2010-02-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been advised one of the causes of the sound problems we experienced yesterday was the use by members of iPhones and mobile phones in the Chamber. I remind members that it has been a long-standing rule of this House that the use of all mobile phones and iPhones in the Chamber is not allowed. I would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
A member: No UFOs then, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, sadly, no UFOs. That was not a UFO, anyway.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs. The first pair is for the whole of the day for the member for Arafura and the member for Araluen. It is signed by the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
The second pair is for me, the member for Nightcliff, and the member for Brennan from 10.45am to the luncheon break.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that response to petition No 25 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Consumer Credit (Northern Territory) Act and make transitional arrangements and consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation following the passing of the Commonwealth legislation regulating consumer credit.
In March 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) committed to a comprehensive national regulatory reform agenda to deliver a seamless national economy in order to improve Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. To further these objectives COAG agreed in 2008 to a national scheme for the regulation of credit and finance broking. Under the national scheme the Commonwealth would pass the appropriate legislation and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) would take on the regulatory and enforcement role previously undertaken by the states and territories. The national scheme is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement that operates similarly to the Corporations Agreement 2002.
In October 2009, the Commonwealth established the new regulatory framework with the passage of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The framework allows for the registration of credit providers with ASIC from 1 April 2010 with the full licensing and regulatory scheme to operate from 1 July 2010. The new framework will provide consumers with consistent and better protections across Australia.
The reforms include: new, responsible lending conduct requirements imposed on licensees which will require that credit providers and services be suitable for consumers’ needs, and that the consumer has the capacity to repay; improve sanctions and enhance enforcement powers; protection for those consumers taking out loans to purchase, renovate or refinance a residential investment property; greater access for consumers to information including fees, charges and commissions; and greater access to low cost, external dispute resolution schemes rather than having to go to court.
With the passage of the Commonwealth legislation the Consumer Credit (Northern Territory) Act becomes redundant and is repealed by this bill. Similarly, Division 4 of Part 5 and Part 12 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, which deals with credit contracts and licensing of credit providers respectively, also becomes redundant and are repealed by this bill.
A number of minor consequential amendments are made to other acts that refer to credit legislation to refer to the new Commonwealth act. As the Northern Territory has no legislation dealing specifically with the regulation of finance brokers, this bill only deals with credit-related matters.
Part 6 of the bill contains transitional provisions and the regulation-making power. The regulation-making power is quite broad and is intended to allow regulations to be made to cater for unforeseen technical or other issues that might arise in the transition of regulation of the provision of credit from Territory legislation to Commonwealth legislation. At this time, no such regulations are proposed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arafura for the remainder of the sitting week.
Leave granted.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have 20 minutes in continuation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue from where I was yesterday. To recap, I congratulate the member for Brennan for his fantastic contribution yesterday to this debate, and for his ongoing commitment to the environment and to policy. It was the member for Brennan who has really forced the government to act in this case, and it is good to see the government has adopted much of what the member for Brennan was proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, support the implementation of this bill.
Something the member for Brennan said yesterday resonated well; it struck me as being exactly right, and that is the issue of climate change. The issue whether you believe or do not believe, whether you are sceptic, a denier, or a true believer, is one debate to have. However, the main issue here is actually reducing pollution wherever it may occur, and government should be working to that end.
Sadly, this government is only focused on one aspect of pollution reduction - that is of carbon pollution reduction. They have hung their total commitment on the environment to Kevin Rudd’s failed ETS policy. We have been sitting in this place for 12 or 18 months being berated by government members for not supporting Kevin Rudd in his great, big, new tax that would hit all Australians. The opposition has copped it in spades from the government, saying we should be kicking our Senator Nigel Scullion in the bottom, getting him to cross the floor in Canberra and support Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax - a tax that would raise billions and billions of dollars in revenue, and a big chunk of that money would be sent overseas to countries which would produce carbon credits for Australia. What a ludicrous idea! What sort of moribund thinking tells people that it is a good idea to tax the living daylights out of Australians and send that money overseas, when we have so many problems to deal with here in Australia with our environment and with pollution?
Kevin Rudd’s whole policy, the ETS, the whole carbon pollution reduction bill he put to the parliament, rested on a decision that was to be made in Copenhagen that would see all of the world follow Australia and start taxing their countries and sending their money overseas to other countries to purchase carbon credits. We all know what happened in Copenhagen; it was a complete shemozzle, and complete farce, and a failure of global proportions. Kevin Rudd is now standing around with egg on his face, and all those people who backed Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme are looking utterly stupid, to the point where we now see the situation in Canberra of Kevin Rudd wanting to talk about anything he possibly can - other than the ETS.
Kevin Rudd is ducking for cover. He refuses to explain his great, big, new tax to Australians, obviously it is not something he wanted to explain to Australians in the first place, but it has come to light that Kevin Rudd wanted to tax Australians and send those dollars overseas. How ridiculous! And it failed. It is doomed forever, and now this government in the Northern Territory is like a shag on a rock with no place to go.
Finally, thank heavens, we see them adopting Country Liberal policy. For that, everyone in this room should be ever thankful the member for Brennan has worked so hard and tirelessly on forcing government to this position, because it is something that will have an impact into the future.
This government has totally failed on the environment. We continue to pump raw sewage into our harbour, unlike any other city in Australia. Darwin is the worst polluter of our harbour per capita than any other harbour city in Australia, by far. We pump more sewage into our harbour per capita than any other place in Australia. We have seen the Chief Minister’s 2030 plan, where he is planning for the future, and there is no mention in there whatsoever of stopping that sewage being pumped into the harbour. You hear from all types of people about the threat of pumping raw sewage into the harbour has for our environment, but the government refuses to act.
It is interesting to note, the embattled Minister for Essential Services is the bloke who is also responsible for pumping sewage into our harbour. You have to ask the question: do you think he will do anything about it? Well, he did tell us he was spending $700m on Aboriginal housing a couple of years ago, and how many houses have been built for that $700m? They are claiming two. It would be good to see where those two houses are, because my understanding is those two houses were built for a COAG trial, but I am prepared to be proven wrong. The fact is: with $700m, they may have built two houses.
Yesterday, we heard the bizarre example of them spending $140m to build 85 houses in town camps in Alice Springs. Now, do the maths - $140m to build 85 houses. You have to ask the question: what are the chances of this government cleaning up our harbour? What are the chances of this government stopping the pumping of sewage directly into our harbour? I believe the Internet site still exists where people can see the sewage being pumped into our harbour. It is a terrible thing, and it needs to be addressed by this government. But this government, as with everything else, refuses to act.
You do not have to travel too far to see the litter and the rubbish in Aboriginal communities. In my electorate, the community of Bagot is full of litter and rubbish. The Territory government should be taking some responsibility for stopping Territorians littering, and not just Indigenous Territorians, but Territorians across the board. But it is a stand-out in most Aboriginal communities around the Territory, that there is so much litter. In Bagot, it is a bit hard to blame the Indigenous people who live there because there is actually no rubbish collection service provided to the Bagot community. Government should be taking that into account and organising clean-ups of that area as quickly as possible.
We have seen how this government reacts in certain areas; the classic was their botched handling of the McArthur River Mine environmental approval process - it was absolutely shameful. We saw the member for Arnhem making a complete dill of herself trying to stop this mine going ahead, and twisting and turning the environmental process - in this case not the member for Arnhem, but the government - to use every means to stop that mine. This mine represents 5% of the Territory’s gross state product, but this government was hell-bent on making sure that mine expansion did not go ahead and twisted environmental approvals to suit their own savage ends.
There is a whole range of areas, as was mentioned by, I believe, the member for Goyder yesterday, about diesel being used at Channel Island. We were going through a road train of diesel a day to keep the lights on in Darwin; again, because the Minister for Essential Services was so incompetent and did not do his job. But diesel is not only burned there, is it burned in practically every Aboriginal community right across the Territory at a massive cost to Territorians. A large part of the subsidies government provides to Power and Water goes to providing diesel to remote communities. We have a number of businesses in the Northern Territory which provide green energy sources, solar energy, photovoltaic energy, wind energy and a range of other renewable sources that can be utilised in these communities. What is government doing about it? Nothing, zip, zero! We do not see a big roll-out of solar technology or wind technology in remote communities - we see absolutely zero - and we continue to truck diesel to these communities at huge cost and huge danger to the environment. So much for the green credentials of the Northern Territory Labor Party!
It is like so many other things. I referred to the member for Karama yesterday as a clothes dryer: all spin and hot air. She is emblematic of the whole government – all spin and hot air. They come in here banging on about the environment, banging on about how terrible the Country Liberals are for not supporting Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax on everything and sending the money overseas as if it was some sort of – I believe Kevin Rudd’s own words: ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’. I believe it is the greatest moral challenge of our time when you want to tax Australians with a great, big, new tax and send a big whack of that money overseas - that is a moral challenge - particularly when we have so many things in Australia we should be doing, and could be doing right now, to address pollution in our environment.
There are so many areas of neglect for the environment this government refuses to accept. In another area, the member for Brennan, only a couple of weeks ago released our pollution reduction policy. I have to say there was a range of areas where he targeted practical measures to implement immediately to reduce pollution. I note the member for Stuart, the Environment minister, suggested we had stolen their policy. If that is true, if that is what you truly believe, implement it! We will give you the credit, as we are doing now, for implementing this policy. You have taken our policy and put it into the parliament and we reckon it is great. Good on you! You should be congratulated.
