwell gave us their thoughts on the meaning of Anzac Day. Tess Harbeck then recited the Prayer of Remembrance, followed by Mia Sorensen reading Psalm 23. Nathan Ryan recited The Ode before student representatives, Shija Pulikotil, Kaylyn Fairhurst, Christopher O’Brien, Jason O’Meara, Ailie Sinclair and Christa Lidgerwood laid their wreaths. Mr Bleakley played the Last Post and Rouse, after which the flags were raised by Juno Soeriaatmadja, Tyson Wallent and Rachel Simmonds. Miss Carrodus then led everyone in the National Anthem.
All three primary schools really participated. I believe our future is in very good hands. I was very impressed by the way that they participated in Anzac Day with great respect, reverence and dignity. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be their member. I recognise the work that those schools do presenting functions such as Anzac Day.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Mr Tony Fitzgerald – Death of
Mr Tony Fitzgerald – Death of
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise you of the death, on 24 February 2009, of Mr Tony Fitzgerald, a long-term Territorian and strong advocate for human rights.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Fitzgerald’s children, Mr Gus Fitzgerald and Ms Nina Fitzgerald, and his sister, Ms Shane Fitzgerald; also many friends and colleagues, in particular, staff from the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that on completion of the debate, I will ask you to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Tony Fitzgerald
Mr Tony Fitzgerald
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Mr Tony Fitzgerald, a leading advocate for human rights in the Northern Territory, and tender its profound sympathy to his family and friends.
This morning, we mark the passing of a very special Territorian. Much is made, and often exaggerated, about Territorians being an independent-minded bunch of people who are prepared to speak their minds. We are said to be suspicious of authority, as well as being good to our mates. We are said to be prepared to help those less fortunate than others. If those things are typical of Territorians, there can be few finer examples of those traits than that of Tony Fitzgerald, who passed away in Darwin on 24 February this year.
He was all those things. However, there was another trait to Tony Fitzgerald, as pointed out by many of the 400 people who gathered at his memorial at Pee Wees at East Point. It was not only a moving memorial, but a very uplifting memorial at a place that Tony loved so well. Tony was many things but, in many parts he was a stubborn bloke.
His enduring passion - human rights and equality - demanded that sort of stubbornness. Tony, or Fitzy as he was universally known, was the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner from 2002. However, that is only a small part of his contribution over three decades to the Northern Territory. It was a contribution which covered the legal and sporting arenas, and much else beside. It was a contribution which, more than anything else, expressed his love of the Territory and its people, and Darwin in particular.
Tony spent his early years in Sydney but finished his education in Melbourne, including a law and commerce degree. It was these early days in Melbourne which demonstrated his stubbornness. In the heart of VFL country he insisted on playing Rugby Union, no doubt to the derision of many Victorians around him. Years later he was to return as captain of the Territory Rugby side. Very much a secondary sport and regarded within the Territory as an extremely small fish in an Aussie Rules pond, the Territory side was relegated to playing on an obscure suburban playing field. The Northern Territory gave Victoria a thorough flogging.
Very early on, he found the stultifying world of law, as practised in a place like Collins Street, Melbourne, was not for him. He abandoned his articles at a law firm in favour of finishing his legal apprenticeship with the Victorian Tenants Union and the Fitzroy Legal Service. He then took himself to Darwin to work for the North Australian Legal Aid Service in May 1978. From that point, both in legal aid services and in private practice, he dedicated himself to working as a lawyer who favoured those who often had least access to justice. His work at NAALAS was, in later years, followed by a stint at the NT Legal Aid Commission, and he also practiced privately in the Northern Territory.
As he said himself in the lead-up to working for the Anti-Discrimination Commission:
- My inclination as a lawyer was to represent 'needy' clients. Hence, I was employed for eight years in legal aid organisations, and the private legal practices
I managed for six years aimed to serve consumers whose level of income/assets disqualified them from legal aid, but did not enable them to readily meet
the fees demanded by larger law firms. I took the view that there was a demand and a need for law firms to operate at the ‘small end’ of the market by
keeping overheads low and passing overhead savings on to consumers.
This view carried through to a later part of his career as a mediator, nearly four years of which was spent with Resolve, a branch of Anglicare involved in mediated family dispute resolution. From 1996, he used those skills in that context as well as many others, including training mediators from UNTAET in East Timor.
I have known Fitzy for many years on a personal level, but I would not have described myself as a great friend. Like many people in Darwin, I knew Fitzy and quite often stopped to have a chat with him or share a coffee with him. I recall the lead-up to the 2001 Territory election. I had been elected in 1999 and Fitzy was doing the rounds of elected members putting the case for an advocacy and mediation service to be funded through government budgets to mediate neighbourhood disputes and stop them spiralling out of control and ending up in the court. He spent about an hour with me putting a very well-constructed, passionate and decisive argument that not only would there be savings for government in formal legal costs which ended up in the court system, but it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to sit people down who were having a dispute, get them around the table with a professional mediator, and work things out so people could walk out of that meditation session and feel the process had been fair; that it had ended up in reconciliation between the two parties and people could shake hands and move on with their lives; as opposed to going through an adversarial winner-and-loser court process.
He did such a great job in articulating his case that, when we came to government and the submission finally came up through Justice, it was a no-brainer; everybody said yes, budgets are tough, it is hard to find money, but the power of Fitzy’s advocacy made that particular mediation service come to light in the Northern Territory. It still exists and all of us, as local members, often refer people to that particular service. Fitzy left his mark in many walks of life in the Northern Territory.
These skills served him well in his role at the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Whilst there are areas of the law in which argument prevails and determination is required, Tony passionately believed in this alternative road of mediation - not just as a matter of cost but also as a matter of delivering equity and justice.
The list of services carried out by Tony is a tribute to a man who believed in giving back to the community he lived in. He served on sporting tribunals, including the NTFL and the NTRU. In the Territory, he served on bodies such as the Community Housing Advisory Committee, as well as the NT Public Housing Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the Community Living Areas Tribunal. He taught at Charles Darwin University, as well as facilitating victim/offender conferences for police and Correctional Services. He was a member of Reconciliation Australia. That service extended nationally and he did considerable work as a consultant on Aboriginal Legal Service issues, as well as mediation work on native title claims.
He returned briefly to Melbourne in the late 1980s where he set up a practice with Greg Borchers, now a magistrate in Alice Springs, who recalled that, to the conservative, modern legal profession, ‘it probably looked like we were setting up a knock shop rather than a legal practice’. Commissioning a 12 m mural Richmond Aloha on the main drag through inner suburban Melbourne was odd to say the least but typically, stubbornly, a Fitzgerald act. As Greg Borchers recalls, the exotic wall portraits of Aboriginal, Greek and Vietnamese women were a tribute to his adopted home town of Darwin. He even conscripted three Darwin-based artists to carry out his commission, ignoring the pool of talent the Melbourne art scene might have had to offer.
His love for Darwin, place and people, was palpable. From playing touch footy on Mindil Beach to running the length and breadth of East Point, it was a home town he enjoyed and loved to the full. Over the decades he accumulated a diverse range of friends from all walks of life, including strong relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, both here in Darwin as well as out bush.
We also acknowledge today the Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Lisa Coffey, and many of the staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Without your efforts, particularly in the last months of Tony’s life as he became increasingly ill, he would not have been able to continue in the role. I have been told he often referred to you all in very positive terms. On behalf of government, we thank you for your considerable efforts during this very difficult time.
I have mentioned Tony’s stubborn nature; it was a stubbornness he brought to his work as much as he did to the sporting field, or hiking in Arnhem Land in the last year of his illness. It was a trait he brought to bear, where necessary, against politicians. There was nothing Fitzy loved more than taking it up to us on this side of the House on certain issues. It was a stubbornness, I am advised, against reason, as witnessed by his never-ending, unsuccessful attempts to play virtuoso tenor saxophone. However, it was that trait which kept him going for the 10 years he promised his children, Gus and Nina, after he found he had cancer. Taking on the words of Dylan Thomas, he did not ‘go gentle into that good night’, but fought against ‘the dying of the light’ for a valiant 13 years in giving to his family.
We should not forget that those final years were also spent serving the Territory community as a lawyer, a community worker, a mediator, and a reconciler of differences.
My condolences to Fitzy’s son, Gus; daughter, Nina; sister, Shane; and his many friends throughout the Northern Territory. I believe all of us, in life, want to look back and think that whatever we did, we made a difference. Certainly, for many thousands of people across the Northern Territory, Fitzy did make a great difference, Madam Speaker, and he will be well regarded and very sorely missed.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my condolences for Tony Fitzgerald.
Tony was a man who has left an imprint. He had an effect and an influence on all of us who had the good fortune of knowing him. He was a man who, in the words of John Stuart Mill, ‘one with belief has greater power than 99 with mere interest’. He had belief, and he believed in a fight that was worth having. It was a fight for the underdog, a fight for those who did not have a voice - he gave them a voice. When we look at his later years as he physically changed, and we bore witness to the struggle that he was having, it was also a testimony to the underlying passion of the man that sustained him through those times. We all witnessed that change, but we could see the man just kept going. What kept him going was that underlying belief, that passion.
Madam Speaker, my parliamentary colleagues, and friends of Tony, that is truly inspiring. That is why this man leaves a legacy and those who have seen his life will forever be grateful and mindful to respond.
There is also recognition that it is not the people of process who effect real change, but people of action - and Tony was a man of action. I am mindful of a story – it has probably been recounted many times but it is a metaphor that describes the passion of this man, something deeper inside that drove him – about the Birdsville Races, when he saw a melee. All were observing it and, by instinct, he got himself involved on behalf of one who looked to find himself in a very unfortunate position at the end of some large fists. He put himself between the underdog and the over dog, let us say. As a result, he wore a black eye. The story goes that he walked around the Birdsville Races with that black eye and wore it like a crown, because that was something which motivated him. From that story, we see the same pattern where passion would take him into a fight and sustain him, because he was fighting in the interests of those who needed representation. That is what carried him, and that is what is inspiring.
As the Chief Minister said, it was that same passion that played a part in resolving community disputes. Both the Chief Minister and I were elected on the same day. About that time, discussion was occurring in our community; the CLP was in government and Tony had that clear look in his eye, that intensity behind the argument, the need to find a better way. Of course, being a new member to parliament and having had some experience in community resolution, working in my own electorate and community, we spent a lot of time together. I did not need much convincing, I could see and understood the sense of what he was saying. However, there were some disappointments. Even though the arguments were strong and presented so passionately and he felt he was making some progress, he would report back to me that, even though he felt he had been understood, he had had a setback.
I have an AFL background and I have seen photos and heard stories of him playing Rugby. I am sure he got knocked down and got straight back up again; he kept on going. Many times I would meet him at airport lounges or walking across to a plane, and he did not waiver. He never backed down no matter what discouragement he faced on this very important matter of trying to find a better way of sorting out the business that goes on in our communities. It was passion he saw as the fuel needed to help resolve these issues. Once again, he was a man not of process but a man of action driven by passion and a deep desire to help make the place better.
We have both had – the Chief Minister and I - a part in that; hearing that story and witnessing his tenacious drive to bring about that kind of change. He was a man who recognised when crime and injustice hurts, then justice must heal. That deep interest - sustained, passionate, and determined interest - in victim/offender conferencing and trying to find a way where there can be a deeper resolution so we can move to a better place, was truly inspiring.
Tony leaves a legacy and we should pause, as we will, to reflect upon that legacy. It should inform each of us, as members of this Chamber, not to be captured by process but be driven by something deeper, as we saw in Tony - driven by passion and a desire to effect real change and to leave this place better than when we entered it. May the passion and tenacity of this man have an effect on our performance in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my condolences to his family at this sad loss at such a young age, and for his workmates and for those who knew him. May he rest in peace.
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support this condolence motion and pay tribute to Tony Fitzgerald, a very dedicated Territorian, and the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner from 2002 to his passing in February.
Tony was, first and foremost, a brave man. It was fortunate that, for the past seven years he was able to fill a professional role; a calling that matched his character. Often outspoken and passionate, at other times quietly insistent, he would wear down injustice, bigotry and prejudice by never giving up on anyone. A defining element of his life and career has been his love of an underdog. If someone was down he would help them up, and it did not matter who was holding them down. It really got up his nose to see an injustice committed and he could not turn his back until he got stuck in and sorted it out. He would use every technique - some may say trick - in the book to turn the tables on the powerful and the callous. And Tony had a few tricks; every lawyer should.
Tony’s contribution to Northern Territory law and society started in 1978 when he arrived from Melbourne to work for the Aboriginal Legal Service. As he recounted later, he had never met an Indigenous person to that day. He sure met a few from then on, and he loved every minute of it. Like many a great Territorian, he thought he would stay here for a year before heading overseas but, for a man who could sniff out injustice a mile away, in those days the Territory had rich pickings.
Four years later, he escaped from our clutches, but it was a given he would be back - the Territory had really captured Tony. Before long, he was practising as a barrister and solicitor and Deputy Director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. His experience in the then relatively new - and somewhat frowned upon - field of dispute resolution served him well when he was appointed the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. As we now know, dispute resolution outside of an adversarial courtroom setting often leaves all parties more satisfied with the outcome and more willing to abide by agreements. For Tony, it never mattered who won or lost, whether in a courtroom or on the footy field, it was how you played the game. Actually, on the footy field, from most accounts, it really did matter to Tony who won.
As the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Tony never knocked back a challenge. A large Defence contractor learnt this to its peril when he rejected their application for an exemption from the law so employees could be hired and fired based on nationality. As Tony wrote in his decision:
- I find that in the NT the public interest is better served by the avoidance of racial discrimination ... I also reject the notion, implicit in Raytheon’s application,
that suitability for employment in the area of Defence-related manufacturing and technology should primarily depend on race rather than ability to perform
the duties of a particular job.
His decision garnered a fair amount of press at the time; however, for the people who knew him, it was hardly unexpected. Governments did not escape Tony’s eye either. There are some former and current ministers of the Crown, at both Territory and federal levels, who have learnt exactly what Tony thought about a particular policy or decision to cut funding.
I acknowledge the hard-working and dedicated staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission who are here today, who helped Tony maintain an impressive workload and support for the community despite his serious illness over a long time. I also acknowledge the support of his colleagues and friends in the Department of Justice.
Madam Speaker, this House sends its sincere condolences to Tony’s children, Gus and Nina; his sisters, Shane and Sally; his huge group of friends and colleagues, and all those who remember his determination, courage and support for the underdog. Tony’s contribution to the Territory was a relentless pursuit of human rights and basic justice for all Territorians. May he rest in peace.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and offer my condolences to Tony’s family, friends and work colleagues. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his memorial, but I did hear the stories that it really was a celebration of a life well lived.
I met Fitz when we were on a committee together. It was the Community Housing Advisory Committee in the mid-1990s; he was the Chair. The committee was, essentially, made up of representatives from the housing sector and we assessed applications for community housing. It was a good committee and we all thought we did very good work. Fitz, however, was a very frustrating chairman. If there is anyone here who sat on a committee with him, they will attest to this. He had a view that everyone with something to say should be heard, regardless of how far off the point they were and how much time they took putting their views. Eventually, I realised that that was him. His view was that everyone had a right to speak and be heard. It was, of course, completely consistent with the life he lived and views he expressed and believed in, well beyond our committee.
I should say for the record - although I suspect everyone in the Chamber knows - that his appointment as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner raised some eyebrows and temperatures in conservative circles in the Northern Territory. The Labor government, obviously, announced his appointment. I knew - although it was clear to me that many of the people I knew did not know - that Fitz, in fact, had been appointed by the former CLP government on at least one committee that I knew of, and that he had undertaken consultancy work for the government. My view was, at the time: why should the Labor government not give him some work? My view is that, when both sides of politics give you a gig, you have done very well, and it is an expression of the regard in which you are held by both sides of politics.
For my part, I thought his appointment was a sensible one. In many ways, he was the obvious candidate. He was a lawyer - so am I – which, I believe not surprisingly, is crucial for a position such as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. He had extensive experience in advocating in a variety of ways for - as he described – ‘the needy’. He worked for legal aid organisations, and his work was neatly balanced, I thought, by his time in private legal practice. He knew how government worked and most of the issues most people faced, particularly the vulnerable and those who needed help. He had a history of advocating for them, so his pedigree, quite frankly, was perfect for the job. That is not to say, however, that we always agreed. Often, we did not. I remember having a number of discussions with him, one in particular, where both of us stated our views strongly and passionately and eventually agreed to disagree.
His work in mediation has been talked about this morning. It was extensive and impressive. I remember talking to him many years ago when he became incredibly enthusiastic about the possibilities of mediation in the Territory. I think it was probably about the time he had completed the LEADR course and some other courses. It can be said that not only did Fitz make a significant and valuable contribution, but he led the way in the Northern Territory in promoting mediation as a viable and practical alternative to dispute resolution. His work is well documented, well recognised, and greatly appreciated.
I also know he liked Alice Springs which, in my book, is always worthy of great praise. He enjoyed being there and he had some long-time friends there – Greg Borchers is one of them. I was very pleased when he decided, in his role as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, to attempt to extend some services of the commission to Alice Springs by opening what could probably be described as something of a shopfront co-located at the Ombudsman’s Office.
I note that he lamented in his introduction in his 2008 annual report that his efforts to persuade the government to provide a permanent service in Alice Springs had not been successful. He noted with some regret that, ‘Central Australians continue to be denied access to the level of justice afforded to those north of the Berrimah Line’. Those comments demonstrate his commitment to access to justice, to Alice Springs, and that he was independent and very much his own man, both in the job as Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and beyond.
He was a likeable bloke, and one of the few who went beyond merely talking the talk. He was committed to social justice and to achieving better outcomes for the poor and disadvantaged.
It is fitting, Madam Speaker, that this parliament recognises his contribution to the Territory in this condolence motion, that we express our thanks for it, and mark his premature death with deep and profound sadness.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion. Tony Fitzgerald loved the Northern Territory, in particular Darwin. I acknowledge his family and friends in the gallery today, in particular his sister, Shane; his children, Nina and Gus; and their mother Ursula Raymond, the staff of the Anti-Discrimination Commission, and also friends and colleagues from the legal fraternity.
Tony was a lawyer who was concerned for the law’s apparent inability to deliver social good. He was a fighter who directed his considerable energies towards the defence of the underdog. Yes, he wore his heart on his sleeve but, even so, he had friends in all walks of life, from right across the political spectrum. Tony Fitzgerald was passionate, an optimist, opinionated, argumentative and, at times, obstinate. However, Tony was also a man of the people who possessed a rare level of compassion along with a genuine streak of egalitarianism, plus a formidable drive and love of life.
In the more than 30 years following his arrival in Darwin in 1978, he established an extensive network of friends and acquaintances which included politicians, lawyers, sports people, environmentalists and business people. The hundreds who attended his funeral reflect the diversity of Tony’s life. Given Tony’s notion of justice and his natural inclination to champion the cause of minority groups, it was inevitable that he would develop strong and enduring relationships with so many Aboriginal Territorians.
His friends will also testify that, during the 13 years Tony spent battling cancer, he was extraordinarily resolute and showed a rare toughness. He never complained about his disease; in fact, he rarely mentioned it at all. He also gave his time trying to help young cancer sufferers come to grips with the road ahead. When diagnosed with cancer, Tony focused his determination on living at least another 10 years so that he could grow up his children, Nina and Gus. Fitzy survived a couple of years longer than the 10 years he set himself and, like most things, he did a fine job with his children. As with most things in his life, he did it his way.
There was a certain irony that Tony Fitzgerald should die relatively young. He was a fitness fanatic who, before the onset of his disease, ran almost daily. Much of that running was done in the East Point area of Darwin. His love affair with East Point saw him become a founding member of the East Point Landcare Group. There is no doubting what his views on the proposed marina development for the East Point area would have been. Tony was not a great fan of development. As his long-time friend, Greg Borchers, observed at his funeral service at Pee Wees at East Point, Tony lamented much of the development which had occurred in Darwin over the past half dozen years or so. There was no doubting Tony’s commitment to Darwin and its people - he saw Darwin as unique, that is why he loved it.
He also loved sport and played both touch and Rugby League, but his enduring sporting passion was Rugby Union. Sport allowed Tony an outlet for his natural energy and drive, and it also provided him the opportunity to mix with average Territorians with whom he felt such a strong bond. Tony captained the Northern Territory in Rugby and, despite his illness, he attended the 2007 World Cup in France. Typically, it was not enough for Tony to simply attend the event as just one of the mob. He felt he owed his French hosts much more than that, so he tried to learn French before he went. Tony Fitzgerald was not someone who looked for easy options.
Anthony John Fitzgerald became the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in 2002. It was a natural progression for him. Born in Sydney, Tony graduated from Melbourne University in 1975 with a Bachelor of Law and Bachelor of Commerce. He spent just two years practising in Melbourne before heading north to join the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Darwin. After 3 years with NAALAS, he worked for the Wagait Association near Batchelor which, amongst other things, led him to the unfamiliar role of manager of a cattle station.
From time to time, Tony displayed a surprising degree of flexibility. He went on to become the foundation lecturer in Legal Studies for Aboriginal field officers at the then Darwin Community College. After a period in private practice, Tony spent the next four years with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
In 1997, Tony embarked on a different route when he left the law and embraced dispute resolution. He had come to the view that the law was an impenetrable labyrinth. As with most things in his life, dispute resolution was something he took to with passion. Mediation was to prove the stepping stone to the position of Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Along the way, Tony’s diverse professional and personal interests saw him become a member of the NT Committee for Aboriginal Reconciliation, President of the Mediation Association, Deputy Chair of the Public Housing Administrative Appeal Panel, a victim/offender conference facilitator, a trainer for East Timorese mediators, a delegate of the Commissioner of Tenancies hearing landlord/tenant disputes, and tenor saxophonist with the Palmerston Community Band - very diverse, Madam Speaker.
It is fair to say that Tony was not a naturally gifted musician but, as was so often the case, his enthusiasm and energy more than made up for his musical shortcomings.
Tony’s application for the position of Anti-Discrimination Commissioner typified his outlook. In part he wrote:
- In applying for this position, I am mindful of the important role played by the commission in the Northern Territory. It is a role of special
significance given the Territory’s high profile, multicultural population, and the Territory’s mostly underserved reputation as the pinnacle
of frontier society. It is a role of increasing importance as members of our community become more willing to assert their rights and as
our society opens up with the advent of Freedom of Information legislation and an Aboriginal Interpreter Service.
The prospect of heading up a commission which is, among other things, devoted to the promotion of equal opportunity and the protection
of citizens from unfair discrimination, in this most fascinating region of Australia, is both challenging and stimulating.
Tony conducted himself in the role of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner - as he had in all aspects of his life - with resolution, even-handedness and a genuine commitment to justice.
I first met Tony Fitzgerald 20 years ago as a young journalist working at the ABC. From then on I came to know Tony through many interviews over the years but, especially in the last four or five years, as the member for Arnhem. I will give examples of how important the position of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner was, in terms of Tony Fitzgerald, and is with the Acting Commissioner, Lisa Coffey, to the constituents and families of Arnhem and the Gulf of Carpentaria.
The first one that comes to mind was when the Ngukurr Bulldogs won the grand final in Katherine. It had been a few years since they had won, and they experienced some racism when wanting to celebrate after the game on their way back to Ngukurr. The footballers did not know how to handle it, or what to do. First, they were feeling very proud of their win and, second, all of a sudden, they realised that maybe life had not changed too much for them. In discussions with the team and the community at Ngukurr, they wanted to know what they could do. This is where Fitzy stepped in, straightaway, with guidance and support of how to mediate what could have been a very volatile situation and, in the end, turned into a very good one. That reflects his desire and passion for wanting to reconcile the differences and the needs of Aboriginal people with white Australia. He certainly proved that, time and time again, in the many cases he worked with.
He proved it again when the Borroloola softballers came to Darwin wanting to stay at a particular location, which they had booked. When they turned up, they were turned away. Again, it was believed to be on grounds of racism and, again, Fitzy stepped in to work a situation through which could have been volatile, and ended up being a good situation for all concerned. The businesses in those two examples learned very clearly and very quickly of the changing tides and attitudes here in the Northern Territory; if we do not have that respect for one another, where are we going as a society? He was certainly a big champion of wanting to see that kind of reconciliation - not something we read in books and talk about in committee meetings, but something we live in our day-to-day practice with the values we have.
I am told that Tony, together with a group of friends from Darwin, once flew to the Birdsville races. Tony was not a punter but the notion of a typically Australian event at an iconic spot like Birdsville appealed to him. Not long after arriving, he and his mates came across a crowd watching a brawl featuring a non-Aboriginal man and a much smaller Aboriginal man, with the bigger man clearly on top. It was all too much for Tony, who leapt into the fray to help out the Aboriginal fighter. The crowd turned on him and, if not for the fact that a burly, former Rugby League team mate from the Brothers Club in Darwin also happened to be in the crowd, there is little doubt Tony would have received a pretty big hiding. However, his personal safety was clearly the furthest thing from his mind when he leapt in. He was, as was so often the case in his life, motivated by the plight of the underdog. That was Tony Fitzgerald.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have known Tony Fitzgerald for between 15 and 20 years. I first met him through my involvement with the Brothers Rugby League Club. He was a player and a greatly admired and respected team mate. One thing about the Brothers Rugby League Club, they stick together like glue, and Tony was very much a part of that team. He was a very good mate to all those who played and supported Brothers over the years, and even today.
I never really knew his political views until much later in the piece. They really came across to me when I became involved in politics as part of the Howard government. It is probably fair to say that, politically speaking, Fitzy was no great fan of the Howard government. I sat on a couple of House of Representatives committees, most notably the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee. It seems when you come from the Territory and go to Canberra, automatically you are appointed to these committees. Fitzy, on a couple of occasions, turned up to give evidence and I realised that Fitzy and I really did not share the same philosophies in many areas, and we went head-to-head in a range of areas - such as illegal immigrants coming into Australia. He had very strong views about the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation - he did not particularly support that legislation.
As recently as when I came into this parliament and we had our induction meetings, Fitzy was one of those people who gave us a briefing. Again, we could not seem to help it, we always would bang heads on issues. I have to say my personal view of Fitzy’s philosophies was he was always completely off the chart. I was having a chat to a good friend of mine, the former member for Karama, Mick Palmer, and we were remembering Fitzy. Mick said to me: ‘That fellow was way out there with some of his views’. However, there is universal agreement Fitzy stood for something. Whilst it is not rare, it is not common to find people who are prepared to stand and fight hard for what they believe. There is no doubt about it; Fitzy was one of those blokes who actually stood for something. You have to admire and respect a person like that.
As was mentioned, he never complained. His stoicism in the face of his illness was something to be admired and respected. I have known the guy for almost 20 years, and I never knew he had cancer. It was not something he mentioned to me; it is not something that anyone talked about. On his passing, I was quite surprised to learn he had struggled with that disease for a long period of time. I do not know how you can go through something like that and not talk to people, unless you are a particularly strong character. There is no doubt at all Fitzy was that.
In relation to that little incident at Birdsville races, a good friend of mine was there; a bloke called Bobby Hanna who was, at one stage, captain of the Territory Titans Rugby League side and also a great mate of Fitzy’s. You are quite right, Fitzy had gone into this melee supporting the underdog and copped a bit of a clip. The way I heard it, Bobby Hanna came striding through the crowd like a god, cleaned up a few blokes, then looked down at Fitzy and said: ‘What are you doing fighting at the races, Fitzy?’
As I said, there will be many people - particularly at the Brothers Rugby League Club and also in Territory Rugby Union - who will greatly miss Fitzy. He was a great bloke to sit down and have a beer with. In the later years we could not help going toe-to-toe on many different issues. I believe it was something he loved and I certainly enjoyed it. He will be greatly missed and I know all those people who had anything to do with Fitzy feel the same way. It has been an honour to speak about him today.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. There are many of Tony’s family, friends, and colleagues here today to show respect to a person who achieved much. From my perspective, Tony Fitzgerald, as well as being an outstanding advocate and committed Territorian, was a passionate, dedicated member of the Fannie Bay electorate. I knew Tony mainly by reputation - a reputation to speak his mind and, more particularly, to follow his words with actions. After I was elected, Tony took the time to provide me with some advice and counsel. I was grateful at the time, and I value the time he took with me even more now.
Tony was passionate about this great place where we live. Few probably know he was committed to replanting the banks of Ludmilla Creek where it runs beside Playford Street. He did this on a regular basis, and not always with permission of the Fannie Bay race track management. He also planted many trees on the corner of his house block, which was actually the city council’s responsibility. However, like many others, they ended up letting Fitzy do his thing because it was easier than arguing with him.
Tony was a regular at the Parap Markets on Saturday mornings, and his friend, Jamie Gallacher, told me that Tony was an early advocate of the development of the markets, when many thought they might represent a health risk and he made representations to the then member for Fannie Bay, Mr Marshall Perron MLA. Like many at the time, Tony spoke of his experiences travelling through Asia and the markets he had seen.
As the member for Arnhem mentioned, Tony was also a member of the East Point Landcare Group. I could not count the number of people who told me how strongly Tony would have felt about the current development proposals for East Point which are being publicly discussed. Needless to say, he would not have been in favour, and he would have made that very clear.
Tony had many friends throughout the electorate of Fannie Bay: businessmen Dwyn Delaney and Duncan Marcroft were close neighbourhood friends; Debbie Hicks, Jenny Blokland and Sue Oliver also knew Tony well and were among the many people Tony interacted with regularly in the area. Bill Priestly was another who was often found at Fitzy’s watching significant Rugby Union matches. Bill was also closely involved with Tony in his final few days.
Tony was also very close to his former partner, Ursula and her family, particularly Patsy, Ursula’s mother. I understand Patsy spoke wonderfully at Tony’s funeral service and talked about how he was always helping her in her garden and making sure she was watering her plants.
Tony was a wonderful person outside work, but he was also a wonderful person at work. I have a few friends who have worked with Tony, and they loved working with him. Lisa Coffey, the Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, has allowed me to use some of the words she and her staff used when talking about Tony:
- He loved being Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, and he did it with style and passion. Tony was a caring, inspirational boss, who left everyone
at the Anti-Discrimination Commission with a legacy that will continue to inspire. He had an amazing commitment to human rights, to the NT,
and to indigenous Territorians in particular. His fighting attitude was second to none, be that his fight against discrimination, for equality of
opportunity generally, against the intervention, for access to justice for those in remote parts of the Territory, or simply for life in the last 13 years.
He was motivated by a genuine desire for everyone in the Territory to know their rights, and that they had the ability to complain to the
Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Tony had considerable faith in the NT community as a whole. He believed that change and a fair and
equitable Territory for all Territorians could only come about through a community movement. He saw the role of the Anti-Discrimination
Commissioner as challenging entrenched attitudes, educating people, and speaking out against discrimination, but he believed that
it was the community generally that bore the responsibility for harmony in a discrimination-free NT, and he had faith that the community
would rise to the challenge.
One last story - one I understand the Anti-Discrimination staff like to tell, as it tells so much about Tony - has him arriving at work, late as usual, for a meeting with a couple of university students from Charles Darwin University. The two students turned up dressed in their best to see the commissioner. Tony turned up late in his bike riding gear, the more holes in the shirt and shorts the better. They had, I believe, a very successful meeting. More importantly, in the interests of equality, Tony then met with a visiting interstate Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in the same bike gear - very Darwin, and very Tony.
This story highlights some important aspects of Fitzy - the generous way in which he gave his time to students, and to anyone who wanted to talk about discrimination; his principles of equality and distaste for formality but, more clearly, that for Tony what mattered was treating people on merit regardless of status or power, or race or sex, or anything else you can think of. What mattered to him was substance, not appearance. Elimination of discrimination was more that just a job for Tony; it was a genuine belief and a way of life.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Fitzgerald. May he rest in peace.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all members to stand and observe one minute of silence.
Members stood in their place in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I invite guests to enjoy morning tea in the main hall, and those members who wish to join them. Thank you very much for coming today.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 6
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 6, notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2009 sittings of the Assembly.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, have leave of absence for these sittings due to ill health. I am sure all members join with me in wishing her a speedy and complete recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I speak to the motion very quickly. Madam Speaker, members on this side extend their best wishes to the member for Arafura and hope for a speedy recovery. We fully support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Member for Greatorex
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, have leave of absence for these sittings to attend to family duties.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Greatorex
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full sitting period 28 to 30 April 2009 and 5 to 7 May 2009 for the member for Arnhem, whose pair is the member for Greatorex. It has been signed by both the Government and Opposition Whips. I table that document.
PETITIONS
Stuart Highway/Virginia Road Merging Lane
Stuart Highway/Virginia Road Merging Lane
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 245 petitioners relating to the construction of a merging lane on the Stuart Highway inbound at the Virginia Road intersection. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly:
We are collecting signatures to present to our local representative member in the hope of having a merging lane funded and
constructed, on the Stuart Highway inbound, at the Virginia Road intersection. As we are all well aware to date, entering the
highway here is often dangerous, and at peak times a major cause of traffic congestion.
Territory Insurance Office – Coolalinga Branch
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1275 petitioners praying that the Territory Insurance Office retain the Coolalinga Branch. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Speaker and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
We the undersigned citizens do respectfully request that the Territory Insurance Office (TIO)
retain the TIO branch at Coolalinga and all services TIO offer.
Indigenous Women’s Protest on the Closure of Ward 2 Birthing Service – Gove District Hospital
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 120 petitioners relating to Indigenous women of East Arnhem Land’s protest to the closure of Ward 2 birthing service at Gove District Hospital at the end of March. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
On 11 February 2009 Gove hospital announced the closure of the birthing facility Ward 2 on 31 March 2009.
Indigenous women of East Arnhem Land wish to submit our protest to this closure.
travelling to Darwin is too far away from where we culturally belong.
- Currently the elders of the community work closely with the pregnant women during the pregnancy and offer this
continuity during the birth and directly after. The continuity will be lost from a region where these practices are
essential for the wellbeing of the mother and baby. It is not correct to take away the cultural ways. The relevant
family must be involved for each individual woman.
This is going directly against the recommendations of a recent maternity services review.
We the undersigned are calling for the NT government and DHF to take action to protect the Indigenous families
of East Arnhem Land to enable our cultural birth practices to continue to survive and grow.
Closure of Ward 2 Birthing Service – Gove District Hospital
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1224 petitioners relating to the closure of the Gove District Hospital Ward 2 birthing service at the end of March. I move that the petition be read.
- To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the residents of Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem Land are gravely concerned that our maternity services are closing.
Those who have accessed the service know it is second to none. It affects us all. Families are anxious, fearful and
angered about the foreclosure. We are concerned about the lack of options available under the proposed plan.
We the undersigned are calling on the Northern Territory government and DHF to take action. We want the GHD
Ward 2 birthing service to continue. The community of Nhulunbuy does not want to be severely compromised by
losing its current service and having to fly to Darwin or Katherine hospitals. It is not the only course of action.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Professor Mick Dodson - Visit
Professor Mick Dodson - Visit
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update honourable members on the recent visit of Professor Mick Dodson, the 2009 Australian of the Year, to the Northern Territory.
When I heard Professor Dodson had been named Australian of the Year, I was proud that a Territorian had been bestowed such an honour. Then, at his first speech as Australian of the Year at the Canberra Press Gallery, he announced he was going to focus his year on improving the enrolment and attendance of students in schools right across Australia. When I heard this, I immediately telephoned Professor Dodson and invited him to the Territory to work with the Northern Territory government on what is one of the most critical issues facing Indigenous education in the Territory.
Attendance at all Northern Territory schools, and the attendance of remote Indigenous students in particular, is at the forefront of the government’s priorities in education. In 2008, the average Indigenous student attendance rate was approximately 80% in urban schools, and only 65% in remote schools.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the research tells us that if a child is absent for one day a week over the compulsory years of school, which is from Year 1 to Year 10, that student misses two years and one term of schooling. In the Territory there are too many children missing too many days of schooling. Regular attendance at school is the key to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students.
Professor Dodson visited a number of urban and remote schools in the Territory with high numbers of Indigenous students. It was important for him to see firsthand what the issues are, and also to see the quality programs in place and the hard work being undertaken to turn around poor attendance.
We visited Millner Primary School with our local member and saw the outstanding work the Principal, Dr Terry Quong, is doing in leading education of remote Indigenous children in an urban school. He has a program which focuses on improving learning outcomes for Indigenous students from Minmirama and Kulaluk, as well as local Indigenous Millner students. The parent and family involvement in the school is one of the keys to the success of his program.
We visited Sanderson Middle School, in particular, the Clontarf Football Academy. This program continues to show outstanding results. At the start of this school year, Sanderson Middle School had 25 out of 27 Year 9 students transition successfully to Year 10 at Casuarina Senior College. One went to Darwin High School and one went to school interstate. That is all those students successfully transferring to Year 10 - unheard of in the past and a great result. It is positive to see these students staying in school, continuing their education and getting skills. In Alice Springs this year, it was the same story. A Clontarf Football Academy at Casuarina Senior College this year has already about 100 students involved.