There is another policy the member for Brennan released a couple of weeks ago you should implement as well; in fact, you should implement it because you claim we stole it from you. If it is that good, implement it, because I believe it is a humdinger of a policy, it is a great policy and it should be implemented as a matter of course immediately. There is a whole range of practical measures in there which can be utilised immediately to reduce pollution in our environment.
I support this legislation; it is a good legislation. I have some concerns, such as the ability of the EPA to coerce information from businesses but, I believe, in the right hands, that is a useful tool. I would hate to see it in the wrong hands, but I have faith in the member for Stuart. I believe he is an honourable man and a decent bloke. I do not believe he is a person who would use his power as the minister in the wrong way. I am quite happy to support this legislation as it is.
I place on the record my thanks to the member for Brennan for the hard work he has done. I am also glad to see that finally government has stopped berating the opposition about kicking Nigel Scullion in the pants and getting down to Canberra to vote for a great, big, new tax on everything. A tax where most of the money would be sent overseas; a tax that would have absolutely no effect on the environment, would simply export jobs overseas, export industries overseas and export Australia’s great strategic strengths and advantages overseas. It was fantastic to see the meltdown of Kevin Rudd’s policy at the Copenhagen talks. That was a complete disaster and I believe it saved, not just Australia, but many counties in the world from almost financial meltdowns; good news there.
Thank you, member for Brennan; and I am pleased to support the policy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a couple of comments made by the member for Fong Lim, because they are valid. I heard him refer to Copenhagen and what happened at Copenhagen. I thought to myself, as we were leading up to Copenhagen, that there might be an international treaty that came down the pipeline which would enable the world to take steps forward. I was surprised to see the representative of Australia in Copenhagen, Penny Wong, standing shoulder to shoulder with the western nations and the OECD countries and challenge what was happening.
I was curious, so I started to ferret around the Internet to see if I could find a copy of the proposed treaty and, finally, I did find a copy. It took a surprisingly long time to find a treaty that was supposed to be at the centre of the world’s attention. It was a surprisingly difficult document to find. What you finally get when you look at the draft treaty is a document of 181 pages. I expected to read a document with a great deal of scientific substance to support the treaty itself and, whilst there are elements of that in the treaty, or the proposed treaty which finally did not pass muster in Copenhagen, it was curious what else was laced into that treaty. And that, I suspect, was the real reason Copenhagen failed - not because there was a lack of goodwill on the part of the OECD countries. If you read that document you very quickly realise what is written and what is being woven into the proposed document is a political philosophy as well as merely a climate-change philosophy. That treaty envisioned an organisation called COP, which was the council of something or other - I forget exactly what the acronym stands for, but it is continually mentioned through it - and it is a central tenet of the document.
COP is an organisation that would be unelected, from various countries around the world, which would oversee the policing of the treaty. In the treaty, depending on which variant would be agreed upon in Copenhagen, the OECD would be paying somewhere between $64bn and $150bn a year to other countries which was, essentially, untied money, which means there were nations in Africa and the Pacific which were looking forward to large amounts of capital flowing their way from the supposedly guilt-ridden countries of the west which had generated all this carbon dioxide, and it was now their moral duty to pay all this money to these countries who have not produced carbon dioxide.
On top of that, you have this organisation of unelected people who would have, essentially, policing rights - hence the acronym COP - over those countries, including the OECD countries. No longer is the issue we are talking about an international treaty. We are taking a very important step forward in the environment; we are talking about sovereignty and the implications this treaty would have on sovereignty.
I stand in this House not because I walk through the front door with a gun slung over my shoulder saying: ‘I have a right to be here’, but because the people who put me here chose to put me here. The people who are going to look after COP - those people who are going to be the ‘cops’ - were going to be the ones who would dictate to this nation, this jurisdiction, what was going to happen as a result of this treaty being ratified. This is what Kevin Rudd wanted us to sign up to.
I can tell you, I am not at all surprised that, at the last moment, he got cold feet. If Australians had realised the potentiality of that, let alone giving billions of dollars every year to African nations which, frankly, have a very poor track record in looking after untied funds, then I can well understand the reluctance of the OECD. I can well understand the reluctance of Penny Wong; I can well understand the sudden reluctance of Kevin Rudd because, I suspect, Mr Rudd was not fully informed of the contents of that 181-page draft treaty.
I almost get a sense it is one of those things that percolates along in the background: ‘Let the bureaucrats do it’, until we suddenly realise what we are left with …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, would you mind pausing. It is clear someone in the Chamber is using a mobile phone and it is affecting the sound system. Whoever it is, could they please not do that - no texting or e-mailing. It seems to come from that area over there. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is clear what was happening in the background was all these nice fuzzy ideas being loaded into this particular treaty, and it was only when we got to Copenhagen we started to realise some of the options would be unpalatable locally.
I accept there is a real potential, based on the popular science I have become aware of, that there may be a climate change impact based on the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am cautious about that information I read, because even the experts are far from agreement on the actual potentiality of the build-up of this carbon dioxide, how it manifests itself, if it manifests itself at all.
If you listen to Lord Monkton, he will give you one opinion; if you listen to Tim Flannery, he will give you another opinion. I am not a scientist, however, I am sufficiently concerned - I suspect probably the only one who is sufficiently concerned in this House - to know I have a responsibility to at least deal with that potential. I ask how many members of this House have a Prius or some sort of hybrid?
I do not like language. I heard the Chief Minister refer to things such as: ‘You have to believe in climate change’. No. It is not a religion; it is not an article of faith. It is an article of rational debate. But what has percolated into the system is irrationality, perpetrated by people you would expect to be the very paragons of rational conduct. The scientists who argue with all the might and integrity of the scientific philosophy have allowed themselves to be caught up in the irrational component of the debate. The recent leaked e-mails from England, where there was an description that we cannot include certain information or comments because it might be detrimental or used against the climate change debate, is very disappointing, not because it undermines all of the science that was ever done, but it diminishes the integrity of the scientific rationale, when the people who are supposed to be its high priests actually engage in conduct which is contrary to that philosophy.
I do have concerns, as the government has concerns, about the way we look after our environment. I believe that is an important decision that we should all make, not only for the future, but for ourselves. How we conduct ourselves should be important. We keep hearing we have to protect the planet for our kids. What about saying what is important in terms of how we conduct ourselves as people? I find it difficult to listen to the self-righteousness debates in this place, particularly of government members, in relation to their climate record when their own department of the Environment, by a factor of seven or eight, is the government’s greater polluter.
I am concerned that the government continues to go down the path it does. I believe this is worthwhile legislation which has been brought before this House because it is supported by a worthwhile policy. I urge government members to take a rational approach, rather than an irrational approach, to this particular issue, and support what is good legislation so we can do our small part.
I am mindful of my personal impact on the environment and my family is mindful of its impact on the environment. I believe we should all be doing our bit because of the potentialities. But to stand up in this place one day and complain that the opposition is playing politics, and then come in the next day and do precisely the same thing, does not augur well for the integrity of this particular government and how it deals with this, and other, issues.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, can I please ask you to not use that iPhone in the Chamber?
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, this is in flight mode.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Sanderson, it is affecting the sound system. You can actually hear it buzzing through the system. Please note that phones are not allowed to be on at all in the Chamber. Apparently it has to do with the frequency of the microphones, and it has been affecting the sound system.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, perhaps during the luncheon break I will see you in relation to the flight mode. It is not transmitting; it is not receiving.
Madam SPEAKER: Other members have asked me about that and we have sought advice, and apparently it affects the system as well. So if you could please turn it off, because I have been able to hear the buzzing.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will speak briefly in regard to this legislation which we are supporting. I want to make a couple of comments in regard to the EPA.
Whilst this legislation is fine, and I thank my colleague, the member for Brennan, and also the member for Fong Lim for their support, if the EPA is truly to work properly, then it needs to get across all the environmental issues that we are confronted with in the Northern Territory.
One that has concerned me for some time is the proposal by government to chop up Berrimah Farm for a housing estate. It is well-known and well recognised that the Berrimah Farm area has been a site of contamination for many decades. I know, and this House knows, the government contracted an environmental consulting firm to study Berrimah Farm. I have written to the minister seeking a status report, and received quite a useless letter back, all fluff and bubble and no substance, as to where the government is with the Berrimah Farm and, in particular, any remediation or rehabilitation work that needs to be done. We still do not have a report as to the extent of the contamination. Given the history of that farm and the way it has gone down south in regard to people living in previously contaminated areas, I believe the government would expose itself legally quite substantially, if they were to develop that farm into a housing estate.
Regarding the EPA and its work, we recently had a discussion paper from the Commonwealth regarding water and whether the north could be developed into a food bowl. That aside, the big issue of water supply in the Territory is a major issue. We still do not have any definitive vision or direction from this government regarding the future water supply for the Top End, in particular. Darwin River Dam wall has been raised, but with the growth of the population and the growth of industrial development, Darwin River Dam can no longer be the only water supply for the Darwin/Top End region. It concerns me that such a major project requiring new dam infrastructure pipelines, the EPA is perhaps not equipped to handle the environmental work; and that is a very great concern to us on this side.
Regarding the EPA and its work, they recently released their report, Ecological Sustainable Development in the Northern Territory. I have gone through it in a preliminary way, and I have some serious concerns with some things they are proposing. I will put the government on notice that our side will be coming back to them in regard to this report and some of the things being proposed.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank all members for their contributions. I reiterate this debate is all about the next stage in the evolution of the Environmental Protection Authority. It is quite amazing some of the members on the other side believe they have some credentials to talk about the environment generally, and about climate change. We on this side of the House know …
Ms Purick: Well, you do not. What have you got? You are an ex-footballer.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: ... how divided they really are on climate change in this debate …
Dr Burns: Look at your position over the years when you were with the Minerals Council.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Purick: Look at your position.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of Government Business and member for Goyder, cease interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, some of the contributions are quite amazing and quite disappointing, to put it bluntly.