I then took the opportunity to take Professor Dodson to Ngukurr School where Principal, Ric Eade, is doing an outstanding job. There are approximately 300 students enrolled at the school, with morning and afternoon preschool groups, eight primary classes, three middle years’ classes, and a senior secondary class. It was pleasing to visit classes and see quality education programs in place. We saw students using smart boards and computers being taught using Accelerated Literacy. We had a whole bunch of Year 3 and Year 4 students crawling all over Professor Dodson and me, excited to read to us.
Attendance at the primary school at Ngukurr is over 90%. The Ngukurr community leaders are passionate about building a sustainable community which has a firm economic base and provides training and employment. The school is setting up VET courses this year, which will engage middle year students and lead to employment in the community.
We visited Katherine High School and received a traditional welcome from a group of Indigenous boys from MacFarlane Primary School. Katherine High School now has the seventh highest Indigenous enrolment for Territory schools and, once again, the Clontarf Football Academy is doing a great job in engaging the boys. I acknowledge the member for Katherine, who attended the game.
Katherine High School has also set up a strong Smarter Sisters program which focuses on getting the girls to school and supporting and mentoring them. Rae Brown, a long-term Indigenous teacher at Katherine High School, is running this program and seeing good results.
Professor Dodson’s visit followed on from the Education ministerial council meeting in Adelaide on Friday last week. At the ministerial council meeting, one of the main agenda items was school reporting. All states and territories are committed to increasing transparency in reporting individual school’s performance. Each school will now publish information on a national website, with each school in Australia having its own school profile page. This is controversial. It is not a league table like an AFL ladder of scores identifying winners and losers; it is about identifying best practice, investigating what is happening in high-achieving schools with attendance and outcomes, and comparing those with schools from a similar demographic and lifting those underperforming schools up.
We have a long way to go in the Northern Territory in improving Indigenous education and attendance in our schools and Professor Dodson shining the light on this issue is very welcome by the government ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I accept Professor Dodson shining a light on this area has been of some assistance by proposing an aspirational goal that all kids should attend school by a certain date or time into the future. You have to match those words with action. It is well and good to put out something such as that and have the Chief Minister detail many initiatives and activities in the area which are a response to proposing something quite aspirational.
When you say actions speak louder than words, it is somewhat curious the good professor did not speak publicly whilst he was in the Northern Territory. I look forward to hearing the professor’s observations and how what we see today in the Northern Territory matches the aspiration. We all aspire to something and we want to see results. It is quite noticeable that there is an enormous amount of energy in the area - lots of activity, lots of money spent, and references to positive things occurring.
In the absence of a clear message that parents have responsibility, all will be in vain. We will create the impression we are doing something but, if we remove the clear message at the core of this, parental responsibility, we will fail. Schooling is compulsory; it is not optional. Whilst that notion exists, all our talk will amount to nothing ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the question of Indigenous education has been spoken about many times in this parliament. Over the last 30 years, since mission education finished, there have been many people with many theories and ideas. I have heard many of them, time after time - how to get kids to school and how to improve literacy and numeracy in Indigenous communities. If you look at the results today, you have to say we have failed.
What did the missions have that we do not have today? Perhaps it was compulsion. Perhaps it was that they had a good relationship with parents and they instilled in the parents that education was important. We have to go back to the responsibility of parents making sure their children are educated.
However, we also have to ensure there is a reason to be educated. If you have no jobs on a community, no means of improving your lot in life, then why would you want to be educated? I used to say when I was at Bathurst Island, and they would train 10 young men to be welders: ‘Where were 10 young welders going to be employed on Bathurst Island?’ The same still applies today. We have to look at the bigger picture: what are Indigenous people going to do when they are educated? Can they find work on their communities? If not, what is the solution? It may be that many of these people have to leave those communities. They may not want to - and I know how Tiwis get extremely homesick for their communities when they leave - but what other choice is there if we want to give people real jobs? There will not be enough jobs in some of these communities for all the people who want them. We have to find other ways.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. To assure the Leader of the Opposition, I understand Professor Dodson did do media whilst he was here with interviews on ABC radio and Mix 104.9 FM.
I agree with everyone here: it is, fundamentally, the responsibility of parents to get their kids to school, and you have absolutely no argument from me on that. One of the key responsibilities of being a parent is to ensure your kids go to school and get the best possible education they can.
It is about how we engage those parents; how we use the sticks and carrots to ensure they take the responsibility to get kids to school. We must learn and understand what is happening at Minyerri School, Ngukurr School, and other schools around the Northern Territory where we are getting attendance of around 90% for Indigenous kids in primary schools. I believe the tide is turning but we still have a long way to go and I know we will be debating this issue up hill and down dale in this parliament for a long time to come.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Building Certification Compliance
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I report on the progress government has made to improve building certification compliance in the Territory. In March, I released the results of a preliminary desktop audit which was undertaken on building certification for Tennant Creek. It showed there is a need to improve access to, and use of, building certification services in regional areas. This is an issue that stretches all the way back to 1993 when certification was privatised. The vast majority of certifiers in the Territory are hard-working and professional, but are simply not able to service these areas at a comparable cost to major centres.
In March, I also announced a package of initiatives to improve building certification compliance. As I foreshadowed, an independent expert team from Queensland has conducted a comprehensive review and provided advice to me to improve the certification system and service delivery.
I table the report this morning and I thank the team for their hard work in a short time frame. I discussed it in detail with the review team members, and indicated that I will be taking the recommendations to the construction industry and certifiers with the intent of amending our processes to make the system less expensive and more user friendly. This report will form the basis of a discussion paper which will go out to industry for comment on the reforms it proposes.
To encourage owners to achieve certification and to access government support, I have formally commenced a moratorium period on prosecutions for existing building owners. This moratorium will end on 30 June 2011. While I originally announced that the moratorium would only apply in Tier 2 regional areas, following receipt of the review team’s findings, I have decided to extend it over urban areas as well. My goal is to improve compliance rates across the Territory, and I take on board the review’s findings that compliance is a problem in both regional and urban areas.
Second, I want to move our building regulatory regime towards delivering a service and developing a cooperative approach. The threat of prosecution could hinder greater involvement from all stakeholders in this change of approach. The moratorium will mean that owners of existing buildings that have not commenced or completed certification will not be prosecuted. The moratorium will not apply to new construction undertaken during this time, or for buildings assessed as unsafe.
It is important to emphasise that this is not a safety issue; it is about helping owners finalise the paperwork necessary to confirm occupation. Any building deemed unsafe would need to be rectified.
The department will be writing to owners who have not completed the necessary paperwork to encourage them to finalise certification of building works prior to the deadline. For Tier 2 residential owners, this can be as simple and inexpensive as getting the builder to provide a declaration that it has been built in accordance with the building permit.
In regional areas, it is clear that many incomplete certifications are due to the extra cost owners face getting certifiers to travel to inspect the final building. Owners in these areas should have affordable access to these services to assist them to meet building certification requirements. Commencing from June, a $2 per kilometre subsidy, in addition to reasonable accommodation rates, will be payable to private certifiers to travel to these areas.
An awareness campaign will commence shortly to inform the public where to access certification services.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has also advised that some government owned and leased buildings have outstanding certification requirements. This is not acceptable. I have, therefore, established a task force to prioritise all outstanding government building certification. The task force will report to me in one month with an audit of all government buildings. It will report back to me in three months with a strategic priorities works program. I expect, within 12 months, any currently uncertified government building will be compliant. The task force will report monthly to me on progress. This will provide a substantial boost for private Territory certifiers and help sustain Territory jobs in the construction sector.
To improve the long-term sustainability of the certification system, and attract and retain suitably qualified professionals, I have also allocated $100 000 a year to implement a cadetship program in the Territory.
The Territory government recognises improvements in the system are necessary to improve certification compliance. The measures I announced in March are well on the way to achieving this goal. These latest measures will provide a comprehensive, Territory-wide approach to building certification.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is concerning that this very serious issue has only been given five minutes in a report. It is a bigger issue and problem than giving it five minutes in the Chamber. This obviously came to a head with the Tennant Creek situation, where we found over half of the town’s new buildings, including government buildings, did not have final certification.
It also concerns me that the minister stated it is not a safety issue. From my understanding, and my contacts with the industry and the Building Standards of Australia, it is a safety issue. There is one reason why certificates of completion are done - and it is not casting aspersions on the construction or the building industry - to ensure the safety and the amenity of a dwelling, particularly regarding electrical and plumbing work. It is not a slight on the construction industry, or any workmen who put these types of items into a dwelling or an office, but it is to ensure that it is done correctly and according to Australian, if not international, standards.
I ask the minister to take back that statement. It is involved with safety. Yes, it can also be the paperwork, and we know we have a shortage of building certifiers in the Northern Territory. I state on the record that I had discussions with building certifiers in Alice Springs, and twice they tried to talk with the minister’s office and the department regarding recruiting and retaining building certifiers in the Northern Territory to grow that necessary part of the industry.
It is also interesting and concerning that, in the same week, if not the same month, the Chief Minister is talking about buying and shopping locally the government appointed two external contractors to do a review and audit of the situation, including Tennant Creek and elsewhere. I know, and the minister knows, there are people in the Northern Territory who are more than capable and experienced in doing this work. It is a mockery that the government contracts people from interstate when we have people here to do it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the report. I would have liked longer to speak on this subject. My feelings on the issue are that we have sidetracked a little. The basis of this issue is why did some of these buildings not get their certificates of occupancy? What was the actual process in Tennant Creek that made this occur? My understanding is that there were some issues related to a particular person, like an agent to a company, and some of the people who were waiting for their certificates seemed to have had a disagreement with that person and they did not receive those papers.
I would like the government to clarify that situation, because it seems to be the crux of the matter which then led to finding out some buildings in Tennant Creek did not comply. It then spread to Alice Springs and now, I gather, it is all over the Territory. I worry about where this is going because I am the same position as a certain member for Nelson, Koolpinyah or Tiwi, who will be very fearful of what the government is trying to do. The old ‘spy in the sky’, the old horse shed out the back, the ‘let us go around snooping in everyone’s property’ trick.
No one denies that we should have buildings up to a certain code; that is for sure. What you have to do is ensure you use common sense. Many areas in my electorate have old dwellings that would never come up to the standard. You have to be careful where and how you apply the laws. I am not saying you should favour people, but you have to realise the situation in which parts of the Territory were developed. There is no doubt that all new buildings should be up to code; they should have their certificate of occupancy. I remember the previous Independent member for my area, one back, who would be here pounding this table ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that this debate be brought on for a full debate in accordance with the rules which …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I have a motion ...
Mr Henderson: You got up on a point of order, not a motion.
Mr ELFERINK: … that this debate be continued with the rules and conditions as outlined in standing orders for a ministerial statement. The debate before the House is a report which has been brought on to do nothing more than mask the shambles that this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, what is your point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: I am now speaking to the motion that I put …
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving a motion …
Dr Burns: You have to move suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: I am speaking to the motion. Why don’t you get to your feet and do it on a point of order? It is disgraceful what you blokes are doing in here! It is absolutely disgraceful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Leader of Government Business, do you have a point of order?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin well knows he cannot bring on a motion unless he suspends standing orders, which he has not done. It is just a fatuous point of order made to score a political point.
Madam SPEAKER: There is clearly no point of order.
____________________________
Suspension of Standing Orders -
Discussion of Matter Contained in Ministerial Report
Suspension of Standing Orders -
Discussion of Matter Contained in Ministerial Report
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, is it your wish to attempt to suspend standing orders?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Yes, Madam Speaker. I move that this House suspends standing orders which will enable this House to discuss this matter which is currently in discussion under ministerial reports, under the same terms and conditions which apply to a ministerial statement.
The reason I seek this suspension of standing orders, unusual as it is, is that this particular issue deals with the safety of Northern Territorians and deserves to be fleshed out in this House in a thorough and comprehensive manner, rather than by the process which they are currently trying to use. They are trying their hardest to push this issue through …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: They are trying to push this issue through …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if the member wanted to be fully informed, he should take the time to read the report I tabled in the parliament this morning …
Mr Mills: That is not a point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I did that this morning so the opposition could seek some information on this debate, rather than grandstand and scaremonger politically.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, resume your seat. You have put forward a motion. I am going to put the question now.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry. Has it asked to be put? I am speaking to the motion for suspension, Madam Speaker, and I have heard no put motion yet. I have not heard anyone move that the motion be put. I am speaking to the suspension of standing orders, as is my right, Madam Speaker, under …
Madam SPEAKER: That is true. I am not trying to stop you from doing that. I thought you had already moved that.
Mr ELFERINK: I have moved the suspension. I am now speaking to the motion of moving for the suspension.
Madam SPEAKER: It is usual practice for the government to indicate whether they will accept the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we will not be accepting this motion.
Mr Elferink: Of course not! Why you would not want to discuss this matter in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: They have not even read the report. There are plenty of opportunities for them in Question Time, or if they want to move a censure later today. We are in reports now. They are the ones who are arrogant, wanting to interrupt the business of this House, and this government will not be accepting this motion. I move that the motion be put.
Mr Elferink: Safe buildings are important for Territorians, and that deserves discussion in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Ms Lawrie Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
_____________________
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 34)
Continued from 18 February 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the bill is supported. This is a straightforward bill in a number of respects. I could be cheeky and refer to it as an ‘oops’ bill, noting that much of the legislation this government initially brought into this Chamber has now to be rectified – some, not all.
In any event, the amendments are straightforward and I do not propose to restate or requote the minister’s second reading speech. The bills are uncontroversial, and are designed to rectify administrative glitches that have occurred over the last few years. They affect five pieces of legislation specifically. For the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act, the amendments clarify the status of a disqualified adjudicator and ensures that the disqualification of an adjudicator will not prejudice persons in regard to time limits under section 28(1) of the act.
In relation to the Legal Profession Act, the amendment is a declaration of academic dishonesty for admission as a legal practitioner in the Territory for reasons outlined in the minister’s second reading speech. The amendment also amends the Police Administration Act 2007 and the Summary Offences Act. It repeals a 2007 increase in the penalty for giving a false report to police. The amendment will reduce the maximum fine of $200 000 or up to 10 years imprisonment down to a maximum fine of $11 000 or two years imprisonment.
It also amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act in response to Commonwealth legislative changes to allow a federal or state prisoner to travel to another jurisdiction under escort to give evidence at a proceeding, or assistance to an investigation.
Finally, it amends the Public Trustee Act. It separates the money from administrative revenue from trust money for easier management and accountability.
Madam Speaker, the bill is straightforward, as are its consequential amendments and, for those reasons, it is supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and thank the government for its briefings. As the member for Araluen said, it fixes a few glitches. That is what it is doing in some cases, however, when you read the second reading speech it looks slightly different, as it says:
- The amendments contained in this bill do not in any way alter the policy or intention of this legislation, but rather improves
the legislation by providing certainty to previously ambiguous provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with other legislation.
One could explain that as government speak. Obviously, there is a need, from time to time, for government to fix up some bills that may have errors or need more clarification. I had some questions about the bill where the meaning was unclear, especially in relation to the adjudicators in regard to the construction contracts, so it was good to get a briefing from the government. I appreciate that. Because it was such a good briefing, I do not need to ask any questions today.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 34). Having participated, for the first time in September last year, on an earlier Justice Amendment Legislation Bill (No 3), I know the Northern Territory government, and other jurisdictions, need to keep on top of large amounts of legislation which it oversees, and that, from time to time, a bill may require some fine-tuning, as acknowledged by the member for Nelson, to ensure it is both effective and workable. As acknowledged by the member for Araluen, these amendments are uncontroversial and aim to rectify the existing legislation.
In relation to the consequential amendments to six acts, as outlined by the minister, I will not speak on all of them specifically. Some of the amendments are very straightforward, but I will make some detailed reference to a couple of them.
The Legal Profession Act primarily promotes the administration of justice in order to provide for the protection of consumers of legal services and the public generally, and regulates legal practice in the Northern Territory. It is based on a national model which, in turn, facilitates and assists with standardising regulation of legal practice on a national basis. Within the act are suitability matters which form part of admission to and, therefore regulation of, the legal profession. Some of the suitability matters, which are quite extensive, include whether the person is currently of good character or whether the person has been bankrupt. In the amendment before us today, regarding section 11 of the act, is an addition to the ‘Suitability matters’ and that is:
- (ga) whether the person has been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty (including, for example, plagiarism);
In this bill there is also an amendment to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. This act provides for the control and conduct of prisons and prisoners. The amendment inserts a new Division 3 into Part XVII of the act which enables the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of a prisoner and give them leave of absence from custody for the express purpose of travelling to another country in order to give evidence in either a criminal proceeding, or to give assistance with an investigation in a foreign country. Any prisoner who is given leave for this purpose remains, of course, in lawful custody and, on return, will continue with their term of imprisonment.
This amendment will facilitate the Commonwealth’s Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, allowing the transfer of a federal or state prisoner following a request for assistance made by a foreign country for that prisoner to give evidence or assist with an investigation. Up until now there has been no provision within the Northern Territory’s Prison (Correctional Services) Act to allow such a transfer.
I also speak very briefly about the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 and Summary Offences Act and proposed amendments. Essentially, the amendments in this bill will provide that the maximum penalty for an offence under section 68A of the Summary Offences Act for the offence of making a false report to police be an $11 000 fine and/or two years imprisonment. Previously, in 2007, the penalty was increased to a maximum penalty of $200 000 or imprisonment for four years. In fact, this amendment did not commence and was further reviewed, including research into the penalties imposed by other jurisdictions.
The proposed amendment we are discussing today repeals the 2007 penalty amendment made in Part 4 of the Police Administration Act. The penalty in section 68A of the Summary Offences Act is then amended to an $11 000 fine and/or two years imprisonment. The penalty recognises that making a false report to police is a serious matter and increasing the penalty from its current level of a $500 fine or three months imprisonment reflects this.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the start, this bill amends various acts within the Justice and Police portfolios, with the aim being to make the acts clearer and more efficient. With that, I commend the minister and support this bill.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, as mentioned by the member for Araluen, the opposition supports this bill; it is non-controversial and there are sensible measures in it. The member for Araluen also described it as an ‘oops’ bill, meaning ‘oops, there are loopholes we have not seen’ which have been pointed out over a number of years. This is an example of government playing catch-up. In other words, it is a sloppy government.
The government has taken its time on this. It is welcome, which is why the opposition welcomes it, but it is sloppy in its delays. We would have welcomed it a few years ago. It points to the fact that we have a government which really is not focused on the areas of justice, law and order, and crime. When I get across the Territory and my electorate - and for the last few years, this has been the case - everywhere you go, the first thing people want to talk to you about is the appalling level of crime in our community. People are sick and tired of having their houses broken into.
I heard an alarming story this morning of one of my colleagues who suffered a house break-in. In fact, in the last two months or so, my own property has been broken into on a number of occasions. We have lost something like eight bikes. On the first occasion, thieves took five pushbikes, one belonging to a neighbour down the road, and two old bikes of my kids, and two new bikes – all five of them gone. We put in an insurance claim and the insurance company paid the claim. The neighbour got a new bike and my two kids got new bikes. Within two nights, those two new bikes were stolen. We have since got a couple more bikes and, only two nights ago, there has been another bike stolen. In the last two months, we have lost eight pushbikes just from our residence. Thieves also took a very expensive camera and a GPS that was in the house as well - very disheartening. I understand that I am not alone in this problem; there are thousands - literally thousands - of Territorians across the Territory who have suffered similar and, in many cases, much worse situations than I found myself in, in the last couple of months.
People are constantly lamenting the number of drunks we have in our parks; that you cannot take your family to the local park because it is inhabited by drunks who swear, spit, carry on, beg for money and so on; the fact that people’s houses are being broken into; and the northern suburbs seem to be rife with youth gangs. In fact, the member for Karama once famously described her own electorate as a war zone ...
Ms Lawrie: I did not, actually. It was a constituent.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: There is no back pedalling, member for Karama. You can gild the lily as much as you like. The fact is you were right at the time - Karama is a war zone. And whether you are prepared to say it now, if you talk to people in the northern suburbs, they acknowledge that it is a war zone.
In the last couple of weeks there was a riot in my own electorate; something that seems to happen with regular monotony. A few weeks before that, a group of journalists from A Current Affair were interested in a block of Housing Commission units. They described it as the worst Housing Commission block of units in Australia. At the time that show aired, I was in Tennant Creek. I was looking around Tennant Creek and I thought: ‘I know the block of units in my electorate is pretty bad but, if you have a look around Tennant Creek, people cannot walk the streets after 6.30 pm for fear of being assaulted’.
The mob from A Current Affair lobbed into Darwin, talked to a bunch of residents from that particular block of public housing units and heard the most horrendous stories. People would go to sleep at night with machetes beside the bed. People would carry hammers to bed for fear of being broken into. Thieves break into their units, steal everything that is there, and good, decent, honest people cannot get a decent night’s sleep. The children in those units cannot go to school the next day because they have been up all night with the screaming, yelling, and abuse that goes on.
Another famous example was the member for Arafura. At the time I believe she was Deputy Chief Minister, and she had a night out somewhere in Coconut Grove and was alarmed by the level of violence and abuse, the bad language, the screaming, and drunkenness that occurred in areas around there. All this points to a government that has taken its eye off the ball; a government not interested in its fundamental responsibility, which is protecting the citizens of the Northern Territory. The fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the Northern Territory. I challenge any one of the members on the other side to talk to a few people who live around the Territory. Ask them what their issues are ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67, Digression from subject. We have let the member for Fong Lim have his head and deliver his diatribe along political lines, but I ask that he turns to the legislation at point here. He made his point; we have been patient ...
Mr Tollner: Pardon me, I am speaking to the bill.
Dr BURNS: I ask, in the interests of efficiency - we have already lost one report today through the political antics of the opposition – for them to keep to the subject.
Ms Lawrie: There is no relevance to this legislation.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, if I could …
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause. In terms of relevance, I am not familiar with the second reading speech, but the Attorney-General is advising me this does not appear to be very relevant. If you could link your comments to the bill that would be very helpful, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, this legislation highlights the sloppiness on the part of the government to properly address the problems in relation to Justice. It was described as that by the member for Araluen. It also highlights the fact that this is a government whose members have taken their eyes off the ball. The main game for any government in the Northern Territory, other state governments or the Australian government - the first priority, the single biggest priority - is to protect the citizens of their jurisdiction. The citizens of this jurisdiction are not served by a government which is sloppy in introducing legislation like this ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member is fairly new to this jurisdiction, but Justice amendment legislation is commonplace. It occurs once or twice a year and is to refine existing legislation on the books.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, there is no point of order; the previous point of order also was not applicable. These guys are more interested in spin and getting out misinformation about how they are so focused on fixing the problem, when the reality is here right in front of them. They are a sloppy government which has no interest at all in understanding their sole responsibility - which is protecting Territorians from criminals. This legislation is an example of your sloppiness.
As I said, and the member for Karama does not like it, she once described her own electorate as a war zone. It is still a war zone, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not. I know it is not. Get out there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You are in denial. Get out and talk to some of your constituents ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should know by now he is to address his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through me.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the member for Karama could also address her interjections through you, it would be greatly appreciated as well. It may well stop me having to talk to her directly.
My shadow portfolio areas are those of Business and Tourism and, I have to tell you, when I get around the Territory talking to business people and tour operators, and ask them what their biggest concern is - government red tape, lack of planning, is there more we should be doing in the area of marketing tourism? - the answer is always: ‘No, our single priority, our single biggest concern, is the levels of crime we have in the Northern Territory. We are sick of our businesses being broken into; we are sick of having to deal with people who are trying to steal from us’. Tour operators say every tourist who turns up is sick of seeing drunks on the streets in the beautiful provincial areas of Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. What a blight on those townships and cities that tourists are constantly confronted with antisocial, drunken and criminal activity in those townships.
This is the biggest single area and the biggest single responsibility this government has, and it has turned its back on it. We find legislation coming into the parliament now that should have been enacted a couple of years ago. Why? Because they have taken their eye off the ball. Of course, the opposition is going to support it; we want to see a good justice system in the Territory. It takes the government years to come up with this - the most basic legislation.
Look around the place. What have they done to address some of the soft sentences handed out by our courts? What have they done about improving rehabilitation and keeping criminals off the street? Spend $300m transferring a prison? Why not get some of those prisoners working, actually rehabilitating them, so when they go into the community they are not going to break into your house? Give them an education while they are in there, get them working, give them a work ethic, get some prison farms happening. Borrow some of our ideas, we do not care. We just want the place cleaned up. Enough is enough.
Territorians have had a gutful of this soft-on-crime attitude exhibited by your government. It is absolutely appalling. Everywhere you go, everyone you talk to, that is all they talk about: you are soft on crime, absolutely helpless, throw your arms in the air policies. ‘What are we going to do? That is not our problem. That is the fault of the CLP government eight years ago’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could direct your comments through the Chair, and keep as close as possible to the legislation before the House.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am at my wits’ end what to do about these problems. I am confronted with them, as I am sure every member in this place is, on a daily basis, being rung up at 4 am, and at 7 pm on a Sunday night, or 10 pm on a Saturday night.
I was off to a meeting the other day. I had a 7 pm meeting; I forget where it was. At 6.30 pm, I was rung by a constituent saying: ‘There is a riot happening in front of my house, can you come around?’ I asked: ‘Have you called the police?’ They said: ‘Yes, we have left five messages with police but they have not turned up’. I asked: ‘Is it that bad?’ They said: ‘Yes, these people are stoning cars. There is trouble going on here like you would not believe. Can you get around and at least have a look at it?’ I went around there, dressed in a tux; I was off to dinner dressed in a penguin suit. I turned up and, sure enough, there were mobs running riot in the street. I was thinking: ‘What the hell is happening here?’ I was there for 15 minutes and guess who turned up? The police. The police got there 15 minutes after I got there and after five phone calls from this constituent who was at her wits’ end and decided to ring her local member. I said to the police: ‘Guys, you are a bit late. Cars have been stoned driving down this street, and people cannot come out of their houses’. One lady had to drive a 1 km detour to find a back way into her house, where she drove into her driveway, locked her gate, and locked herself inside the house in fear. I asked the police: ‘What has happened?’ They said: ‘We only got the call two minutes ago’. Two minutes ago? There would have been an interval of 45 minutes or an hour.
We had people smashing each other to bits in front of my office - and I know you are well aware of the circumstances at my office, Madam Speaker. Again, there was a call to the police, who did not respond. Shopkeepers had stalls broken up and smashed, products damaged, and the like. This was not even really followed up or investigated by police.
It is not the fault of the police. It is the people who sit there, the overarching body, the government, the elected members, the people who are supposed to be serving their community. It points to them being soft, wishy-washy soft. They have run out of ideas, they have no other way of addressing the problem than throwing bucket loads of money at it. If bucket loads of money do not fix the problem, they throw their hands in the air and say: ‘We have done all we can’.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘We have done all we can’.
Ms Lawrie: There is no reality in what you are saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, order! I remind you that this is legislation before the House. There is a lot of digression from the actual legislation, which I have allowed. However, please come to the point or I will have to ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: As I have said before, I am outlining to you the symptoms of this sloppy government. They slink in here today – or in the last sittings when they introduced this legislation. We have a quick look over it and say: ‘Well, hallelujah, about time’. I spoke at length with my colleague, the member for Araluen, and said: ‘What is this about?’ She said there is nothing particularly controversial in it. I had a look through it myself; there is nothing controversial about it. The only thing controversial about this legislation is the time that it has taken to get here.
That is my gripe with this government - and I am speaking to this bill. This is what this bill is about - it is about sloppy mismanagement in government. It is about a reluctance to deal with problems immediately; it is about taking your time; it is about taking Territorians for granted; it is about taking their responsibility as legislators for granted. It is about a sloppy, soft and weak approach to crime.
I urge the government - as they like to refer to themselves but, goodness me, it is hard to know who they are governing when they cannot even govern themselves. I urge the government to put a little more effort in. If you have dodgy staff, sack them. Get someone who has a fig of an idea, someone who is prepared to bite the bullet and do what it takes to address some of these crime and law and order problems we suffer in our community.
Look at them. I look at the member for Karama looking bored, looking away, twiddling her thumbs, doing everything she can to ignore this issue ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We can well do without these untrue attributions by the member for Fong Lim. This side is being very patient with the member for Fong Lim. He has digressed very widely. He does have other avenues to bring these issues forward, like an MPI or a censure motion, but he is completely misusing this debate and, I believe, showing arrogance and contempt of this parliament …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I ask him to come to the point and actually address the legislation, something he has not done …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! Attributions of the nature used by the member for Fong Lim are a favoured weapon and tool of many government ministers and are regularly used. With only a moment’s research, I am sure I can point to any number of such attributions from members opposite.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please. Member for Fong Lim, bear in mind it is already after 12 noon. Are you wishing to continue your speech?
Mr TOLLNER: If you are going to shut the joint down, Madam Speaker, I will cease my comments.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not what I am asking. Are you nearly finished?
Mr TOLLNER: I will cease my comments now. I believe I have made my point …
Madam SPEAKER: You can continue after Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: No, that is fine, Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that. I believe these guys know they have been soft, and they know they are not doing the right thing. Hopefully, that message will start to sink in soon.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Hon Roger Steele, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and his friend from Queensland, Mr Jeff Finch. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 34)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon break I was listening carefully to the member of Fong Lim. It is curious that government members were on their feet several times to raise issues of relevance in relation to what the member for Fong Lim had to say. During the luncheon break, I became aware that people who are listening to this broadcast had contacted members on this side of the House and said: ‘It is very good to hear the opposition raising issues that matter to Territorians in the House, despite the fact that they have to do so by using the legislative instruments before the House as a vehicle to achieve that end’.
I am sure many people in the public galleries listening to this debate would be mystified to learn that this morning we dedicated all of seven minutes to important issues surrounding the issuing of building certificates, yet the government is quite happy to see long debates in relation to what they call ‘minor legislative changes’. The question begs: where are this government’s priorities in this House? Of course, their priorities are to talk as little as possible about that which truly matters.
Whilst this bill is important in the sense that it makes minor alterations to legislation which has been passed in this House with a certain amount of ‘oops’ factor, which the member for Araluen referred to, it demonstrates clearly what the member for Fong Lim was trying to say prior to the luncheon break: this government has taken a tardy approach.
I live in the Narrows Road area, and my experience of what was occurring just around the corner from my place and, indeed, just around the corner from the house of the former Chief Minister, was a matter of grave concern to me. Well may the member for Fong Lim come into this place and use this bill as a vehicle to be able to articulate not only my concerns but those of many other Territorians.
Due to this government’s policies and processes since coming to government, they have engaged in - particularly in the area of public housing maintenance - a policy which has seen our public housing decay to a point where we have seen riots on our streets. The member for Fong Lim talked about what was happening around the corner from my place in Narrows Road, but I can say this is something I have seen before. I saw this when I was the member for Macdonnell, because exactly the same policies were being pursued in Central Australia as are being pursued now. What we are seeing is a similar outcome. The crime rates and violence that come out of it need to be spoken about in this House - and need to be spoken about at length.
There is a debate which deals with these particular issues sitting on the Notice Paper. It is buried at No 10. How far are we going today on the Notice Paper? We are going to No 2, which means that No 10 is going to be left undebated, as it has been since 18 September 2008. The item which is up for discussion in item No 10 on today’s agenda is increasing police presence and making the community safer. The fact is we, on this side of the House, absolutely know there is no chance the government will come into this place and debate increasing police presence and making communities safer, despite their promises to increase the number of police officers. Well, bully for them! Two hundred extra police officers were going to fix the problem. It does not. It may not necessarily be more police which fixes the problem. Maybe it is a bunch of other issues dealing with the way the police are managed and the powers they have, and what happens in the justice system, which will fix this problem.
However, while this Chief Minister’s hand falls like a dead weight upon this place and tries to smother the voice of Northern Territorians by burying important issues such as increasing the police presence and making communities safer on the bottom of the Notice Paper, where they will languish undebated from now until possibly eternity - because they will never be debated - it will simply fall off the Notice Paper at the next general election - we then have to find a vehicle to talk about those things which are important to Territorians. The member for Fong Lim, very adroitly, I might say, managed to find in this bill connections between what is happening on the streets of the Northern Territory and the bill itself.
Surely this government is saying to itself, in its quieter moments: ‘What exactly are we trying to achieve in the parliament of the Northern Territory when we bring business in here?’ We do not doubt, on this side of the House, the veracity and the need to bring in minor amendments to these bills; we do not object to the passage of this legislation and those other issues that surround it. What we find ourselves having to do, Madam Speaker - and this reflects on the issues before you - is bring the issues of the people of the Northern Territory back on to bills, using those bills as vehicles to talk about the issues because this government will not introduce the business which is so important to Territorians, and discuss those issues openly and honestly.
We saw it here this morning when this government wanted to hurry through the tabling statement of a document in relation to the certificates of occupancy, which has plagued this government for the last eight weeks. What was the retort? ‘You have not read the document yet’. Well, guess what? They could have delivered the document to us last week, or even yesterday, so we had time to read it - it is not that thick - and then come in here and provided a ministerial statement. On the back of that vehicle, we could have had an open and full discussion. However, that is not what the government sought to do. What the government sought to do was get it into, and out of, this House as quickly as possible. That tawdry piece of work called the ministerial report is the vehicle by which this government does not do things openly - they hide what they are trying to do. They go out and say: ‘Oh, yes, we have discussed this in parliament’. Ministerial reports are a five-minute chat by the minister with a two-minute reply …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I remind you we are discussing a bill before the House, which is Justice and Other Legislation. While I appreciate there is a fair bit of latitude which I have allowed, can you please link your comments to the actual legislation?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will not digress too far again. I will turn my attention to an aspect in the bill.
I note in the bill there is a clarification of the circumstances under which a prisoner might be released for the purposes of travelling internationally to assist with investigations and things like that. I am mindful the government would like to introduce legislation for those purposes. It would be nice to be able to debate those things in a complete way in this House. That is part of the point; that I get an opportunity to debate that matter fully - I get half-an-hour to talk about that.
In the same way the member for Fong Lim demonstrated the tardiness and inability of the government to deal with crime issues attached to this particular Justice bill, I will use the same vehicle to point out that this government will happily allow long debates on issues such as the release of prisoners, but will not allow debates on other important things before this House. It has much to do with the amount of oxygen this bill is allowed to have and the amount of oxygen other debates are not allowed to have in this place.
I am concerned that this government is now using this House as a rubber stamp for itself and, if there is any criticism to be levelled towards this government, it cannot occur in this House. Adjournment debates are truncated to about five minutes; they used to be 15 minutes. We have a situation where we see the gag motion used as one of the most common motions this government brings forward.
As long as we are talking about the niceties such as what is contained in this bill in relation to plagiarism and disclosure of plagiarism in the legal profession, this government is quite happy to talk about those things, and so am I. Plagiarism in the legal profession, or failure to disclose plagiarism, especially during the academic period, is very serious. Anyone who has studied law will know how seriously academia views plagiarism.
I have 30 minutes if I want to talk about plagiarism in academia. However, if I try to draw this debate away from that particular issue, in an environment where there is no other vehicle for me to talk about plagiarism in the legal profession or anything else, or to talk about other issues that matter to Territorians, what happens? As a person who is elected to this place, I have my voice stifled because the government cannot brook criticism ...
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rot.
Mr ELFERINK: They cannot brook criticism, cannot accept it and, more to the point, arrogantly refuse to listen to it. I am disappointed the vehicle by which we have to make these observations has to be based in, basically, an omnibus bill so I can make criticisms of the bill and weave into it other material which some members would deem to be extraneous.
However, there is no other way for me to talk about government policy other than by this vehicle, so I am stuck with it. If I am stuck with it, then this House is stuck with it. As far as I am concerned, this House has become nothing more than an extension of an arrogant and tired government which is running out of ideas and would rather not have any criticism levelled at it at all. History has examples of governments that have tried such things - and none of those stories have ended well.
I am profoundly frustrated by the way this House operates in this day and age. This government used to say that it would introduce an open, honest and accountable system of governance in the Northern Territory, but it has brought its dead hand to bear on the rules of this place increasingly, over time. On every occasion, the intent behind the changes and the rules have been to stifle the voices of members who sit on this side of the House.
Madam Speaker, if you want an example of that, just look at the gag motion which was run this morning when, by the vote of the Australian Labor Party in this House, other Territorians voices were utterly silenced on an issue of the greatest gravity: the safety of the buildings in which we live and work.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow opposition for Justice. Of the opposition members, she was the only one who made any sense whatsoever in her contribution to this legislation. I also thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to the legislation debate. We are here to debate legislation, and that is the most important debate a parliament can have. That has always been the most important debate a parliament can undertake. There has been no stifling whatsoever in this Chamber on this debate.
Madam Speaker, your forbearance has been remarkable regarding the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin straying far and wide; having little or no relevance whatsoever to the legislation we are debating.
I am very pleased that at least the shadow Attorney-General understands this legislation, and has provided opposition support. Justice and Other Amendment legislation such as this is quite commonplace and is an important tool of a justice system. The Department of Justice goes through legislation across the government’s books and looks at how that legislation could be improved and refined to reflect a more workable outcome for that legislation, after listening to stakeholders who deal with the implementation of the legislation at the coalface. That is what we have before us today, and that is why we have a range of acts amended by this bill. They are all, essentially, technical amendments to acts that sit within the Justice or related portfolios; we had one in the Police portfolio, for example.