I acknowledge the great work the member for Brennan has done, and the member for Nelson, regarding the next stage of the evolution of the EPA and the amendments we are talking about here today. I believe they have really overshadowed the great work the member for Brennan has done. I know he is genuine, and I am willing to work with him and quite prepared to sit around a table with my staff and work together in a bipartisan way on this. To have his colleagues politicise the whole thing, he must be extremely disappointed with the efforts of his colleagues.
While the debate has drifted away from the amendments we are putting forward today, on which the members for Brennan and Nelson have done much hard work, I am disappointed with the contributions, particularly from members on the other side.
I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their constructive comments on the amendments; the member for Daly and the member for Fannie Bay made positive, constructive comments and this is what this House is all about, and the environment is all about. We cannot live in denial; we cannot live with a divided regime in government or in parliament, which deny climate change and find it quite cute to come here and push their divisive views on climate change in a totally different context.
We are here today to talk about these amendments. They are good amendments which will empower the EPA and really push the intent of the EPA which is about being independent, about representing the community, and being there for the community to push any environmental concerns it has directly to them.
It is important to reiterate that it is this Labor government which created the first Territory’s EPA – something the CLP did not do in 26 years. If we are talking about credentials, if we are talking about track records on green initiatives, on the environment - and that is the first point we should look at - who created the first EPA in the Northern Territory? This Labor government.
In doing that in 2007, we joined the rest of Australia in having an independent environmental watchdog. We are now moving to make the Environmental Protection Authority stronger with a new auditing and monitoring role backed-up by new offences. These are areas that the EPA will be expected to keep a watching brief on but, as is the case now, the EPA will still be able to take on one-off projects.
Importantly, these changes keep our current regulatory framework intact, and there is no point in duplicating or lumping environmental assumptions together just for the sake of it. Instead, the EPA will have a very strategic role ensuring the whole of the system works together properly. The EPA is doing some great work already, and these amendments place them firmly as an EPA for the 21st century.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I thank the member for Nelson and the member for Brennan for their constructive contributions. There has been bipartisanship on the amendments to this bill. We have had a number of discussions with my office, in particular, and with the EPA board. I know the member for Brennan had some amendments of his own last year and we took those into account and have picked up on the spirit of those proposals. I thank him for his efforts
All of us have had the opportunity to consult directly with the EPA board on this bill, and I believe that clearly demonstrates to everyone in this House, and the community of the Northern Territory, that it is truly an independent body.
During the member for Brennan’s contribution, he made some comments and suggestions, and raised a number of issues which I would like to work through now. First, he raised the possibility that a chief executive might somehow delay the responses to the EPA; and there is no time limit specified. Member for Brennan, the bill says that when the EPA undertakes an assessment in respect of an agency, it needs to provide its proposed findings to the CE and provide a written response within a reasonable time. While no time limit is specified, I am advised this provision is similar to requirements for agencies in responding to the Auditor-General. So, there is a practice around these types of requirements, and I am sure no agency would unnecessarily delay this type of advice. I am equally sure the EPA would be raising it in the unlikely event it did occur.
The member for Brennan mentioned that the proposed administrative arrangements between the EPA and the minister could reduce the EPA’s independence. Absolutely not. Member for Brennan, clause 7A(4) of the bill clearly says:
I believe it is very clear. Also, I draw the member’s attention to section 8 of the Environment Protection Authority Act, which clearly says
Nothing in this bill alters that existing provision.
The member for Brannan has queried whether CEs can simply ignore requests for information from the EPA. Member for Brennan, we are strengthening the powers of the EPA to require information in this bill; this is necessary to ensure that the EPA can carry out robust audits. Under this bill it will be an offence not to provide information when requested to do so by the EPA or to provide misleading information; and I do not see any exemption for CEs. So, that seems quite clear to me.
The member for Brennan also asked why there is no requirement for the minister to table their decision following receipt of the EPA’s advice. New clause 25 of the bill indicates I must give notice to the EPA of any decision I make. The EPA is independent, and I cannot imagine any circumstances where they would be shy about the advice they receive. So, I do not believe this a big problem, member for Brennan.
Finally, the reason why the EPA’s new monitoring capacities commenced after the rest of the provisions in the bill had been queried. This was at the EPA’s request, member for Brennan. This monitoring is a significant task and it will require new systems and processes to be developed. There is a range of options for service delivery which need to be explored by the EPA in consultation with the other agencies and the community. This will take some time, and they need to get it right. Twelve months to get this very important function working seems a reasonable time to me, member for Brennan.
The member for Brennan also queried whether the EPA should be looking at cumulative impacts. That is exactly what this bill does, member for Brennan. In Part 3, clause 13, proposed new clause 5A(1)(c) says this is the monitoring that the EPA will be tasked with.
Cumulative impacts, by definition, do not relate to the emissions of any one facility, and it is simply what Part 3, clause 13, proposed new clause 5A(3) of the bill is saying.
I am very pleased they have publicly indicated their support - that is the EPA and members in the House - for making the EPA a stronger organisation. I turn to some of the comments of other members on the amendments.
The member for Fong Lim’s debate centred on the issue of climate change. We know those opposite are divided on the climate change debate. I would like to leave climate change for another day because, as I said, there will be a statement to the House during these sittings on climate change which will provide everyone in this House with an opportunity to debate this important issue.
The member for Fong Lim is great with words, but he does get things a little mixed up, particularly his figures on climate change. When the member for Brennan launched their climate change policy last year, the member for Fong Lim actually said that calling it a climate change policy was not correct; it is intended to be a pollution reduction policy. On the one hand, we have the member for Brennan saying it is a climate change policy and, on the other hand, we have the member for Fong Lim saying it is not a climate change policy. This reinforces to me and government that they are really divided and do not know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change. They have no credibility. We can leave that for another day, as we will be debating the climate change policy in a statement to this House very soon.
I need to come back to some comments the member for Fong Lim made about the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program in town camps. He clearly does not understand it; I do not believe he has even been to a town camp in Alice Springs. To say $140m is going into new housing is not correct; it is actually $100m going into building 85 new homes, and also doing refurbishments. However, that is not all the package. It is also about fixing and making safe those homes in the town camps, and also cleaning up those town camps. As we have seen since the announcement in December last year, we have cleanup crews go through the town camps doing a fantastic job ...
Mr Bohlin: There would be more work achieved in that, than in the entire SIHIP project.
Mr HAMPTON: If the member for Drysdale went and had a look at those town camps tomorrow, he would be very excited about how they look ...
Mr Bohlin: I have worked in the area. I spent more time there than you have ever spent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to correct that misinformation from the member for Fong Lim - it is not $140m to build new homes, it is $100m to build 85 new homes; do the refurbishments; and also clean up those town camps and make safe many of the homes.
Regarding litter everywhere, it is this government which is proud of its green track record, and we are the ones introducing container deposit legislation - as we know the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay have been part of the working group - something the CLP never did in 26 years. This government is proud of its track record and will be delivering CDL, container deposit legislation, in 2011.
Buffalo Creek, again, great showmanship by the member for Fong Lim, but he does get it wrong …
Mr Elferink: 2011? You rejected the departmental submission.
Mr HAMPTON: … the member for Port Darwin, again. It is this government that is open and transparent about our green record, our environmental record. We are the ones who publicly released the harbour report card last and that clearly identified there is work to be done at Buffalo Creek, no doubt about it. That is why we have allocated money to fix Buffalo Creek and we have awarded the contract to do something about that issue. Work will be under way, commencing in March, on a diversion from Buffalo Creek away from that particular area. Work is under way; it has been awarded …
Mr Bohlin: From where? What location is it going to go to?
Mr HAMPTON: We are doing something about it. It is this mob over that side who live in denial. Who built the facilities back in those days which took sewage into the harbour? It is this government which is open and transparent about our environmental record. We are the ones who released the harbour report. Have a look and see; it is on the website. Buffalo Creek, it is acknowledged there are issues with it; it is there on the web for everyone to see. We are open and transparent about the report card on our harbour, but we are doing something about it. We are going to fix it.
Regarding the member for Fong Lim again, it is quite clear to me that this mob on the other side is divided on climate change. They have no idea, and they will remain divided. The member for Port Darwin has no idea about climate change and, once again, it reinforces to me how divided they are on climate change and their position. It is a pollution reduction policy, well, what a con job from the opposition.
Mr Elferink: Do you have the vaguest idea what I said?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Turning back to these amendments. I am very pleased the opposition supports the amendments, and the member for Nelson. I say a particular thanks to the EPA board and staff for their assistance in framing the amendment bill.
I commend this bill to members, and I thank them for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(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 26 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I wish to talk on the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009, which is a bill for an act about the rights and duties of parties to contract for the sale of land.
The intention of this bill is to provide what is known as vendor disclosure. Vendor disclosure refers to the practice of the vendor, being the seller of property, disclosing information about the property to the purchaser or potential purchaser. This may be done by making a disclosure statement, giving certain undertakings, for example, in the contract of sale, and/or providing certain documents. Specifically, under this legislation, the issue revolves around the information which must be made available to a prospective purchaser at the beginning of the time that a property is for sale.