Justice legislation amendment bills are an opportunity to rectify minor issues or any inefficiencies that arise during the operation of any Justice legislation. The government prepares a number of such bills each year. I am advised that there are usually one or two bills per year of this nature in the Justice portfolio. It is very normal and a very appropriate thing to do.
This bill specifically deals with the Construction Contracts (Securities of Payments) Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Public Trustee Act and the Summary Offences Act. All the amendments relate to practical problems identified within the public sector by agencies or persons involved in the administration or the development of the legislation. Accordingly, there has not been a great need to have wide consultation, but I certainly understand that the amendments to the construction contracts were referred to the government’s Business Round Table.
There has been no adverse comment made by members of the public since the introduction of the bill, and the proposed amendments were addressed during my second reading speech. However, in summary, the effect of the proposed amendments - just so we are sure, because there has been a very diverse debate in the Chamber today - are as follows.
The Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act is amended to ensure that the disqualification of an adjudicator on the grounds of conflict of interest will not unfairly prejudice persons, subject to the time limits imposed for reapplying for adjudication. In other words, it is a very fair way of stopping the clock so that people are not adversely affected.
The Legal Profession Act is amended to make it clear that academic dishonesty constitutes a suitability matter for the purpose of admission to the legal profession. This came about as a request from the legal profession itself.
The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 is amended to repeal the increased penalty provision which consequently amended section 68A of the Summary Offences Act. In lieu of that amendment, this bill amends section 68A of the Summary Offences Act so the new maximum penalty is $11 000 and/or two years imprisonment - and that more appropriately fits within the penalties regime confined within that Summary Offences Act.
The Prisons (Correctional Services) Act is amended to reflect the operation of sections 26 and 27 of the Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. These sections enable a prisoner to travel to a foreign country to give evidence in foreign criminal proceedings or criminal investigation. The amendment enables the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of, and give leave of absence to, a prisoner for the purpose of giving evidence or assisting in an investigation.
The Public Trustee Act is amended to specify that only those fees and levies collected under section 24A and section 28 of the act are to be paid to the Public Trustee’s dividend account. This was brought about by advice from Treasury.
Madam Speaker, the bill really just makes these minor amendments to six acts - five within the Justice portfolio and one falls under the Police portfolio. It seems quite ridiculous grandstanding from the opposition but maybe there is a leadership challenge going on and the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin are doing their numbers and jockeying for respective deputy or leader positions.
Legislation is, genuinely, one of the most important things we do as parliamentarians. Refining and improving legislation is an appropriate activity to undertake. I sincerely thank the officers of the Department of Justice, and officers from Police, Corrections, and Treasury who have been involved in these amendments. They put a lot of effort and work into these legislative amendments, and they have done a very fine job. It goes to improve the workability of these acts.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (HOON BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
(Serial 28)
Continued from 12 February 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for introducing this amendment legislation.
Hooning is a problem across the Territory. I have had deliberations and discussions with many members of this Chamber, many people in my electorate and across the Territory about their concerns in relation to hooning in the Northern Territory. Hooning does have a description within the act, but it covers a number of things in general terms: speeding, loud noise, tearing around the streets, drag racing, doing time trials, and all those types of things. People who participate in these activities are a nuisance to society. We see it on an everyday basis, but little seems to deter these people. Much the same can be said for many of the offences committed in the Territory - antisocial behaviour, law and order complaints, or the like. The material the Minister for Transport has put in place in these amendments regarding hooning legislation will go a long way to deter people from hooning.
Since his second reading speech on 12 February this year, I have paid particular attention to the hooning I see in our streets. Cars go past the front of my office in Gregory Terrace in Alice Springs and people take off from the lights very quickly and hoon all day, every day - you could put that down to speeding or hooning; it could be construed either way. There are examples right throughout my electorate. Patterson Crescent, where one of the members of this parliament used to live, is a street in Larapinta I frequent. The hooning on that street is very dangerous. I continually see people doing burnouts up and down that street and driving around at ungodly speeds; it is a danger to society and, in particular, to any children who run out on that street. I am aware that this happens in a number of locations across the Territory.
It is unfortunate that when you call the police, no one answers the phone. You do not have any opportunity to get a response out there to chase these people. Despite knowing the address of the property, nothing can be done. However, this new legislation should allow me to dob in someone after the event has occurred, and enable the police to chase it up. That is a positive thing to counteract hooning.
The idea of being able to confiscate the car much more easily for a period of 48 hours is a positive step. The forfeiture of a vehicle will go a long way to deter people from being idiots on our streets. The police will put in place a process which is fair and reasonable in assessing whether it was hooning or driving stupidly. The police will make a judgment on that. The ability of a senior police officer to review the notice to take a car for 48 hours is a good process.
It is very interesting to see the type of people who are hooning, in terms of the minister’s second reading speech when he said 27% of people who hoon are between the ages of 16 to 20 years, or that 35% of people who hoon on our streets are over 26 years of age. I found that quite surprising; I thought it would be just the 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Clearly, it is not.
The minister quoted in his speech some statistics about hooning. We hear hooning incidents go up or down, and the government states that it is a measure of the reporting statistics or the ability of police to catch people. However, that sounds very typical of their terminology and explanations about law and order in general in the Northern Territory. We all know that law and order is out of control in the Northern Territory and hooning will be no different. The government will say hooning has gone up or down. It will depend on whether they catch people and how well that is reported. The measures within this legislation, as proposed through the amendment, are good measures. How well they are implemented will come down to how well police are able to respond to instances of hooning throughout the Northern Territory.
I particularly like the model of forfeiture of a vehicle, because we know that tough, punitive approaches are required in certain instances to send a clear message. Government fails to do this, especially in the areas of law and order, but in all aspects of their governance they are lame. The idea of forfeiture, quite interestingly, was brought up by me as an amendment to the Traffic Act in the debate on the alcohol ignition lock legislation last year. I moved a motion that people who are repeat, high-range drink-drivers should have their cars forfeited, to be sold or disposed of by the government. The government was not keen on that idea, and did not accept that amendment; they voted it down. It is interesting they voted down a forfeiture motion for a high-range drink-driver - a repeat offender - but they consider it okay to put in a forfeiture clause for hooning. It bewilders me that they think hooning needs a more punitive approach than drink-driving.
Anyone who watches or hears the news continues to hear about the negative effect of drink-driving in the Northern Territory. On a daily basis, people are drink-driving in the Territory but you do not hear about it. If you were interstate you might hear that someone was picked up at 0.1% and it would make the front page of The Age, the Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Courier Mail. In the Northern Territory, people are getting picked up at 0.25%, 0.3%, every day. If the police ran a blitz 365 days a year, we would get 10 to 20 to 30 occurrences a night. In fact, we are only getting as many instances as the police apprehend. The nights when the police are not there, you do not get a report, but when they are out there you get 10 or 20 of them. Only this afternoon, at 2.09 pm, there was a media release about a road train rollover on the Victoria Highway yesterday, saying that the driver of that vehicle had been drinking. There was another one last night in Alice Springs, where someone came out of a hostel and drove up the wrong side of the road drunk.
This is happening all the time, but the government does not seem to think this is important. They seem to take a soft approach to drink-drivers by not imposing punitive measures, just imposing small fines and not sentencing anyone to gaol - which happens despite what the legislation says in relation to drink-driving. This is important, as it reflects on hooning. Despite what the legislation says, you can sit in any court and watch the people who roll through - drink-driving, drink-driving, drink-driving - 10, 15 offences; and they all get let off. Nothing happens to these people; there is no tough love approach to drink-drivers. That is where the government is soft. We had 75 people killed on our roads last year. Drink-driving was involved in half of those fatalities but the government has done nothing. They put an alcohol ignition lock system in, which nobody has yet ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: That will take months.
Mr GILES: It will take more than a month; it will take at least a year. No one has an alcohol ignition lock yet.
There are soft clauses in the legislation that say: ‘If you live out bush and it is a bit hard to get an alcohol ignition lock installed or serviced, you will be right, you will just get another fine’. Then they roll that down: ‘Because you did not present for your sentence, and we did not pick you up under warrant, but we picked you up four years later, that sentence is now suspended, and you are right to get your licence back’. That is exactly what happens in the court system. You can go into court any day and you will see this same thing happening.
Although we did not vote against it, the softness of the alcohol ignition lock legislation, which I would like to see work in the community, was another example of government not taking drink-driving seriously in the Northern Territory. Every morning I get up and listen to ABC radio, and wonder: ‘How many people were picked up for drink-driving last night?’ What was it, Easter weekend? I have written it down. There were 44 drink-drivers, people driving under the influence, picked up on the Easter weekend just gone. There were 55 on, I think, 20 December last year. The numbers of people who get picked up are astronomical. And they do not get picked up at 0.051%, they get picked up over 0.15%. They are all getting picked up on a higher range but I have not seen the government put anything forward. While I recognise there is a new Transport Minister – it may have been your first day when you made this speech and introduced this amendment bill - and it is good that it was introduced, but you could have taken a tougher approach.
Fortunately, the community knows that the Country Liberals are the people who are tough; the people who will take a tough punitive approach and send a clear message to the community that we need change and want change. If we are going to have change in hooning, we need change in drink-driving - there is no two ways about it. That is why we have moved amendments to this hooning legislation, to reflect that. While we believe the hooning amendment will go a long way to supporting change in people’s behaviour on our roads in relation to hooning, we believe the amendments should also reflect what can be done for drink-driving. That is why we have said in the amendments which have been circulated - I assume the minister has a copy - that anyone who is a repeat drink-driver, three times in five years, will also have their cars forfeited, disposed of, or sold by the police after the court process, exactly the same as the government is proposing for hooning.
We will put in place prescriptive or technical measures in our amendments to separate the two classes, hooning and high-range drink-driving. We will use exactly the same deterrent for drink-drivers. The government does not have any excuse to weasel out of this, unless they want to be softer than they already are.
It will be interesting to see how soft the government is, because last year there were 75 deaths on our roads and half of those fatalities involved drink-drivers. It is simply not good enough. I have been waiting for the government to do something. It seems the only time they do something is when I issue a media release and get on the radio and television, then the government says: ‘We better put a DUI out’. They put it out the front of my house. When I get on the radio, there is a DUI in front of my house every night. I let everyone know, do not drink and drive, very important.
That is why I have introduced the amendments to this legislation, to take the positive effects of the forfeiture amendment to hooning and to apply it to drink-driving. I believe it must be known that the Country Liberals are tough on drink-driving, and let it be known that I support a tougher approach on changing our road toll statistics and reducing the number of drink-drivers on our roads. It should also be known that Labor is soft on drink-drivers. I said it before, and I will say it again: we have a different approach to drink-drivers. They would rather focus on forfeiting a boat if the owner takes too many fish, or forfeiting a car if someone does a burnout, but does not care about drink-drivers. It is the drink-drivers who are killing people, not the extra barramundi in the back of a trailer. It is the people who are driving at 0.30%, half-dead, who kill people on our roads.
That is why, under the Country Liberals, if you get caught three times in five years, and one of those times is high range, you forfeit your car. It is as simple as that. The courts will make the ruling, but that is it - you forfeit your car; exactly the same as the hooning legislation. These are based on the hooning amendments through sections 29 and 56 of the Traffic Act and Regulation 91. While Labor tends to be soft on forfeiting cars for the provisions of hardship, let it be known to the public and the court system that, if this amendment goes through, it is my intention that these amendments be not treated lightly.
The purpose of these amendments is to send a tough message so that people do not drink and drive. These amendments for forfeiture will send a clear message to the community that Adam Giles and the Country Liberals are tough on drink-driving and we mean business. Get blind and drive your car, or anyone else’s car, unless it is stolen, you will lose your car. No ifs, no buts. Take some responsibility.
Madam Speaker, you and other members may be aware I recently raised a discussion forum in the public arena regarding minimum mandatory sentences for drink-drivers who kill or maim someone. That discussion is still in the public arena. I have been speaking with stakeholders and a number of people across the Territory, asking them what they think about minimum sentencing because, clearly, the sentencing being given to people in our community who have killed or maimed someone with a high-range drink-driving level has not met community expectations or standards.
Between now and the next General Business day, I will be putting together information reflecting community views and opinions about how we should approach this matter.
You should also be aware that I have introduced a bill today for discussion at the next General Business day, which will look at how we apply stronger penalties to people at low-range drink-driving levels. If you get caught for the very first time at a low range, you do not just get a $100 fine; you will also be put on a probationary licence for three months with a no alcohol restriction. That bill will be debated tomorrow.
This is a broad-ranging approach identifying and articulating how tough the Country Liberals are on drink-driving. I do not want my family killed by a drink-driver; I hate it when people drink-drive. We need to send a tough message to the community. If people know they will lose their car - I do not care whether it is an old 1987 Commodore or a $500 000 Ferrari - if you are drink-driving, the message is you lose your car. That is what it is about.
I know the member for Nelson wants to have a say on this, so I will sit down and save the rest of my comments for the committee stage. I thank the minister for bringing on this hooning legislation. I hope he considers the negativity of drink-driving and he comes along with us and hardens up with the Country Liberals, and gets tough on drink-driving.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): What an entertaining speech that was. I first acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Ms Nyree Slatter, the electorate officer of the member for Fannie Bay. It is her birthday today and we wish her all the best. I do not know how old you are - perhaps I should not go into that - but have a good day.
Boiling down the previous comments, this legislation has been welcomed by the Country Liberals. It is good legislation, it gives the police extra flexibility and powers which they need to curb these problems. Sadly, young drivers have three times the rate of crashes and fatalities as other drivers in the Northern Territory, and the demographic most likely to be involved in hooning driving behaviour is young males aged between 17 and 26.
We need to change the culture of this behaviour of young drivers. Some sobering statistics came from the Road Safety Taskforce Report: 16-year-olds to 20-year-olds comprise 6.3% of all drivers in the Territory, yet they are involved in 18% of all crashes; 21-year-old to 25-year-old drivers comprise 10% of all drivers, however, they comprise nearly 18% of all crashes involving a fatality. That is a very telling figure. It is not unusual with young males, testosterone and a lack of skills on the road. We certainly have to address those figures.
Hooning involves young people illegally racing their vehicles on public streets or participating in burnout displays, placing themselves, their passengers, spectators and other road users at risk of serious injury. This is not just about young people; hooning is unacceptable behaviour which puts the lives of Territory families at risk. We have great facilities for youths with respect to motor vehicles. Anyone who has been to the Hidden Valley complex knows there is a range of motor sports on offer. I went there to the mud racing recently and I have been to the V8s, the go-carts, and the drag races. There are also other sports events with motor cycling, and novice drivers with classic cars. Motor sports is very big up here, and anyone who has attended the V8s realises that. However, that does not give the green light for people to take it out onto the road, and we have to ensure that people understand.
In the Territory, there is great involvement and interest from young people. I went to Taminmin High School the other week and looked at the new VET facilities there - the massive shed which has been constructed, and classrooms for the woodwork and metalwork areas and also the mechanical area. I saw the level of interest of those young boys, and one girl as well, in getting involved in mechanics, not only with generator engines, but also with cars.
I know hooning is a particular issue in the rural area, and I am sure the member for Nelson will go to that point. From my personal experience, I know of a young person who, sadly, was involved in a car accident resulting in a loss of life, and he is scarred for life. He will never recover from that. It is something all of us have been involved in as young people driving around. It is just not acceptable, and we have to send a clear message. These measures certainly go to it. They give the police the power to act on a complaint from the public, to issue infringement notices, to impound vehicles for two days and take it even further to getting three-month impoundments up to a maximum of six months. That certainly sends a message to people that, if they want to play up on public roads, disturb the neighbourhood, endanger their own lives or the lives of other Territorians, it is just not acceptable. This government will pass this legislation and give the police more powers.
We also have additional funding of $1m which has been allocated to programs associated with defensive driving for young learner drivers so they can actually build up their skill level. We are seeing more of that, and it is something we need to do more of. The defensive driving training I received when I was a teenager has stayed with me throughout my driving life.
This legislation, which was initially introduced in 2004, needed some enhancements, some strengthening, and I congratulate the minister for presenting it.
I welcome the minister’s comments that 391 traffic infringement notices for hooning have been issued for a first offence since 2004 when that legislation first came in. The existing act provides the powers for a court to make an order to take offenders’ vehicles for 48 hours for a second conviction. For subsequent convictions, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle impounded for up to three months, and, for a fourth conviction, have the offender’s vehicle forfeited to the Northern Territory.
It is a responsibility that the act contains review provisions after five years to ensure the hooning legislation is keeping our roads safe. It will be interesting to hear how the opposition debates this legislation, and how they will try to cover up failings on their side …
Mr Giles: Read the speech first. Read it before you say it.
Mr KNIGHT: There are a few failings on your side, member for …
A member: Braitling.
Mr KNIGHT: Braitling. Sorry, I keep thinking of Loraine Braham when I think of Braitling, and it just does not fit with you.
This is good legislation. It goes to the heart of snapping those young people in line. Forfeiting a vehicle, or completely crushing or disposing of a vehicle would affect many rural people - sometimes it is not their own vehicle; it might be a borrowed vehicle or a parent’s vehicle – and would make it very difficult in the rural area where there is limited public transport and large distances for people to get to work, to go shopping or to school.
This is a very measured next step for this legislation. From my experience with police officers in the rural area and the bush, I believe it will be welcomed. It gives them extra power and flexibility to use it - obviously, with discretion. Police officers are members of the community and they know young fellows who are getting into trouble. They know when they need to go a little further to get them to wake up; that there are laws around, they are on public roads and they need to curb their behaviour.
I congratulate the minister for presenting this. I will be getting the message out to constituents in rural parts of my electorate and in regional towns that this law will now exist and they can have those infringements brought against them. It is pertinent to say that we must support our motor sports industry and encourage young people to go there, to let out their energies on to the race track in a controlled environment where there is safety and training, and they can do whatever they need to do with their cars. I will be watching, minister, and supporting you in getting this legislation and message out.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister. This is the first legislation he has put through parliament and, I imagine, there will be a few more before the next election. The minister is possibly a bit nervous because there will be a few questions asked as this bill goes through the committee stage.
I suppose I am a little cynical because, in February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament, which was partly based on the Queensland model, which amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles. In that was the ability of police to actually take a car off the road for 48 hours. Unfortunately, when the government introduced its own legislation, it decided to remove that section I had put in the act.
I welcome what I see today. I heard some comments from the government on how terrific this new change is, but it is hard not to smile when you go look at some of the previous ministers’ statements as to why, when I asked for the 48-hour impoundment, it was not any good. The minister said she believed an infringement notice was the appropriate way to handle the offence; that was said to me a number of times. In fact, the member for Daly just mentioned the figure of 391 traffic infringements. What he did not say was how many impoundments on the second offence occurred after that ...
Mr Giles: Three.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it was obvious the legislation was not working. If you look at the legislation in other states and the figures they have, you will see that it makes a big difference if you impound vehicles the first time around.
Whilst I congratulate the government on introducing an amendment which I have been pushing for a number of years - the last time I put this same motion forward was 2 May 2007 - I had a laugh to myself when I heard all the reasons why this could not happen and, now, it is happening. It is great that the government has decided to introduce these changes.
This bill covers a number of issues and the member for Braitling will discuss his amendments as well. He made a number of statements regarding alcohol and, in general, I support what the member for Braitling said and what he is trying to do. I have not had as much time as I would have liked to deal with these amendments. I am hoping you will explain some of those amendments in more detail in the committee stage.
Even if the amendments the member is putting forward are not passed, many hooning cases are associated with alcohol, so you will catch some of those people because that is exactly why they are hooning. I cite a recent case outside the Howard Springs Tavern on Wednesday night – a very famous night, Wednesdays – two young blokes in a flat tray ute, two cartons of beer in glass bottles, who did the old burnout and left the glass bottles all over the road. They had to go back and get another two cartons and that forced them to drive a lot slower. There is a relationship, in many cases, between alcohol consumption and hooning. There are also other reasons: peer group pressure, and showing off is a constant reason. There was, unfortunately, the death of a young girl last year. A young person fishtailing down the highway lost control and a young girl was killed – hooning is really what it was.
We need to send a message out there that we are not talking about the odd minor burnout at an intersection; we are talking about people dragging their cars down the road, doing donuts in the middle of the intersection, doing Ss up and down the road with very little control, putting pedestrians, horse riders, bicycle riders, and other motorists at risk, as well as the life of the driver of the car who is hooning, and his passengers.
I remember a traffic accident at BP Palms some years ago – a drag race. They turned off the lights of the cars, went through the lights, and one car crashed into a tree and caught fire. A young man died and a girl was seriously injured because of hooning. I have had some really bad experiences in my area with hooning. If you go down certain roads in the rural area, have a look at the amount of rubber that covers the road, Bronzewing Avenue is one. Thankfully, Bronzewing Avenue is now closed and it has quietened down over recent times. Hicks Road in Girraween, McMinns Drive in McMinns Lagoon, are just a few ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Nelson, unfortunately the Hansard is not working. Oh, we have been told Hansard is now working. Sorry. We have not been able to hear you for the last five minutes.
Mr WOOD: That is all right, I am sure Hansard is greatly relieved.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you can give them a copy of your speech. Please continue. We can give them a copy of your earlier speech.
Mr WOOD: Do you want me to do a quick summary?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that might be worthwhile for Hansard. Perhaps we will give you an extra five minutes if you require that.
Mr WOOD: I will not need all that time. I will start quickly again.
I thanked the minister for introducing the first legislation he is delivering to this parliament. I wished him well and believe that he might be a little nervous because he has to answer a few questions later in the committee stage. He is introducing what I regard as very good legislation. As I said, I had to laugh because I tried to introduce the same legislation, with this particular change - the 48-hour impoundment, which is the main change to this legislation - in February 2003, over six years ago. So, I am very happy to see this legislation come to parliament today.
I also said that the government, at that time, gave reasons why it would not introduce this particular amendment but now has made that change saying yes, it is a good idea to introduce it. What really highlights the fact is that the member for Daly mentioned 391 infringements - or yellow tickets as I call them - but he forgot to mention how many impoundments occurred after that. The member for Braitling said three. It is obvious this is not working and the change is for the better because hooning affects the lives of Territorians.
I agree with the member for Braitling that the issue of alcohol is very important. He is introducing amendments which, in general, I support, although I would like to see in more detail how they would actually operate. In many cases, hooning does involve alcohol and, as I said, there was a recent case of young blokes screaming out of the local pub out our way, with a couple of cartons of beer in the back. They decided to show off in the process and their cartons of beer were no more; they were all over the road. They went back and got some more, and drove out more quietly.
The reality is that a lot of the hooning we see is mixed up with the abuse of alcohol. It is also about peer group pressure. Kids hop into a car and want to show off to their girlfriends or their boyfriends, and they charge down the road doing silly things they probably would not do normally. Unfortunately, that has been the cause of a number of deaths in the rural area - one recently at Freds Pass, and one a couple of years ago at BP Palms. Hooning puts people’s lives at risk- not only the driver, but also the passengers, other road users and, in the rural area where people walk on the side of the road because we do not have many footpaths, people who ride horses ...
A member: You have buses?
Mr WOOD: We have a few buses, but not as many we would like. That is another issue.
We have people who use the roads for walking or jogging, and you have people doing donuts, Ss, or drag racing. That puts people’s lives at risk.
We even had cases in the Howard River Park area of people being intimidated by hoons who were upset that they had been reported to the police for their actions. In one case, a resident had a Molotov cocktail thrown into his yard. He had horses in that yard and he was pretty concerned about the consequences of that occurrence. It was not just about hooning, there was other criminal action in the form of intimidation for those who dared to ring up the police to try to stop that action.
Fortunately for Howard River Park, it has actually died down quite a bit. There were a number of meetings with police and residents and, in the end, perhaps the young fellows got sick of being repeatedly reported. The Palmerston Police did their best, but it is not easy. One of the things I mentioned previously in this debate is why we cannot get money spent on portable CCTV cameras. They are available, but they are difficult for the public to use because they have to be approved by magistrates with the dates so they can be used in court. I cannot see why police, who get reports of constant hooning, cannot set up these cameras in a way they cannot be seen, and use those wherever needed to try to reduce the amount of hooning - especially now we have this particular law. All you need is a number plate. You do not need the driver for the 48-hour confiscation. You do for the next step up, for up to three months and the forfeiture, but for the 48-hour confiscation, you can get people off the road quickly. You have 14 days to act on it, so if we can pick up people in known problem areas using portable CCTV cameras, that is what we should be looking at.
Hoons are very hard for police to catch in many ways, because police either have to be there when it happens, or rely on at least two people to be witnesses to it, and that is not easy. At night it is not easy to be outside just at the right time; they are there one minute and gone the next. These CCTV cameras can operate at night, and the new ones can operate for weeks on hard disk, digital-type cameras. I would like the government to consider using these as a tool to help this legislation. It is no good having legislation if you do not have the tools to make the legislation work.
A constituent rang me and wanted to know if this legislation would apply to people driving quad bikes and motor bikes. We certainly have an issue in the rural area with people driving quad bikes and motor bikes along verges of roads. I do not have a problem with kids going out bush; that is fine. However, what annoys many people is people flying along on unregistered bikes - which is an offence in itself – ripping up the verges, tearing around corners, and causing dust. There is nothing worse for a bitumen road than someone driving up and down the gravel verges all the time creating dust. It makes you wonder why the heck you have a bitumen road. Someone asked me whether this legislation will cover that type of offence. My feeling is it will, simply because the road reserve goes from fence to fence.
When this legislation was first introduced, it was to also cover damage to road surfaces. The rural area has roads which are graded, and you can bet your bottom dollar the word would get around within five minutes of the grader leaving that there was a nice fresh road to be dug up. You would see donuts dug into the ground so the road would become rutted; people would do s-bends and residents would get very quickly upset that the roads they had been waiting to be graded for the last six weeks had been ruined by certain people. As the member for Braitling said, they are not always young people. I know that because I know some of the people who occasionally do this. It is like old rockers; they never fade away. I would be grateful if the minister could tell us whether this legislation would also apply to quad bikes and motocross bikes.
I am also happy that there is a review. There was a review of the last act, but it took a long time to get back to parliament because it had to go to the Road Safety Council. I presume this amendment came from the Road Safety Council and the police. My understanding is the police wanted this as well.
The other area we have missed in our discussion so far is at the back of this bill; a very interesting piece which not much publicity has been given to, even when the government spoke about introducing this legislation. It is clause 29AU, Excessive noise from vehicle:
- If a police officer reasonably believes excessive noise is generated by or from a motor vehicle that is at a public place
or on a public street, the officer may direct a person having control of the vehicle to reduce or stop the noise.
That is interesting and it will be interesting to see whether that is just a nice little piece found in other jurisdictions. I believe Queensland has something similar. I know people do get sick of the boom-boom, doof-doof. I do not mind a little but when the house starts to shake, you have to worry. I sometimes sit in my office at night and someone is parked in the car park, and the windows just about start shaking. I am not against people having a bit of loud music every now and then, but this is to do with respect for other people. If you are driving down the Stuart Highway, who cares? However, if you are going around in a suburban area of Darwin, doof-doof-doof-doof, and people are trying to get to sleep or can hardly hear their televisions, it is not a case of whether you like the music or not, it is about respect for other people.
In many cases, it is the noise from motor bikes. Part of the issue this lady had about quad and motocross bikes is that they make a pretty big racket and can drive people a bit silly. I understand that kids have a good time on them and I am not trying to spoil that. However, if you have respect for your neighbours you will not be riding up and down your boundary fence at 5 pm on a Sunday night, full bore on a noisy motor bike.
Now there is the ability for the police to say, ‘Hey, turn your bike off’, without having to worry about noise legislation or going to a magistrate to get a court order. I imagine the police will use this wisely. I do not think they will go around saying everyone is a problem. There are times when a Harley goes full bore when it is not always appropriate, such as at 6 am. Some Harley Davidson riders are quite understanding that at 6 o’clock in the morning people do not want to hear a Harley going full tilt up the road, and will go up the road quietly until they get on the highway. There are other people who could not care two hoots about how much noise they make; it is nearly a badge of honour that they drive up the road making a lot of noise. Sometimes, the police need the power to say: ‘Hey, do something about it’. Many people like a bit of noise but, again, it is where the noise is, and what respect you have for others - whether they are neighbours or other people on the road.
It is interesting legislation and, in the review, I will be interested to see how many times it has been enforced. As I said, it takes away that difficult issue where people do have noise and they have to go to a magistrate to get a court order.
I have been going through the CLP amendments. I understand where they are coming from, and I actually support them because I like to believe that not only should cars be forfeited where people have infringed drink-driving laws, but this could also apply to people who drive unregistered cars. If you are driving an unregistered car, you are not insured. It also applies to those who drive without a licence.
I am not saying it should happen on the first or even the second offence but, maybe, on the third offence. If you are continually driving your old unregistered bomb up the road, well, you will not have the old bomb any more because it will be taken from you. If you want it back, well, pay the rego and get your car up to standard and you can drive down the road. The unregistered car can be just as deadly because it is not up to standard - the brakes, the lights, or the tail lights are not working. The government should possibly look at continual repeat offenders who drive unregistered vehicles also losing their car. In this case, it is simple, you just impound it. If they want it back, they get it registered and then they can have it back.
There is scope for a range of this type of penalty. I believe that the member for Braitling is right; we are not necessarily tough enough on continual drink-drivers. I do not think it is only about being tough, of course. This whole issue of alcohol in our society has many facets, and drink-driving is one. Another is the abuse of alcohol leading to domestic violence. Another issue we have to deal with is health problems, with people in hospital as a result of continual drinking through their life. Young people get into strife when they drink too much, because they go on binges at parties.
We need to be tough in some areas, and clever in other areas. If that means we have to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising on television, so be it. I will give my two bob’s worth on the alcopop tax - it will not work, and it has not worked, simply because people go out and drink spirits. They make their own alcopops. We are better going back to what the Territory government had years ago, where there was a higher tax on higher alcohol drinks, and a lower tax on lower alcohol drinks. We encouraged people to drink low-alcohol beer and it seemed to have some effect. Some of the money we received from higher taxes was put into Living with Alcohol programs.
I agree with the member for Braitling: we should be tough, and this is one way to be tough without putting people in gaol. You take the car away, and that is a good punishment; we are not paying $140 a day to keep someone in gaol. We have hit them hard; they do not have their vehicle. The thing with that particular issue - which is a question I will probably ask during the committee stage - is when it comes to impoundment or forfeiture, the driver must be the owner of the vehicle; and if he is not the owner of the vehicle, the person who owns the vehicle must have knowledge or have given consent to that person to drive that car.
If my best buddy says: ‘No, I did not give consent and I had no knowledge he was taking my car’, then he can get off. That is how I read the legislation. He may not get off for stealing the car because, if he is taking it without consent of the owner, he could be charged with stealing the car. There is an area there which may cause some problems in how this legislation is applied.
For instance, mum has gone for a nap in the afternoon and little Johnny has pinched the BMW and gone for a bit of a run up the road, done a couple of burnouts, and the police have picked him up. He does not own the car; mum was asleep and he took it for a bit of a burnout. What is the punishment then? Is that a loophole? I can understand why we have it there, because mum did not know he was taking the car and she does not particularly want to lose her BMW.
When it comes to forfeiture, the magistrate can look at hardship and say that a car will not be forfeited. I wonder if people knew all they have to say is: ‘It is not my car’, or, ‘I took the car without the knowledge or consent of the owner’, then they do not lose the car. What would happen as a form of punishment if that was the case? I am interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.
I appreciate what the government has done. I believe if this is the only part which is passed today, it is an improvement. However, I say to the member for Braitling, I believe what you are doing is the right way. I need to look at it more clearly because you have given me a series of amendments: 2(a), 2(b), 1(a) and 1(b), and I will have to try to chase up the other legislation that goes with it ...
Mr Giles: I will talk you through it.
Mr WOOD: Okay. In general, I support the amendments and I ask the government to consider making it even wider to deal with people who are continually driving unregistered vehicles, or driving unlicensed.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, if that side does not wish to talk, I will. Thank you to the minister for bringing this bill forward again. It is a good bill; I commend him on that. The actions we need to take to prevent road deaths are not always favourable to all parts of the community.
I have been involved with what some have described today as hoons for some time. I have worked with those young people through ‘Beat the Heat’ to try to remove them from the illegal side of hooning and take them to legal venues where they are safe – where there are ambulances and controlled environments. I urge people to consider that. If they are going to do hooning of any kind, take it to a legal venue and enjoy the facilities the government provides.
I thank the member for Daly who earlier discussed motor sports, because motor sports is an area in which people can vent their frustrations, excitement, or testosterone, but do it at a safe venue. In the Territory, we are blessed with some of the best motor sports facilities in the country. Those committees work hard trying to encourage young people - and middle-aged and older people - to use their venues. It is not as stereotypical as people might think.
Hooning is not about young people. Hooning is about people who misuse their privilege of driving, misuse the privilege of having fantastic roads, and doing it in an inappropriate place. As these pictures here show, in Patterson Crescent in Alice Springs – I know people cannot see this, and I apologise for that, but take my word, there is rubber from burnouts all over these roads. Lyndavale Drive is not the place for this sort of behaviour. A legalised venue is the place to go. I urge all people who are motor sports enthusiasts to continue to use those legal venues. We saw the launch of the drag racing season on Saturday night. That is the place to go.
I support what the member for Barkly has put forward - if you do the wrong thing, there may be a consequence. In this case, it is suggested one of those consequences is the forfeiture of your car for a period of time. I hope those people who have their car forfeited learn from it. However, if the basic principle behind the idea of forfeiting the car is for them to learn from their behaviour and by having a penalty applied to them, then we should also do that with high-range drink-drivers. We should be seriously considering, on both sides of parliament, that if you drink and drive and you get caught once, twice, a third time, with one of those being a high-range drink-driving offence - you lose your car. It is better for you to lose your car than for you to take someone’s life, or your own life, with that car.
Too many times last year, Territorians and visitors to the Territory lost their lives through drink-driving. Had there been some tougher penalty - a real penalty - removing that weapon, the car, from their possession, maybe that would have prevented such high numbers. In most cases, it was not the young man driving his Nissan ZX, someone driving their $70 000 SS Commodore; someone driving their RX7 or any other type of so-called hoon car as we stereotypically see them; it was people who drove whilst intoxicated who took their own or someone else’s life.
We should embrace the amendments made by the member for Braitling, because they are the people who are killing our Territorians; the people who most need to have a lesson taught to them; and to whom we may be able to make a difference. We may be able to help save some lives. The statistics, unfortunately, prove unanimously they are the problem people. Therefore, I support the member for Barkly in his amendments.
I urge the member for Barkly to understand the problem of drink-driving and the need to do exactly the same as he is suggesting for a person hooning to someone who is driving with alcohol in their blood. If you cannot see the connection in the type of offences they pose as a danger to society, and they should have the same type of offence applied to them, then you should go back to school. I believe the amendments are logical. Since this was last mentioned – I believe it is three months or so - letters to the editor in the newspaper have given considerable support to the idea. If the people of this Territory think it is a good idea, open your ears and start to consider it as well. We are sick and tired of burying our people because they drink and drive, or someone else drinks and drives and takes them out. It is not acceptable to allow it to happen anymore.
The argument has been used in this Chamber before that this would unfairly penalise the family. The same argument is then applied to what you suggested: these so-called hoons are not the stereotypical 16-, 17-, 18-year-old; at times they are 24, 36 and older, and they have families. There are 20-year-olds with families, and it does not excuse their action. However, it negates the argument used by the other side against the member for Braitling’s amendments. It is about penalising people so they, hopefully, can learn and we can educate them to amend their behaviour so they do not cause the loss of another Territorian life. If someone drinks and drives, and has gone through the processes and has their car taken from them and it affects their family, I would rather it affect their family by losing their car than losing their loved one or having the burden of their loved one taking someone else’s life applied to their family. They are very powerful, very heavy things.
Do you understand what I am saying? You must realistically agree with the theory behind it? We must do more. It is not harsh, it is reasonable. We are not saying the first time you drink and drive we will take your car from you, or the second time; it is the third time and includes a high-level reading.
I will tell you of an incident related by the member behind me. A gentleman in Howard River Park had thrown some explosive cracker device at a family and was tied back for hooning. I was one of the officers involved investigating that, and there was an outcome. We chased down that young driver because the family identified that person, and we arrested him for drink-driving. A young man and his mates in their ute were drunk, and we put that matter before the court. Beyond that is not my issue, but I must say alcohol was the cause.
Was it hooning or alcohol? I suggest the problem was the alcohol. I suggest their continued behaviour in that street was predominantly always around alcohol. I suggest, had there been the threat of having the car taken from them for the alcohol offence and an applied factor for hooning, it would have a much better result.
Also mentioned was the issue of if a vehicle was seized and the driver was not the owner of the car, if they could get the car back. That is the same case with alcohol restricted areas already. It needs to be looked at and tightened up, because there is an escape clause in the sense that: ‘Aunty owns the car because aunty is the one who gets the royalty, so aunty always buys all the cars’. Aunty does not have a licence, but she buys all the cars. The nephew is always the driver; the car is never in his name. If the nephew, let us say, is caught hooning, and he says: ‘That is not my car, it is aunty’s’, there needs to be an added section that would tighten that up so that it is understood that the onus is on the driver to prove they are not the owner of that vehicle or predominant user of that vehicle. If that is the excuse, the original part of legislation needed is they are not the predominant user of that vehicle.
This could be considered as a further amendment later. I believe we need to do so, because some of these so-called hoons do take mum’s car with permission, but it is still mum’s car. So when it is seized, they can say: ‘That is mum’s car’. Mum did not give them permission to do the burnout or hoon, but mum did give them permission to have the car, and there is still going to be that excuse provision. I am sure the magistrate will err on the side of caution.
I will also pick up the member for Daly’s comment about 395 infringements. Is that correct; 395 infringements for hooning?
Mr Knight: Three hundred and ninety-one.
Mr BOHLIN: Three hundred and ninety-one. Yet, at Easter, we had 44 DUIs over one four-day weekend. With 391 infringements for hooning, 44 DUIs just over Easter, basic maths suggests if we had six or seven Easters in the year we would have already covered our quota. Six weekends like Easter - and we definitely have six weekends - is DUI a higher concern than hooning? I believe it is. We need to continue to look at what the member for Braitling has put forward, be serious about it, and we will support you in that motion of pushing forward - if you are a repeat drink-driver, you lose your car, because the odds are that, at some stage, you will take someone’s life.
I am sure there will be further talk, so I will not continue much longer. I support the proposal. On face value, it will make it easier for police to do their job. I support the police officers; they do a fantastic job and do everything they can. However, when there are vehicles involved, it is always difficult. If someone chooses to run from a police officer in a vehicle, it becomes a deadly event and not something a police officer enjoys getting into. It is a very dangerous event and the burden is always put back upon the police officers. I would like the government to consider this: if a person runs from a police officer, once the police officer engages his lights and sirens and begins a pursuit, if that person is caught, that car is instantly seized. You have just endangered the lives of everyone on the road. You should consider some much tougher issues around that. There are changes in other states being made. There is even mandatory sentencing in Western Australia of 18 months if you engage in a pursuit and someone is hurt - 18 months straight up.
There are some good changes. If the member for Barkly opens his mind, accepts his duties, and sees there is a real need and a growing acceptance by the public that more must be done to prevent drink-driving and accepts the member for Braitling’s amendments, then together we can stand proud and say we are doing something to prevent further injury and loss of life in the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the warm comments from the member for Nelson. Yes, this is my first legislation and, yes, I am very nervous. I have more notes here than the Mitchell Library.
I would like to respond formally, and thank the member for Braitling for supporting anti-hooning legislation. The member for Braitling was able to supply examples from his own electorate, in an urban area in daylight hours, and highlighted specifically the dangers of hooning behaviour that represents antisocial behaviour in our community. This legislation supports community members reporting antisocial behaviour on our roads, to report hooning to the police, and there is a very effective process to deal with that.
The member for Braitling was a little cynical when he talked about age groups. Age groups in hooning behaviour is very important in our community. This legislation deals with that cohort. From my research, this legislation is based on national data from important research for the design of legislation. Therefore, those age groups are effectively researched; they represent the cohort we are dealing with in this legislation. However, this legislation is broad enough to support the whole community in this very important matter.
I also highlight the member for Braitling’s examples of police response and the matter he raised about driving under the influence. As an MLA and, now, the Minister for Transport, I have put in excess of 33 000 km on a Toyota. I stand here proud of being breath tested at Easter. When the two police officers breath tested me, I went through the procedure and then I thanked them. I thanked them for giving up their Easter to look after Territorians; for the overtime they would be doing that weekend; and for their efficiency and their professionalism. Funnily enough, they thanked me. That was the deal done. That was our police on the road looking after Territorians over Easter. I have nothing but praise for the police. We keep that debate very positive whenever our NT Police are brought into it.
The member for Braitling made a very important point about drink-driving. I believe we stand united on drink-driving and I am proud to be a member of this House where drink-driving is totally unacceptable. I support the member for Braitling’s passion. It is very important that the member for Braitling brings on a bill to deliver his aspirations and plans for Territorians and safer communities in relation to drink-driving. I encourage him to do that.
I welcome the member for Nelson’s comments and value his participation in the debate. It is important that he mentioned this debate has been active since 2003. I remember well, member for Nelson, on 20 October 2008, when you moved your plans for anti-hooning legislation in this House. I am proud to stand here today and say we have worked together on this. I am proud to say that the opposition is united in the concept of anti-hooning behaviour, which is the legislation before the House today.
Yes, there was time taken dealing with the amendments, and it has been a long road. However, it is important to get it right. The good ideas are the ideas that get through. It is important that we work together on this.
Member for Nelson, I am happy to pass on your ideas about portable CCTV to the Police minister. Regarding the issues you have raised about motor bikes and quad bikes, unregistered bikes, rural roads, anti-hooning and noise abatement, I can say that unregistered vehicles are covered under our legislation in the Northern Territory; that anti-hooning relates to rural roads and to unsealed roads; and that a noise abatement notice delivered by a police officer will incur a traffic infringement notice which directly relates to a penalty. This is a good move, and I know that you support it.
The natural justice provision is important for the member for Nelson’s concerns about this legislation. I quote from my notes: car owners cannot recover their vehicles when they are impounded by police for 48 hours. I stand here today also as a father of three sons, and my three sons, by gender and age group, feature highly in the statistics of hooning behaviour. If my three sons are involved in hooning behaviour and are caught and progress through the legislative process, then it will be of value to my family to incur the punishment. We will be in a great position to move forward. We will be addressing an antisocial issue, a dangerous issue, and a behaviour that has been brought to my attention as a parent and a responsible member of the community.
However, owners have to be given notice when police intend to seek forfeiture or impounding through the court, and the court cannot order a vehicle be impounded or forfeited if the hooning happened without the knowledge and consent of the vehicle owner. Owners and other interested parties can also raise severe financial or physical hardship as a reason why a vehicle should not be forfeited. A provision of natural justice, but still a very tough law.
The members for Drysdale and Daly, who I commend for their very positive approach and support for this legislation, were united in a great community strategy for our young people and our young males to keep the speed on the track. I know the member for Drysdale has extensive experience in motor sports, and he has great ideas about how to do that. The member for Daly also suggested this is an avenue to promote motor sports to our young people – males and females - and we have these opportunities throughout the Territory and regional areas.
I also commend the member for Drysdale on his police background, his really good perspective on this legislation, and his awareness of its effect on our community down to the individual level. I thank him for his support of anti-hooning legislation. His comments on drink-driving, once again, share the concerns of all Territorians and I commend those. As with the member for Braitling, I encourage him to participate in forming a bill to bring to the parliament addressing the issue of drink-driving.
Regarding the forfeiture issue, we have legislation to deal with this, and I have outlined that briefly. I will conclude by reading from my notes, and this will reinforce the position that is here today in the legislation before the House. This legislation targets reducing hoon behaviour on our roads. This legislation does not deal with drink-driving offences. The government is sending a very clear, tough message to hoon drivers. We are dealing with anti-hooning legislation here. This is not a debate about drink-driving legislation. These are very different debates.
With the passage of this legislation, we will have a very tough new penalty regime in place for hoon drivers in the Northern Territory. If you are caught hooning, the police will impound your vehicle for 48 hours. If you are caught hooning twice in two years, you will have your car impounded for a minimum of three months by the court. If you are caught three times, you have your vehicle forfeited.
Madam Speaker, I thank the House for their support of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage through the House today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr GILES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.16 to clause 5 and the Long Title of the bill together.
These amendments relate to the creation of a separate class for people who are drink-driving, as opposed to those who are hooning. The purpose of my amendments, as people in this Chamber know, is to replicate the forfeiture clauses of hooning to high-range or repeat high-range drink-drivers. We recognise those forfeiture clauses for hooning, at this point, appear adequate enough to be replicated for drink-driving.
To do that, we must make amendments to clauses 29AA, clause 29AB, proposed Part VA, clause 29AD, and also a new clause represented in amendment 9.16. The purpose of creating those different classes is to ensure that, in the hooning component of the legislation which has been put forward by the minister, there is a special class that just focuses on hooning. That is what we refer to as Class A in my amendments. Classes B1 and B2 are the amendments which classify the drink-driving component of the legislation, as it would relate to forfeiture.
For many of the amendments it is more a technical aspect to clarify the difference between hooning and drink-driving, rather than coupling them together. Your hooning amendments reflect a two-year period, where the drink-driving amendments I am putting forward are a five-year period, so it is important to try to reflect the difference between the two.
Amendment 9.1 will change the title of the part to reflect the intention that this part will deal with issues other than hooning although, as you can see, the main intent of the part providing for impoundment or forfeiture of the vehicle remains undisputed.
Amendment 9.2 amends the objective of the part to reflect the impounding and forfeiture is the intention of Part VA of the Traffic Act. It will change to read that the object of this part is to:
- provide for impounding and forfeiture of vehicles in relation to certain offences under this act.
Amendment 9.3 relates to section 29AB, which is amended to clarify the definition for the use within this part. As mentioned earlier, there needs to be a distinction between a hooning offence and a drink-riving offence. Amendment 9.3 defines a Class B drink-driving offence in two parts. Part Class B1 contains offences which are considered high-level drink-driving offences; and B2, all other drink-driving offences. It also redefines ‘subsequent offence’ to mean either a subsequent Class A hooning offence or Class B drink-driving offence.
Amendment 9.4 is to draw a distinction between a Class A hooning and both Class B drink-driving offences of Class B1 and Class B2, discussed earlier, provided by regulations. The purpose of this, as I explained a minute ago, is to separate hooning from drink-driving so it has the appropriate opportunities to replicate the forfeiture, but not cross over between hooning and drink-driving, so that hooning can be reflected within a two-year period under the forfeiture rules, but drink-driving is ascertained under a five-year process where, on the third occasion where one offence is of high range, the vehicle will be forfeited. That is the intent of these amendments which are to be taken together, Madam Chair.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the proposed amendments, amending the legislation for the purposes of including drink-driving offences is not the nature of the legislation. The legislation before us, as I said, targets hooning behaviour on our roads. Impounding and forfeiture provisions and linking them to drink-driving is not the aim or nature of this legislation.
I am going to repeat myself often, as the member for Braitling said a large portion of these amendments are technical issues relating to a very basic issue: trying to link drink-driving to the anti-hooning legislation before the House.
Mr WOOD: Member for Braitling, I have one concern right at the very beginning which I did not look at as well as I should. The actual Short Title of the act is Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2009. I would have thought that would have to be amended first if you were going to bring forward a series of amendments which are something more than just the hoon behaviour bill.
Mr Giles: I cannot hear, sorry.
Mr WOOD: At the beginning of the bill, the very first thing is what we call the Short Title. The Short Title is Part 1 clause 1 of the bill. It says that this act may be cited as the Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Act 2009. I am not saying that I do not support what you are trying to do, but I believe that that would need to be amended to give a different name to a bill that is not what the government intended at the beginning because we have added something else to it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, amendment 9.16 amends the long title of the bill. If you refer to the back page of the amendments, to remove ‘all words after “legislation”, substitute ‘to provide for impounding and forfeiture of vehicles in relation to certain offences involving vehicles’.
Mr WOOD: I am not referring to the long title. I am referring to Part 1, section 1, Short Title. That is the part which starts the act. It is an act that specifically talks about hoon behaviour, and we are adding in confiscation of a vehicle for alcohol-related offences. From my point of view, I would have thought that would need to be changed to be consistent with what you are doing now.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, that question was put to Parliamentary Counsel, who advised it was not necessary to do that. We were prepared to do that, but that was the advice from Parliamentary Counsel. I am happy to move either way.
I pick up on the points the minister has raised. Yes, I understand that this came across as hooning, and I heard when he said that I should present a private member’s bill to address drink-driving. Last time I looked, I was not in government, I was in opposition. You are the Transport Minister and you should be the one coming forward with measures to address drink-driving. Yes, I do this passionately, because I do not want to see people drunk and killed on our roads; I want to see something done. There are too many drink-drivers. You know that and I know that, and I know you know that.
I apologise for the lateness of the amendments. I only finalised them early this morning. You say the opposition has to come forth with a bill to address drink-driving, when you are the Transport Minister. I have said that your hooning legislation is not too bad; I will back you. However, here are some amendments to try to fix drink-driving, and you say: ‘No, do not worry about it’. Regarding your previous comments where you said someone could be hooning or drink-driving, and what is the difference between the two. Well, let me say that a person who is run over by someone who is drunk and doing donuts, fishtails, s-bends, or speed racing, lying on the ground with their head split open, is not going to wonder if he was hit by a hooner or a drink-driver.
The point for us and government is to put forth legislation, work together collectively when we share a common view - and I believe I see a common view with you in drink-driving – but, once again, you have taken a soft approach. You have advice from your government to stand around a bit limp and not do anything. Drunk-drivers are everywhere. You have the power right now to say: ‘We will support you in taking a harder approach to drink-driving’. You have said to me: ‘No, get your own bill; take three months until your next General Business Day’. And how many more people die on the roads due to drink-drivers because you are telling me, in opposition, to solve your problems? I am sure that is what I heard: ‘The shadow minister has to solve the problem of drink-driving’.
I am trying to work in partnership to do that, and offering some amendments to make it tough. We know Labor is soft and we are the tough people with the punitive approaches, but to say you are prepared to wait three months for me to come back on another General Business Day to present legislation that you, as a government, will probably knock back anyway, to reform the drink-driving system of the Traffic Act is wrong. That is a negative approach.
If you are serious about stopping drink-drivers on our roads, you will take this opportunity right now. You talk about how this has come in now, amending the name of the act and all that sort of thing, and this is about hooning and not drink-driving. This is about making our roads safer. Call it what you want, I do not mind - you can call it the Giraffe Act if you want - but it is about making our roads safer and the Territory safer, and getting drunks off our roads. I do not know if I take offence. I am very surprised that you are not prepared to move forward to address the insanity of drink-driving happening on our roads - the high-range drink-driving. I cannot believe people would drive around at 0.30%; you get three or four people a night and it does not even hit the front page of the paper. In any other jurisdiction, it would be the worst thing in the world. Yet, you tell me to go away for three months.
I remind the minister - who was not the minister the last time this issue was raised - that during the alcohol ignition lock legislation debate, I raised exactly the same point. For you to say this has just been brought up is false. You knew three, four or five months ago - I cannot remember when the debate was held, I do not have the date in front of me - this was the thing I was pushing. You knew I would raise it again. You have all spoken about it; we know how it works. You knew I was going to talk about forfeiture of vehicles for drink-drivers, but you walked around limp-wristed, not doing anything. Be a man about it. You cannot have a limp-wristed approach to drink-driving. It is very sad that you have done that.
I hope I have answered your question, member for Nelson, about the title.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you had earlier.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I support what the member for Braitling has said in this place. He is entirely right. I am surprised the member for Nelson has fallen into this to a degree. Whilst I appreciate the technical argument - ‘Oh my God, it is the wrong bill!’ - my understanding is that the member for Braitling raised these issues three months ago.
This is one of the things that bother me about the way this government works. Whilst we signal well in advance our concerns with certain legislation - they do not go far enough, etcetera - the more immediate response is to seek advice: What are we to do? What should we do about this? Ultimately, if we take these matters seriously, surely we can pick up the phone and talk to each other? Surely, the minister in his wisdom - he is the top of the tree as far as this is concerned; he only has to take it to Cabinet and get it rubber stamped - can pick up the telephone and say to the member for Braitling: ‘We think you are onto something, so much so, we will accept your amendments’.
However, the normal politics of this situation is that the government will not accept any opposition amendments. Okay, well, here is another option. Pick up the phone and ring the member for Braitling and say: ‘We quite like some of the things you have said because this is about protecting Territorians lives. Do you mind if we introduce the bill, which reflects exactly what you are saying? Can we get your support so it is a government bill?’ The member for Braitling, I suspect, would say: ‘Yes, absolutely’.
It has been done before. I used to do it with Peter Toyne all the time - well, not all the time but on occasions. Peter Toyne stood in this place as the minister responsible when amendments were put through and, although he went through the machinations of defeating my bill earlier, he acknowledged when he introduced his own bills that he had spoken to me, and the inspiration and source of the bill he brought into this place was actually the member for Macdonnell at the time, John Elferink.
We are so entrenched in our positions, as politicians and as political analysts, it is as if we have actually lost sight of the fact that we should not be worrying about the titles of bills as a vehicle by which to avoid meaningful legislative change. I just find that fascinating.
Another thing, for the member for Nelson’s information, the headings in legislation under the Interpretation Act means those headings cannot be taken into consideration for legislative purposes – well, for interpretative purposes in courts. However, that is by-the-by. The member for Braitling made the point perfectly well that a person lying in the street with a tyre mark from their toes up to their head, bleeding in the gutter, is not thinking: ‘My goodness gracious me, have I have been run over by someone who was a hoon or who was drunk?’ It is a futile, silly argument. It just does not make sense to approach these things in this fashion. Sometimes, I think it is worthwhile getting out of our trenches, actually talking to each other, so that we might actually construct a legislative instrument that will work. I am disappointed that the minister – whilst I appreciate him being a new minister - has not taken a step back and looked at the totality of this and thought to himself: ‘Is there actually a vehicle here by which I can do something better than is happening at the moment?’
I am disappointed that his defence against these amendments is that it is not actually the hooning legislation we are trying to fix. Well, we have had months to deal with this. Pick up the phone, talk to the member for Braitling. He has signalled his world view; he signalled it months ago. There is no shame in casting a wider net than the department, or even the advisers, as to where good ideas can come.
We have a statement coming up shortly saying all our good ideas are coming from non-politicians; this is the 2030 statement. There is no problem in that, there is no shame. We are not going to be saying you are a silly little man for ignoring a good idea, or for stealing an idea. What we are going to be saying in this type of situations is: ‘Good idea, thanks for helping us get the good idea up’. Peter Toyne used to do it. He did not get bagged publicly, he did not get reamed out, it did not cost him political points. In fact, I believed it gained him political kudos. He also had the courage, when he did those things, to stand up and acknowledge where the source of the thought came from. I am supportive of these amendments, and I trust that the counsel we have received from Parliamentary Counsel has been sufficient to address the issues you have raised in defence in this instance.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response, first to the member for Port Darwin: I learn from everyone in this House, and the member for Braitling would do well to learn from your experience as well, member for Port Darwin. If I can just deconstruct that to some great advice you have just provided, I was in my office at 6.33 am today and I received the amendments from the shadow, the member for Braitling, at 8.55 am, and had my first very important meeting of the day at 9 am. Member for Braitling, no, I do not take that personally, nor did I take it personally when you were parked in my car park last night outside Parliament House.
It is far more important, as the member for Port Darwin has reiterated, to address some key words from the member for Braitling; taking up on the points that we are all new here and, yes, with power comes responsibility. I take this responsibility very seriously. I am the Minister for Transport, and I am here to ensure the passage of the Transport Legislation (Hoon Behaviour) Amendment Bill. I am not here to pass other legislation. Member for Braitling, you can do with some great advice from the member for Port Darwin on how to introduce a private members’ bill on such a very important position today in the House.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I understand what the member for Port Darwin was saying, but we debate these things in stages. We have just debated the second reading, and that is where we put our philosophical view and say what we think about the bill and whether we support it. I have said I support the member for Braitling’s amendments, and the intent behind it is good.
However, we are in the committee stage. The committee stage is about the technical side of the bill. It is no good introducing a bill that is flawed. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, the reason we have this stage - and the committee stage in a unicameral system is one of the most important parts of parliament because it is the only time you can scrutinise the bill thoroughly. The issue of whether this is the right name for the bill or not - the information from the member for Braitling says it does not matter; that is fine by me - does not mean that I do not agree with the concept of what the member for Braitling is saying. However, I reiterate; do not let us be carried away. We have already said what we believe in the second reading. Here is for the nuts and bolts of this legislation. Each part of the legislation the member for Braitling is putting forward as an amendment, in theory, can be discussed letter by letter, dot point by dot point, because that is exactly what this committee stage of parliament is for. I have always thought this is the only time one has to scrutinise a bill thoroughly.
I understand what the member for Port Darwin is saying, but ensuring the nuts and bolts of the legislation are correct is just as important, because you might have some great ideas but, if it is flawed from a parliamentary or legal point of view, then it is not worth worrying about. You need to have both: your belief, and what you are putting forward to ensure it can be carried out properly in legislation.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I endorse what the member for Nelson has said. He has been very even-handed in his comments. I really cannot enlarge further on what he has said, and the advice he has given, in a very genuine way, to the member for Braitling.
I will comment, however, on the tumescent scale that seems to be emanating from the member for Braitling: you are hard, we are soft; you are tumescent, we are de-tumescent …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I remind this House that this is a government that commissioned a wide-ranging report into road safety and took some very difficult political …
Mr Giles interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Please give me the courtesy, member for Braitling. … took some very difficult political decisions around that - and we all know what they are. They were comprehensive; they remain comprehensive. It was a very comprehensive report handed to government. Not only that, this is a government that actually invested funding into the area. We reconstituted, if you like, the highway patrols and put resources into the traffic area, in cars, staff, and police officers.
This is a government that has actually taken many steps and some very hard decisions in relation to road safety. Therefore, I do not think it is entirely correct - whether you agree with it or not, member for Braitling - to say this government is somehow soft on issues related to road safety and the carnage on our roads.
Furthermore, picking up on what the minister just alluded to - we know that you have worked hard to bring these amendments forward; you have been through Parliamentary Counsel and tried to expedite it as quickly as you can - the minister received them this morning. However, there is a process around all of this, member for Braitling; that is the Cabinet process. But, no -- alluding to what the member for Port Darwin said …
Mr Giles: Well, who passed the law?
Dr BURNS: If you just hear me out. … Cabinet does consider GBD items and other items and amendments. It is not up to the whim of an individual minister to waltz in here one day with a bunch of amendments he or she was handed that morning and say: ‘Yes, that is a great idea, let us go with that’. There needs to be Cabinet discussion and decision, particularly when there has been a very clear policy position by government on this issue. I know you do not agree with that policy issue about drunk drivers and confiscation of vehicles, but that is the government’s position.
Full points to the member for Nelson - and the member for Port Darwin - who talked about acknowledging the contribution of others. Anyone who has been in this House as long as I have knows the member for Nelson has been very steadfast in this. He has repeatedly brought forward - even when I was Transport minister - this issue. It has taken a long time, and the member for Nelson said it has taken too long. He is probably right, but government has listened to what the member for Nelson and the community has said on this issue, and we have acted.
I really do say, full points, as the minister has said to the member for Braitling for bringing forward what you feel is a very important issue, in good faith. You are bringing this forward and I certainly am not going to criticise you for that, but I do not think it is right of you to criticise the minister in saying that he is just throwing it all back on you to bring it in a private member’s bill, or an item on the GBD - which you are doing, which we will debate when we come to it - without recognising that government has actually brought in a lot of legislation, a lot of change, a lot of policy - and taken a bit of pain on some of it, I might say, in public opinion - but we did what we believe was right. I believe we were quite courageous in doing that.
I am pleased that, in this calendar year, the road toll is a hell of a lot less than it was last year. I hope and pray – and I know all members, whether you have divergent views or not, we all hope and pray - that the road toll in the Northern Territory will continue to decline and the horrible carnage we see on our roads will diminish.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I heard what the member for Nelson said and it is good that the member for Johnston recognised that we should just stick to the points - and then came out and gave a big government spiel. I thought that was really good - just sticking straight to the points. I recognise those tough decisions you had to make when they recommended the speed limit be dropped to 110 km/h on the Stuart Highway, and you did not take the tough decision because you put it to 130 km/h. However, that is beside the point.
There are two ways we can do this, Madam Chair. We can go straight through the amendments, dot point by dot point; government will roll over and get tickled on the belly because they are soft on drink-drivers and knock everything back. I will take instructions from the Minister for Transport that the government is not going to do anything on drink-drivers: ‘You come up with your own private member’s bill’, and come back in six months. We will just hope everyone has not been killed or maimed on our roads by drink-drivers and repeat offenders because the government was too slack to take it up. Then, when I bring it back they might listen - but they will not because they are government - more people will keep drinking and driving on our roads. That is probably the best way we can do it.
I will say one thing as a passing shot at the member for Johnston. The road safety review which was done and the measures you put in place such as demerit points and speed limits – great job - the road toll went from 38 to 75 in two years. You did a really good job.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to finalise with some observations. The member for Nelson is quite correct in some respects in that this is the nuts and bolts section of the legislative process we go through in this House. This is when we put the magnifying glass over legislative instruments.
I pick up on what the member for Johnston had to say; that this has to be a Cabinet decision. I accept that for the mechanics of the process, but I hope the government was not too enslaved by a system where it was not able to respond more effectively in certain circumstances. For the purposes of the argument today, I accept that. However, Cabinet could have made this decision if there had been a quicker response from the minister when the member for Braitling indicated, quite publicly, what he would have preferred.
The comments I was making were not so much about the process we are in now, but the process that could and should have occurred months ago. What the member for Braitling is proposing could have been worked up as a Cabinet submission by the department and put out to a few of the punters – however, you wanted to send that Cabinet submission through the system - and found its way to Cabinet. It could have been costed in relation to its effect on the budget - all those sorts of things. It could have been done through that process. The problem was - and this is the comment I was trying to make - you blew it at the first instance when the minister had an opportunity to pick up the phone to the member for Braitling and say: ‘Let us work something out’. That is when the mistake was made.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, a question on the nuts and bolts here. I need to debate clause 29AH and I am not sure where the member for Braitling is going with this section. He has taken a lump, we might say, and I need to go back to clause 29AH. I want some guidance as to when I can ask about that.
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move opposition amendments 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 to clause 5 together.
These amendments change references to prescribe driving offences that are in the government’s bill to preserve the intention of the government’s amendments and ensure only a Class A hooning offence is captured when deciding an impounding determination or order. Likewise, the number of offences and period of time those offences are considered relevant differ between Class A hooning and Class B drink-driving offences for determining a forfeiture order; a term for ‘prescribed driving offence’ needed to be clarified within each of the government’s proposed sections as a Class A driving offence.
What this is saying is similar to the last amendments I moved in that we had to separate hooning from drink-driving as it relates to forfeiture but, more importantly, about the impounding nature of the hooning legislation which is before us.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, I have to reiterate: we are here today to debate the legislation that deals with anti-hooning. You have already mentioned that all your amendments link and, unfortunately, I cannot accept them. The matter is of such importance to Territorians that we need to deal with it, and you need to deal with it through a private members’ bill. I encourage you to do that.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, it could get everyone out of a lot of pain right here if the minister said: ‘We will not support your amendments to drink-driving and the forfeiture’. We could just call it a day if the minister is prepared to do that.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, in your words, let us not get personal, let us listen. This legislation targets reducing hoon behaviour on our roads. It does not deal with drink-driving offences. The government is sending a very clear-cut message to hoon drivers. We are dealing with anti-hooning legislation here.
This is not a debate about drink-driving legislation. These are different debates. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a very tough, new penalty regime in place for hoon drivers in the Northern Territory. If you are caught hooning, the police will impound your vehicle for 48 hours. If you are caught hooning twice in two years, you will have your car impounded for a minimum of three months by the court. If you are caught three times, you can have your vehicle forfeited. This is tough legislation, good legislation. As Transport minister, I am here today for carriage of this legislation through the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, minister, well read. Minister, we have actually come to a point where this could easily be resolved. All you have to do now is say that you would support - you guys bring in the bill, that is my suggestion. Go and run this through the department, run it through Cabinet. All you have to do is indicate now that you will support the policy - just the policy - in principle, subject to minor amendments; that you will seek to have cars forfeited when people are drink-driving. That is all you have to do. Stand up and say: ‘We support the policy’. Then, we will not whinge too much about you killing off the amendments to the amendments as proposed by the member for Braitling. All you need to do now is say: ‘We support, in principle, the seizure and forfeiture of cars for repeat drink-drivers’. If you are prepared to do that at this point, then this whole issue disappears - it evaporates in a puff of smoke. That is what I would like to hear from you now. If you can position yourself - you have said yourself this is an issue of particular importance to the people of the Northern Territory - and say: ‘We condemn drink-drivers; we think they are awful’.
Is the current legislation working? I suggest it is not. Why would I suggest that? Well, we had 44 people locked up - last weekend, was it, the week end before?
A member: Over Easter.
Mr ELFERINK: Over the Easter weekend, there were 44 people locked up in Darwin, alone.
I noted with interest what I read in a report - a budget document I believe it was, or a Treasury document - the fifth most common cause of death in the Northern Territory is transport and related accidents. It depends. There are slightly different figures for Indigenous and non-Indigenous. We are talking about a serious cause of death. Seventy-five people died last year, and many of those deaths were the product or a direct result of alcohol-related driving. Clearly, the current legislation is not sufficient to deter people from getting into a motor car and starting it, at the peril not only of themselves, but of other people in the Northern Territory. So, it is time to look at something a bit tougher.
The policy being suggested here is simply one that says: ‘All right, if you are going to repeatedly abuse the privilege we give you when we give you a driver’s licence, then we will not only take your driver’s licence away, we will take away the weapon of your malfeasance’. That is what we are proposing here today. All I am asking of you is to commit to the policy the member for Braitling is proposing and say: ‘Yes, I am going to take that to Cabinet; it has merit and it is certainly worth looking at. We are going to send it off to the department and they can run their ruler over it. We going to send it off to have its budget implications looked at’. So long as you commit to the principles of the policy being proposed here today, we will be satisfied with the results of this debate - and, better still, if you can commit to a time frame of not more than six months. The reason I say that is because of our failure - our failure - to pursue the proposals recommended by the member for Braitling, this legislative capacity which he is suggesting will be denied indefinitely. If, however, you say you support the proposal, plus put a time frame on it; we will be satisfied over here, I suspect.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, this government does not make Cabinet decisions on the floor of this House.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not what I am asking. In other words, no. Where is your courage? Where is your spine?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I will close my comments and remind the Minister for Transport that, in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, 6169 people were picked up driving under the influence: 18% of those people were second or subsequent offences; 37% of the 6169, or 2308 people, were picked up at more than 0.15% - that is, more than a third of people picked up were at high range, by far exceeding anywhere else in the country. Run those figures of 2300 people who tested more than 0.15%, as opposed to the 391 people who were picked up hooning or the three people who had their cars confiscated for 48 hours in the four years between 2004 and 2008 since the legislation came in. And you want to debate semantics about the timing of the legislation and put it back on to me to produce a private members’ bill? That is ridiculous. The member for Nelson had a question specific to a topic …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, now is probably the opportune time to ask that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I was going to talk on clause 29AH. I will have a little opening burst.
I always wonder about the system of government we have for 25 people. We split this into two halves and call it the Westminster system. The member for Port Darwin and the Minister for Transport would probably agree on doing something about this, yet we have this system where we cannot get together as a group and get rid of this system which inhibits this place. We have 25 people who represent the whole of the Territory – a very small parliament. South Africa wanted to have a parliament of national unity; I do not know why we could not have a parliament of Territory unity. We have councils in Australia which have 25 people. They get together and pass legislation as a group. As Territorians, we are split down the middle because one side is Country Liberals and one side is Labor. I hear people on both sides. The minister cannot say for sure that he supports you, but I get the gist of the minister’s passion in this; that we can get together and come up with legislation that would really do something for the Territory. That is what we are here for ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr WOOD: Yet, we battle against this system - for a small parliament of 25 people. It is tiny. The English invented a system which runs the whole of England, Canada, and Australia, and we have it in this little parliament here, which inhibits the very reason I want to be here: to do things for the Territory. Yet, you get stuck for a long time - it took six years to get this amendment through. You have to be patient under this system, member for Braitling. I do not reckon we always should be; we would be able to move things a lot faster as a unified group.
The member for Katherine is a great bloke; the member for Macdonnell is a fantastic lady. I have just been to South Australia with her to look at container deposit legislation and she and I are working together for the benefit of the Territory. I do not go down there as ‘an Independent, she is a Labor person’. Sometimes I think: ‘Gee, can’t we make this system better? It is all about parties and politics when we really need to be helping the Territory’.
That is enough of my bleeding heart, Madam Chair. I will have to deal with this legislation’s nuts and bolts as it is. The nuts and bolts are related to the clause 26AH(5) which says:
- The court must not make the impounding order if the Court is satisfied:
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised that, in the circumstances you have stated, there are different avenues that the courts can decide relating to the outcome of the vehicle. The person can be charged under various sentencing regimes, and that matter will be dealt with under the jurisdiction of the court.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will finish up with these observations. I listened to the member for Nelson; I believe he is right. Those of us with a little corporate history around this place will remember the time that Shane Stone rang up Syd Stirling and said: ‘Mate, I want to go and look at this zero tolerance policing stuff. Do you want to come to New York with me?’ ‘Absolutely’, said Syd, and they jumped on the plane. The contribution that Syd made to those debates was vastly improved because the government of the day was of a mind to ring the opposition of the day and say: ‘Here is an opportunity; let us go and explore it together’.
When Peter Toyne was minister - and I am not going to go back into it - he and I had discussions around a campfire, literally sitting in the Todd River, talking about various issues. I had introduced a bill which was defeated because of the normal politics of this place. It came back in a different form under Peter Toyne, it was passed, and he acknowledged it.
We have lost something in this place. It is partly because of the entrenched environment - it has always been here. I wish there was a little more courage - without reflecting on any individual in this room - and that there was a preparedness to pick up the phone and talk to people, particularly from ministers to other people around this House - not just on this side of the House, I am talking about the member for Nelson as well - because something valuable can come out of it. Ultimately, those members who sit in Cabinet and who run the Northern Territory from that citadel have to reflect, from time to time, on how they choose to do that job; whether it is going to be an entrenched position, and that citadel is going to be fortified to resist all attackers, or whether the drawbridge will be lowered once in a while so that other members in this House, and other people in the wider community, can have greater input.
The members of this House are in a privileged position, in that we get to read, if we choose to take the time, nearly everything that happens in the Northern Territory in the various reports that come through the place. We are probably the most attuned group of people to the issues in the Northern Territory. For that reason, I suggest we are probably some of the best positioned people to advance the Northern Territory. We are well informed, as a general rule, and we are well positioned to know what is going on - people tell us what is going on.
Whilst Cabinet runs the Northern Territory, the laws of the Northern Territory are made in this place. If members opposite think the Cabinet runs the laws of the Northern Territory – no. Cabinet’s function is to run the Northern Territory within the law. It is this place that makes the law, and there is nothing that should be preventing this House from doing so. If members opposite think that Cabinet is the ultimate legislative instrument of this jurisdiction, then they have misunderstood their role.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will go back to clause 29AH(5)(a). A part of the hooning legislation punishment is to remove a vehicle. In the case of the driver not being the owner, are you saying there is another avenue for the confiscation of the vehicle?
Mr McCARTHY: No.
Mr WOOD: All right, you are clear on it. The second point is clause 29AH(5)(b), which is that the offence happened without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the vehicle. I will ask you again: if it can be shown that the person who has driven the car without the consent or knowledge of the owner, then the car cannot be confiscated, but the driver could be charged with traffic offences, and/or perhaps theft. Would that be correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: With this legislation, once someone knows that all you have to do is tell the policeman, ‘It is Aunty Freda’s car’, and Aunty Freda never wants to see her son get into trouble, so Aunty Freda always says: ‘No, I had no knowledge he had the car’?, is it possible we have a loophole to get around the law we are trying to enforce?
Mr McCARTHY: The answer is no, there is no loophole. This is about punishing the hoon, not the owner of the vehicle.
Mr WOOD: That is correct, minister. However, hooning is a menace. Hooning causes disruption to the neighbourhood due to smoke burning, noise, and danger to people. The essence of the hoon legislation is to remove the vehicle, as the driver without the vehicle has a lot of trouble doing burnouts. We can do it for 48 hours, but are we failing in this legislation to carry out what is the essence - to get rid of the ‘vehicle’. The ‘vehicle’ is the problem; that is, a car or bike or whatever that is disturbing the neighbourhood. You have one chance and it is taken away for 48 hours. The next punishment would be to take it away for a longer period, say, three to six months. The next punishment is to forfeit the vehicle. I understand, minister, what you are saying, but is it not the essence of this hoon legislation to take away the thing - the ‘vehicle’ - that is causing the problem in the neighbourhood and threatening the safety of the people on the road?
Mr McCARTHY: This legislation is to punish the hoon and a vehicle will be confiscated. It is not the intent of the legislation to punish the innocent owner of that vehicle.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, speaking to the same point, the minister mentioned this is about punishing the driver, not the owner of the vehicle. Surely the current legislation is punishing the hoon rather than the person who owns the vehicle. A forfeiture provision has been added to punish the owner of the vehicle. I understand there are hardship provisions, but the point the member for Nelson made is whether it is a loophole if someone says they are protecting a family member or someone similar by saying that they were not allowed to take the car - or they were allowed to take the car. How do you overcome that loophole in this legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: First of all, regarding good legislation by government, this was requested by the police. It is legislation that deals with an immediate punishment; a punishment that will make a difference to hoon driving and antisocial behaviour.
Ongoing offences incur records through our point system, and demerit points will register that record. Consequently, the hoon is the target of this legislation. There are very distinct methods of appeal through the courts should the innocent owner of the vehicle want to pursue the case. From my reading and understanding, I believe this is good, tough legislation. It has the principle of natural justice incorporated within it, and the principle of natural justice is dealt with through our court system. I believe in our court and judicial system.