The consequence under this legislation for not making that information available is the purchaser could be considered to be not carrying on with an offer to purchase property, and to declare a contract invalid. The intended consequence is that a person who makes an offer to purchase a property can do so in the shortest period of time to prevent alternative offers being made to the vendor or seller.
If I can just go back a bit in time: this legislation has had a reasonably long history going back to at least 2004, perhaps longer, when the member for Nelson attempted to introduce a Law of Property Amendment Bill, which was unsuccessful and defeated by this Labor government that did not like what was put forward by the member for Nelson. I will highlight the government’s concerns at the time, and I quote from Hansard. The Attorney-General at the time, Dr Toyne, said:
That is on the member for Nelson’s bill:
He goes on to say that Territory Housing advise that extra reports will increase further costs for a new home.
Even then the government knew there were some very clear issues of concern, and the minister of the time was aware of the possible negative consequences on the housing market that the kind of legislation we are debating today could bring. Even then, five years ago, this government knew that there were issues with affordability of housing. And, of course, five years down the track, we have the current problems that there is no affordable housing in the Territory.
In 2007, the member for Nelson brought forward a motion to push government into introducing what was loosely called then vendor protection legislation; and this was after three private member’s bills, I believe, which were all defeated by this Labor government.
Regarding the motion, the Attorney-General at that time stated:
which was reform of vendor issues in the residential market:
It sounds good, and I agree there should be less red tape, less complication, and remove the hindrance to people getting into their homes as quickly as possible. Quite clearly, that is not happening now. People cannot get into their homes as quickly as possible because they cannot afford to. That motion was defeated again by this Labor government. People I have spoken to regarding this legislation are not against vendor disclosure per se.
The real issue is the current system is not really broken. It actually works really well for buyers and sellers. Buyers have the certainty the property they are purchasing is adequate, as they control the reports being obtained. They have also the privity of contract to sue the report provider. The proposed system appears to enable the buyer to sue the service provider, but is limited to reports which are misleading, or otherwise prepared with the exercise of reasonable skill and care. What if the report provider does not exercise skill and care, but makes a mistake anyway because of a line ball call? It may mean also the buyer is one step removed from the service provider.
I know legal people in town recommend buyers obtain their own reports and not rely solely on the seller’s reports. That way they get firsthand information and can go back to the report author if something is amiss in the purchase of a property. Does the purchaser wait to settle on the property before taking action against vendor’s report provider? I ask that question of the minister.
From my discussions with industry people and businesses specifically, this legislation will not and does not make things simpler; it only complicates the process, and adds an additional layer of cost for no real benefit. In an already tight real estate market, it will simply add time and cost to bring a property onto the market.
I turn my attention now to some of the specifics of the bill and issues surrounding it, which are of concern. Both the member for Nelson and the minister, in her second reading speech, refer to gazumping and anti-gazumping when discussing this bill. This has nothing to do with it, and will not stop gazumping. What is being referred to over and over again as people being gazumped, is people who have actually placed deposits for a purchase and have been outbid. This practice is not illegal. In fact, it is not even unethical. It is inconvenient perhaps, and even downright annoying for the people who have placed the deposits, but they need to remember a deposit is just an expression of interest in purchasing the property. The deal is not concluded until both parties have signed and exchanged contracts. Until that point, the seller is within their legal and ethical rights to explore and accept all offers put to them. In fact, the agent is legally bound to provide the seller, their client, with any and all offers put forward until the time the contracts have been exchanged.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am trying to listen to the member for Goyder because this legislation …
Mr Elferink: The member for Nelson will not be quiet.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … having debated here in the House, the member for Drysdale is talking quite loudly on the side. I ask his interjections cease so we can listen to the opposition’s contribution to debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Member for Drysdale, you are interrupting debate, I was about to interrupt you myself.
Mr BOHLIN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was the member for Nelson.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for confessing, member for Nelson.
Ms PURICK: If I was selling a house I would expect the agent to get me the best possible deal within the bounds of the law. Trying to find the best price, before contracts have been signed, is not illegal. The bill will not change that practice. It will not act as anti-gazumping legislation. The sooner some members of this Chamber wake up to this fact and stop harping on about this, the better it will be for everyone, including consumers.
Additionally, I am concerned there has been a push by some members of this Chamber to put all responsibility on the seller, and the purchaser has no responsibility. In other words, do away completely with the concept of buyer beware. I agree the seller should be, and is expected to be honest in dealings, as is the responsibility of the purchaser to pursue actions and not to be ignorant of the amount and interest which he or she is about to buy and, in doing so, exercise proper caution. To have an unbalanced relationship in business is not only wrong, it is not proper, and should not be entertained in legislation in any form.
Another aspect of the legislation is what and where this legislation will apply. In the government’s own fact sheet dated around July 2009 titled Draft Vendor Disclosure and Cooling Off Legislation, it has a section ‘Does the legislation apply to the whole of the Northern Territory?’ The answer in the fact sheet is no. The legislation will only apply to local government areas of Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Katherine and Alice Springs. People of Tennant Creek, not covered; Pine Creek, not covered …
Mr Wood: You are out of date.
Ms PURICK: … Elliott and Mataranka, not covered. It should be covered across all of the Northern Territory and if it is out of date, fine. I look forward to the fact that it will cover everyone in the Northern Territory, including Noddy’s electorate.
I ask the question: why would the government be selective in the first place, if they have changed it? It tells me that the government has not really thought through this legislation and is not really serious about consumer protection.
In going through the legislation I offer comment on the following sections. In the bill some people in areas of property sale are excluded, such as joint tenants or tenants in common; it also excludes people who are related. However, the list of related people is limited and I ask the minister to amend the related members to include spouses, parents and children, grandparents, and those in de facto relationships, or other demonstrated family connection; because with the changing demographics in our society there are more relationships between grandparents and grandchildren in regard to property. I ask the minister to consider amending that to include spouses, parents, grandparents and, particularly, people in de facto relationships.
In disclosing information in section 12, what does ‘available for inspection’ mean? Does the documentation have to be physically provided to each prospective purchaser, or can the documents be held at the agent’s office and the potential purchasers advised to attend the office to inspect and get copies? It is not clear to me how the agent actually discharges this obligation.
Taking possession during the cooling off period, section 20(5), does not make sense to me because it conflicts with the seller’s right to charge a licence fee for early possession. Where are the rights of the seller articulated in this situation?
In section 24, what protection does the report provider have for alteration to the property made after the report is provided? For example, where a seller alters the property prior to sale, or alters the property after sale and claims the report was misleading or not prepared with reasonable skill or care. It is not clear to me. Perhaps the minister will be able to answer.
In regard to building status reports, it is interesting to note that the minister referred to building reports nine times in the second reading speech, but in the legislation there is no mention of building status reports. However, in the regulations there is reference to building reports. In clause 4(1) there is a requirement for a building report for an existing building on the land. My question is: what would be the situation where the parcel of land has more than one building or structure, as often occurs in the rural area – a shed, compliant shed, workshops, stables and the like? Are these to be included, or are they not to be included in providing documentation?
I know the development of regulations is well under way and that government is working with industry; I trust these discussions are full and frank, which will be needed if this legislation is to work properly.
In closing, I refer to my opening comments, which are: this legislation was not really needed.. Now that it is before the parliament it is important to get it right. I look forward to the minister’s reply to my questions and areas of concern. Second, it will not stop the activity loosely and wrongly referred to as gazumping, and the sooner people stop using that term the better for everyone. Third and last, and importantly, this legislation will not assist in getting houses and properties onto the open market and may, in fact, delay developments and add cost to an already tight housing market which is a direct result of this government’s failures in regard to land release policies and public housing.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, that was quite a pathetic effort from the Deputy Opposition Leader. I do not know why they put her in that position.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The members for Greatorex and Braitling - she referred to them as egotists in her diagnosis of the Estimates Committee last year. Egotistical, I think she called you, member for Greatorex, so she is having a fair crack at you in your performance in estimates last year …
Mr Conlan: That is all right. I have a healthy ego, mate. I am happy and proud of it.
Mr KNIGHT: Her performance here has been woeful. I believe you do a good job in estimates, but she …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance - he is meant to be talking about the legislation before the House, not estimates.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please resume your seat.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Greatorex, I think you do a great job in estimates. Sadly, your Deputy Leader thinks you are an egotist.
Mr Wood: And now for the debate.
Mr KNIGHT: And now for the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the property market in the Northern Territory is evolving. The consumer patterns are changing; the expectations of the community are certainly changing and we must change with those expectations and the property market and the purchasers as well. It is the position of this side of the House that we must change with that; we have to try to reduce that gazumping situation in the Northern Territory. Therefore, we are putting this legislation forward.
This legislation is a positive step for people buying property in the Northern Territory. This legislation is designed to improve the fairness and efficiency of the conveyancing process, as well. The bill seeks to ensure the buyer has access to the specific disclosure information of a property which is on the market. This includes, amongst other things, the proposed contract for the sale, extracts from the Land Register, and reports specified in the regulations. As someone who has bought and sold property in the Northern Territory, it is more convenient having that available at the property or with the agent. I certainly see some true advantages, from my point of view, for the seller as well. It is more attractive to buyers if all that information is readily available.
There has been vendor disclosure laws in other places in Australia - Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia - for some years now, and the Northern Territory is moving in that direction. All available evidence suggests vendor disclosure laws in those states have been working well.
There have been concerns about certain aspects of conveyancing practices in the Territory for a number of years now. There have been times when our laws needed to reflect contemporary values and expectations; and that is what my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is doing in this specific bill.
As the Business minister, I am pleased this bill is developed in consultation with the property industry. Both the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and the Australian Institute of Conveyancers were part of the Property and Commercial Law Task Force which advised the government on the development of this bill. I noted on ABC radio recently - it might have been yesterday - Quentin Killian from REINT was very positive about the way industry and government have worked together on developing this legislation. I quote Quentin: ‘We have a product that everybody can live with and get used to’. So, it is something that has changed, but it is positive change and it meets those expectations of the community. It is certainly great to hear those endorsements from the industry. I also note the property industry will continue to work with the government in drawing up the regulations on this particular bill.
This bill will require vendors to disclose comprehensive information about a property that is on the market. There are, though, limits on the information the vendor needs to make available; for instance, items such as pest control reports are no longer required to be provided by the vendor, as these have a limited life and may be out of date by the time the sale is actually finalised. The truth is, it is also important for people who are buying property to do their own homework; this legislation does not prevent all circumstances. People who are going into a transaction, which may be the biggest financial transaction of their life, need to do their own homework and go in with their eyes wide open. We have this legislation which is another tool, but it should not be rested on completely, so people still need to do their homework. While government is moving to enhance the conveyancing system, buyers need to be cautious and do their homework on the property and need to ask questions about the property.
Let us quickly have a look at the bill itself. In essence, the new requirements are for a vendor to provide the seller with a draft contract of sale; a four-day cooling off period for residential sales during which the seller can back out without any penalties; all information about the land obtained from the Land Titles Office, including registered and unregistered encumbrances; a certificate issued under the Land Titles Act incorporating individual compliance certificates under the Swimming Pool Safety Act and, where relevant, permits and approvals under the Building Act, and key decisions made by a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Title Schemes Act; disclosure of any personal information about the land such as drug premises orders, flooding, storm tides, seepage and tenancies; and a building report stating the extent to which the building complies with the Building Act, or an alternative building report stating that the building does not comply, or that it is not possible to establish whether the Building Act applies.
There is no doubt the conveyancing problem that has received most publicity in the Territory in recent years has been gazumping. This bill will have a genuine impact on the gazumping situation because, as you have just heard, there will now be requirements for the vendor to have all the necessary information available before actually putting the property on the market. I believe we all agree gazumping is something we want to try to minimise and, if possible, get rid of. I am confident this bill will go a long way to address that. I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this bill forward, and I congratulate the member for Nelson for his persistence in this matter.
As I said in commencing my contribution, expectations do change, and I believe the property market changes. We obviously have a very strong property market here, especially in the Top End, but also in other parts of the Northern Territory, and we have to provide protection where we need to. I do not believe this will encumber either the buyer or the seller in getting those transactions done effectively, or encumber the property market.
So, my congratulations, Attorney-General, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it seems a very long time since 2004 when I first brought legislation to this parliament in an attempt to do something that I believe has been long needed - that is the protection of people when they are purchasing the most important purchase of their life, and probably the most expensive purchase of their life. We have lived with a system which worked under the Latin motto, which I have forgotten, but it means buyer beware, and it has always confused me why we have buyer beware for a house, but when we go to buy a television, there are all types of guarantees on a purchase like that; or if you shake someone’s hand over the purchase of a car, that is regarded as a contract, but not so for a house.
I believe this legislation, without the rhetoric, is about the protection of people who can least afford to have a fall-out when it comes to purchasing a property. This started for me about 2003-04, when a lady rang me and said: ‘I was intending to purchase a house in Humpty Doo, and it had been sitting on the market for a while’. I knew the block of land and it was going for $95 000, which seems awfully cheap today when it would probably go for $395 000. The local real estate agent came around and shook hands with the lady because she said she would like to buy it, and she said: ‘I have to go to the bank because I hold money in trust’; and he said to her: ‘Madam, you have made a very good decision to buy this block of land’. Before she took the money out she was informed the real estate agent’s boss said he was to drop the claim as there had been a higher bid.
That is gazumping, whether you like it or not. It is not immoral; it is in the act you can do it, but is it the way we should be dealing with people? That is the question.
Someone whose hand is shaken and told they have made a very good purchase, you would expect that to be it, but not so. Why have real estate agents if you cannot get them to make the decision, if that is the case, member for Drysdale? They are the agents for the property owner. I had that lady sitting at my desk weeping. This was the one and only purchase in her life, and she had been gazumped. I believe that system needed changing. This legislation will not get rid of gazumping, but it will certainly make it much harder for it to occur.
The other matter which came to my attention, and I have raised it before, a young, single fellow decided to purchase a block of land on Power Road, Humpty Doo in a section which is not made. There are several blocks of land there, and he did not live in that area, and in the Dry Season everything looks fine. He paid $200 000 for a block of land which the real estate agent told him: ‘It floods a bit here’, and that was it. The next Wet Season came and it went entirely under water.
Mr Elferink: It is called a warranty, or a condition.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not a warranty, member for Port Darwin; it is telling the truth. That is the issue we are at because, as I said, this is the most important purchase for most people and this is the one we should provide safeguards for. If you want to stick up for the real estate industry, you are most welcome. They do a good job, but they also should have some responsibilities.
The way we sell land, I believe, should be in a way that people are able to purchase their block of land and house feeling secure that those who sold it to them did not sell them a lemon; they sold them something that was valuable and would last for many years. That is what it is about, and if people do not believe that is what it is about, if they believe the real estate agent is more important than people’s rights to purchase a property that is not a lemon, then so be it.
It has been said this will cost more. I can see the angle coming now: this legislation will drive up the cost of housing. These reports we are asking the seller to provide would also have to be purchased by anyone who wanted to find out the status of the house under the existing system. Those costs would have already been incurred by the person buying the house. The idea it will put some extraordinary cost on the house is a furphy. It would certainly put some cost on the house, but to say it would make a house unaffordable and to put it into that bracket is certainly an exaggeration of the facts. Much of the information you can get from the Lands Branch, or checking out some maps. There will be some other certificates which may cost slightly more, but the difference of making it affordable or not, I believe that is an exaggeration.
This legislation, as it says, is to improve the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing process for all concerned by ensuring, as far as practicable, the buyer has the same information as the seller at the earliest opportunity; and I believe that is very important.
We need to go back in history. Many people have said many things about this process. When I first introduced this legislation, we had long discussions with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and with the Conveyancing Institute of the Northern Territory. Before I introduced my legislation we had approval and agreements from both those bodies. It seems surprising to me when the government introduced this legislation the Real Estate Institute said they were not very happy with it. Whether that was because it was different legislation, which may be the case, but it is strange with time and changes of personnel, all of a sudden what was supported by both those groups - and the Conveyancing Institute still does support it - it became a different kettle of fish.
Thankfully, I believe the Real Estate Institute has come back and supported it. They did have some last minute suggestions which surprises me since this bill has been out for comment for such a long time and has been adjusted after comment. In fact, the Law Society commented quite broadly on the submissions and I believe those comments were taken up in this legislation.
I received a letter this morning from the Law Society and it says:
So, this has gone down a long and tortuous path. I stand here feeling slightly confused because, after many attempts to bring this legislation in, and being told by the Labor government that they did not support it, and then to hear the opposition today not singing praises about this legislation, I am still very pleased that this legislation is coming through today.
It has been said that gazumping should not be mentioned, it is not an issue, which sends an echo that the Real Estate Institute has got hold of this legislation and is using it for its own propaganda. I will mention an e-mail which was sent to me which says:
This is actually an e-mail to the representative of the real estate industry.
That was a question that was given to me at that particular lunch, and the person said:
And they actually claim here that $10 000 was offered them to hand the block back. They say:
And they go on saying, basically, they have no time for that statement.
It is not the only e-mail I received, and it is not the only case I have. I remember a cattle station on the Roper River, where a family had saved up their money to buy this block of land, and they were gazumped at the last minute after being told they could buy it. It does occur. This act does not get rid of it, but it reduces the chances of it happening. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to get rid of it unless you immediately sign the contract on the spot. But, I believe it has been used unfairly.
Members of my close family had a block down the track and they behaved morally when it came to this. They visited this block with the real estate agent, they were made an offer and they said: ‘Yes, we will accept it’. Before they got home, the real estate said: ‘Well, I actually have a better offer’. They said: ‘No, we have shaken hands. We have told those people we are happy to accept their offer’. That is the way it should be, I believe.
However, it is not that way in law; in fact, it is encouraged in law not to do that, and I do not accept that is a fair thing. Shake hands with someone; say you are going to purchase it and, unless something untoward happens in the meantime, it is not the way we should do things. This does not get rid of it, but it at least tries to reduce it.
This bill is about checking people. I am not here to stand up to the big companies; they can handle themselves pretty well. I am here to stand up for the little people who sometimes get hurt and lose their entire life savings - like the young bloke who had a house and put $200 000 into a block of land that is useless unless he spends probably another $200 000 filling it with gravel. He lost his money. The real estate agent will tell him: ‘I thought it was wet’. It was flooded, and he was not told the truth. This legislation will go some way to protecting those people. It does not take responsibility away from the purchaser to do their own homework. If I was looking at a block, I would be hunting around to check some of the details myself before I went to see the owners. At least this puts some balance back into the system, and that is important.
I have been passionate about this for a long time and if it had failed today, I would reintroduce it again and again. When ordinary people come to you and weep because this system allows their future plans to be hijacked, a system where there is not enough protection for someone buying a block of land is not as it should be, and we need to do something about it. I do not accept the amount of money this will cost will make houses unaffordable. Better to buy a house where you know you are secure, that is as you expect, and which will not fall down. If you buy it without a Certificate of Occupancy, you can at least say: ‘I knew it might fall down, so I knew that could happen; at least I know that’. What we want is the person selling it to tell the truth about their block or house so you can make an intelligent decision about whether you purchase it.