Mr WOOD: I believe you are right, minister, in relation to the forfeiture of a vehicle. I am just trying to find it. When it looks like a vehicle could be forfeited, the courts have the power to look at whether hardship could occur. I am concerned that someone could use this same excuse time and time again, and the car is still around. Much as I understand the hardship, perhaps there needs to be a clause there which says if there is repeated use of a vehicle by someone and it is the same vehicle and you get the same excuse that ‘it is not my car’, then it allows the court to have the ability, where it is repeated, to actually impound the vehicle. Some people who are hoons could use this as a way of getting out of losing the vehicle. They might still get into trouble, but they would not lose the vehicle.
I understand where the minister is coming from. There can be some difficulties because you do not want to take the car from someone who genuinely had no knowledge of that person taking that car. Of course, that car could be the person’s livelihood. However, I also hope that someone did not use this particular clause as a convenient way of getting out of trouble. I will leave it at that, Madam Chair.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, like the minister, I have confidence in our court system. It is not a perfect system but, I believe, generally our courts get things right. Regarding people who might pretend the car was taken without their permission, the courts would want to get to the bottom of that. If someone did go before a court and lie, we know that is a very serious offence; it is an offence of perjury to the court. I have confidence that our courts are very skilled at getting to the truth in all sorts of matters, not least of which the type of matter we are talking about here.
That would entail someone going to court and lying to the court. I know our magistrates and courts are very skilled in separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were, in identifying people who are telling the truth and those who are lying. Occasionally, they get that wrong and people hoodwink courts about a whole range of issues. However, it is very serious for someone to go to a court and lie to that court. I believe the court has means of inquiring and asking questions of people, and the courts can usually very easily determine if someone is telling the truth or not. That is one aspect.
Regarding the aspect of people repeatedly crying hardship, I believe the courts would very quickly come to the conclusion that there was someone trying to put something over the courts, and they would react accordingly. These are matters for determination by the court. I fully endorse what the minister is saying; that he has confidence in the court to determine such matters.
Mr ELFERINK: I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Johnston. The courts have demonstrated themselves to be fine vehicles by which to discover perjury and such things. Just ask Justice Einfeld. How many times …
Dr BURNS: Where is he now?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, in the slammer. How many times did he fudge the speeding tickets he was getting? Many times. I can understand why the member for Nelson may have some reservations in this area.
Dr BURNS: You do not have confidence in our court system? Is that what you are telling us, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I do have confidence in the court system. It is not, however, the slavish adherence that the member seems to have. I understand it is a system which is run by humans for the policing of humans, and it is far from perfect.
For the member for Nelson to inquire about the vehicles the court may have at its disposal and the instruments by which it has to work - this is the technical stages of the bill - is not beyond the realms of unreasonableness. The courts are not the perfect monolith that you seem to think that they are.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, to clarify, the member for Port Darwin is asserting that I said something; that I have some slavish adherence to the 100% wisdom of the court. The Parliamentary Record will show that I said the courts do have failings; they do not get things right 100% of the time. I have an overall confidence in our courts.
Most members in this House are aware that, with time, all legislation is reviewed. This is a government that has given that undertaking continually. This is legislation that we will review in future. As I said previously, regarding the initial legislation around hooning behaviour, we have listened to further representations from the member for Nelson and public feedback. As a local member, I get feedback about hooning.
This is a government that is responsive to changing legislation. This is the legislation that has been put forward, as the minister has said, on advice from the police. There has also been advice from Justice. The government believes that this legislation is sufficient for the purposes for which we are applying it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, it has taken a while. Based on the matter that the member for Nelson raised, and on the statements by the minister that this should not cause a problem regarding the loophole we spoke about, I would be satisfied if the minister could give a guarantee that he will instruct his department to review this specific section of the hooning amendment in 12 months time, to find whether the loophole is being used by people. Minister, if you could listen and just provide advice.
Mr McCARTHY: In response to the member for Braitling, of course we would review the legislation. As the member for Johnston outlined, the legislation is reviewed as part of Northern Territory legislation. Should there be any flaws or problems with the legislation, then we would review it.
Mr GILES: In particular, minister, if you would review that loophole in 12 months time to see whether it has been exercised would be a good thing.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Braitling, I do not believe there is a loophole. However, I celebrate the active debate in this committee stage to thrash out the legislation. The member for Nelson is always good at that. I have been here a short time but I have seen his participation in debate - a very active participation. This legislation is good, tough legislation. Should the workings of this legislation prove to be problematic then this House will review it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, are we still on my amendment, or what are we doing now? We seem to be all over the place.
Madam CHAIR: I have not put the question yet, so if you have …
Mr GILES: Do we throw it open to anything, or just these amendments?
Madam CHAIR: You have been speaking to the amendments that you moved: 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
___________________
Statement by Chair of Committees
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Arnhem and Araluen
Statement by Chair of Committees
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Arnhem and Araluen
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I advise that I have received advice that the member for Arnhem will be paired with the member for Araluen from 5 pm until the close of parliament.
___________________
The committee divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Henderson
Mr Styles Mr Knight
Mr Tollner Ms Lawrie
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I have a number of these amendments before me still to go, and I am wondering if these are dependant on the last amendments. The government had indicated its intention not to support the process and has already voted against amendments to keep drink-drivers off the road.
I propose the remainder of these amendments not be heard, because it will be silly to try to move some amendments without the whole package. The government is clearly not going to listen to them, and is clearly soft on drink-drivers. It will be best if I did not put these forward now.
What I will do, at the behest of the Minister for Transport - he has a copy of my amendments and he knows what I want to do. He would have been aware, through the alcohol ignition lock legislation amendments I put forward, that I want drink-drivers off our roads. At his will, I will go back and let people drink and drive at high-range on our roads. I will bring this back in six months on our next General Business Day, because the government is soft on drink-drivers. Nothing will happen until I do it.
Thanks very much, Minister for Transport. I hope no one is killed on our roads as a result of high-range drink-drivers because of your inaction tonight.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I put on the public record, as the Minister for Transport, that this government is not soft on drink-driving ...
Mr GILES: You are the softest government I have seen. You are soft. You are more flaccid than - I will not say.
Amendments negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Territory 2030 – Draft Strategy
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minster): Madam Speaker, I place before this House the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy released by the Territory 2030 Steering Committee yesterday. In placing this on the record, I am urging this House to formally begin the public debate on the ideas outlined in this document, and to encourage widespread debate and discussion across our community. I am hopeful that, over the course of this debate in this House, members will feel free to add to this work, and to contribute their ideas and their views. I am hopeful members will feel free to disagree with the document where they feel an alternative view should be put. I will ensure that the Parliamentary Record of this debate is placed before the steering committee as part of the public contribution to the development of the draft final plan.
In my Address-in-Reply to the Administrator at the beginning of this parliament, I signalled a renewed commitment by the government to grow the Northern Territory, as well as preparedness to adopt fresh approaches and new ideas on the ways we can achieve this objective. At the centrepiece of my commitment to a fresh approach to government was the emphasis I placed on two things: first, to bring a new approach to the way government was conducted; and second, to set in place longer term plans for the future of the Northern Territory. As I have said before and repeat again, a failure to plan is a plan to fail. For this reason, I have reshaped our approach to the way we govern to one in which we are prepared to accept strong external involvement in our decision-making, and to ensure we plan for the medium and long term with clearly defined and transparent objectives.
Members would be aware that, immediately after the government was returned to office, I established a Territory Growth Planning Unit based in the Chief Minister’s Department to drive the growth and development of the Territory. Its primary focus was the immediate and medium term. Working with other agencies and dedicated public servants, much has been achieved in a short space of time. Members would be aware of the recent announcements in relation to Housing the Territory, and the growth modelling that accompanied government decision-making on the future direction of developments and the creation of the city of Weddell.
To provide a longer look forward, I established the Territory 2030 Fresh Ideas - Real Results process. If the global financial crisis teaches us anything, it teaches us the need for communities to have a vision of what they want to achieve with established goals and plans to achieve those goals. I saw Territory 2030 as a means to do that; to ensure that we make the big decisions today for a better Territory tomorrow.
The government believes we need a plan that is clear on outcomes and purpose, and designed to adjust as the world invariably presents new challenges and opportunities. The key to the process was the appointment of an independent steering committee to develop the plan and to lead the community engagement process. In my view, the success of Territory 2030 rests on this level of independence and the capacity of this group to listen to fellow Territorians. The document you have before you today is their document. It has been shaped by Territorians through their submissions, but it is the recommended approach of the steering committee, and it will be seeking ideas for the establishment of a final plan. We are very lucky a tremendous group of people agreed to take on this role. They undoubtedly have the right qualities, experiences and characters to do the job, and I thank them for the work they have carried out so far, and for the work they are yet to undertake.
The Territory 2030 Steering Committee is made up of:
Vicki O’Halloran (Co-chair, Social Inclusion). Ms O’Halloran is the Chief Executive Officer of Somerville Community Services
and sits on a number of government and non-government boards and committees;
the Australian and global finance and banking industries;
Northern Territory Land Development Corporation; and
I also tasked my department to provide secretariat services to the steering committee so it had access to whatever and whoever it needed to do its job.
What has been happening? I first met with the committee in November. Since then, the committee has met almost fortnightly except for a break over the Christmas period. This is an astonishing level of commitment from very busy people. They started off by getting to know each other, and discussing their own aspirations for the Territory. It is fair to say that they are a diverse bunch of Territorians.
The committee then moved to a comprehensive period of oral and written briefings on a vast number of issues and opportunities for the Territory. At that point, public submissions were called and there was a fantastic response, with 77 groups and individuals providing their insights into the future of the Territory. The committee also met widely with Territorians - more than 300 individuals and key groups and communities - and listened to what Territorians had to say. All this information became the foundations for the workshops on Territory 2030. I also met with Territorians and members of the committee in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin.
The ideas from these stakeholder meetings and the submissions were used to develop a structure for the plan; its themes, objectives, and targets. This saw the creation of a skeleton document - a base document designed to focus discussion. This was used in a series of workshops with Northern Territory government agency chief executives and senior staff. I am grateful for the effort undertaken by our agencies.
It all culminated in the development of the draft strategy released by the committee yesterday. This strategy is designed to focus discussion across the community on what is important going forward. It is a hybrid document reflecting the breadth of feedback from Territorians. Territorians have already provided plenty of good ideas. Many are projects and initiatives which have been picked up and brought as statements within the draft report. These views are not lost. Part of the next stage of the process will be to flesh out the draft and refine it as a living, flexible document which will guide us over the next two decades.
We will all have a slightly different perspective on the deliberations of the steering committee, but we can all agree that it is one of the most valuable documents outlining the aspirations of Territorians for the future. It provides a vision we can work with in the coming months for finalising Territory 2030. The committee has stated its vision for the type of community we would like to be, in the vision for the future on page 5 of the strategy. In summary, it envisions a state where healthy Territorians have equal opportunity to achieve their capacity. Lifelong learning and quality education will be an essential part of our everyday life. Closely connected to Asia and home for a well-planned, engaged multicultural community, the Territory will be a cultural heart of Australia. Our economy, underpinned by a strong private sector, will be strong and diversified, ensuring our natural heritage is balanced with our growth. It is a vision which we can all share.
The steering committee identified one major priority and five focus areas as we move ahead. As the committee rightly points out, the goals identified will not happen by accident; we need to plan ahead to make them a reality. The centrepiece of Territory 2030 is education, which the committee has identified as an overarching priority and one which must be at the heart of all the focus areas. I agree with them on this point. It is my view that we must strive towards continuous improvement in education to ensure that we progress as a community and a society. A well-educated and skilled community will be able to move ahead equitably. The committee has left us in no doubt that to achieve a step change in education, a great deal of reform must be done in the way education is delivered. This view again coincides with my own. I believe that we, as a community, must commit to pursuing a quality agenda in education. We cannot accept ‘a near enough is good enough’ approach with the future of our children.
The government is not averse to sensible education reform. Since coming to office, we have worked hard to deliver a better, higher quality system than that which existed in the 1990s. We have developed a proper secondary education system for the bush, reformed secondary education through a system-wide middle school approach, delivered a world-class distance education system, lifted the training effort by more than 50%, and improved staffing and resourcing to our schools.
Indigenous education does need a step change. Our efforts to lift attendance are beginning to bear fruit, but more needs to be done. The government is committed to providing a high-quality education system now and into the future. If education is the overarching priority, the core focus areas identified by the committee are:
and understanding the value of our culture and creativity to our overall wellbeing and education.
As the steering committee has rightly pointed out, ‘action’ and ‘transparency’ are the two words which have summed up its approach. The committee said: ‘We cannot afford to be long on words and short on substance’. The steering committee has done a great job in this aspect.
Whilst the government is not yet adopting a formal position on any of the recommendations, it is worthwhile to pull out a few ideas and suggestions for discussion as it helps people understand how this fits together.
The committee tells me that housing is an issue across the Territory. From my own discussions with Territorians, I agree with this observation. The key issue is affordability, and it is the committee’s view that we must improve affordability as part of our overall message of opportunity. I agree with this sentiment. We market opportunity and lifestyle as the key difference between us and the rest of Australia, and the key reason why people should stay here or move here to live and work. We have to back this up with real drawcards, and affordable housing is an important one. The government has made some major announcements recently in this area, but the ambition expressed by the committee is for achievement of better than national levels of affordability - a worthy challenge.
Jobs: similar to housing, jobs are a very important drawcard for the Territory. This is especially the case at a time of financial crisis across the country. Continued economic growth is seen as essential in protecting jobs and building our base. The committee also told me that Territorians were very clear on the need to see our Indigenous communities developed as sustainable and vibrant economic centres. There is no doubt that the future of remote Territorians is in the development of key hub growth areas such as Maningrida, Galiwinku, Nguiu, Papunya and others. Just as states such as Queensland decentralised and strengthened their regional and remote areas in the first half of the 20th century, it is now time for the Territory to harness the natural growth of these communities and develop them as major centres. The challenges are obvious: the way land tenure is administered, the economic isolation of communities, and the backlog in infrastructure needs - just to name a few. However, the committee is right. Unless we address these challenges, the gap between Indigenous Territorians living in remote towns and communities and Territorians living in towns and cities will remain wide and will widen.
Lifestyle: this is never lost on Territorians, but there were concerns there is less time today to enjoy it. The committee has suggested that we try for a four-and-a-half day week, or perhaps more positively, a two-and-a-half day weekend. I imagine this will excite much comment.
Regarding health, the committee has pointed out in its briefings that we need a fresh look at health; we must move away from a sickness system to a wellbeing system. This is a challenge to the community as well as to the government. The committee’s view is clear: we must all take responsibility for health. The cost of lifestyle illnesses especially will be unsustainable in the long term, and Territorians need to step up to their responsibilities for managing their own health outcomes.
Regarding the environment, the committee recognised that we will need to live very differently by 2030 if we are to be responsible to future generations. This has to be achieved in the context of a community of 220 000 people whose population growth over the next 20 years will expand the carbon footprint of our whole community. The environmental challenge is one of the most significant ones we face as we seek to balance development and growth with the needs of a fragile planet. It is clear that we have to grow in a sustainable and much smarter way than the traditional growth of those states which industrialised and developed over the 20th century.
In regard to community engagement, the strategy is now out for public comment, with plenty of opportunities for Territorians to have a further say on its content and development. There is an interactive website where you can vote on an area most important to you, and even edit the objectives of the plan. There will be a series of presentations with peak groups, community forums, and community visits. The Territory 2030 Steering Committee will lead the engagement process. They will listen and, then, refine their draft into a final plan that is expected to come to the government in early July.
In parallel, there is much work to be done on measurements, establishing the ongoing frameworks, developing the scorecard and building the performance management systems. This is critical, because the final plan will have clear targets and measures. Unlike this draft strategy, the final plan will be an official program of government and the community. Once we receive the draft final plan, the government will put the document through extensive internal comment, and will subject it to the usual highly scrutinised and tested Cabinet process. The committee is aware that the document reverts to government decision-making at that point. To date, we have worked hard to ensure that the ideas elicited from the committee and the community are free from the commentary of the government.
We have come a long way and there is still a long way to go, but I acknowledge the efforts of key people along the way. I thank Vicki and Bill and the whole steering committee; also to Mike Burgess as my chief executive, who has steered the project; Terri Hart, who is the team leader for Territory 2030; and her secretariat of Penny DeSouza, Rachel Fox, Kassia Woodcock, Margarida De Araujo, Jared Collins, Tim McManus, Nick McTurk, Robyn Manners, Jane Alley, Ross Muir and Dave Malone, who have all provided support along the way. I am very proud of these public servants, who are all part of the Chief Minister’s team. The hours they are working and the effort they are putting in is phenomenal, and I am extremely grateful for it. Thank you also to the people in every agency who have worked incredibly hard to make the contributions that were needed to reach this point.
I also thank those Territorians who have already made a personal commitment to prepare a written submission, responded via the website, or who attended one of our meetings. This is your draft plan as a result of your commitment to the Territory. The Draft Territory 2030 Strategic Plan reflects what Territorians have told the Territory 2030 Steering Committee. The committee has taken a wide diversity of information, crafted it into a document that helps focus our public debate about the challenges and opportunities for the future. Real and genuine progress has been made in what is quite a short period of time. The document is being released in a period of unprecedented uncertainty but, as I have pointed out, this demonstrates why it is so important to have a plan that looks beyond the here and now to ensure we remain focused on building a better Territory.
I encourage every member of this Assembly to contribute to this debate and discussion and to think deeply, not just about what we need to do, but how we describe what success looks like. I congratulate the committee, acknowledge its work up to this point and wish it every success in moving from this intermediate stage to a draft final document. I am sure the committee members are already focused on doing just that. Territory 2030 is clearly in good hands.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for the opportunity to comment on the Territory 2030 statement and, in particular, thank the steering committee for its work and commitment to energising thinking about how we frame the future of the Northern Territory.
I note the comments made by the Chief Minister with regard to those involved in a project of some importance. The work they undertake will, undoubtedly, provide plenty of opportunity to consider that which is possible for the Northern Territory. They will be doing their job well, and I thank them for the efforts they have made in designing or describing what could be for the Northern Territory. They have been well selected and supported.
I hope the community contributes to the debate. I hope they are involved, and I encourage the community to continue to do so. From discussions that we have as local members, we know that there are plenty of people out there with big ideas, and there is still that yearning for the ‘can-do’ to describe something that could possibly be, and put a plan in place to achieve that. This is critical to unlocking the great potential the Territory has and, given the opportunity and support, Territorians will get on with the task. However, when we are describing such things, we have to ensure that we are not going to sell Territorians short. We must be ever vigilant that the attitude of cynicism does not grow around this process. People have been involved, again and again, in projects of this nature - granted, not at this level where we are designing something over the horizon – such as community consultation and various forms of engagement. I have been involved, as local member, for nearly 10 years in a number of community engagement projects.
I endeavour to be as objective as possible but the local government reform, the review into secondary education, and the changes to school-based constables are three examples that come to mind. In the exercise that the communities were involved in, and were asked to contribute their ideas to, it did not take too long before the view that this was a process being used for effect rather than used to produce a result or an outcome, started to grow. People had a sense that they were being manipulated and were going through a process just for the effect that it created, rather than the result that may be produced by being involved.
The Chief Minister and I both attended the 2020 Summit - not quite as good as this summit because this is the 2030 Summit and it goes a little further. There was much excitement about the 2020 Summit. The attitude of cynicism was there, but there was a lot of excitement because there was a new Prime Minister – change - and there appeared to be genuine engagement about empowering people: ‘Give us your ideas and we are going to run with those ideas’. I made my contributions, as others made theirs and, bit by bit, there was a sense of whether this was a real process or an exercise to create an impression. Was it a giant marketing exercise? There were some delays in that process.
We now have nine big ideas; we will see what happens with these ideas. I am not a cynic by nature; in fact, I am an optimist. Having worked with young people in particular, if you are going to raise the expectations of people that leaders are engaged in a process that is genuinely for their benefit, then that will be transmitted and the attitude of cynicism will be eroded.
We cannot allow cynicism to grow in this process. The government, led by the Chief Minister, has designed this process. Not for a moment do I reflect on those who are involved, who contribute to, lead, and design this process. The construction of the vehicle has been put in place by the Territory Labor government. That is the very important point I make in this regard: make absolutely clear that this vehicle is to benefit the citizens and not the political process. It is not a system that will allow a distraction from the issues of today and be caught up in something over the horizon, in the sweet bye and bye, in 20-plus years.
People are desperate for leadership. You can construct the grandest of visions, you can have the best constitution in the world, but you can have appalling leadership that lacks courage to cut through, and you will let people down. From my position in opposition, I will endeavour to ensure that these grand plans have connections down to the ground. You can reach for the stars, but you have to have your feet on the ground. What will ensure that we can keep people engaged positively in this? If there is positive engagement much can be created because the power to achieve is in people not in processes. We must ensure that this is connected to the ground and that there are steps, one after the other – logical, coherent plans - that take you from where you are now to where we could possibly be. That is absolutely critical.
Anyone who has led a community, whether it is a school or community group, knows that you cannot go into a butcher-paper exercise where you write out what is possible. You will have people saying: ‘Yes, but how are we going to deal with this now?’ We need the connection between now to there. I accept there is going to be that response. However, we have to weigh it and test it, because the last thing I want to see is good people getting involved in the process such as the 2020 - with all due respect - where hopes were raised and have been deflated. I believe it was a PR exercise to create an impression and rise off some emotional experience, rather than genuine endeavour to roll up your sleeves and get on with the business of courageous leadership. It is only leadership that is going to cut through.
Let us bear in mind where we are on the ground now. Remember poor old Mark Latham? He had this ladder of opportunity. We seem to be focusing on the top rungs of this great ladder. What I am going to focus on are the rungs from the ground. I hope there are no missing rungs. I hope that when people put their feet on the first, second and third rungs, it will hold them, because we want to climb up that ladder and reach the top. You are not going to put your foot on the second or third rung if the first one is dodgy or it does not exist.
Territorians will judge a person’s character. Territorians have judged the character of this government. They know that they have a government that will stop at nothing - even though they received a very strong message on 8 August - with regard to how it presents itself to the community - with spin, gloss, process, and talk but no action. A strong message was delivered. Since the last election, we have more of the same spin and glossy brochures. I cannot believe how many glossy brochures are issued. You keep them coming, because Territorians are weighing up the character of this government. These are designed for presentation purposes to create an impression. Territorians know darn well what is going on. I will speak on behalf of Territorians who want to trust this 2030 process. I will not speak ill of those who are involved in this process who have been called in to create something for the future. I am talking about the architect of the processes itself - the Territory government.
If you search on Google you find there are 2030 summits all over the place. Kenya is embarking on the same process. Abu Dhabi has a 2030 summit or vision, and dreaming for the future - interesting places. The Northern Territory government has the same plan; it is not new. It is a little process, a vehicle that could suit the purposes of the Territory government. Could it? I hope not. I hope that when the Chief Minister stood there on 9 August and said he heard what Territorians had to say, that this is a genuine process and there is the leadership capacity to connect this from where we are now to where we could possibly be.
However, we see this audacious move with glossy brochures, which is like a marketing exercise - propaganda flowing out to create some kind of impression. There are ads on the radio. Good heavens! You would think we were going to an election in six months time. Then, we have this incredible move. Not only do we have glossy brochures and TV or radio ads - I have heard the radio ads; I do not watch much TV - we now have those who are political aspirants, or has-beens, paid for by Territorians, to run political strategies to promote the Chief Minister in Palmerston, Katherine, and Alice Springs. Will they stop at nothing? You can see how this community will judge the character of the government, as they would judge the character of a person. Are we fair dinkum or not?
I pass no negative comment or judgment on those who are involved in this. They are good people who have been called upon to do a task, and I value the work they have done. I only hope that this is not captured by those who are intent on creating impressions, with a greater interest in themselves, and how they present to the community, than they have in Territorians. If that is the case, Territorians will sniff it a mile off, and they have seen the actions - eight months since the last election and how many glossy brochures?
Walking around Palmerston you would think the former member for Brennan was re-elected. He is on a better salary walking around Palmerston promoting the Chief Minister and has the audacity to say to the community: ‘It is a part of a political strategy. Thank you, good folk of the Territory; we thank you for paying for this political strategy’. Unbelievable that you can conduct that behaviour in front of a community. What do you think they are doing? Give us another election, let us pass judgment. It is the same in Katherine.
You can see the nature of the beast. With that kind of behaviour, I find it incredibly difficult to approach this in any other way than I believe is the right way: to ensure that I defend those who dare hope in a process. I fear, after the behaviour of this government over eight years, it is not the slightest bit interested in what the community thinks, wants, or feels. It is more interested in itself, and it will happily reach into the pockets of Territorians to fund strategies, programs and plans - similar to that done in Kenya or Abu Dhabi - to create impressions.
The difference is going to be leadership; the capacity to cut through and to make a difference. I was looking around Australia at leaders I have admired. I can list them. I think of the time in Victoria when, with all of his faults, Jeff Kennett came in and provided leadership. Growing up in Western Australia, I saw Sir Charles Court come in and take Western Australia somewhere. It is that leadership which cut through and made a difference. There are others I could mention. It is the leadership component that Territorians will want to see as a part of this process as well.
The Chief Minister said in his statement that ‘a failure to plan is a plan to fail’. You have already failed for eight years. People will judge whether you have actually planned, because you have failed to plan and we have the issues of today. We are going into uncertain territory and there has been a failure to plan in the interests of Territorians. There is nothing left to assist us to travel through the difficult times. It has all been used in the years of plenty and, when the lean times come, the cupboard is bare. That is not planning in the best interests of Territorians.
You were asked to ensure you put some aside. The GST will not last forever; it will not flow in the magnitude it has for forever and a day. But you would not listen and continued to spend the lot. That indicates a greater interest in your own positioning and your own needs, rather than the needs of those who we are elected to govern.
When it comes to planning, this government really does not have a real plan for Darwin. If it had a real plan then what it said about Bellamack would come to pass. I know the history of this. Once you had one position and, then, when you held a focus group you found: ‘Oh my goodness, we are on the wrong track. Let us shift because we have to appear popular’. The government made the shift but it did not follow it through with the capacity to cut through. There has been delay upon delay. In this strategy, housing affordability is a key point. Well, well. This is a key issue. Of course, it is. Is that new? No. We can only hope you will address housing affordability. How can that be if you continue to lock up land, driving housing prices ever upwards? You are doing it right now.
We have to get involved with the process and think that, magically, over the horizon something marvellous is going to occur when, after eight years, we have staring at us, poor young families facing incredible pressure because this government did not have a plan to unlock the land. Yet, we have to believe that something is going to happen in the future.
I am asking you to add leadership to this, otherwise we are going to let people down. There is a lack of land for heavy industrial development. There is no plan for the Darwin foreshore. The ambiguous response from the government on Arafura Harbour leads me to believe it is not really interested in making any decision based on principle, rather it is self-interest. The government is more interested in trying to manage how it appears in public than to take a course of action. The signs are worrying.
The government is reducing public housing stock and raising rents; it has failed to have a long-term investment strategy for ageing Power and Water infrastructure – it was good to at least hear an admission on that front today - and electricity price hikes. Where is the dam in the rural area? I was shocked to hear the Chief Minister say, at a presentation last year at the convention centre, that: ‘Perhaps we will not go ahead with the dam but will dig further into the aquifers’. That indicates there really is no plan.
There is no plan for Alice Springs, which has an ageing sewerage system, and there is no long-term plan for urban growth in Alice Springs; a real plan responding to something that is a problem today and working ahead from where we are now, rather than over the horizon and back.
There is no real plan for the Territory - no real engagement strategy for the Asian region to build strong trade and business links. It is a no-brainer to say: ‘We are strategically located; we are close to Indonesia’. That is an interesting thing for this government to say. It appears to me that Indonesia has been wiped off the map, and there is only China. We have completely forgotten Indonesia and dropped our plan and vision. We then wonder why it is challenging for Garuda to sustain their flights to Darwin on a commercial basis. They are very polite; they are not going to blame anyone; that is their nature. The truth is that there has been a diminishing of any vision for engaging Indonesia; you have forgotten Indonesia. The result of that disengagement affects all levels and you find a decline in interest and traffic. It makes it more difficult for Garuda to operate. That is a part of the story you cannot ignore. You have no plan or vision for our immediate neighbour and the result is what we are living with today.
These things do not happen by accident - a slogan I have heard from the other side. They do not happen by accident or sweet spin; they happen by sweat and hard work. In recent times, I recently jogged across Sydney Harbour Bridge and I saw a vision realised. It was something that many people contested. There was for and against; it was controversial. However, what amazed me was that it was a vision that was contested and argued and, as a result of strong leadership, it comes to pass. The Clerk said the bridge was built in 1930-something and it was built wide because there was a plan looking over the horizon. In 2009, driving across, there are double or triple lanes, space for a train, and for pedestrians on both sides. What foresight was shown in 1930 to build something like that? That is leadership.
Not far away from it, there is another story in the Sydney Opera House. Was that designed by a committee saying: ‘Let us have some really nice big building; have a colouring-in competition and see if we get something that everyone likes,’? You would end up with something like the Kremlin if you went down that path.
Something extraordinary can be achieved, but you cannot just have the plan, you need courageous leadership that is prepared to fight for something based on principle. Otherwise, you will end up with some grey blob or, worse than that, you will not have hope or belief that anything is going to happen. It does not happen by process; it happens through courage and by inspiring people to be involved.
Education: I am encouraged that the steering committee has focused on education being the lynchpin of the Territory in 2030. That is good and correct, but it should not take a vision document for this government to recognise that the central role of education is to build a stronger Territory. It has been said again and again, but the results are not there to demonstrate that this government has the capacity to turn a plan into action.
There has been no adequate explanation of the sacking of the Education department CEO, or of the strange behaviour of this government towards an award-winning CEO. Little things like that feed into the community’s view of whether this government is actually fair dinkum and if this visioning project is real. They will match up the character of the architects of the process and make their judgment of whether they are really serious about education. There has been no adequate explanation.
Regarding attendance rates, the government puts their hands on their hearts and says: ‘Yes, it should be this, and kids should go to school’. They take out ads and things like that, but only the people who are compliant and recognise their responsibilities will respond to those ads. You also need to have the other edge; that is, to drive through that notion that schooling is not optional; it is compulsory. There has to be that component, that tough part, as well as the nice part. However, we do not see the punitive aspect to that whole message. We do not have that because Labor does not have that approach, as it does not really believe that anyone is really responsible for anything. It is like society generally; if you spend enough money on things then everyone will feel good and, ultimately, we will all start skipping off to school. You have to get hard. The bottom line is: individuals are responsible, and so is this government.
You cannot have a big process which is exciting, like Kevin’s 2020, and not match it with something that is real; that the people designing this project – which is the government - are up to it and have the ticker to make it happen. The citizens will play around with it and say: ‘That is very interesting, that is great. Yes, that is a good idea; we will re-engage Asia’. But, whether we really will give our heart and soul to this, I do not know. We have judged the character and the nature of the beast for eight years, and we might contribute to the good ideas part of it, but we do not have much hope that, when it comes down to the rubber on road, much will really happen.
Interestingly, the great Territory lifestyle is mentioned. It is a great Territory lifestyle, provided you turn your eyes away from the terrible things that happen in the suburbs and you are silent on law and order. We can talk about fishing and other activities - and I love it, I love the Territory - but I cannot ignore the problems with law and order. If we are going to have any confidence in this process, we have to also recognise the architects of the project, and those who are going to be given the responsibility of implementing something that will positively affect the Territory lifestyle. Violent crime is at incredibly high levels, which tells you there is something desperately wrong. Does this government have the capacity to turn that around? Have they shown a change? No. Perhaps a glossy brochure might fix it. Property crime is increasing; there is lawlessness in the streets. Even the home of one of my own colleagues in this Chamber has been broken into twice. There are riots in the street. I have been a local member for 10 years and I cannot believe the extraordinary levels of traffic that is coming through my door. What do I get from a government that is very interested in process? What I have now; this is the visionary leadership, the leadership that really cares for people.
Until recently, I was able to deal with a person - this is a government of process, not action - who came into my office, who had a problem with housing. My office could liaise with the local office and we would try to resolve it, usually within the day, in their best interest. This person came in crying because something had happened next door; there had been terrible goings on in the street - and some of it is terrible. But, now the minister has said: ‘No, Housing office, you are not to liaise with the local member’.
For nine years, I have been dealing directly with the Housing office so we could sort the problems out - no politics involved, just sorting people’s problems out. With a government of process, what happens now? This is the beast we are dealing with. A person comes into my office and I have to write to the minister who writes to the Housing office. The Housing office responds to the minister who then writes to me. I then write to or call the person who came to see me a month before. This is the outfit that we are meant to trust with a process like this, that is going to effect dynamic change. Who are you really interested in?
This is about securing Territory lifestyle and not the interests of the Territory government. That is what I find distressing in this. I am becoming increasingly angry at the behaviour of this government when it comes to its capacity, its prodigious appetite for self-promotion and the creation of exercises and processes which they pretend to genuinely believe in. Perhaps they do not go to that depth. They think: ‘This is a really good idea. They have done this in Kenya and Abu Dhabi, let us do it in Darwin, in the Northern Territory’.
I will finish by offering my full respect to those who have been called upon by this government to be involved in this. I am referring specifically to the issue of the place and the role of leadership in ensuring that which is dreamed of, devised, and designed can be achieved, and we do not breed cynicism.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, that has to be one of the more cynical speeches in this Chamber in the years I have been here. The Leader of the Opposition is becoming rather bitter in a debate around Territory 2030, which is a range of innovative ideas and thoughts brought together by a committee that stands aside from the government but has a strong connection with the government through the executive subcommittee of Cabinet. This is an innovation not seen before in the Territory. I sit on that executive subcommittee of Cabinet with the Chief Minister.
I am absolutely horrified by the cynicism of the Leader of the Opposition because I know the Chief Minister has embarked upon the Territory 2030 process to genuinely garner the ideas of Territorians. He put eminent Territorians at the heart and centre of the Territory 2030 process, with the exception, but brilliant addition, of Bill Moss, capably co-chaired, exceptionally and brilliantly, by Vicki O’Halloran, to drive a process at some arm’s length from government so that people genuinely contribute their ideas without feeling fettered in anyway, and to encourage that think tank committee to look at the ideas, innovation and thoughts coming forward.
There has not been the cynical arm of the government suppressing any of it. There has not been a cynical view of what the pure politics is in this, or what politics there can be in this. This has been a genuine process, right from the inception of the idea by the Chief Minister, to embark on a vision for the Territory - a vision that takes us to where we want to be in 2030.
I am appalled at the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition who previously called for a vision. This is a vision to have a genuine process created by the Chief Minister, with trust and foresight, and put in the hands of a group of very talented Territorians, with Bill Moss, to allow and encourage people across the various Territory communities to participate in bringing forward innovative ideas. I know the Chief Minister has gone out of his way to participate in the process by visiting the Territory 2030 Strategy forums. He set up an executive subcommittee of Cabinet to give it the executive arm and the grunt it needs to drive forward, to have that point of interface with the most senior members of the Cabinet table.
The Chief Minister would not have gone through all that genuine process, looking at the strength of the characters who are sitting on that committee, if they were people who could be led down any particular political path. Each of them, in their own right, is a very strong, capable person, and they could not be led down a process that was to create an impression, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe. He is extreme in his views on this subject, and I find it disappointing. Neither side of this Chamber has the right or hold on following and nurturing the aspirations of Territorians, and trying to deliver them. Both sides of the Chamber genuinely go in to parliament seeking to do that.
We do it through different ideology and processes, but both sides of this Chamber, I believe, genuinely pursue that. Yet, currently, there is this obscene view from the opposition members - fed by the arrogance that has crept back in - that they alone have the interests of Territorians at heart, and they alone would pursue to deliver the aspirations of Territorians. That is obscene and patently wrong. There are many of us, from this side of the Chamber, who have been born and raised in the Territory, who I know will stay here and pass away in the Territory. There are also many of us on this side of the Chamber who chose to come here, fell in love with the place, and are contributing countless hours to the service of Territorians because they genuinely love the Territory and are raising their families here.
I do not think it serves this Chamber well for the debate to sink to the depths to which the Leader of the Opposition took it, by comparing it to political football, a commentary on spin, on glossy brochures, and on political offices, all of which, if you hold a mirror up every now and again, you will see the reflection thrown back at the CLP in what they do in their appointments, courtesy of the taxpayer, in their own political office - past and present.
It was a disappointing contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about leadership and the importance of leadership. This is one debate where I thought this parliament might rise above the petty politics that are flung incessantly across the Chamber at the government, and actually embrace a debate and discussion of the ideas Territorians have brought forward and are encapsulated and enshrined in the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy.
The steering committee has strong leadership in Bill Moss and Vicki O’Halloran. If anyone in here thinks they can be led up a particular path for any political purposes, they are kidding themselves. They are both capable, brilliant, and strong characters. The Chief Minister’s choice of co-chairs was inspiring. Knowing the members of the steering committee - I know most of them personally through having been a minister for a period of time and some I know only by reputation - are very strong and capable Territorians and experts in their particular fields. A very great and august team of people will plot the course the Chief Minister has set, and will take us to where we want to be in the Territory in 2030.