There are some issues with the bill. The member for Goyder raised those, and I expect they will be answered. There have been some changes. The member for Goyder raised the issue of certain parcels of land in the Territory not being available. If anyone looked at the original draft and discussion papers, one of the things I asked for to be changed has been changed. It applies to the whole of the Territory, except for some minor areas. That does not give me confidence that this recent bill has been read, because that was in the draft last year. Those changes have come in, and people were asked to comment on those. They are what the Law Society and the Real Estate Institute commented on, and those comments have been taken into account. Some of the documents that were required have been taken out and put into the regulations and they are the comments that came back.
There has been a great deal of work done here, including by the industry. You will always get some people within the industry who are not happy but, overall, the Real Estate Institute is happy. We have comments from the conveyancing industry, which does not have a problem with it; they believe it is as good as you will get. The Australian Institute of Conveyancers supports the idea of inter-disclosure. It is not as though these discussions have occurred overnight; they were started in 2004, and I had many discussions walking up and down the steps of the Real Estate Institute in town, discussing this very issue.
I am very supportive of this legislation. I am sure the ordinary people of the Northern Territory would be supportive of this legislation, and I believe it is well overdue. It is legislation that people might laugh at here, but it is okay in other states, and it has been operating in other states successfully as well. If people can be protected in other states when they purchase a house or a block of land, they should be able to get the same protection in the Northern Territory. That is what this is all about - giving them the same rights as other Australians in other states.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill wholeheartedly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Nelson’s arguments and, with all due respect to the member for Nelson, I am struck by the inconsistent thinking and logic behind his arguments. I understand the emotional impact of a person weeping in front of your desk saying: ‘I have lost an opportunity’. I understand that a person who was sold one thing, or thought they were buying one thing, and actually purchased another, is a matter of great concern for the member for Nelson. I understand what is driving the member for Nelson in relation to this issue, but there are certain things we need to be clear about in how this legislative instrument operates and what it is trying to achieve.
I would remind honourable members of the organ called the Statute of Frauds, which was a legislative instrument from England in 1677, which is still referred to today whenever anyone studies contract law, particularly in the area of real property, because the Statute of Frauds required certain contracts to be committed to paper. The reason being, if you look at the history that created the drive behind the Statute of Frauds, was the problems the courts of that time were having in dealing with the elements of certain complicated contracts which were coming before them for adjudication. Such contracts were contracts of marriage and, included in the list, contracts for the purchase of land. The courts needed to be able to define, in a very specific and very real way, a vehicle by which they could look at a contract and know what the intent of the contracting parties was, and the best vehicle to do that was to have the item written down. That stands to reason.
The purchase of land, for most people, is by far the most expensive purchase they will ever make. The certainty that surrounds the arrangements for the transfer of that property from the possession of one person to the possession of another person is paramount. It is very important that the purchase of land be clearly defined in each individual case as to what is being purchased. It is for this reason, over the years, in different jurisdictions, standardised contracts of purchase have been created. These standardised contracts are then the benchmark upon which contracts can be based, but they can also be changed through negotiation between the parties, the elements of those contracts can be changed in all manner of ways.
For example, there may be certain guarantees or warranties required outside the normal formal contract. There may be a different purchase time or transference time inserted. The change may be as fundamental as the nature of the currency used to purchase the land. There are any numbers of permutations which may alter a standard transfer of land, and the underlying principle of all of this is the concept of the voluntariness of the contracting parties.
It is for that reason also that I have great concerns about the member for Nelson’s argument that this is a moral condition we are dealing with. No, it is a legal issue we are dealing with. The member for Nelson gave an example of one person considered they were morally bound by a contract where, at law, they were not. That is fine. That is the choice of the person who has decided to accept the payment. Again, what happens in that instance is choice is the overriding factor; the ability for separate parties to make determinations they see fit.
We have also heard an example for the justification of this legislation - a piece of land transferred from one person to another which turned out to be swampy. The member for Nelson said the person was told the land was not going to be swampy or inundated. That is a fraudulent misrepresentation, and there is a remedy for that already at law. That remedy is that if a fraudulent misrepresentation is discovered, then the contract is void ab initio, which means the contract never existed and the parties are returned to their original state, pre-contract.
I also point out; if the seller knew the land was inundated on a regular basis and remained silent about it that is called fraudulent concealment. I refer the member for Nelson to page 375 of Contract Law in Australia by Carter and Tolhurst, which says:
The problem with this legislation is we cross a threshold, and for this reason alone I am nervous about this instrument. Whilst I appreciate it operates in other jurisdictions, my criticism of it is consistent in those jurisdictions.
Currently, if you wish to purchase a property of any description, in terms of land, real property, and it has a building or a house on it, the purchaser may elect in the contract, and regularly does, that the contract is subject to certain things occurring - a satisfactory building report, a satisfactory electrical report, a satisfactory plumbing report. All these things are then items of research taken up by the purchaser, who then determines if it is something they want to look at. It is not an obligation; it is a choice which is made by the purchasing party.
What we are being asked to do in this environment, however, is impose an obligation. The obligation we are seeking to impose is the cost of making all that information available, irrelevant to the wishes of the parties.
One of my great criticisms of us as legislators, is we have this all too aggressive habit of casting a net into the future and hoping it catches only one variety of fish, and we are then surprised when we get results which have a negative impact.
There are circumstances in which people may wish to purchase premises where they want to forego the prerequisite inspections. There can be any number of examples of why that may occur, and that is a choice for the purchaser, and a risk they choose to take for all kinds of reasons. However, what we will do now, by passage of this legislation, is impose an obligation on the vendor to disclose or to have those things done. Why? Because the member for Nelson felt sad because somebody missed out; that is, unfortunately, how it works.
What concerns me more is the member for Nelson wants to impose a moral obligation on a seller in a contractual environment. That concerns me because there is no clear distinction in the member for Nelson’s mind between fraudulent misrepresentation, a moral obligation, and a normal contracting process. For him it is all about some results he feels are bad. The problem is, we really should remove those emotive responses from these types of debates and look at the core of what we are trying to do. The core of what we are trying to do is impose a duty on the vendor of property.
As a legislator, we impose all kinds of duties on people, and I sometimes worry about the consistent passage of legislation through this, and other Houses, which impose duties on people; we impose taxation, for argument’s sake. Now, there is a rationale for those types of things, but we must always cast a critical eye upon the rationale of why we do those these things.
I have seen members of government in the past cast a rational eye on this issue; and they came to the same conclusions I have just articulated, and came into this place and enunciated those conclusions in the same fashion I just articulated. So, while we might be seen as the hard-nosed so and so’s on this side of the House, we are consistent with our philosophy in relation to this, something which government is not. And it does not take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to expose what the real motivation for that decision is.
The government comes into this place and accuses members on this side of the House of engaging in politics in a crass way. But, in the process of them engaging in their politics of survival, what they are actually imposing on Territorians is another duty. This is the Paul Henderson survival duty tax, which is going to be imposed on vendors, and nothing else. It is inconsistent to one day argue one thing in this place, then return to this place and argue the opposite for no other reason than having to look after your agreement with the member for Nelson; especially when that agreement is based on a philosophical construct that, we have all heard today, is fuzzy at best and ill-considered at worst.
It is for that reason the Country Liberals will be opposing the passage of this legislation. We do not wish to excessively impose duties on people where duties currently do not exist. It has been the decision of other jurisdictions to impose that duty, and I am unsatisfied by anything I have read that it has improved those environments at all in terms of the outcomes from contractual parties. I still firmly believe for the sake of certainty on contracting parties it is the written document which should be relied on, and not a handshake. It is simply silliness to suggest that a person should be contractually bound on a handshake, as the member for Nelson has done.
For those reasons I am concerned at what we are doing in this place. I place on the record my personal objection. I find this particular legislation objectionable and, as far as I am concerned, this is nothing more, from a government’s point of view, than the most cynical exercise - the use of this House to achieve its political outcomes, which is political survival, and nothing else.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I did attend a briefing with the member for Goyder, and I do have interest in this, having worked in real estate and having an understanding of the housing market to some extent.
I have listened to what the member for Goyder and the member for Nelson said, and listened to what the member for Daly and the member for Port Darwin said.
My contribution on this matter is, while I recognise the current practices of people who are put in a difficult position, who sign up to accept a letter of offer, and have those letters trounced, I recognise that is a difficult place to be in.
But I also understand that the role of the agent is to find the best price for the buyer. When the buyer signs up an agent they sign them for a period of time, and that contractual arrangement with the agent is to find the best purchase price available in that period of time. So there is a liability on that agent to do the best for the buyer. So when we bring ideas to a legislative instrument like this to try to put safety nets in place so that the potential buyer is not hard done by, and does not have to go to the expense of going through all these reports and so forth, to be overturned, even if they do not go through those reports, as the member for Nelson said, the emotional hardship people go through makes it a difficult position, and we have to find a balance so these incidents do not occur.
I have to agree with the member for Port Darwin in not supporting this legislation. I do not believe this legislation is the right balance. What the member for Port Darwin said is right - this is legislation to support the agreement, rather than legislation to support the problem. This is the member for Nelson’s populism turned into policy, and that is a problem because it is not the right policy for the Northern Territory.
A few examples that relate to what we have heard today about the extra cost it puts onto selling a block of land: if you have a divorcing couple selling a block of land, they now have to go to added expense. If they do not have the financial capacity to go down this line, how are those people going to be able to sell their property? There are numerous examples where people do not have the money up-front to get to that position. What we have done in developing this legislation is come up with what I describe as half-baked legislation.
The member for Daly, quite rightly, referred to legislation from New South Wales and, I believe you also said Victoria and South Australia. If you go through the South Australian legislation, there is a high degree of transparency. There are a number of forms about sales agency agreements which talk about disclosure of benefits, bidder’s guides, collusive practices and warning notices, making sure all parties involved in any real estate transaction are highly informed about the process. This legislation does not go to the capacity or the extent they have gone to in South Australia. For that reason, I believe this legislation has problems.
That is why I say this legislation is just populism turned into policy, which does not solve the problem we have at the moment in the real estate industry; and that is of great concern. However, we have to remember how we got to this position, in the majority of cases, for gazumping - as we like to call the populist approach. It is because there is an over-demand rather than supply. There are certain occasions where that will not occur in the market but, generally speaking, it is because there are more people trying to buy property than those who are selling. That is due to bad economic management by the Northern Territory government in failing to release land and ensuring there are enough houses on the market. That is the reason we are in this position right now.
I note in my briefings from many people, including the real estate industry, someone gave me a copy of the letter sent out by the new Minister for Public and Affordable Housing - I did not know there was affordable housing in the Territory. The letter does not have a date on it, so I am assuming it was sent out some time after the most recent reshuffle. The flyer talks about Homestart NT and asks to be distributed to everyone so they can get some political support in Alice Springs, I believe. It has the Homestart NT income and purchase in it. It says here $120 000 is the Homestart purchase limit in Tennant Creek. Member for Barkly, there are good things happening in Tennant Creek with the mining industry potentially moving along, and we know the real estate industry is moving on, which is a good thing. I do a fair amount of work on real estate, and I do not know if there are too many properties under $120 000 now. My understanding is they are all $160 000 and above. I am not sure how easy it is to buy a house for $120 000 in Tennant Creek right now. I know in Alice Springs there is not one house available for $300 000.
Sitting here, I thought I would have a quick check on the realestate.com.au website. I have entered Palmerston and Darwin to look for any houses under $450 000. I can tell you, there is Unit 1/14 Lowe Court, no price; another one in Gardens Hill, no price; Gray, three-bedrooms, no car park, $449 000; Driver, $449 000. You can buy a unit in Larrakeyah for $400 000; in Woolner you can buy a unit for $420 000. There are only 14 properties listed, and the majority of these are under contract and this website is well updated. Driver for $420 000, which is under contract; Driver for $440 000, which is under contract; everything else on the second page is under contract. I do not know how Homestart works at $420 000 when there is not a house available in Darwin, Palmerston or the northern suburbs. How can this policy work?
This is part of the problem that impinges on the gazumping populist policy which has been turned into a legislative instrument to support this deal between the member for Nelson and the government. It was so important to get this out that they could not even get a proper flyer. They ripped it out of a book and sent torn pages out to the real estate industry to try to promote their wares.
The most normal and easily understood form of gazumping, which is where an agent accepts an offer and then takes another offer, is an auction. We go to an auction and someone puts in their bid and that bid is accepted, and if someone makes another bid, there is a new one accepted. If you look at the definition of gazumping, an auction fits right into that model.
What we see in this legislative model is a formulation where new things, such as inspections and building reports and so forth, have to be undertaken by the owner. Now, this is not a necessary requirement, and has not been sold as a necessary requirement, or been debated well enough so the Country Liberals can accept this meaning. When you sign any contract for the purchase of property, you sign with a cooling-off period that says ‘subject to inspection reports being conducted safely’. These are the things that can occur. If we want change in this area, we could have changed the signature of offer process so that people could not be gazumped, because if you signed a legal binding contract the process would be able to go through, subject to conditions. That is the necessary change that would need to happen in the gazumping model, if you support a populist approach like the member for Nelson’s. This is another area where we see a failure by trying to be all things to all people, trying to be heavily popular in your electorate, but when it comes to policy and good debate, rigor and analysis, it falls down, and this is why this has fallen down.
The populist approach is really coming to be the heart of Labor. I am sure the Attorney-General does not support this legislation; I know it has been voted down by this government before, but what we are seeing is more leftist Labor policies coming forward. It is about trying to remove the model of ‘buyer beware’ completely from the real estate industry. If you buy something from the shop, you do not have someone report to you that it is okay before you buy it; it is buyer beware. This is how things work. We know the member for Nelson is trying to get rid of buyer beware completely.
I am sure the government does not like this, but I will refer to comments made in the motion on vendor disclosure for land and house purchases, which was negated on 10 October 2007 by Mr Wood. I note that the former Treasurer, the former member for Nhulunbuy, spoke on this, and I note the comment by the member for Nelson at the time, when he said:
That is the member for Nelson. So what we are doing is putting complete responsibility onto the vendor in this argument, for some sort of populist or philosophical reason that people should be responsible for the decisions they make. Now, let us get out of the ideology of all this. If I am going to buy a house, it is my responsibility to check that the house is not going to flood. I went to buy a house in a place called Castlereagh in New South Wales at one point in time. It was a 19-acre property and there was a bit up high and everything else was low, so the first thing I did was check out whether it was flood prone.
In Alice Springs, we have 1 in 100 year floods, much to the contention of land release in Alice Springs at the moment, but if you are going to buy a property out near the AZRI area, you would check whether it will get flooded. You have a responsibility for yourself; you cannot pass it onto someone else because you are too immature, or stupid, to check these things out. The concept of buyer beware has to be in all parts of our lives, otherwise we abrogate responsibility to the other person when we have to make decisions in our lives; and this is also a component in real estate.
If the government really wanted change in this area, instead of trying to put the onus on the conveyancer they would have moved to put more responsibility on the agent not being able to accept an additional bid.
Signing a contract, not just the submission of a letter of offer, would have made liability in that area. I do not believe the changes we have in this legislation will make change, and I do not believe they are necessary to achieve the change of this populist policy. There are much easier ways to do it without being over-burdened. If you do want to go down this path, look at models in South Australia where you can adopt much stronger, transparent models which clearly spell out obligations to people, and clearly provide the necessary information so these circumstances might not arise in the future.
As I said previously, while we have a government failing to release land, and while we have a government failing to invest in housing, this is going to be a problem. We will see, as time goes on, and the cyclical nature of interest rates going up and more people have to sell due to hardship conditions that this is going to hurt those people and we will be back in this House trying to find alternate legislation to stop that process. We know interest rates are cyclical; they seem to go up when Labor is in government in Canberra and come down when the Liberals come back in. We are in the cycle now where we will see the federal Labor government, through their policies and practice, driving up interest rates which will have a negative effect on all the people in the Northern Territory who are mortgaged to the hilt, or trying to get into the housing market, trying to provide themselves with a house, and are in a difficult position.
I will leave my comments there. We will not support this legislation, not because we do not support populism, but because we do not think this is the right instrument to effect change in the area of gazumping in the Northern Territory, and not the right reforms required in the industry.
The reform required in the real estate industry is release of land so there are not 25 bidders on one house for sale, we do not have a line at the door, and when we look at the realestate.com website we can see there are properties for sale, and we are not going to put people who are already in hardship into more financial hardship as they try to dispose of property on an open market.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Honourable Roger Steele, and Mr Larry Johns, a traditional owner from the Timber Creek area. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that - This Assembly censure the Chief Minister and all ministers and former ministers for Child Protection since 2001, which includes the member for Nightcliff, the member for Karama, the member for Arafura, the member for Arnhem, and the member for Casuarina, for
1. deliberately, deceitfully and wilfully lying to Territorians about the state of the child protection system in the Northern Territory;
Madam Speaker, this is the most serious of motions for anyone. I only hope that honourable members have read the coroner’s report. Have you read it? Have you read the story of the last days of the Melville child, and the Melville children? Have you read that story? Hold that as we consider the requirement for action, the requirement for a censure of this appalling Labor government.
Mr Elferink: They just vacated the room I might add, en masse.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The presence or absence of members in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: This government, in its nine years in power has seen a revolving door of ministers in the child protection portfolio. Six separate ministerial appointments, five different ministers. The member for Nightcliff held the portfolio of child protection from 27 August 2001 to 15 December 2003. I understand at that time a statement was made by the minister which said her inquiry into child protection in 2003 was the broadest ever into child protection. Such are the words, the fake assurances, which are offered with the simple purpose of protecting political interests.
The member for Arafura held the portfolio on two occasions, from 15 December 2003 to 11 July 2005, and from 7 August 2007 to 1 August 2008.
Minister Lawrie, snarls out interjections during Question Time and calls me despicable for asking such questions, but does not have the gall to actually answer a question that is asked of her and her responsibility for the protection of children. I ask you, honourable members, which one is despicable? Minister Lawrie held the portfolio from 11 July 2005 to 7 August 2007. I have always wondered how it was, once this appalling state of affairs became clear, that the portfolio was dropped like a hot potato. The only conclusion I can make is that the profound ambition of the person concerned would perhaps be compromised by holding an unpopular portfolio.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62, Offensive and Unbecoming Words. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know we have free-ranging debate in censure motions, but I believe he is really crossing the line here, and I believe it comes under Standing Order 62.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. What word are you talking about?
Dr BURNS: The assertions the Leader of the Opposition was just making. Everyone knows what they are. Do not play …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I will allow you to continue, but bear in mind that Standing Order 62 still relates to a censure motion. If you actually have words in a censure motion which are unparliamentary, they cannot appear in this speech either.