Even in the toughest of times – and I believe it is most important in the toughest of times - you have to raise your head above the parapet and look out to see where you can provide vision and hope. It is particularly important in the toughest of times. The Chief Minister started the Territory 2030 process prior to the global financial crisis. It holds the Territory in a very good stead that we have an opportunity to inspire Territorians in identifying their aspirations for the future and future generations of Territorians, during a very bleak time for not just the Territory, but our nation. It is the toughest of times; we have not had economic circumstances like this since the Depression in the 1930s. It is these times when people need to know there is a way forward, that there is hope and, with new endeavour and effort, they and their families will see a time of greater opportunity. This is when tough visions such as the Territory 2030 are most important.
I congratulate the Chief Minister and the steering committee members for having their focus throughout this whole process on engaging and involving the Territory community. They have gone to an enormous effort to reach out across the regions to meet and listen to as many people as possible - individuals and organisations from a diverse range of sectors in our community - to hear their ideas about where they want the Territory to be in 2030. There has been genuine participation by Territorians in the strategic plan and how it has been developing and evolving.
You can scoff and say: ‘Well, Kenya is doing it and Abu Dhabi is doing it’. That is not why the Territory is doing it. We did not Google ‘2030’ to ask: ‘Who is doing 2030?’ You can scoff and be cynical like the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chief Minister stated he wanted to take the Territory in a positive direction. He wanted it to be inclusive and involve the Territory community. He has pursued the fresh approach of charting a long-term future for the Territory through the Territory 2030 Steering Committee; an eminent and capable body of people with their own ideas and views.
Its success is due, to this point, in large part to the strong leadership shown by the Chief Minister and the independent and very inclusive leadership of the steering committee. I sincerely thank Vicki and Bill and the steering committee team of Michael, Jan, Ted, Jonathan, Steve and Denis, for their willingness to accept this role. They are all incredibly busy and important people in their chosen fields, yet they care enough about the Territory to give up their time to participate across the Territory to listen to the views of the people. It is their hard work, dedication and commitment over the past few months that has seen us get to this stage of the draft. Through my role in this, and my participation through the executive subcommittee in Cabinet, I know they have been working long hours in reaching this point. The Chief Minister thanked the secretariat support people within the Department of the Chief Minister. I echo his thanks to Terri Hart, Mike Burgess and the team.
There is one thing we can all agree on: the Territory is the best place to live in Australia. That is one thing we all tend to agree on. We love this place, we love living here, and we love raising our families here. Yes, we are fortunate, even in these worst of economic times. We have high employment but we have a strong economy despite difficult global times. We have a fantastic lifestyle; it is an outdoor lifestyle. We embrace our beautiful environment. We enjoy our sports and our recreational activities. We are friendly people; we are known for our friendliness. Whether you are in Central Australia or the regional towns or the Top End, in the remote communities, we are known throughout Australia as being friendly people. It is an embracing, fun, energetic, and dynamic place with very friendly and open-minded people. On the whole, it is an amazing mix and diversity. We know we are multiculturally diverse.
We know that Indigenous people have enormous diversity within their cultures and traditions, and we know how much they enrich our culture, and how the world and the nation is quite interested - and interest is growing - in Indigenous cultures. If only we can harness that interest in more ways and also harness the interest in the beautiful Territory wilderness. It is such an exciting time.
I was born and raised in Darwin. I have seen this place grow. Before Casuarina existed, the suburbs stopped at Alawa and, beyond Alawa, there was scrub. There was no Casuarina Shopping Square; it was scrub. It was the best place to grow up. It was so much fun swimming in the creeks, chasing mud skippers, shooting buffaloes and wild boars, and watching old Croc Man chase and catch crocs. What an amazing experience. Also, watching the thriving, cosmopolitan growth as it evolved across Darwin. I know people like to think that it is now this horrible, ugly city. I disagree. Every day I drive into work from the northern suburbs, through the beautiful stretches of green environment and into our emerging, cosmopolitan, energetic, dynamic but still young bustling city. Every day, I thank my lucky stars for having been born here and having the opportunity to be back working here.
We have achieved so much over the decades across the Territory, from watching the town of Alice and the regions grow to the way we are better at engaging and taking services into the regions. What are those economic, dynamic, diverse, powerhouses of the regions going to look like, and where will they be in 2030? What will the life conditions of the people living in the regions, as well as in our major urban centres, be like? These are important questions to embrace regarding the opportunities for Territorians.
There is no doubt we face some of the biggest challenges of our nation in the Territory. We are a developing jurisdiction; our road network is 23% sealed; we are not at the point of development of the southern states. However, we do not want to make the mistakes or, necessarily, want to develop the way they developed. Territory 2030 gives us an opportunity to look at those fresh ideas, and at how you deliver real results on the path to 2030; how to be healthy, educated, be an inclusive society, grow economically, and pursue our political independence - because there is still the issue of statehood for the Territory.
The Territory 2030 Strategy is about providing an inclusive vision for the future that we think everyone should have the opportunity to contribute to. This draft strategy shows that many Territorians have come forward with many innovative and great ideas and that, generally, the undercurrent is they love their home, they love where they live. As the Chief Minister noted in his speech, this strategy was designed to focus discussion across our community on what people believed was important in going forward. People want to see the focus on education as that is central to our future. The government has always said that the number one priority is education. It is good to hear from others that this is the path they want to see us stay on and not just stay on, but take leaps and bounds in broadening our economic and cultural base.
We know that the full benefit of education only fully bears fruit over generations. You can start now and put all the effort in now - and we are putting an enormous effort in. The previous ministers for Education in the governments I have participated in since 2001 have all taken steps in delivering more opportunity and reforming education, particularly in delivering it to Indigenous Territorians where it was lacking previously, while not taking the eye off the opportunity to reframe, reshape and better deliver education in our urban centres.
A classic example of that was the introduction of middle schools, quite aside from delivering the opportunity for secondary education in the bush for the first time. Whilst we have done all of that, the vision and strategy of 2030 is where we need to keep going and where we want to end up. I am very excited about the ideas coming forward, particularly in the area of education, and in the important areas of early education and lifelong learning.
I welcome the steering committee’s focus on improving housing affordability for this and future generations of Territorians. It has always been a cyclically tough one in the Territory. We have dynamics that occur, particularly in Darwin and Palmerston but, also, to a greater extent elsewhere, with the impact of the movement of Defence personnel in and out of our town. It affects the rental and home ownership markets. It is important to pursue housing affordability so that there is an opportunity for Territorians to get that step up into home ownership, which is a key shift in that poverty cycle. You can overextend people and they can be trapped in poverty as a result of spiralling interest rates when that occurs.
In good times, like now when we have low interest rates, there are opportunities to be seized that will take us towards 2030 in affordability. Everyone has the aspiration of being able to settle down with their kids in their home, and watch their kids grow up in a place with some certainty in where they live and how they improve it.
The government is not ignoring them now. Debate in this Chamber was that it is good to have a vision but what about the now? We have a very strong, expansionist land release program. We have been reforming and making the most innovative changes in housing policy, particularly for affordable housing. We know that there needs to be a real focus on young tradies and what sort of affordable housing is there for them, as well as young families who want to get a leg up into the market, and also what is affordable rental.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the steering committee. I am running out of time to discuss the future fund, which I would have done. It is an exciting idea which, as Treasurer, I am engaged in. I look forward to further discussion on the idea of the four-and-half-day week and flexible working hours. The old unionist in me is very interested in how you balance work and family life. Congratulations to the steering committee and the Chief Minister.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on the Chief Minister’s statement. Like the member for Karama, I also grew up here. I go back a little further as I remember when Bagot Road was a dirt road and a trip out to Casuarina Beach was a whole-day expedition. Yes, we did swim in the creeks in those days. We swam in every creek, possibly, from here to Katherine. Sadly, these days, you cannot do that anymore for fear of crocodiles in our waterways.
The Deputy Chief Minister also mentioned how it is a pleasure to drive from the northern suburbs into her workplace in the city. That may well be the case, but I can assure you that it is not a pleasure driving from the rural area or Palmerston into the city - as I have done in the last few days and in a previous job - because of the intense traffic flow coming from Palmerston and the rural area. There is huge congestion on the roads which has not been alleviated due to the poor planning of this government to put road systems in place and to put extra traffic diversions in to and out of the city.
Yes, we do need to plan. We need to plan very carefully and meticulously in where we are going. The Territory is a growing economy. I align it to the analogy that we have not quite grown up yet. Some of the other states have grown up and have suffered in some ways as a consequence, I believe, and in others they have reaped many benefits. We are a different economy to the other states around the country. We are very much dependent upon our resources, whether they be seafood, agriculture, horticulture or mining, and that leaves us very vulnerable to what may happen in times of the current global crisis - financially and otherwise - because we suffer from the effects on commodity prices, whether it be minerals, cattle or other commodities that we export.
There is no doubt that the Territory has challenges that other jurisdictions in Australia do not have. We have a large land mass and we are remotely located from the rest of the country or, as some people say, they are remotely located from us. Our demographics are that we have a young population with an average age, I believe, of about 30, which brings with it particular social issues. It is spread out. We have a high Aboriginal population based in communities in all parts of the country - east, west, north and south.
In the statement, which I have gone through briefly, and as highlighted in the Chief Minister’s speech, the key and fundamental issue is education, and how we must get our children into preschool, keep our students at school, and ensure that the outcomes are positive and good. I have difficulties balancing this with the current situation.
This might be fine in 2030, but I am currently struggling with an issue in my area where I cannot get the government to organise a school bus to go to the Humpty Doo station on the Arnhem Highway to pick up nine Aboriginal students to take them to Taminmin High School and Humpty Doo Primary School. I have tried through the department, and I will keep trying. If we cannot get these nine students to school, who vary in age from about Year 3 through to middle high school, then I do not see how they are going to have a strong and robust education. I will keep taking it up with the government and the minister to see how we can overcome that problem. If there is that one small problem in my electorate then, no doubt, there will be other issues in other electorates of children not being able to get to school because of their location. It is not that far out. They had a school bus picking them up but, now, for some reason, it has stopped.
In the future, we have to ensure that the funding for our schools is realistic, based on the school population, the demographics, and the special needs of some of the students who attend these schools, whether urban or remote. It is important that the funding keeps pace with changing technology as well, that all students, regardless of location, have the opportunity for schooling that is fair and delivered in a positive manner.
The draft strategy also talked about statehood. I am a strong supporter of that, as is my counterpart, the Minister for Statehood. We embarked on a trip to Canberra not long ago to talk to federal members about the path toward statehood. I would like to have seen some stronger words in regard to the push for statehood. In fact, I would like to see the government take a stronger line in talking to federal colleagues about statehood and the path to statehood, and not to be obstructionist, as I believe some of them are. That is my view, following on from some of the meetings. They seem to have quite a few hang-ups about statehood and they seem to be obsessed that we might want 12 Senators, and we might want this and that - overlooking the fact that we are not equal in our constitutional rights. I urge the Chief Minister to be strong with his federal colleagues, and to try to eradicate some of these obstructionist views that some seem to harbour.
However, it was encouraging in our discussions with a Greens Senator that she was very encouraging and welcoming in her interest in statehood. We will be working with the Greens more in that regard because they seem to be very positive about where we wanted to go.
The statement talked about affordable housing and of course, safe housing, as I call it. Safe and secure housing is a fundamental right for everyone, not just Territorians. Sadly, this is not happening in the Territory. There is much play on this word ‘affordable’. It is not affordable for many people. They cannot get into the market for a variety of reasons, but predominantly because there has not been a systematic and methodical release of land for people to take up a housing package.
We are yet to see the final tender documents signed for the Bellamack subdivision development. I understand that no surveying has been done. I do not think we will see any housing lots come up there this year, if not early into next year. I urge the government to get their act together when it comes to housing. We have a crisis in the public housing system; in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and elsewhere. Whilst there has been some funding come through, it is not coming through quickly enough. We also have some serious problems with tenancy and property management.
The statement talked about safety for all Territorians. One of the outcomes discussed was wanting fewer people to die on our roads. I thought the objective would be to have no people die on our roads. It is a bit like saying: ‘We only killed 10 people this year. As we killed 20 people last year, aren’t we doing a good job?’ The objective should be to have no people die on Territory roads for any reason; and to keep all people safe, whether on the roads or in workplaces. It is not the first time I have spoken about safety in workplaces, and we continue to speak about it. NT WorkSafe does need to be separate in its own department and not subsumed into some other mega department. It has lost its way a little. Safety in our workplaces needs to be ramped up more than this government is doing.
The strategy talked about the economy and I agree that we need a strong economy. We need to have a strong resource base as it is from this that we will have the wealth generation to build the roads, schools, facilities and infrastructure to make us a stronger economy in the future. One opportunity is in the service industry for the oil and gas industry - not for the oil and gas industry itself, which can bring great benefits, but the service industry. We need to be prepared for when the commodity prices and the global financial situation improves – and, hopefully, it will sooner rather than later – so that we are in a position to meet the demands and challenges of a resurgent resource industry.
There is a comment about smoking, lifestyle and illnesses, and how this is bad and we have to get rid of smoking problems. I do not believe this government has gone far enough when it comes to smoking. Yes, it has been banned in government offices and in places where you eat food. However, smoking is still allowed in our hotels, pubs, in front of the hospital, some other public facilities, and our gaols. If the government is serious about getting us into a healthier lifestyle and not having the illnesses associated with smoking, then they need tougher legislation. Consistently, we receive the Dirty Ashtray Award from the Australian Medical Association. This is an indictment of how wussy our legislation is and how serious this government is regarding smoking. People underestimate the damage it does, to not only people who smoke, but to society in general.
Madam Speaker, I have other comments in regard to this document, but I would like to go through it carefully and also talk to stakeholders who have been involved, to hear what they think about the final document. I am sure there will be opportunity later on to comment further.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the draft of the Territory 2030 strategy released by the Territory 2030 Steering Committee yesterday. As the Chief Minister has said, the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy is an incredibly valuable document. As it is finalised in the coming months with the help of all Territorians, the 2030 strategy will provide the direction and vision for a smarter, better skilled and more prosperous Northern Territory. I congratulate the Chief Minister on his vision in establishing the Territory 2030 - Fresh Ideas, Real Results process.
The independent Territory 2030 Steering Committee has done a fantastic job in drafting the Territory 2030 Strategic Plan. Importantly, as the Chief Minister has said, the draft plan is not just the work of one or two individuals; it represents the goals, aims and visions of all Territorians. Already, 77 submissions and 300 individuals and groups have contributed to the draft strategy. Over the coming months, the steering committee will seek input from many more Territorians to finalise this plan. Like the Chief Minister, I also encourage all Territorians, including members of parliament, to have their say, read this document carefully, provide feedback to the steering committee, and contribute to creating the vision for the Territory.
I am sure, as Territorians have a look at the draft strategy, there will be vigorous and valuable debate on the proposed key initiatives including establishing a wellbeing framework and an Institute of Education and Child Development. Already, there has been discussion in the media about the future fund which aims to provide long-term funds so that we can continue building the Territory.
The six focus areas that form the heart of the Draft Territory 2030 Strategy will, when finished and successfully implemented, contribute strongly to many of my areas of ministerial responsibility. I am pleased to note that the steering committee recognised that education is the key to our future, and that the education theme is the centrepiece of the draft strategy. Across all of my ministerial responsibilities, education is the key to success.
In Business, Tourism, Asian Relations, and Trade, education is the key to improving skills which will enable more Territorians to contribute to the productivity of the Territory and, in turn, the prosperity of the Northern Territory and everyone who lives here. Education is central to developing a skilled and competitive Territory workforce, which is essential if our businesses and industries are to continue to prosper. Improved numeracy and literacy for Indigenous students and adults will increase work opportunities and enable Indigenous Territorians to participate in wider economic opportunities and enjoy a greater share of the Territory’s prosperity in the future. Indigenous education must remain a priority.
A focus on lifelong learning will enrich the Territory, open new opportunities, and contribute to prosperity. In addition to this, education is an important export industry for Australia, and further growth of this sector based on our tropical and desert expertise and experience, including remote delivery, needs to be a focus as well. We are already working with Chinese universities and other institutions on joint programs which will help make the Territory a world leader in education.
Last week, I met with Professor Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University, and had an in-depth conversation with him about the possibilities and his directions in this important aspect of the Territory and its links with our Asian neighbours in education - not only for students to come to the Northern Territory, but for Northern Territory students and staff to go to locations overseas in a joint project. There are a number of things that he is examining at present. He is very new to the position of Vice-Chancellor, as everyone knows. I was very impressed with his background and experience in other universities and the path that he has already plotted in taking Charles Darwin University into this realm. I am excited about being involved in this. We need to further develop these opportunities and, as our expertise in education grows, we can export and share our knowledge with the world.
However, education must begin at the grassroots in the community with community-based training and education for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians. This will also build the local workforce and improve the knowledge and skills in a range of areas, including health and technology. Over the next 20 years, as the steering committee noted, we need to continue to develop our education workforce to meet the unique challenges and the aspirations of all Territorians. This may be through increases in the number of Indigenous teachers and support staff, as well as teachers and school-based staff from other cultural backgrounds.
The social development of the Territory is a clear theme in the draft strategic plan. In that context, achieving statehood is an important step and should be supported by all. Including statehood in the draft plan and encouraging greater participation in our system of government are essential. Investing in and valuing our people has long been the focus of this government and must remain so.
Action to develop the Territory workforce, including through workforce development plans such as Jobs Plans 3 and follow-on plans, are aimed at assisting employment growth throughout the Territory and achieving a more highly-skilled, expert and flexible workforce needed to meet the needs of new and existing industries and the community.
As a key industry sector, the future of the Territory is inextricably linked with the health of the tourism industry. Over time, as the Territory develops a more robust economy, other new industries will grow to reduce our reliance on tourism. However, we must continue to invest in the tourism industry which provides jobs for thousands of Territorians. The 2030 vision to expand our strategies for core industries such as tourism, the sustainability of our industries, and the Northern Territory as a destination, must be built on cooperation between our environmental, social and economic activities. This is a common point, emphasising both the tourism strategic plan and the 2030 vision.
The Territory is not a massive tourist destination although we do attract visitors, as everyone knows, from overseas and within Australia. We must maintain and build our reputation for unique experiences and quality through the entire industry. Through innovation and collaboration, we must develop new products and enhance existing ones. That has been something I have seen in our tourism industry, particularly post-2001 and the problems with 11 September. I see a robust industry that is continually renewing itself and its products and offerings to people in Australia and overseas. The Northern Territory is considered a remote destination by both domestic and international travellers. Efficient and effective air access into and within the Territory is vital to sustain growth in our tourism industry. This is a key issue raised in the 2030 vision.
The social development of the Territory, the expansion of our employment market, and the continuing growth in our prosperity depend on affordable housing for workers - especially skilled workers - being available. Action on this issue is under way. The draft plan’s objective of ensuring that all Territorians have access to affordable and appropriate housing by 2030 is important. Within my portfolio area, the Land Development Corporation’s current work on these issues, and on the availability of sustainable industrial land to meet the development needs of the Territory, is an extremely valuable contribution. We need to continue to build on this, and related work in other portfolios, to ensure that the land needed for residential, commercial, and industrial development is available. This will provide a further requirement for current and future growth, and contribute to the prosperity theme identified by the steering committee.
The draft strategy’s recognition that we should aim to maintain the Territory’s growth rate at levels above the national average is appropriate. How this translates in the measures in the final Territory 2030 plan will require careful thought, and avenues to achieve the identified economic growth will need to be evaluated. In this and other areas, the Draft Territory 2030 Strategic Plan overarches and complements the current Economic Development Framework, with its 2015 time horizon. The Economic Development Framework may need to evolve further to incorporate the objectives and measures to be included in the finalised 2030 plan and the current actions being taken.
Indigenous, regional, and remote economic developments are important objectives which could have had even greater emphasis in the draft plan. Action in these areas must continue to be a major focus of the Territory government, and will continue to be a major focus. Continued high levels of public sector investment in economic and community infrastructure such as schools, ports, and roads also need to be ongoing priorities.
It is fundamentally important to ensure that we secure and develop the Territory’s competitive business operating environment and the level of private sector investment that underpins economic growth. Our low tax environment, proximity to Asia, improved infrastructure such as the railway and port, and relatively healthy economic climate, are key factors in securing private sector investment in the Northern Territory. I am pleased to see that these aspects are highlighted in the draft plan.
Growing local industry is also important. Initiatives such as building the Northern Territory Industry Participation Policy, designed to ensure Northern Territory businesses are able to participate in major Territory projects need to continue and, where beneficial, they should be expanded.
Promoting the Northern Territory as a regional supply and service centre will also assist to grow our local industry further. This will be complemented by the expansion of shipping and aviation links, and the provision of vital infrastructure for increased trade success. The draft strategy aims to establish Darwin as a centre for operation, maintenance and workforce development for the mining, oil, and gas industry, and this deserves strong support. The focus on the expansion of the Territory’s manufacturing sector will broaden the Territory economy and strengthen international trade. Downstream gas-based manufacturing will contribute significantly to growth in our export trade.
As highlighted by the steering committee, increasing the capability of Territory businesses will maximise our ability to remain competitive and take full advantage of emerging and new opportunities. Expanding our existing programs and developing new ways of assisting industries and entrepreneurs will encourage more Territorians to start valuable new businesses, including Indigenous and joint venture businesses. The steering committee’s proposal that we support the expansion of the Defence support sector will also achieve further Territory economic development in the period to 2030.
In the time I have been Defence Support Minister, I have been very impressed with the local Defence support industry and seeing how active and proactive it is. It is innovative and forward looking, acutely aware of every business opportunity, and works closely with governments, both federal and Territory, to establish the industry.
While growing our existing industry, we must also take every opportunity to broaden our economic base by exploring new and emerging industry sectors, and capitalise on our competitive advantages, including geographic location, unique skills, and knowledge base. This should include developing sustainable, environmentally compatible and environment services industry growth opportunities. This will position us to help all Territorians to improve sustainability and reduce our impact on the environment, as well as open up export opportunities.
We also need to build our creative and knowledge-base industries, as identified in the draft plan’s knowledge, creativity and innovation theme. We have a number of advantages in this area with desert knowledge, tropical knowledge, savannah research and Indigenous knowledge and expertise already well established, as well as the CRC for Aboriginal Health that has been established at the Menzies School of Health Research for a long time.
We need to build on these strengths. Our environment is naturally healthy and clean, but we must also respond to the increasing issue of climate change. This challenge also provides us with many opportunities. Our isolation from major metropolitan centres has meant that we have found new ways to do things based on the latest technology. Knowledge- and research-based industries will benefit from Australian and Territory government and business investment in research and development. As our reputation grows as a smart, environmentally friendly Territory, people from around the world will continue to visit the Territory because of our relatively pristine environment. As identified in the draft plan, to ensure we maintain our pristine environment, there needs to be an increased focus on research, innovation and teaching in fields such as creative industries, desert knowledge, solar technology, natural resource management, sustainable tropical living, health, education, and child development to name a few.
Many of these industries use and, in some cases, rely on high-speed broadband telecommunications to develop and expand. The draft plan’s focus on seeking access to high-speed broadband and the following on technology likely to emerge through to 2030 should be strongly supported. Early action to achieve this is particularly important. Upgraded and strengthened broadband infrastructure - and I am sure my colleague, the minister for Communications, will speak on this issue - is required for business and homes throughout the Northern Territory, especially regional and remote areas that rely even more heavily on reliable communications technology.
All the aims of the draft strategy will combine to see a strong focus on economic developments and a vision for increasing opportunities for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, as the Territory 2030 vision is finalised and we begin to implement the plan, we will unlock the potential of the Northern Territory, as we tap into the unlimited resource of caring, innovative and knowledgeable Territorians. I certainly support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition speak on the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement today, and I heard a passionate and informed debate, only to have what he submitted to this House labelled as cynicism by the Deputy Chief Minister. Frankly, the Deputy Chief Minister was right; there was cynicism in what the Leader of the Opposition said, as there will be …
Mr Elferink: With some justification, I suspect.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Quite right. … as there will be with all the contributions from this side of the House. The reason for that cynicism is that over the last eight years this government has been in power, it has shown itself to deserve nothing more than scorn and disdain, given how the members have decided to conduct government in the Northern Territory. The government has systematically moved away from a system of real community engagement. It has taken upon itself to govern with little input from the community. This is now showing, and was reflected in last year’s election result where, within 40 votes, the government came close to being kicked out of office. That was a revolt by the people of the Northern Territory. It should be taken as an indication to the government members that they got it wrong, and have had it wrong for the past seven years prior to that.
One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result each time. I refer to many things the government does. Let me quickly talk about recruitment of police and nurses and how those strategies on their own simply do not solve the problems the Northern Territory faces. I read or heard earlier today that there were 337 more police officers than 2001, yet the crime rates in the Northern Territory have skyrocketed. On its own, that is a no-brainer, indicating that simply throwing resources at something does not work. You only have to look at increased recruiting of nurses and, then, look at the appalling state of the health system in the Northern Territory and how people of the Northern Territory are the big losers.
In today’s paper, on page 2, is an article with the title ‘54 cops joining beat “to make streets safer”’. I read it and thought it is good to have more police on the beat and, if those 54 police officers were all going into general duties, that would be even better. However, given past history, putting 54 cops on the street will do very little to solve the law and order issues faced by the Northern Territory today. In some strange way, probably on a subconscious level, the government actually knows that, because a little part of this article says that the Territory will get two new magistrates and hire more prosecutors to deal with increasing court lists. That is an acknowledgement that throwing resources does not solve the problem; all it does is put more people through the court system.
They realise that more coppers - yes, you have to have them – is going to equate to needing more magistrates and more prosecutors. I have worked in the system so I have a fairly good practical understanding of how that works. Just in case the understanding of the government members’ is at some subliminal level, I bring it to their attention so that it is now on their conscious level. The strategy you are employing with this is simply not working, and has not worked for a long time. I am cynical. I do not think I have quite reached the stage of being sceptical, because I still believe that the government is, for all intents and purposes, trying its very best to achieve something that is probably beyond its level of capacity to achieve. A sceptic would say that nothing is happening on that side of the House, and will not happen. I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I maintain a healthy cynicism for what they are doing.
I note in the draft strategy, at page 9, it says that chronic disease, violence, lifestyle-inspired illnesses, and generational disadvantage are likely outcomes of a future without change. If this government does not change its strategies - and we know those strategies are not working - then chronic disease, violence, lifestyle-inspired illness, and generational disadvantage will be outcomes in 2030 under the current regime. There is nothing to indicate that the government has any fresh ideas at all. That is simply rhetoric and unfortunately, sad as it is, I believe the members on the other side of the House actually believe their own rhetoric. They seem so hell-bent on following their particular line that they are unwilling to accept the ideas that flow from this side of the House. They seem incapable of accepting the ideas that flow from the general public, and that is evidenced in many ways across the Northern Territory, and was shown at the 2008 election when they got a bit of a routing.
I note on page 9 of the report a graph with anticipated growth rates. I see the NT is going to grow, the Indigenous population will grow, so will Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and Alice Springs. I note – it is pretty hard to discern on the graph here - it looks like Katherine and Tennant Creek are either going to diminish in size or stay the same. I would like to know what strategies contained within here are actually proactive strategies designed to get around the idea that is certainly apparent; that those regional centres will not grow over the course of the next 20 years. It beggars belief that a place like Katherine, for example, is considered by this government as a no-growth town. That is what they are saying: in the next 20 years, Katherine is going to be the same or get smaller. Katherine is a hub and should be considered so ...
Dr Burns: That is what it says in the strategy.
A member: Mate, it is a slap in the face for Katherine by this government; that is what it is. The same for Tennant Creek and Gove.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is exactly right. It will only grow by 500 people; I cannot see any growth in there at all. Where are the proactive measures that will be put in place to deal with growing regional centres of the Northern Territory?
As the Leader of the Opposition described, this is just another glossy brochure - not quite as glossy as some of the others I have seen ...
Mr Bohlin: Could not afford a map this time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … probably to cut costs because we have been criticising all the glossy brochures, which is fine.
Dr Burns: See what it says about Katherine on page 38.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is this the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, member for Johnston?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The issue is the fact that people of the Northern Territory need to start believing in something. Everyone needs to believe in something, whether they are religious people or otherwise. We all like to think that there is some higher authority and we would all like to think that the government is a higher authority - not necessarily the highest, but certainly a higher authority. The people of the Northern Territory are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the way this government is running the Northern Territory. I hear it across my electorate; we all hear it across our electorates. The sad part is this government constantly and consistently shuts down debate from this side of the House.
This side of the House, unlike the last period of government, represents 50% of the people in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that if you put all the votes together into one big box, pulled them out and counted them on the Labor side and the Country Liberal side, we will be 50% of the Northern Territory representation. What a height of arrogance! How long was the Country Liberal Party in power – 20-something years before this mob got in? It took us that many years to get to the degree of arrogance that we did. It has taken this government eight years to get to this degree of arrogance where they are quite happy and willing to ignore 50% of the population of the Northern Territory in favour of their own ideals.
This is not representation of the people of the Northern Territory; this is a bunch of ministers and MLAs banging on about how they are going to protect their jobs into the future. That is all it is. These are politically charged ideas and decisions that they make. They are designed to do nothing more than protect themselves; they are not looking out for the interests of Territorians. They still refuse to have proper community engagement.
Let me talk a little about community engagement. When the Chief Minister advertised that he was going to Katherine to engage the community in this 2030 forum, he advertised that there was one meeting. There were two meetings that day. The Chief Minister came to a morning meeting for invited guests only. The general public did not have access to the Chief Minister, despite the advertisement in the paper, where many of them believed that they would actually be meeting with the Chief Minister. I did not get an invitation to that either. I thought that because I represent 8000 or 9000 people I might have had a guernsey, but, no. That is all right. This secret meeting was held in the morning.
In the afternoon, all the locals rocked up to the so-called Chief Minister’s public forum, only to find that the Chief Minister was not there after all. Many disappointed people went away thinking this Chief Minister and this government were not really interested in engaging with people in the Northern Territory.
Let me give you another example of how this government would like to engage with people. Recently, the Office of the Chief Minister opened in Katherine. You would think that, with an office of the Chief Minister, you could walk up to the door, push the door open, go in and talk to the receptionist and say: ‘Hey, I would like to talk to the Chief Minister’s representative’. But oh, no, you could not do that. I believe the problem has been rectified. However, I gather, ratified by the government, the way they do things is that to get into the Chief Minister’s Office in Katherine you had to press a buzzer to gain access. So, ding dong! and the receptionist or whoever was in the office could vet who came in.
It was not until the issue was raised that that has now been rectified. That reeks of the insensitivity and the lack of thought process that goes on, on that side of the House, when you are talking about community engagement. There you have it. They have their now highly-paid, failed three-times Labor candidate sitting in the Office of the Chief Minister in Katherine - jobs for the girls.
I was not around when the Chief Minister earlier alluded to - I think it was the Chief Minister, it might have been the Deputy Chief Minister - the fact that the CLP had done similar things in the past. Well, let me ask you this: if the Chief Minister wants to criticise the Country Liberal Party for things that they have done in the past, then why in God’s name are they replicating the same behaviour? We would all like to think - would we not? - that governments would not do the same; that governments would get better at their job as time goes by, learning from the mistakes they make, or past governments made. But no. What we are going to do is: ‘Oh, you made a mistake and we think that that is now a pretty good idea because we can make the same mistake as well’. It does not wash with me, and it does not wash with Territorians. They can see through this veil. It is a failed attempt to come up with some sort of plan that I suspect, like many other plans that the government has come up with, will never see the light of day again. It is not good enough; there is simply the case here where the government pays lip service to these issues. It is not interested in real engagement with Territorians. The government should be ashamed for perpetuating the type of behaviour that almost got them kicked out of government eight months ago. They have not learned their lesson, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they will pay the price.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, what a woeful speech from the member for Katherine. All he can think about is a buzzer. We are talking about the future of the Territory. We are talking about the next 20 years, and all he can think about is a buzzer – a poor little buzzer in Katherine. Again, he keeps talking Katherine down endlessly. People in Katherine should know what he thinks about Katherine, and what he thinks about the 2030 committee as well. He virtually said these people are political hacks. Ted Egan is a political hack; Bill Moss is a political hack ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Not only did I not mention the names that the member for Daly is pointing out, I certainly never said ‘political hack’. I ask him to withdraw those comments and apologise.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw those comments, but I will go back over it. He did say these were political ideas. These are politically charged ideas, it is a politically charged document. Well, it is not. It is a document which has been developed by a steering committee in consultation at community functions across the Northern Territory, with members of the public. We have eminent people on the committee. He is casting aspersions on the people on the steering committee.
Vicki O’Halloran is highly respected in the non-government sector. Bill Moss, is a nationally respected economics expert. We have community representatives; Michael Berto, for example. It is strange the member for Katherine would run down a member of the Katherine community who is on the steering committee. Perhaps he should have a chat ...
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Much as I love listening to the member for Daly, the member for Katherine did not run down Michael Berto. I ask the member for Daly to retract those comments, thanks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. He cast aspersions on Mr Michael Berto. Perhaps he should have a chat with Michael: ‘What is this 2030 all about? What can you tell me? What do you think of it? Do you reckon it is politically charged ideas? Do you think it is a worthwhile document? Do you reckon it is a worthwhile committee you are on? What have you heard from members of the community across the Territory? What have you heard? What did you read in the 77 submissions? Was the contribution from the Northern Territory Resources Council a politically charged idea? Was the contribution from the National Seniors of Australia, Alice Springs, a politically charged idea? Did Carers NT offer politically charged ideas?’
What a load of rubbish! How disingenuous the member for Katherine is about this document. This is owned by the Northern Territory people …
Dr Burns: He is cynical about it.
Mr KNIGHT: He is absolutely cynical. All he can talk is buzzers. This document is owned by the Territory people because they had a chance to contribute; 77 organisations and individuals bothered to write quite lengthy submissions about the future of the Territory.
This document, if you bother to read it, member for Katherine, is quite comprehensive. It provides some vision about what we should do every day as a government, and what community organisations and people need to be thinking about for the future. Much of it is tied up in where we are going to be. He did not even bother to read page 38 when he said ‘What about Katherine?’ It is here, member for Katherine; as a regional hub. Katherine is a regional hub; it always will be. Perhaps they had better get some decent representation; someone who is going to drive the Katherine community instead of crying about it all the time.
The cynicism and scepticism on the other side of the House needs to be put away. This document is owned by the Territory people. It is driven by a highly competent steering committee. It is released for public comment. It is not a politically charged document. It provides a vision for the future. Some of the figures are provided for the first time about where we will be in the next 20 years; what we will need. It is thought provoking for government and residents across the Northern Territory. We will need 786 new teachers with a growth rate in Darwin of around 2.2%. It provides some impetus; it is looking into the future. It is a valuable document.
The old Foundations for Our Future document was politically charged. It was driven from the CLP’s policy bunker. They were politically charged documents. This document is owned by Territorians. It truly is.
I will talk about the 2030 plan in respect of my portfolio areas. There will be growing demands for power, water and sewerage services in the future, and that ties into my responsibilities as the Minister for Essential Services. We already have a capital works program valued at more than $1m over the next five years - a very good start. A reliable and efficient utility is essential to grow the Territory and protect businesses and jobs. We need to plan for a more energy efficient future to conserve our resources and protect our environment. We must limit our resource use and focus on energy and water efficiency in our homes and gardens.
The Draft Territory 2030 Strategy sets these goals. The framework includes targets for energy efficiency and sets the objective that, by 2015, we reduce our per-capita carbon emissions from power generation by 20% compared to 2009 levels. An ambitious target, but we will deliver new power generators that are more energy efficient and, therefore, reduce emissions. The Territory has one of the cleanest energy supplies but we can, and will, do more.
I note the draft strategy includes a goal that, by 2020, renewable energy sources contribute 5% to principal power grids and 10% to remote power grids. This will require a greater investment in renewable energy technology and the provision of products to customers so they can make the choice to pay a little more to do their bit for the environment. We already have a solar power buy-back scheme, and I expect this scheme to grow into the future.
The Territory 2030 Steering Committee has included a goal to improve environmental health in remote communities to a standard similar to the rural and urban communities by 2020. This will be an enormous challenge. However, my recent announcement that we will be investing $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities, including $18.9m for infrastructure, is a significant move forward. We will commit to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and improving essential services in the bush is a critical part of this strategy.
I move on to housing. Targets and objectives for housing outlined in the 2030 draft strategy are ambitious, assuring that every Territorian has access to appropriate accommodation by 2030, assuring housing affordability for purchase and rent exceeds the national average from 2015, and ensuring the Territory has the most affordable housing from 2015 onwards. These targets highlight the importance of continuing to deliver on much-needed reforms in our housing sector. Access to adequate and appropriate housing is central to all facets of community life for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians alike. A stable and safe home means better health, education, job outcomes, and flows on to a safer community.
On 4 March 2009, I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing the most comprehensive overhaul of the Territory housing sector. This government is committed to ensuring there is more affordable housing available to buy and rent, and the Housing the Territory Strategy sets out a package of reforms to get the balance right with more land to grow, new places to buy, new places to rent, and new public housing.
The growth of the Territory’s economy and population in recent years has been felt in the property market with the value of homes rising across the board. That has been great news for homeowners and investors, but the government recognises it has made it tough for people to find an affordable place to rent, or to make the first step into the property market. We need affordable housing to be part of our future to ensure that key workers can continue to be attracted to live and work in the Territory. We know that if we are to improve access to affordable housing, the gap between the public and private housing market has to be bridged. We know that doing what we can to improve affordability will reduce the demand for public housing also. Due to a range of factors, this gap is not likely to be met by industry alone.
As part of the Housing the Territory Strategy, the government has announced its intention to create an affordable housing rental company. The company will provide quality and affordable rental to medium- and low-income earners, filling the gap between the public and private housing market. The company will be allocated up to 200 units in the Parap Gateway redevelopment as its first project. Details about the structure and operation will be announced later this year.
An important element in the government’s commitment to ensuring access to more places to buy at an affordable price is our policy on land release. Housing the Territory sets out a 20-year plan for land release, and government has made clear its commitment to allocate 15% of land release projects to public and affordable housing.
It is a commitment evidenced in the release of land at Bellamack. This will include a $10m 44-unit public housing seniors village. In Alice Springs, 36 lots at Larapinta Stage 2 and Rydges Estate will have six blocks set aside for first homebuyers and one for seniors public housing. Public housing will continue to be an important accommodation option for the poorest Territorians, and is helping Territorians to transition into private rental markets.
We have announced a wide-ranging review of public housing across the Territory, including the type of housing provided and the role non-government organisations might have in the future. There are more than 5000 public housing properties across the Northern Territory and, if we are to achieve the objectives for 2030 - that is, to ensure Territorians have access to appropriate housing - we must plan for the future. That is why we are investing in the construction and upgrade of public housing to meet the highest demand areas, including seniors and singles. For example, $20m has been allocated to the seniors village at Bellamack; the upgrade and redevelopment of the Parap Gateway includes affordable and seniors accommodation; proposed redevelopments of sites throughout Darwin and Palmerston will deliver senior-specific accommodation; and seniors accommodation at Larapinta Stage 2.
As a result of the Australian government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan - which the Liberals on the other side of this House voted against - we have been able to secure much-needed funding to improve public housing and protect Territory jobs. $4.1m will be invested in upgrading 136 Territory homes, including $2.35m to upgrade 47 houses and units that will be put back into the market for Territory families. Those 47 homes include properties in Moulden, Gray, Katherine, and The Narrows. These are upgrades that families will benefit from - that members opposite voted against, sadly. An additional $7.1m has been approved to construct 20 new homes across the Territory in the Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs regions. All these projects will help protect Territory jobs in the construction industry and deliver real results for Territory families.
For many Territorians, enjoying stable and secure accommodation is about more than just the physical house or unit. In order to successfully maintain their tenancy, they may need the services offered by our housing support sector, whether for mental or physical support, support in times of family crises, or short-term or transitional accommodation. As Housing Minister, I am passionate about working with this sector to grow their services. For many providers, access to properties from which to deliver and expand their services is paramount.
Early this month, I was pleased to announce the allocation of two properties in Alice Springs for short-term accommodation, with a total of 43 beds. I was also pleased to approve the allocation of Priest Street to the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Support Services. It will use four two-bedroom units to provide transitional accommodation for youth aged between 16 and 21. Aboriginal Hostels has the other property in Alice Springs, which was the Mt Gillen Hostel, to provide short-term accommodation to homeless Indigenous people and families who are …
Mr Giles: Is this 2030 or is this the buzzer?
Mr KNIGHT: You need to listen, member for Braitling. You obviously do not know what 2030 is all about, so you need to sit quietly and listen.
A member interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The property at Mt Gillen Hostel will be used by people visiting town for medical treatment. Both of these programs will provide valuable services for Central Australians needing housing support. The government will continue to look at opportunities to deliver similar partnerships with the housing support sector.
In addition, through Territory Housing, the government currently leases more than 330 properties at a subsidised rate to community organisations, saving those organisations around $2.5m a year in rent. Working in partnership with non-government organisations helps drive growth in the private sector to deliver better services for Territorians. The new housing support working group will provide valuable feedback to government on issues affecting the sector as we deliver the Housing the Territory Strategy. I look forward to working with that sector, both individual providers and peak bodies such as NT Shelter, and to grow the non-government housing sector.
If we are going to reach the Territory 2030 Steering Committee’s objective of ensuring every Territorian has access to appropriate accommodation by 2030, we must continue to tackle the challenge of Indigenous housing head on. Early works have begun on-site in three places across the Territory, which is part of the $672m SIHIP program. Those areas are Tiwi, Groote Eylandt and Tennant Creek. Community engagement is well under way in these smaller communities, and the new areas of Galiwinku, Maningrida, Gunbalanya and Wadeye are the next communities off the shelf, and they will be having their works started as soon as they get those packages together. There are significant job opportunities being created in those areas, and I believe we will see hundreds of people employed in the program over those five years.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on one of the later points …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, I will not be long. The recent announcement by this government of an in-principle agreement with the Northern Land Council about the Kenbi land claim is historic. This provides great potential for the growth of the Territory ...
Mr Giles: Why is that important for 2030?
Mr KNIGHT: Just wait, member for Braitling. What was announced - and I know you are the shadow for Indigenous Policy - was the hand-back of that land in two portions – one was Aboriginal Land Trust and the other was NT freehold, enabling development on the Cox Peninsula. That is for future growth opportunities. We have announced Weddell, which can cater for around 40 000 people. However, the Territory is growing so quickly, Kenbi, in an initiative around providing greater employment opportunities, will also set up the Larrakia people for economic opportunities into the future.
As a resident there, I believe it is great news. From the discussions I have had with Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups there, I believe people have some trepidation, but they are not against it. They want to be involved in planning for their future. I believe that will be accommodated and we will see a whole new city created on the other side of the harbour.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement brought forward by the Chief Minister in the presentation of the draft strategy for 2030. It stimulates debate and it needs to. We need to be focused on 2030 …
Mr Giles: What about housing in the Kenbi land claim?
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Giles: What about housing in the Kenbi land claim as part of this?
Mr KNIGHT: It would be a land release, member for Braitling, to accommodate up to 100 000 people. The land is owned by traditional owners. They will be as big a stakeholder in land development as any development you can name around Darwin. It is historic; it will put them in a financial position, and they will be key players in the Territory for a long time. Houses will be built as normal subdivisions like any other city in Australia.
This is a historic document and, as such, challenges us. It sets the goal ahead. It talks about where we are going with our population, what needs to flow around that and where we need to be and I thank all those people …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am interested to learn about what you said about Cox Peninsula and housing; if you could elaborate on that and how it fits into 2030.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order; this is not Question Time. You have the floor, minister.
Mr Giles: I was not asking a question; I would just like to get some information.
Mr KNIGHT: I am happy to have a private conversation with you, member for Braitling.
There were 77 contributors - not only individuals but also organisations and peak bodies - which have sat down and thought about where we want to be in 20 years. For them, it is an opportunity to feed in and to have some aspirations.
I thank all those contributors. I thank the people who came to the meetings across the Territory, and the steering committing members for their dedication and time. I have a bit to do with Vicki O’Halloran in my role as the Housing Minister and her role with Somerville Community Services. They do a great job. She is very passionate about the non-government sector. This is genuinely thought-provoking, and everyone should contribute to it. You may knock it, but it stimulates good debate. I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear what the member for Daly had to say. I know it was not Question Time, but visionary opportunities this document presents gives people more to talk about in general. The idea of a bridge from Darwin to the Cox Peninsula - we are talking about 20 years’ time - does not commit anyone to policy. I am very interested to know. I feel the Kenbi land claim was a good thing.
This document is a good one. Having been a manager in different areas and taken part in different projects, I see that producing a document like this is a good way of doing business. It is a very sensible way of going about the process. I congratulate the committee, Vicki, Bill Moss, Michael, Jan, Ted, Jonathan, Steve and Denis. I know most of those people. I have had a fair amount to do with some of those people and the work they have done is good. Any strategy is good as it outlines the vision for the future and gives people a sense of belief or hope that something is happening. This strategy has a sensible approach. People may not sit around and talk about it at a barbecue, or have a cup of tea about the 2030 strategy but, somehow, it goes to people’s minds that we are going somewhere.
I congratulate the Chief Minister. This is something very positive. I believe the process could have included all of us in parliament, including the Independent. Collectively, we can agree on futuristic, visionary ideas. In providing some critique on the document, there are ideas that are visionary in how we move forward and what we might look for in the future; small things that could possibly be done relatively soon; and other areas that are chicken-feeding, that we would want, such as reducing smoking. Well, that is pretty obvious. Another is reducing the road toll. We would like that. There are a number of ideas in there that are a little ordinary - well, not ordinary but generalistic in nature - that we would all aspire to, no matter the colour of our politics.
However, I will go through this very slowly because I would like to point out some things that are good - and some things that are bad. I believe the idea of all the main trading partner economies having a focus - well, not a focus, but seeing China grow by 487%, I believe, is a very good thing, as we experience through the Asian region and the whole expansion trade through Indonesia, Japan and China. It is a very positive move, and is a place we should be positioning ourselves in, in the future. That is our obvious growth market, and we should be working strongly for that. I was surprised to see Japan slipping down.
On a negative, the comments the member for Katherine raised about the potential population growth outlined on page 9 and also the back page of this document, is a negative. It is highlighting, to me, a grave concern I have in my shadow portfolios of Regional Development and Indigenous Affairs, but mainly Regional Development; that is, I believe this government now has a bad lack of focus on regional development. This is signified by saying that, in 2030 we think Katherine will still be the same size in population. That signifies that, despite the rhetoric of what is happening now or within this document – both positive and negative - it is not real.
I believe it was the member for Johnston who was talking about page 38, Develop Katherine. I am assuming it was in reference to ‘developing Katherine as a regional hub for the Top End: tourism, transport, agriculture, mining and government services’. I aspire to the same thing. When I talk about collective partnership, I believe that is a very good thing especially in agriculture, mining and government services. They could be done out of Katherine. However, if you are going to pursue such an approach, it would amaze me to think that Katherine would not develop as a population base or as a region. I do not believe this government does a very good job on regional development. I am very critical of this government on that.
What it identifies on page 38 is very good, but how you put that in place should see a growth in the population and see Katherine become a more sustainable and enjoyable place to live. Somewhere there is a disconnect in that approach. I would be happy to work with you on developing Katherine to that type of industry model, because I believe that is a good way to go.
The scary thing about $8 for a litre of petrol - we know the Territory has the highest petrol prices in Australia in a capital city and jurisdictional base. I do not know what this government is doing about it. I know petrol is a tough issue; I understand how the petrol cycle works. I believe there are some gaps in your petrol process in the Northern Territory, and I will be talking about those at a later date when we find time. Seeing it go up to $8 a litre identifies the need for alternative fuel sources; a 530% increase clearly identifies this.
Those of you who listen to media - presumably the members for Johnston and Casuarina - would have heard me either reading your media alerts or talking recently about broadband in the regions, and making reference to a national broadband network via the Prime Minister on 7 April. Whilst I do not agree with putting our kids in debt to fund a project now, broadband is important to open up access to services in the bush – goods and services and the potential supply of telemedicine, business development and education through e-learning and the like. This paper - and I cannot remember what page it is on; I have read it a few times, but I have lost the page - identifies the need for broadband in the bush and that is a very good thing. This government should hammer the Australian government regarding broadband for the Northern Territory. The way that broadband will be rolled out in the NT, not focused on communities with fewer than 1000 people, is virtually going straight down the road and missing communities along the way.
A perfect example is Tilmouth Well. You cannot get broadband at Tilmouth Well, but it is one foot from the road. Yuelamu cannot get it; there is no diversion to Papunya. It is going up the highway, and will not stop at Wycliffe Well, Dunmarra, or head out to Top Springs, or pull into Ali Curung. That is exactly how it works; it will not deliver those services. If the federal government is looking at increasing broadband speeds up to 100 MB per second, surely, they could at least try to get 1 MB or 2 MB per second in some of these regions. There is new wireless technology that can be put in the Territory that is not part of the NBN, the wireless CDMA, or the satellite which costs a fortune, even under the broadband guarantee. There are much better things that this government can do. This document identifies the need for broadband. That is why this committee has done a good thing on this strategy.
As I said before about the growth targets for Katherine, I also think that is a negative for Tennant Creek. There is not a large focus in here about how to sustain or grow Tennant Creek. I suspect the population increase of 8.6% would largely be Indigenous. I am basing this on anecdotal evidence, but that would be largely based on Indigenous population growth, with a potential non-Indigenous decreasing population, which is a concern. There is not a focus on industry development in Tennant Creek. Potential mining or tourism would be the obvious way to go.
The focus throughout this strategy is education. We all know that the Northern Territory is dragging its feet on education. That was put right at the front: education should be a major focus of how we move forward in the Territory. I am not so sure about the idea of the knowledge nation, the education nation, or the Territory education focus but, as a broad strategy, putting education front and centre is the way we should be going, and I applaud the committee for doing that.
However, we must not lose sight of the need to service the business sector and industry development, because there is no point in going to school if you do not have any jobs at the end of it. That is the how most of the Northern Territory inner regions are now. The movement forward by this government, as it seeks to supposedly develop the Northern Territory, is seeing a continual lack of focus on the regions of the Northern Territory. What we are seeing in the Northern Territory right now is the continual population drift from bush to town - whether that is in the smaller towns of Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, or larger towns like Alice Springs, and starting to come to Palmerston and Darwin. The population migration or urban drift to these locations is something that is not really focused on here.
The importance of developing the regions is ensuring we have sustainable communities with jobs, education, and health services but, more importantly, business growth. I have not seen much business growth in this, but it would be very good to see that happening.
The Chief Minister recently, and also within this document on page 39, identified that there should be a focus on promoting new initiatives to encourage Indigenous start-up businesses, like the Indigenous Investment Tax Credit Scheme. That is a very good idea and I have spoken about that for a number of years before I came into parliament, and since I have been here. Recently, I heard the Chief Minister - I am not sure whether it was a copy – say the same thing. That is a very good approach we should be looking at. The potential opportunity for the establishment of economic zones with a special tax base to get finance from outside that community, to start to create real economies instead of false economies, is a good measure.
This is an important aspect within this strategy. It is not something that should take until 2030, though; it is visionary and could be introduced sooner. The next thing that the committee should really do with this strategy is to take the fat out of it. There are visionary things, there are fluff things, there are now things, and there are some in between things. If we can rationalise what the aims are, and the examples of success, and put in place some flexible but concrete pathways to achieving those aims, the strategy will be improved when it comes out as final in July.
The idea of increasing home ownership in the Northern Territory is a positive. If we are going to achieve improved living standards for all Territorians, then we need to increase home ownership in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and right throughout the Territory. The benefit of home ownership is an increased amount of wealth brought into the Northern Territory, especially through the mortgage process, and it helps grow the Territory. That will have substantial benefits for the Territory.
The investigation of a rail line option from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek is a great idea. That is already costed. There can be many more, subject to whether the federal government will help us out.
While I believe that this is a smart approach, there is more work that needs to be done. I know there is more work being done. Take the fat out of it and bring it down to some important priorities. The government really needs to put in place some plans about what it is going to do now to fix things. There are a number of negative things in the Northern Territory now that are not being fixed. Even though we talk about this strategy and regional development, there needs to be a 2009 strategy for what this government is going to do now.
They went to the election in August 2008 with a platform that nearly rolled them over. In that platform, there was nothing about regional development, and since that time we have seen nothing about regional development. It is not just a portfolio about regional development; it is about how that fits into all portfolios.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we saw a petition today from your good self - or two petitions - from about 1200 petitioners regarding the birthing centre at Nhulunbuy. The cultural aspects of that petition are very important to those people. The way the funding stream works regarding where people are born is the main point. If people have to leave Nhulunbuy to birth their children in Darwin, it increases the population, or the birthing characteristics, of Darwin as opposed to Nhulunbuy, and it has different models throughout the process. Regarding regional development capacity, people need a birthing centre.
It is the same in Tennant Creek – women cannot give birth in Tennant Creek. They have to get on the bus late at night and travel to Alice Springs to give birth. It is a bad model; it does not support regional development. I see you two over there looking in amazement. These things happen. People in Tennant Creek are cranky about this all the time. I get as many phone calls from the Barkly region as I do from my own electorate and these are some of the things that are raised.
We need to have a large focus on the regions. We are talking about 2030, but part of 2030 includes 2009, or at least 29 April 2009, which is tomorrow. I will tell you about some current regional development issues; health and alcohol issues in Tennant Creek. I will talk about the sort of things that annoy people in the regions. This is where we talk about Labor’s lack of commitment to the regions. In the 2008-09 budget - and I have the paper here somewhere - there was a statement in the budget paper Regional Highlights, on page 8, under the Barkly area. In a section titled Infrastructure Highlights at item 6 was: ‘$1.3m for a new sobering-up shelter in Tennant Creek’. I am sure if I went to the Katherine area, which might have been on the page after, it had the same thing. Unless I am wrong, there was $1.3m for a sobering-up shelter in the Katherine region. This is where it comes to the nub of regional development and the characteristics of a good local member to fight for their region, and remove cynicism out of government - especially a Labor government, which I know is difficult.
Around 30 December 2008, the local Barkly Regional Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, BRADAAG - the member for Barkly would know what I am talking about - received notification of the $1.3m dedicated to the new 26-bed facility for sobering-up in Tennant Creek to replace the outdated 16-bed facility which is currently so overcrowded that if more than 16 people are brought in, they have to be put in to the police station. I do not have the police officer’s name here - I cannot believe I have misplaced that paper – but what is happening is that if there are more than 16 people the extras are being put in the watch-house. That not only creates an unhealthy environment for the person who has been put into the watch-house, it also creates extra work for the police and makes the role of BRADAAG more difficult in working with these people. This is happening …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for 10 minutes for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77; for the member to have the same courtesy extended to him as was extended to the other side.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, my friends from the other side.
BRADAAG received a letter on 30 June last year that said: ‘We are having a hard time trying to find this money but we will write to the federal Health minister, Nicola Roxon, and ask her if she has any money; there is plenty of money flowing around for the intervention’. The NT government wrote to Nicola Roxon and waited for a reply. BRADAAG was thinking: ‘We were promised this money and we have just elected ourselves a new member for Barkly who is now Transport Minister and minister for Corrections. Surely, he will be able to help us; he will be able to get us the $1.3m, keeping in mind that Katherine, just a 700 km drive up the road, has $1.3m. They will be getting it and we will get it because Katherine has a Country Liberals member and Barkly has a Labor member who is a minister. Surely, we will get it’. I see the member for Barkly smiling.
On 23 March this year - you would not believe it - after all the pomp and grandeur with the stimulus money before Christmas we had money hanging out our backsides. The government was so keen to throw money at people. Most people in the Territory now have their $900 bonus. We are going into debt by $200bn or $300bn or whatever amount of money it is. We have $12m on roads that we heard about today which will build 24 km of road. That is really good. Maybe the Stuart Highway verges will be mowed from now on - I am not sure, Transport minister. With all this money going around the country, with the focus on the intervention, we have said sorry to Aboriginal people.
The Northern Territory Health department wrote to the federal Health minister asking: ‘Can we please have $1.3m because we have blown our budget? We have been such bad economic managers we have no money at all. Can we have $1.3m?’ Do you know what the federal Health minister said? ‘No, we have no money’. The letter I have here came to BRADAAG on 23 March 2009 saying: I am sorry but the federal Health minister has no money:
- The Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP has responded to Minister Burns’s letter, advising that no
additional funds are available at this time to enable two shelters to be constructed.
This is where the stinger comes in. This part is great; I like this part. This is where you talk about regional development:
- However, she has approved Australian government funding for the two shelters to be combined to build one shelter.
We had a $1.3m shelter being built in Katherine, and a $1.3m shelter being built in Tennant Creek, in the Barkly, the home of the Labor minister, the big new man who took over from our former minister, Elliot McAdam, a great bloke and, I am sure, a friend of the member for Karama. I am sure the money was going to be there but the Health minister wrote and said: ‘We have no money in the kitty, it is empty. The member for Karama, the Treasurer, has spent it all; there is nothing left in the kitty’. When they wrote to the federal Health minister she said: ‘We have nothing either. We have nothing for you. We have nothing for the people of Tennant Creek, the home of the Labor heartland’. Nothing for Labor. Then, what does it say?
- … she has approved Australian government funding for the two shelters to be combined to build one shelter.
As advised previously, that Katherine SUS …
I assume it means the sobering-up shelter:
- … is seen as the priority.
- I appreciate the patience shown by BRADAAG and it is unfortunate that both shelters could not be built …
It was in the budget. What happened? We are talking about regional development. Is this a regional development stuff-up, a health stuff-up, or a local member stuff-up? I do not know. Does it have something to do with the cynical approach with the former Labor candidate for Katherine being put into the newly constructed Chief Minister’s office in Katherine and needing to shore up Katherine a little so the government has a chance. ‘We have Barkly in the bag, let us go for Katherine’. Is this what is happening?
We are talking about 2030, but what about now? What about the poor people who are drunk on the street every night and have nowhere to go? If you have done a tour of the 16-bed facility at BRADAAG, it does need an upgrade. The money was committed. I support $1.3m going to a sobering-up shelter, or a SUS, in Tennant Creek. However, Labor has put out all its propaganda, taking the votes from the Barkly, putting in a new man who has done nothing. The member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport, and Corrections, cannot even get the money for his own community.
I will tell you how gob-smacked I am. When I go to Tennant Creek, I let people know I am coming, and who do I get phone calls from? I am expecting my usual suspects: my friends and Country Liberals members. Come in for a cup of tea, come and have a coffee, have a burger, whatever. Who rings me? The Labor mob. They come in and have a chat: ‘I have been one of the reds for years. I was around when Whitlam was here and he gave out the free money and he handed the dirt over. I have always voted Labor, but right now I have had a gutful. I cannot get anything out of Labor’. Health comes up fairly often, so does Education, surprisingly.
More and more, they are talking about economic development, which is good. This is the Labor heartland. These are the people who support BRADAAG. These are people who sit on the board of BRADAAG. It is surprising that Adam Giles, the member from Alice Springs, would get a BRADAAG letter about a sobering-up shelter. That slips off the back of a truck; that is surprising. It is surprising to see that Labor forgets.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I said that this is a good approach, and I mean it. It would be good if we all worked together and came up with a solid direction for going forward. The ‘now’ stuff is political, so it is very hard. The future stuff is good. However, you cannot be serious in talking about 2030 when you cannot get your stuff together now. It is about developing the regions.
Do you really want everyone to come in from the bush, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and move to the northern suburbs? I know what it is like when you head to Fannie Bay or to the Parap shops at night and you see people who are homeless. It is a problem. I know what it is like when you go Nightcliff or Casuarina, because I deliberately spend time going around everywhere I can in the Territory to find out exactly what is going on. We are seeing increased violence in town because people in town are homeless, and violence, antisocial behaviour and drunkenness are going on because you are not developing the regions.
The member for Stuart, the Minister for Regional Development, is a good bloke. I like him. We have a beer every now and then. He is a good bloke, but you need to wield a bigger stick, mate. You have people in Tennant Creek who have been promised something in the budget and it has not been delivered because the kitty has been raided and it is all gone. There are people in Gove complaining about childbirth facilities. That stuff should never be a problem. It increases community disenchantment, and regional development falls apart.
There is no other jurisdiction in Australia that can survive on five towns. Ring New South Wales and ask them if they need Dubbo anymore: ‘Can we shut it? We are going to move everyone to Sydney’. Shut down Wollongong, Newcastle, Gosford, Townsville, Mount Isa and Cairns. You have to grow the whole Territory. This has some lovely statements that make me all warm and fuzzy, but get rid of the fuzz and get the real stuff in there and work out how to do it, and we will back you. That is what it is all about.
In closing, Madam Speaker, unless someone can give me another five minutes …
Dr Burns: No.
Mr Elferink: I could attempt to move that standing orders be suspended, which would enable you to talk as long as you like.
Mr GILES: I pass on to the Chief Minister that, for a long period of time, the government has not been successful. This is a smart approach. There are people in government – bureaucrats - who could have done this. The people on this committee are good people and I know they have a lot to offer. If you get a chance, talk to Bill Moss about some of the previous opportunities that arose at Macquarie Bank for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I have plenty of stories that would help the Northern Territory out, from Bill Moss and Macquarie Bank.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us work together on this, move it forward and cut the fluff, and we will take the Territory in the right direction. The way you are going at the moment, there is a poor aspect on law and order, a poor aspect on regional development, bad health outcomes, and the MAP figures in education are really bad. There does not seem to be a strategy for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or any year up to 2029, so pull your fingers out and let us get on with it.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Chief Minister for his vision and initiative in setting up the Territory 2030 and putting the committee together. These are Australians the Chief Minister has brought together to put this document together. It is a vision from outside of government. It is a vision that has the trail of education through every aspect of the document. It is a document that was put together by people that is going to encourage the government to drive forward.
The member for Braitling was talking about regional development, education and health. This document is about developing the regions. It is based on having good quality education, improving health services in our hub towns and regional towns, and encouraging participation in all aspects of life for Territorians. It is about involving us and giving us a vehicle, and not just looking at five years but looking to the year 2030.
It is really encouraging to see people from different areas, all walks of life, sitting on this committee giving us the guidance to do the right thing in the Northern Territory to get the results we all want - the growth in our regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and eradicating or silencing the antisocial behaviour in our hub towns. It is about encouraging economic development and growth. It is encouraging participation in the cash economy of the country through a good education system for non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. I take this opportunity to congratulate the steering committee.
The Chief Minister said that we have a long way to go. We do have a long way to go, and this is a moving feast. This is a document that is alive, that will encourage us, if things are not working five or 10 years down the track, to keep repairing it. It is a living document, a moving document, that will allow us as a government to fix things up as we go along. It is long-term focus and encourages Territorians to participate in it.
When I hear negative attitudes towards the 2030 document, it really gets me down to think that in this House we do not appreciate the minds and the thoughts of the people on the steering committee who have been growing this document. They are from all walks of life, and I would have thought that, as local members, we would be saying thank you to these people and encouraging them for participating in the forward thinking and the forward focus and the vision for us Territorians. I appreciate the steering committee and that they have put this document together.
The Chief Minister has always said quite openly that when you talk about Indigenous education it is not something that you are going to fix overnight. He has said that the problems we see with Indigenous disadvantage is a hard case and we are not going to fix it overnight. We know we have people with social issues; we see them in the long grass in Darwin, and the antisocial behaviour that is evident in all the hub towns of Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Katherine.
As local members and as politicians in this House, we should be working towards the opportunities this document is giving us to drive the Territory forward. This is an exciting time for the Northern Territory; to have so many good people put this document together on our behalf. I thank the steering committee and the Chief Minister once again.
We have to work hard towards solving all the problems we face in the Northern Territory. This document quite clearly states that we need to focus on health and antisocial behaviour, all with the element of good quality education going through the whole process, along with employment opportunities for people in regional towns, in our hub centres, and also take into consideration the vast areas our remote Aboriginal communities cover. The member for Nhulunbuy placed a petition in this House, as the member for Braitling commented on, from people wanting to have their babies on their communities. Tennant Creek has also had that view. This document gives you all that.
This document is about bringing everything together. It is about focusing on a long-term strategy so that we can start dealing with the real issues that we have identified in this House over many decades. If you go look at the Parliamentary Record, we are not the only people who will be talking about these issues. If you go back in the Parliamentary Record, you will see your colleagues and our colleagues have sat inside this very House and debated and discussed the same issues that we are talking about today.
With Indigenous issues, it is a really hard case and it has to be a two-way responsibility, not just of the government, but of my people as well to come forward to meet the government halfway on any kind of economic development on their lands – opportunities for education, employment and housing. We tend to discuss Indigenous issues, not knowing and not placing ourselves in the situation of the Indigenous person. Unless you have lived and breathed that life, you cannot solve that problem, except talk rhetorically about how you can solve the problem.
I see it all the time with the crisis of overcrowding in houses. It is part of the culture that if the mum and dad move to a new house, the children also move, so the 14 people who have lived in the first house will all move - all 14 of them - to the second house.
It is about education; all through this document you see this. You see that education is mentioned in every aspect of this document. These clever people we put on the steering committee have thought about that. You have people on the steering committee from business, and people like our former Administrator, Ted Egan, who has been a patrol officer on Aboriginal communities and has many dear friends in Aboriginal communities. There are ordinary people, too, people like ourselves.
It is a great opportunity for us to take the responsibility and ensure we endorse this document with full support. It is not just a document that belongs to the Chief Minister or to the Northern Territory Labor government; it is a document that belongs to the Territory people. It is very encouraging to see that someone has thought about streamlining every aspect of every program, whether it is regional development, employment, health, housing and ensuring that education is taken into account in all those areas.
I go back to the area of Indigenous people. This document gives us the foundation to say to Indigenous people: ‘You have the opportunity through the use of your land to have economic development. Join as true partners with the government in developing your land. Make sure we take our children to school every day’. Education is the key to knowledge, education is so important. This document tells us all this. If our people cannot get involved in the economy of the country, understand the cash economy, or get themselves educated then, in decades to come, after we have gone out of this House, people will be standing in the same place we are standing, talking about the same issues.
This is the greatest opportunity we have had as Territorians to have a look at this document. It is driven by the committee that has consulted throughout the Northern Territory. This is not just the views of the group of people on the committee; these are the views of people in the Northern Territory. They have simply put this document together to present to us, as politicians, and as the government. We should all work together in this House to ensure that we can all work towards this strategy …
Mr Elferink: Cast a wider net than that.
Ms ANDERSON: I beg your pardon?
Mr Elferink: You will have to cast a wider net than that. But I agree.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am just thinking whether after …
Madam SPEAKER: At nine o’clock, the standing orders say that we adjourn the House. Is that what you are asking me?
Ms ANDERSON: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I have had representations from members - opposition members in fact - regarding having the discretion of the Chair to allow an extension of time. From here on, you can either adjourn your speech at 9 pm automatically or, if you wish, you can speak for up to 10 minutes …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, from whom did you get those representations? Just out of curiosity.
Madam SPEAKER: I received them from …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a difficult issue, because these issues were raised within the Standing Orders Committee by your representatives. As you are aware, because of privilege issues, it is difficult to speak about it. Madam Speaker is right. These representations were made by opposition members and the government undertook to consider those matters. Within the discretion powers that the Speaker has, she has the power to grant that extension.
Madam SPEAKER: This would be for all members on every evening.
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get your direction as to where that occurs in standing orders, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get a direction as to where your discretion exists in the standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: I have sought advice from the Clerk regarding this and, in looking at the standing orders, his advice to me was that I already had the discretion.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, can I get a direction as to where that exists, from you?
Madam SPEAKER: You can come and speak to me afterwards, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking you now, Madam Speaker, because I am unaware of these arrangements …
Madam SPEAKER: It will be …
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on. This is not an arrangement that I am privy to. I have just been told that this was done in the Standing Orders Committee, which is privileged. We already have a situation where adjournment debates are truncated for this side of the House. Now, I am being told: ‘Whoops, by the way, it may not be’, that you have some discretionary power. I would like to know from whence you draw this discretionary power and can you direct me to it, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it is very similar to at lunchtime when I allow members to continue speaking after midday. It is an identical situation, and it has been drawn to my attention …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, can you direct me?
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying to you it is the same thing as at lunchtime, and occurs here every night and every lunchtime for every debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Under this discretion then, Madam Speaker, do you also extend the other side of adjournment debate so that we go to 10.15 pm or 10.20 pm?
Madam SPEAKER: To whatever time it is, that is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker, no reflection on the member for Macdonnell who was speaking, but we have been gagged at 9 pm when we have been doing an MPI, which is just as important.
Madam SPEAKER: From now on this will be the situation where there is the discretion of the Speaker to allow an extension of time for every member no matter what it is that is being debated - whether it is an MPI or any other matter.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am a little confused because the member is quite right. That discretion has not been used up until now; in fact, debates have been shut down.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct.
Mr ELFERINK: So what has changed?
Madam SPEAKER: I had representations made to me. I sought advice, and on that advice I have decided that I will allow discretion ...
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I formally request that you provide the direction to the source of this power that you are asserting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Minister, would you like to continue? You have until a maximum of 9.10 pm, or would you prefer to adjourn straightaway?
Ms ANDERSON: You can pull me at 9.10 pm, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I urge all Territorians to really think about the future they want for themselves and their children, and to give us their ideas for an even better Territory. I support the draft priorities set by the 2030 committee. In particular, I agree that the overriding priority needs to be education. It is the key to our future, especially in remote towns and communities where a lack of education is the key factor holding back our people.
We have heard from the Chief Minister about the way the Territory 2030 committee has identified priorities that cover the big issues for the Territory, including statehood, jobs, lifestyle, education, health, the environment and knowledge, creativity, and innovation. My formal responsibilities focus on healthy environments, creativity through the arts, and the issues affecting Aboriginal people that are embedded throughout the 2030 draft strategy. In responding to the Chief Minister’s statement, I want to recognise that all the issues are connected and cannot be approached independently.
In relation to the environment, my 2030 vision is of a Territory that has worked out how to manage its landscape in an integrated and responsible way. We will have large areas managed to maintain their natural and cultural assets, and be accessible to people from around the world who will come to learn about the experience of natural and cultural heritage of the Territory and its people. The areas of the Territory that are suitable for more intensive production will be used within their capacity, and part of the wealth generated will be used to care for the much larger areas to retain their natural character.
My vision is that these undeveloped areas are connected to each other and to other parts of the nation, so they continue to produce the biodiversity on which our prosperity depends – the clean water, the clean air, the stores of carbon, productive soils, and the biological diversity that holds it all together. We will have a protected area system including lands and seas, which is the envy of the nation. It will be built on the combined efforts of government, industry, private conservation interests, and Indigenous people.
Our system will be recognised not just for its maintenance of natural and cultural values, but also for its critical contributions to regional economies. Territorians will continue to enjoy enviable lifestyles built around outdoor activity and healthy environments known especially for the health and beauty of our rivers and wetlands. Our aquatic systems will support productive recreational and commercial fisheries.
In relation to creativity through the arts, I envisage a Territory where creative Territorians shape a distinct identity which draws on our unique physical and social environments. We will build this sense of identity and sense of place by our art and cultural workers, being local people who are directly engaged with schools and communities, enabling all Territorians to embrace the range of experiences and placing art at the core of Territorians’ lives. We will encourage local festivals and public art, and mount regular travelling exhibits and performances to promote greater recognition of the Territory and the unique experience we can offer visitors.
We will also have special places that house globally-significant collections and exhibits of our natural and cultural treasures, and develop strong linkages with similar interests in Australia and overseas. These physical expressions of culture and identity will be complemented by online systems that provide access to the database and virtual exhibits throughout the Territory, including remote areas.
Most of the people in the remote regions of the Territory are Indigenous, and therefore most of the jobs involved in the management of natural and cultural resources will be taken up by Indigenous people. Increasingly, they will use opportunities available through land management and cultural activities to access other employment options in the Territory economy. Indeed, most Territorians, regardless of location, will contribute in one way or another to the maintenance of natural and cultural assets because they understand and value the contributions they make to their livelihood and their lifestyles.
Care for the social and natural environment will not be seen as a distraction from the real business of development, but as a facilitator of genuinely sustainable development. We have already begun to work towards many elements of this through initiatives such as Living Rivers, Eco-Link, the various Daly River development and conservation processes, support for Indigenous land and sea rangers, review of key laws like the Water Act, commitment to develop new laws on management of native vegetation, the Darwin Harbour Strategic Management Framework, the development of a climate change policy, support for the Environment Protection Authority to develop principles for sustainable development in the Northern Territory, support for the framework of the Northern Territory screen industry, the development of a strategy for building our museum sector, and much more.
In the area of Indigenous policy, I strongly endorse the committee’s view that Indigenous communities need to be developed as sustainable and vibrant economic centres. The draft strategy outlines the vision for Indigenous Territorians by 2030:
- Indigenous Territorians will enjoy the fruits provided by a modern society, walking comfortably in our two cultures and proud
in understanding that non-Indigenous Territorians have started to fully appreciate 40 000 years of knowledge, history, laws,
medicine and culture.
This is an admirable and, I believe, achievable goal. We have already made some progress and I am pleased to see 2030 integrates and builds upon our existing commitments to address Indigenous disadvantage.
The work of the Australian government and the Territory government is already making a difference to the lives of Indigenous Territorians in the areas of housing, education, health, jobs, safety, culture and governance. However, the 2030 vision also puts an onus on Indigenous Territorians to action. To enjoy the fruits provided by a modern society, Indigenous people must seize the opportunities that are available to all Territorians. We recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that Indigenous Territorians have the confidence, the resources and the resilience to not …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has now expired.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the item of business before the Chair is now adjourned and the Assembly does now adjourn.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, Jack Berryman joined as a firefighter on 29 May 1963 with then Northern Territory Fire Brigade. Jack completed a short recruit course in Darwin prior to commencing duty as an operational firefighter in Darwin. During his time with the fire service, Jack served at all of the old fire stations in Darwin including the Daly Street Fire Station, the Nightcliff Fire Station which was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy, the Casuarina Fire Station, the Winnellie Fire Station and the Palmerston Fire Station. Jack was qualified in all aspects of operational firefighting and, although he never aspired to become an officer, he was one of Fire and Rescue Service’s more knowledgeable firefighters when it came to fire response operations, operation of equipment and fire appliances.
When the Winnellie Fire Station closed down, Jack was one of the first members to transfer to the Palmerston Fire Station which, at that time, was the busiest of the Darwin fire stations, especially during the Dry Season. In those days, it was not unusual for crews from Palmerston to be called to their first grass fire by 9 am and not return to the station until after 6 pm, after responding to fire after fire in the rural area throughout the day.
Jack retired from the Fire and Rescue Service on 6 February 1992 at the age of 65. In those days, 65 was the compulsory age for retirement. Jack did not want to retire. He loved his job, was extremely fit for his age, and he could have continued working as an operational firefighter for a number of years.
A short time after his retirement, Jack was doing what he loved best – fishing. A boat he was holding, whilst waiting for his mate to back the boat trailer down to the beach, was lifted by a wave and struck Jack heavily in the head. Jack suffered a severe stroke as a result of the hit to the head. Jack’s speech and walking ability were badly affected by the stroke. The stroke Jack suffered did not stop him fishing or camping with his son Glen and some of his old friends. He continued to enjoy life in the Top End until just recently.
Jack Berryman passed away on 11 April 2009. He will be remembered by Fire and Rescue Service members and all of those who knew him as a really top bloke, a genuine hard-working member of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service. Vale Jack Berryman.
I was honoured to be invited to attend the special Anzac Day Assembly at Leanyer Primary School last Friday. It was a grand occasion, with the whole school getting involved with laying of wreaths and poppies at the base of the flag. Representatives from the three Defence Forces attended. Two classes hosted the Assembly, 4/5 Baldock and 4/5 Maddock, and all of the kids did a wonderful job. The Ode was read beautifully by student Nathan Betson, and the two classes recited the poem Flanders Field, and Gabrielle White recited the poem In Flanders Field. Anzac Day is a day to reflect and many schools across the Territory took the opportunity to do that through school assemblies and gatherings.
In March, 3/4 Dobrini from Wanguri Primary School visited me at Parliament House. This is the second Wanguri class to come and see me. It is always wonderful to see the kids come to Parliament House to learn about how parliament works and it is great to be able to catch up with them all. They were all fantastically behaved and were a credit to both Mara Dobrini and Wanguri Primary School.
Also in March, 25 Year 6 kids from Christopher Charman’s class at Leanyer Primary were lucky enough to be visited at the school by the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit to take part in Parliament of the Wizard’s day. Although I could not make it to the school on this occasion, I hear the day was a great success enjoyed by everyone.
The upgrades at Leanyer Primary School are well under way, with the contract being awarded to Darwin company, Northwest Constructions. The upgrades will deliver a new four-classroom learning module, a new drop-off zone, visitor car parking area, and an upgrade to the current assembly area. The works are expected to be finished in September and are part of this government’s record investment of $246m into Territory schools. Leanyer also installed two new playgrounds recently, and it was only through parent and teacher assistance that they were put in place. I thank the following people and, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, seek leave to have the following 20-odd names incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, who helped during the working bee.
Leave granted.
- Michael Guest; Sam Guest; Matumba Isis; Grant Hatcher; Wayne Van Sambeek; Paul de Vries; Brylie Giuliani; Adrian White;
Kevin Dodd; Tony Bramley; David Raison; Deb Raison; Andrew Hawke; Charlie Reissis; Richard Purnell; Matthew Sharp;
Lucas Sharp; David Rmaplin; Dennis Dalwood; Craig Dalwood; Sally Bruyn; Steve Banks; Rodney Parker.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, parliamentary colleagues. A huge thank you also to Hamish Fairchild and Coates Hire for the donation of the much-needed and loved equipment for use during the day.
I welcome Jenny Robinson back to her role as Principal of Wanguri Primary School. Jenny took a rather nasty fall some time ago and discovered that she had broken her shoulder. After plenty of rest and time off work, Jenny has returned to the helm of Wanguri. Again, Jenny, I wish you all the best; you run a fantastic school. Thanks must also go to Leah Crockford, Assistant Principal who stepped in and took over Jenny’s role whilst she was away.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I extend condolences to three families in the rural area for their recent loss of loved ones. The first person I pay tribute to is the late Mr Bill Bacon.
Bill Bacon died a few weeks ago. He was a long-time resident of the rural area, Humpty Doo in particular. He was a true bush bloke. He was diagnosed with cancer earlier in the year, and it was only a few months until he died in Adelaide at a hospital with his wife and family around him. He had a long and distinguished career in the Navy, both in Darwin and elsewhere. When he retired from the Navy, he took up, with great passion and zeal, Navy history, and was a great help to many people who wanted to track down various incidents of Navy history, including the sinking of the HMS Sydney and things associated with that.
He was a founding member of the Humpty Doo Golf Club, when the Humpty Doo Golf Club was not fashionable. There were many Humpty Doo golfers at his funeral service at the Uniting Church, which was a very sad, but memorable occasion, which an enormous number of people attended.
His wife of many years, Bobbie, is a true character and I know that she misses him dearly, along with his children Billy, Danny and Bindi. My condolences to them.
One of the speakers - I think it might have been a family member - spoke about the kind of father and family member he was. He took his family on many travels around the countryside, camping and living in cars and caravans. The story that took my fancy was, being a Navy bloke, they described how, as children growing up he would come to say goodnight to them. However, instead of saying the usual goodnight, he would stand at the end or the bed and use semaphore flags to wish goodnight to his children. I thought that was pretty funny and indicative of the kind of fellow he was - a bit of a larrikin and a true blue Aussie. My sympathies to the family on the loss of their husband, father and grandfather.
Another family I would like to pay tribute to is to Kay and Les Moody and to Brian Forrester on the loss of their daughter and wife, Laressa. I spoke about Laressa some time ago. She went to Adelaide with cancer. She had inoperable cancer but she was a fighter to the very end. It was sad that her family, husband Brian and her children, Tegan and Finnis, had to relocate to Adelaide for her treatment. She had to undergo chemo as well as two months of radiotherapy. They had to move the family, place the children in school, he had to find work, and they had to find somewhere to live. It was with great support from the Cancer and Bowel Research Trust that they found accommodation and the children were put into a school nearby, so they could all be together during those tough times.
Whilst I know from my conversations with her mother, Kay Moody, that it was inoperable, she was definitely going to fight and she was not going to go easy. One of her last wishes was that she could go to a place in Queensland and swim with the dolphins, which she did. She wanted to come back to Darwin but, unfortunately, she did not make it back alive - but she did come back. They had a lovely and moving ceremony at the Anglican church at Freds Pass. It was a life cut short; she was only in her 30s. She has left two lovely children and her husband, Brian, behind. I hope they hang on to her love and memory forever. My condolences to the family.
The next person I pay tribute to is young Briony Goodsell who is the daughter of Charlene O’Sullivan and Craig, her partner. She was the young girl who was taken by a crocodile in the Lambells Lagoon creek system. As we know from all the media reports, she was an extremely young girl. She was only 11, a Humpty Doo school student, and was taken far too young. She was bright, attractive, popular at school, a delight to her family, and it has been very sad for all her family especially for her mother, Charlene, her sister, Bethany, her friends who were swimming with her, and the two young friends who tried to save her. That family has been severely affected by the trauma, and my heart, and everyone’s heart goes out to them for a life cut far too short. Our thoughts are with you for the loss of your young child.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to our schools in Darwin. Nearly every cluster combined to raise money for the recent Victorian bushfire appeals. Special thanks goes to Tony Milhinos from the Nightcliff Shopping Centre for his generosity and his pledge to double the funds raised in Darwin for such a wonderful cause.
I pay tribute to Nakara Primary School, Alawa Primary School and Dripstone Middle School communities. Nakara Primary School raised $2644 for the bushfire appeal, while the Alawa Primary School raised $910, and Dripstone Middle School raised $1890. Together, these three schools in my electorate of Casuarina raised $5445.55 to help the families and victims of the bushfires. Congratulations to the students and teachers who helped this wonderful cause.
Harmony Day is a celebration of the multicultural society that make up the Northern Territory. It is a day when we appreciate each other’s culture and customs, and share and enjoy each other’s tradition of music, dancing, and food. It is a fantastic celebration. It all started with our children, so it is wonderful when our schools celebrate Harmony Day with celebrations in primary, middle and high schools. These primary and middle schools in my electorate - Nakara, Alawa and Dripstone – are microcosms of Darwin. It is the only place you will see kids from Greek backgrounds sitting next to kids of parents who were recent refugees from Africa, to some of the older Indigenous families in the Territory.
Nakara Primary School had another fabulous exhibition of cultural activities to entertain the huge group of students, staff, and families that attended. Most Nakara students came dressed in costumes, and the students paraded many gorgeous traditional costumes at their assembly. The huge crowd was entertained with traditional Aboriginal dancing and didgeridoo playing by the One Mob Aboriginal dancers, who were joined by some of the young students. The Greek students again entertained everyone with their Zorba dance and the young African ladies danced their traditional dances to the drum beat. The whole morning was dedicated to everyone sharing traditional dancing, music and food that represented the multicultural society in the Territory.
The Alawa Primary School’s Harmony Day was celebrated with a presentation of students’ art. The art exhibition focused on the theme, You + Me = Us. Throughout Term 1, the Alawa students learned about diversity and embracing the various cultures and differences they have in their small community. On Harmony Day, students presented their work of art in an exhibition held in the assembly area for all to see. Following this wonderful celebration, students and families were invited to serve picnic lunch in the assembly area.
The main feature of Dripstone Middle School’s Harmony Day celebration was their whole school assembly run by the school captains. The assembly included messages about cultural harmony, a PowerPoint presentation featuring the cultural diversity at Dripstone, and their own talented singers, Susan Crute and Maria Romilo, Greek dancers and Aboriginal music performed by Phillip Harris and Caiden Holt who played the didgeridoo and the clap sticks.
I would like to finish with congratulations to my constituents, Mr Merv and Mrs Margaret Brown, who recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My special congratulations also go to Alan and Willa Mitchell, who will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in June this year.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak briefly about a number of things in Katherine. Saturday was Anzac Day and we had a number of services in Katherine. The Dawn Service was extremely well attended with nearly 500 people attending. That number is growing every year. That is a testament to the way Katherine people are pulling together and becoming involved in the community. Specifically, I thank Wing Commander Rohan Gaskill from the RAAF Base, Tindal for his provision of all sorts of resources and troops on the day, and Mark Hagger and the organising committee from the Katherine RSL Sub-Branch in organising such a wonderful day.
The second service at 10 am was better attended, and I suspect there were probably 600 or 700 people there, which is an excellent turn-out for a town the size of Katherine.
I also advise of the progress the wallaby fence in Katherine at the Tindal air base, speaking of RAAF matters. I understand that the wallaby fence is nearing completion and that Pearl Aviation will conduct risk assessments within the next six weeks or so with a view to returning full-time flights to and from Katherine. I only hope that the department of Health does nothing in stymieing attempts by the contractor to return to Katherine. There have been a few issues with resourcing and I hope they do not impede the return of aeromedical services to Katherine.
I also mention quickly, seeing we do not have very much time for adjournment debates these days, that last weekend, or the weekend before, some 93 people were taken into protective custody in Katherine on a Friday night. That is an absolutely horrible number of people to be locking up in a small town like Katherine. The evidence I have been provided indicates that the money people used to spend up big on grog on that night was none other than Mr Kevin Rudd’s $900 stimulus money. On top of the calls from anti …
Mr Tollner: The alcopops did well.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, the alcopops too. However, on top of the anti-gaming lobby in relation to the spike in gaming revenue, given Mr Rudd’s first package, and also the number of drunks that were locked up on two successive Friday nights in Katherine after Mr Rudd’s first stimulus package, I can say safely to Mr Rudd: thank you for making the job of police in Katherine so much harder. I am sure they appreciated having to run around chasing after drunks until the early hours of the morning, and filling up the cells. It does nothing to support policing in the Northern Territory, and certainly shows a lack of understanding and respect for the good work that our police officers do.
In closing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, regarding Katherine generally, I report to the House that the overall feeling in Katherine is one of great positiveness at the moment. There seems to be a quite a buzz in town. There are some nice strong economic indicators, despite the fact that this Northern Territory government has done little or nothing to boost regional development, particularly in the Katherine region. All credit goes to the people of Katherine who are working hard in the face of great adversity, and having to fight the difficulties they find in red tape and planning, Power and Water issues, and everything else that they have difficulty with in Katherine. They work very hard at doing this. There are shops that are expanding, businesses that are growing, and all despite the fact that this government does nothing for the regions.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Sorry, member for Nhulunbuy, I was ready …
Ms Walker: I am a bit slow.
Mr GILES: I did not think I would get it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass on my best wishes to the member for Arafura. I hope she is well. I understand that she has some problems. I hope she is getting better or doing the best that she can. I want to let her know that, despite political differences, I am thinking of her.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I admire the previous Deputy Chief Minister for some of the things that she has done. We should all extend best wishes because we are work colleagues in this place.
I also pass on my condolences to the Hargrave family for the loss of Ed Hargrave on 3 April. In a brutal attack, Mr Hargrave, it appears, was murdered in Alice Springs late at night. He was not in my electorate, but his family is from my electorate. Mr Hargrave was a family man, a passionate sportsperson. He was right into the thick of all the motor sports and the things that I love so dearly. He worked in an organisation known as Ingkerreke Outstations Resource Services. He worked with people in outstations around the north-western side of Alice Springs. He was highly regarded by many in his workplace and in the community, as well as Aboriginal people he worked with. His death is an unfortunate reminder of the antisocial behaviour and violence on our streets, both alcohol-fuelled and otherwise.
Mr Hargrave was a welder, an engineer and a motor sports veteran. He was a person who was just an Alice Springs bloke. He has lived there for more than a decade. He was one of the people of Alice Springs I talked to on an everyday basis, and someone who many people called their friend or their associate, and who will be sadly missed. I wish his partner, Sarah, and children Billy-Rose, Darcy, and Phoenix, all the best. If there is anything I can do as a local member, I am more than happy to support the family.
I also mention an issue I have recently spoken about, but will reiterate. On reading the fine print of the federal government’s National Broadband Network roll-out that showed towns of fewer than 1000 people in the Northern Territory would miss out, it is a disgrace. This approach brings into question the Labor government’s commitment to the regions of the Northern Territory. By my calculation, at a minimum, more than 50 towns and communities across the Territory will be declined new technology broadband, not to mention pastoralists and roadhouses. This is despite the fact that the cable will go right past the door, especially when considering places such as Elliott, Adelaide River, Ti Tree and Mataranka.
If Wadeye is connected by cable from the Stuart Highway, why would Adelaide River, Douglas Daly, Daly River, Wadeye, Peppimenarti and Palumpa not be connected? Will Maningrida be connected, and if so, why not Oenpelli and Jabiru? I argue that Yuendumu should also be connected, but also completing the link to Yuelamu, Tilmouth Well, Laramba, and why not off to Papunya and Kintore? If you are spending $43bn, let us have a go in the Territory.
When you are borrowing billions of dollars of our children’s future earnings to fund such projects, I expect to see the whole Territory connected, or at least an access point installed at fence lines and major highways for pastoralists, or connection to roadhouses. Easy arguments can be mounted that broadband to the regions would exponentially improve outcomes over that of people living in large towns. This is especially the case with opportunities for telemedicine, e-learning, and business development, not to mention access to goods and services or connectivity to the world. Once again, Labor has sold out the regions of the Northern Territory. It goes to show that, while Labor appears to try to promote its bush credentials, its commitment to rolling out services in the regions is wanting.
The Territory government should join me in lobbying the Commonwealth not to turn its back on the Territory in this nation building infrastructure project to all corners of Australia, including the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate a list of the 50 communities that will be excluded from the National Broadband Network roll-out.
Leave granted.
- Adelaide River Milingimbi
Ali Curung Minjilang
Alpurrurulam Minyerri
Alyangula Ngukurr
Amoonguna Numbulwar
Ampilatwatja (Aherrenge)
Angurugu Nyirripi
Areyonga Palumpa
Aurora Kakadu Papunya
Barunga (Bamyili) Pine Creek
Batchelor Pirlangimpi
Beswick Ramingining
Borroloola Robertson Barracks
Cooinda Santa Teresa
Daguragu-Kalkarindji
Daly River Timber Creek
Elliott Tindal
Gapuwiyak Titjikala
Gunbalanya (Oenpelli)
Gunyangara Tiwi Is communities
Hermannsburg Umbakumba
Jilkminggan Warruwi
Kaltukatjara (Docker River)
Kintore Willowra
Lajamanu Yirrkala
Laramba Yuelamu
Mandorah/Wagait Beach
Mataranka Yuendumu
Milikapiti
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, late last term it was my great honour to visit schools in my region to participate in special ceremonies recognising student achievements.
On 3 March, I was invited to Nhulunbuy High School’s Leadership Ceremony to present certificates to the newly-elected members of the Student Representative Council. This included the co-presidents, Stacey Andrews and Larissa Ellis; Vice President, Amy-Lee Kesteven; Secretary, Lanka Alahakoon; Treasurer, Dana Borthistle; and the Special Education Centre SRC rep, Hayden Oliviera.
Representatives at Year 7 were Holly Sims; Mikaela Herweynen; Meg Irvine; Kieran Ellis; Sarah Pearce; and Joshua Regan. The Year 8 SRC reps were Harry Walker; Roy Kellaway; Gabrielle Birch; Brenton Ellis; Lanka Alahakoon; and April Howarth. The Year 9 representatives were Tiffany Stephenson; Kaitlin Larney; and Christopher Hunter. The Year 10 representatives selected were Brandon Grimshaw; Shaylee Harrison, Michael Mayer; and Zoe Cox. Year 11 reps were Amy-Lee Kesteven; Samuel Marrable; Lauren Dunn; and Edward Obrien. Year 12 SRC representatives elected were Dana Borthistle; Stacey Andrews; Jamie Kokles-Ridgway; and Larissa Ellis.
The ceremony also saw presentations made to the newly-created Nhulunbuy High School leadership positions. This included School Captains, Elsbeth Redenius and Dominic Bulters, who were actually hosts for the event - or MCs I should say; Middle School Captains, Roy Kellaway and Lanka Alahakoon; the Indigenous Student Leader on the leadership team, Rhiana Powers; Sports Leader, Kieran Castelli; Duke of Edinburgh Leader, Dylan Edwards; the Peer Support Leader, Taylah Keeley; and, as I mentioned in the last sittings, the Minister’s Round Table representative for Nhulunbuy, Jessica Cunningham.
The Nhulunbuy High School Sports Leaders were also announced as follows: Roper House Captains, Cassie Williams and Kieran Castelli; Roper House Vice-Captains, Jake Edwards and Emily Osborne; Latram House Captains, Jamie Kokles-Ridgway and Hazem Jebeili; Latram House Vice Captains, Cassandra Baulch and Jay Pascall; Giddies House Captains, Myphemial Bond and Luke Delarue; and Giddies House Vice Captains, Mariah McGill and Brandon Peckham.
A short time after that, I attended Nhulunbuy Primary School’s end of term assembly for its student representative council presentations. Congratulations to Year 3 reps, Jasper Farlam and Bayley Monteiro; Year 4 reps, Patrick Walker, Patrick Selfe and Keira Lymbery; Year 5 reps, Dakota Priestley, Andrew Parish and Kiarra Lenane; and Year 6 SRC representatives, Claire Chittick and Tayla Edwards.
Further to that, last week’s NPS Express, the weekly newsletter of the Nhulunbuy Primary School, announced those who were successful in elections for House Captains. I have written to each of these children to offer my congratulations but, further, wish to add their names to the public record. Mitchell House Captains were Meagan Morris and Clifford Timms; Mitchell House Vice Captains, Ellie Misob and Zak Malkinson; Arnhem House Captains, Ruby Dulvarie and Patrick Llewelyn, Arnhem House Vice Captains, Elise Anderson and Josiah Herweynen; Wirrwawuy House Captains, Mahaliah Wangurra-James and Bradley Turner; Wirrwawuy House Vice Captains, Zoe Rubesaame and Kobie Simmonds; Daliwuy House Captains, Keven Mitchell and Savanne Canobie; and Daliwuy House Vice Captains, Will Burge-Paul and Bella Marrable.
On 15 April, I attended a very special ceremony at Yirrkala CEC which saw more than 200 community members attend. My invitation came from Yambirrpa School Council, which oversees the operations of the Community Education Centre, as well as the homelands schools. It was wonderful to see Buwata Munungurr and Wunyburra Wunungmurra graduate with the Northern Territory Certificate of Education on completion of their Year 12 studies. These two young people worked hard to complete their studies and serve as an excellent role model for their peers. They were the source of enormous and collective show of family and community pride.
This was also true for the five adult graduates of the Indigenous Education Worker course, or IEW, which is run by Batchelor Institute. Congratulations to Djana Wunungmurra, Gawanawuy Mununggurr, Rurruwiliny Ngurruwutthun, Bandinga No 2 Mununggurr, and Guramin Marika. These Indigenous Education Workers provide an extremely important role in homeland communities. Their schools are extremely important in supporting young people’s education and providing a path to the future, and to employment in homelands.
I appreciate that IEWs are an important part of a team which works hard alongside non-Indigenous or Ngapaki teachers to deliver the best possible outcomes for children. Homelands are strong places where people are healthy and where culture is strong and respected, and our non-Indigenous teachers could not do their job without these workers. They are also excellent role models for students, family and community, playing an important role in continuing to develop and support the community needs and aspirations of Yolngu people. It is also important to acknowledge the strong support that Yambirrpa School Council provides to students, be they young people or adult students and, with them, the very committed hard-working staff at Yirrkala CEC and Yirrkala Homelands School.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Mr Bob Brander, who passed away on Thursday of this week. Bob was a Canadian soldier, United Nations peacekeeper and, for quite a few years, the vice president of the Darwin RSL. I had the very good fortune of working with Bob when I worked for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in Darwin.
Bob was a true gentleman. He was a genuine and very good man. Unfortunately, he passed away from cancer, and I spent some time with him early last week in the hospice behind Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a place of sadness, but a place of comfort at the same time. It offers the family some special time in private, in an area that is very well set up and designed, and a tribute to the government for building such a place.
Bob Brander was a good mate. We often found ourselves rained in at the RSL after lunch on a Friday. Even in July, we would look out the window and the rain would be coming down far too heavy to get back to the office in Smith Street! I must point out that the ABS did work flex hours, so we were just clocking off at an opportune time. It is funny how the rain stills come down in July in Darwin. Bob was a wonderful man and a pleasure to work with. He will be sorely missed by his friends, his family, and all those who knew him.
As the member for Goyder mentioned, Briony Goodsell was taken tragically by a crocodile in Black Lagoon. Briony was a tremendous young student at Bakewell Primary School for many years, and she was very well regarded by her fellow classmates. She was full of life and, tragically, taken too soon.
I place on Parliamentary Record my feelings for my brother-in-law tonight, who has just been diagnosed with inoperable spine cancer. I hope that all can be done for Gary in the coming weeks, months and, hopefully, years, to ensure that what life he has left is decent with no pain.
There are many things that I would like to talk about tonight but cannot, given we have a short period of time. There are many things that are happening in Palmerston at the moment; many good things and many things that are not so good. There are many housing issues. People continue to come into the office every day, particularly with housing issues. I suppose the Brennan electorate office has one - and I say this word lightly - advantage in its position, in that it picks up just about every person who seems to visit Palmerston. You often find you are dealing with people from all over Palmerston, the rural area, and as far away as the northern suburbs. They are out there shopping and will come in and share their issues, and you do what you can to help them out.
Housing is a big issue and continues to be a problem. One quick story is regarding a unit in Woodroffe. Territory Housing was first advised of a problem in November last year. It has only been since I took photos last week of the condition this unit is in, and the vehicle left out the front that had been bombarded, that someone has come and taken the vehicle away. Hopefully, the unit will be cleaned up. To have a perfectly good structure, although very unclean, I suppose in disrepair, left untenanted since November, when you know the tragic waiting list that we face in the Northern Territory with people waiting to get into government housing, is a sheer shame on the management of Territory Housing. Much needs to be done.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass my condolences on to my dear friend, Sue Friend. We were with Sue and many of our other friends on Friday night in town, in Mitchell Street, when Don, her husband of 49 years, 11 months and two weeks, suffered chest pains. Shortly after midnight, I think somewhere around 12.30 at Royal Darwin Hospital, Don was declared deceased. Don passed away with many friends nearby, and Sue, his wife, had many more friends supporting her. It was a shock to me, to be there with a friend one minute and, then trying your best to help your friends get this person to hospital and get him the best care possible. The staff at the hospital did a fantastic job. They did everything they could for Don but, unfortunately, his heart no longer had any life in it.
Friday will be his funeral, and I can tell you now, it will be a very sad event which will be matched with a huge party to celebrate his life. These friends of mine, who I met in about September last year, had a caf in Toupein Road, Yarrawonga, called Hill Billy’s Caf. It was a caf where a large group of friends would surround it. Don was a very community-orientated man, and Sue was like-minded. The meeting I went to was for a fundraiser for Tahnee Afuhaamango, a fantastic Down Syndrome swimmer. I went as the Sports shadow minister and I met these great people. They said: ‘We are going to put your name down on our list and you come back in a month’s time to one of our parties’. And that is what we did.
These people opened up not only their home and their business, but also their friends to me, and to everyone who was willing to come. It was a place that you could go safely, enjoy great friendship, great food, love and memories. There are many memories from those few months that we have shared together.
Don and Sue - maybe they are like an aunt and uncle, I do not know – offered a level of friendship that you do not often find, and it is very difficult for me to explain in this House. Don’s community spirit was amazing. I can tell you that his spirit will live on. The decisions have been made that these parties will continue in Don’s memory. The community spirit of bringing together like-minded people and friends from all over the world - and these chaps were predominantly South African or Zimbabwean - with common causes, common friendship and one goal in mind; that is, to have fun with friends around you.
As a little expression, I suppose, of the type of character Don was, on a Friday night we went to a party - we were at a 25th birthday party – and Don said to me: ‘You never ring me, you never phone me back’. So I stepped away, picked up my phone and rang him: ‘There you go, Don? How’s things?’ He picked up the phone: ‘Oh, Rosco’, and we laughed and carried on. It was funny; it is a good way to remember Don. He was a man always ready for a laugh and he is will be sorely missed by many of the friends of Hill Billy’s. Through friendship, strength grows. Don, your friendship will be missed.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will briefly talk about the settlement of the Kenbi land claim, which I welcome. I want to make some observations in relation to it. One of the things that I noticed about the Kenbi land claim - and I am not sure if the federal Aboriginal Affairs minister has signed off on it yet. I hope she hurries up and does it, if she has not. What I noticed about the Kenbi land claim is the structure of it. We see the mixture of both Territory freehold and inalienable freehold, constituted under two different legislative instruments in two different jurisdictions as part of the settlement.
It is interesting to note that all of the development focus for the Cox Peninsula, as a result of that settlement, occurs entirely within that sphere which is governed by Territory freehold. If there has ever been a more complete example as to why inalienable freehold is a loadstone around the investment future of land in the Northern Territory, it would have to be the settlement of the Kenbi land claim. The intent of using Territory freehold is so that that land - which will remain, as I understand it, within Aboriginal ownership - can be leased out to people on, essentially, a permanent basis.
Many people in this room would be surprised to discover that four families, as I understand it, own London. People would also be surprised to discover that about 400 families own the whole of Scotland. Everybody else who lives in London, or has premises in London, or in Scotland for that matter, does not own their land; they lease it from the landowners. A good way to make a few quid out of London, just quietly, especially in the city. The fact is that the land law as it applies in London and Scotland is more reminiscent of Territory freehold than inalienable freehold ever is.
Whilst I appreciate that, out of the proposed settlement deals, some two-thirds of the land remains under the inalienable version of title, it will be a classic example in about 20 years time, of what the two different titles mean. One form of the title means investment; the capacity to lease land in a convenient fashion, for which those leases can be sold off, and they form a form of title which is so reliable that people will invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on the possession of those leases. On the other hand, however, the other two-thirds - and I suspect this is possibly why an inalienable title has continued to be chosen - will essentially, unless I am mistaken, remain fallow - certainly remain fallow if the current philosophies that are applied to inalienable title are continued.
Half of the Northern Territory is formed by this form of private property called inalienable title - private in the sense that it is freehold, public in the sense that every one of those forms part of a trust instrument on a land trust. It has demonstrated, time and again, its incapacity to be economically effective when the investment dollar comes to the Northern Territory. There are examples where that is not the case. On the Tiwi Islands there is forestry. I notice close to Nhulunbuy more recently there has been some forestry work being done and, in the mining industry, the big players get a look in. What does not get a look in is the small players. I note that the 99-year leases have been bumped back to 40 years, which is a bit disappointing for some of these communities.
It would be just delightful to see, in places like Maningrida, or communities like that, where people who are retiring out of Sydney are looking for a place to live and invest, and that they could live and invest in places like Maningrida or Milikapiti, or any of those places where they get a nice bit of tropical coast in which to live out their retirement days and bring employment to the people who live in these remote areas.
We talk about education, and yes, education is important but, without investment and without guaranteed property rights for those people who seek to invest in traditional lands, full education will mean nothing. All it will mean is that you end up with a whole bunch of unemployed PhDs, sitting on their backsides, no more employed than they would have been if they were uneducated dolts.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to an attitude that has developed in the government that seems to position itself ahead of the needs of residents. This matter has been referred to before, but I would like to add a little more to it. It relates to serving the good people of Palmerston, particularly those in the area of Moulden and Gray, who have suffered much from unruly tenants.
We have worked hard in our office to attend to their needs in an endeavour to fix them and, with a cooperative relationship, have been able to engage the local Housing office staff, who work very hard and have a very difficult job. My office used to be right next door and I know many of these people. I know them well; they live in Palmerston and they are very professional. Together, we try our best to sort this business out.
I find stunning a most extraordinary action of the government, in recent times, which is creating a problem for the government - make no mistake - even though it may think in such a shortsighted and arrogant way that it is looking after its own interests. It is, in fact, creating a political problem for the government - there are no benefits in this at all. That aside, that is their decision. However, worst of all is the real concern that, when residents come to a local member with a concern, that member is obstructed in their free capacity to deal with that issue in a timely way.
As I have mentioned, we have this absurd situation - it would be funny if it was on some BBC show called Yes, Minister - in the Northern Territory. The place is supposed to be a ‘can do’ place. A resident came to see me with a problem of fighting next door that occurred last night, that is keeping the wife awake, and they are frightened. Once upon a time, I could speak to the office, and alert the housing officer of that issue and we could then see what would transpire.
If a person comes to me now with an issue of fighting next door and the wife is frightened and cannot sleep, I must write to the minister; the minister writes to the office; the office writes back to the minister; the minister then writes to me; and I then go and speak to the person who walked into my office. But, sadly, four weeks perhaps have gone by, and a fair amount of paper has been exchanged. The question is: is it same process for the Labor members? Are the Labor members able to access the local housing office and sort this business out? Perhaps in Palmerston, James Burke is able to intervene; is paid to represent the Chief Minister. Is he able to go in and intervene and help sort this business out? After all, it is a political strategy. You are not, in fact, interested in the people. These are the people.
These are just a few letters which represent people who have come into my office asking for some assistance. There has been a monstrous letter trail that traipsed all around the countryside through the bureaucracy. To serve the interests of the people who have come into my office? No, it is not; it is serving some political agenda to ensure that the minister does not get embarrassed and it is their interests that are put ahead of those of the people.
I have been in this job for nearly 10 years and I have never seen anything so appalling in my life as that kind of callous disregard for people and a greater regard for the process. I have issues that relate to an older person who is deeply concerned and traumatised by the person who has been living next door and is afraid to speak up. The person who has been living next door is in gaol and they want some help now, before that person comes out of gaol so that, hopefully this time, they can raise their concerns and have a relocation - go through the paper mill. Someone here has problems with cloudy and dirty, rusty water coming through their taps. I cannot deal with this. I cannot talk to the housing office. I have to go in and out and back, and the paper goes all over the countryside. Here is another person. They have vermin and insects passing between the units and a stench coming through their wall. I cannot deal with this. I have to go and write to Rob. Let Rob fix it. See if he can fix it. I do not know what sort of file he has over there.
Here is another one. This was probably fixed by the recent power shock price, the 25%. The next door neighbour keeps their air conditioning on day and night - all the time - which results in one wall in the neighbouring apartment being completely covered in mould because of all the condensation. I cannot intervene. I have to go and speak to Rob; let Rob sort it out. There is also a person wondering when the units are going to be upgraded. They have been there for 20 years and nothing has happened. There are children next door in this other place where they have been abused verbally again and again. Complaints have been raised and nothing has happened. They come and see the local member; I have to write another letter. Here is another one – fighting in the street. This is one that has been going for years.
I am running out of time sadly. I have to write another letter. Anyway, you get the point. These are just a few letters. This is absolutely appalling in this modern day and age, when we bring process in front of people and we can sort basic business out in the Territory. What are you going to do about it?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge four primary schools and the great examples they set for all of us. Last week, I had the pleasure of accompanying both the Chief Minister and Mr Mick Dodson, 2009 Australian of the Year, on a visit to Millner Primary School. What really grabbed my attention and that of the Chief Minister and Mick Dodson, was a showpiece of environmental building - the Eco Hall - incorporating all sorts of passive cooling features such as correct solar orientation, shading, clever use of plants, and ventilation and the like to provide a cool and comfortable environment without the need for air conditioning. The Eco Hall is cool, comfortable, light and airy, even on warm and humid days. It is truly a marvellous effort and one that the Chief Minister said could be used as a model for schools throughout the Territory.
I congratulate the work of the Millner School Council, and seek leave to incorporate the names in the record.
Leave granted.
Cathy Spurr, Deb Moore, Sharon Thomas, Nicolle Shoobridge, Chantal Hopkins, Catherine Holmes,
Maria Karavas, Sam Wells, Leanne Toohey, Elena Ralph, Wendy Boehme, Tara Chambers, Peter Glenn,
Xenia Heynen and Tania Sloane; all ably supported by Principal, Dr Terry Quong.
All of the above have done and continue to do a fantastic job upholding that school’s great motto: ‘Building Respect and Achieving Together’. They have earned my respect and it is self-evident they are really achieving together.
Last Friday, I had the great privilege of attending Anzac Day events at primary schools in my electorate. First, I visited Wagaman Primary School where April Camposo welcomed everyone, after which Liam Slann invited the school choir to sing Lest We Forget. Liam then read the Anzac Day poem. Kiaba Tapera then spoke about the 1915 Gallipoli landing and the courage, determination and mateship the Diggers displayed. Cecilia Bernadino continued the story of how the Anzac spirit continued into other theatres of war. Ekela Buck told us of the terrible cost in lives of the Great War, after which Ben Jackson shared a moving tale of Simpson and his donkey. Jake Cole rounded off the story of Anzac Day by reminding us why we honour the Anzac spirit.
Rachel Motter asked people to come forward to lay wreaths, after which Sabrina Ciubal read us the poem In Flanders Fields. Tasha Cole gave us an insight into how the poem gave rise to the red poppy symbol. Connor Gilmore gave us a brief description of The Ode and asked for a minute’s silence, after which it was read by Samantha Martin. Darren Brown then introduced the school choir to sing the National Anthem, and gave us a stirring reminder that the Anzac spirit belongs not just on the battlefield, but in our everyday lives. Paige Parker then read the School Resolution, after which April Camposo concluded the ceremony with thanks to all concerned.
Then it was off to Jingili where Principal, Jodie Green, welcomed everyone and introduced Jay Kenna, who recited the Anzac Requiem. After a stirring rendition of Can you hear Australia’s Hero by the school choir, Amy Chittick led the Prayer of Remembrance. Students Marissa Higgins, Cohen Stephensen and community members then laid wreaths before Claudia Lee recited The Ode. After the Last Post, a minute’s silence and the National Anthem, a tribute to Anzac Day was read by Rachel Harpur and India McKaige.
Next stop was Moil Primary School where students, Carmela Reyes, Elliott Williams, Adam Tran and Tahnee Maxwell gave us their thoughts on the meaning of Anzac Day. Tess Harbeck then recited the Prayer of Remembrance, followed by Mia Sorensen reading Psalm 23. Nathan Ryan recited The Ode before student representatives, Shija Pulikotil, Kaylyn Fairhurst, Christopher O’Brien, Jason O’Meara, Ailie Sinclair and Christa Lidgerwood laid their wreaths. Mr Bleakley played the Last Post and Rouse, after which the flags were raised by Juno Soeriaatmadja, Tyson Wallent and Rachel Simmonds. Miss Carrodus then led everyone in the National Anthem.
All three primary schools really participated. I believe our future is in very good hands. I was very impressed by the way that they participated in Anzac Day with great respect, reverence and dignity. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be their member. I recognise the work that those schools do presenting functions such as Anzac Day.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016