Mr MILLS: The member for Arnhem was minister from 18 August 2008 to 4 December last year. Lastly, the Labor spin machine flicked the current minister, the member for Casuarina, into the child protection role. That is six separate ministerial appointments, five different ministers, all moved at strategic times when the heat was on - move, move, move - we need to move to protect political interests; forget the children, that is a secondary issue; we have to protect the organisation, we have to protect the party.
The latest minister defends the proud record of his former colleagues, not having the courage to stand and make a frank admission that children have been exposed and neglected; not having the capacity in the face of the trauma experienced today by families who feel let down by a government that has the capacity to stand on its hind legs and make empty assurances.
After nine years, to stand and cast your excuse back almost a decade - what comfort is that for the Melville children? What comfort does that bring to those who are operating in a system on a daily basis confronting and being confronted by the trauma? I see it in my electorate office; I see neighbours who come to report to me and they are put through a bureaucratic rigmarole that does not allow them to even make the complaint. A senior citizen has to get on a bus to make a complaint at Casuarina after making a phone call and being told to come in, stand at the counter, make your complaint, get back on the bus, and go back to Palmerston. Nothing happens. Madness, chaos, disorder, dysfunction, lack of care, deceit, obstruction, denial – why?
Are you so shallow that your own pride needs to be protected above children? Is it any wonder we have a systematic failure in the child protection system when we have a systematic failure by this Labor administration to provide stable leadership for the Territory? Every one of those ministers, half of this government’s membership, has been at the helm of a dysfunctional child protection system. They have perpetuated a system of cover-up, of lies and deceit. They have failed to address the many reports and investigations. They have failed to seek the truth and, if they truly did know the truth, then they have been complicit in some of the worst behaviours known to society that occurred in my own town – in our own town.
I talk of sexual assault of children, of violence on innocence, of deaths from malnutrition, a lack of care, and a lack of decency. This government is complicit - it is on the record; it is plain for anyone to see - in the death of Territorians, and it is a disgrace.
If it were possible to hold those ministers accountable across the years, I ask them these questions. Why did the member for Nightcliff reject calls for an independent review into child protection in 2003? Why, when there was evidence in 2002 that 197 children under 14 suffered from sexually transmitted diseases? Why did the then minister fail to act? Why did the member for Nightcliff try to cover it up with an internal inquiry? Why would the member for Nightcliff say:
In 2003, the then minister assured parliament that:
Yet, here we stand, six awful years later, to learn there are 1000 cases not investigated in the appropriate time frame and there is a severe staffing shortage - and this government is to blame. The then minister told parliament:
It is now 2010, and what we get from this government is another review. How exactly has the Territory benefited by those years of hard Labor but by a continued failure to address the issues in front of each of those five ministers since 2001? Chief Minister, the child protection system was, to quote the then minister: ‘under a lot of pressure’ in 2003. We now know, in the intervening years, the child protection system failed Territory children. Of course, that was just the first example of ministerial failure in the child protection area.
If I had the opportunity, I would ask the member for Arafura: Why, in 2004, when you were minister, would it have taken 57 days to investigate a case of child abuse? Why would teachers, carers and child protection workers’ warnings of child abuse be ignored in 2004? Perhaps I know the answer. I would know it was because today this government continues to fail to investigate cases of child abuse. I know it because, in 2004, there was understaffing of child protection workers. I know it because, in 2010, there continues to be understaffing in child protection systems.
I wonder about this government’s fixation with the amount of money being spent as a measure of performance. That does not speak to me of care. I know it is the number of cases of child abuse in our society that is the true measure of this government’s failures. The number of children whose reports indicate child abuse - that is the number - not the dollars. That is the number: those children who go to assemblies, those children who are sitting out there; those teachers who recognise and raise concerns. Is that concern heeded? That is the question.
I looked to other documents from that time, and I see the Ombudsman’s Annual Report of 2004-05. I note that in the course of investigation, it was found indications of some systemic defects in FACS administration processes began to emerge, which contradicted the department’s view that there were no underlying problems - all is okay. After some heavy lifting by the Ombudsman eventually the department agreed that some systemic issues were apparent. Why that cover-up? Why that failure to have the decency to acknowledge that the instrument, the organisation whose sole purpose was to protect children, went immediately into the default position of protecting its own interests ahead of children? Why would that be? Care! Care! Care!
I wonder, when the Ombudsman reports in her current inquiry - one this government tried to forestall with a shoddy internal review - will it show continuing systemic failures? I have, unfortunately, coroner’s reports, terrible reports, that show this government’s abject failures. I asked you at that time in 2004 if the minister was in control of her department. Obviously not. This government was flying blind and there was a lack of leadership to address systemic dysfunction.
Having the opportunity, I would ask the question of the responsible minister about 2005; I would ask about foster carers - not about numbers, but about whether they could look after the vulnerable. I would ask those questions because, even though you spoke in estimates about the number of carers that year, 2005, I would know that the 2007 Bath report would be critical of that part of your agency’s work. You spoke of the numbers; you never spoke about the capacity to deliver effective care to those in need. I wonder if you, with children in your care, would ensure that carers were supported to the hilt. I would, but the minister and this government obviously did not.
Of course, the solution to this government’s lack of care in child protection was what will they do? What do you think? They reshuffled the deck chairs - once the heat was on, move positions. Manage the situation - manage the political situation. After all, that is the higher order priority, obviously, judged and discerned by action. That is the action that can be seen; that is the conclusion that can be drawn.
But while the faces would change, the questions remain the same.
Given the opportunity, I would ask the member for Karama in her time as minister in 2006, were all child abuse reports investigated? Her claims then were that when a report of child abuse or neglect is received, we investigate immediately; and I can just hear that response being provided and that assurance being given. I can hear it, the measured tone, that sense of assurance. People go away, but now there is that growing, lingering, gnawing doubt - are these just words? Do they really care? Does it mean anything? Is that true? Is it true they are all investigated immediately, or is that just to suit the preservation of a perception? After all, perception is reality: I am sure that has been said many times on the other side. It is a sad reality for the Melville children, young Deborah in particular.
No, it is not true, Madam Speaker. This government does not investigate all cases of child abuse, and I know that from examples as a local member. I have tried writing letters to ministers to assist people through the system. Of course, the lid was blown off this disgraceful situation by the strength of Nanette Rogers speaking out on behalf of women and children. The subsequent Little Children are Sacred Report in 2007 showed how this government handled child protection. What did this government do then? It sat on the report; it did not do a thing. It failed children, and it failed the Territory. It resulted in the emergency response, and it was indicative of this government’s ongoing standards, if you can call them that, and performance. I ask the member for Karama: did you advise the Chief Minister to do the right thing? Did you urge her to do the right thing? Did you go into Cabinet and fight for the protection of children? What exactly did you do?
What you did was to fail to apply due care. You failed the system, and you failed the children. You failed the children, member for Karama. You allowed systemic failure to permeate the organisation and, under your watch, the coroner was damning about the death of Deborah Melville. She said:
There is no more senior than the minister. The minister failed in 2007; another minister failed in 2003; in 2004, in 2005, in 2006 ministers failed, and they continue to fail today. This government has a culture of cover-up and a ministry of failures. If only the litany of disasters were finally to end with the government taking action after the Little Children are Sacred report, but that is not so.
What happened was this Chief Minister took the reins, but behind the scenes nothing changed. His Cabinet continued to talk about money being spent, as though that is some kind of laudable outcome, but children continue to be failed, and the dysfunction reigned.
How do I know this was a position of Cabinet? I know this because even when an acting minister spoke out about child protection it was a lie; it was to lie and deceive. Minister Burns said in January 2007:
Minister, that is not true, and you know it is not true. Every single member of this government stands condemned by their very own words:
Minister, I am shocked. We have child protection workers speaking out; we have teachers, carers, and police trying to do the right thing. But here you stand condemned by your own words - another ministerial lie, another Cabinet lie, another Labor lie.
We also need to assess the words and actions of the most recent ex-minister for Child Protection, the member for Arnhem. When confronted with evidence of another shocking failure within the child protection system, she brazenly claimed she was happy with how the system was performing. How could you do that? She alone knew, but brazenly claims: Did that press conference go well? Yes, minister, you spoke well, you covered it up beautifully! Happy her department ignored repeated warnings from highly qualified social workers that the placement of a motherless infant with a relative was putting the child at risk of harm; happy about that, press conference went well. The assurance maintained with deception. Publicly unmoved the system had failed a child who consequently suffered brain damage.
When questioned about just the possibility the system failed this motherless infant, the minister refused to hear such a possibility. For a week the minister refused to initiate an inquiry - for a whole week - when the community would want to see a decisive response, a demonstration of profound and genuine, humble care. Refused to initiate and obstructed an inquiry into how an infant had been failed in the most fundamental way by the authorities charged with that protection.
Indeed, the minister publicly attacked the opposition for raising the matter. Such are the actions and responses of a government whose sole objective is to protect and preserve a deception about themselves.
The minister threatened to hunt down the brave individuals who felt compelled to go to the media. That was a shocking case of official neglect - hunt them down. One week after the injuries to this infant were raised the minister wilted under public pressure - and thank the Lord for that. People spoke up, they know what is right. And then the minister wilts. Pressure was exerted upon Cabinet - I think we are going to have to change tack here, the people are getting restless; they want someone to stand up and do the right thing. Well, there is some political merit in that. We are going to have to do that because the crowd has moved in that direction and they need to be served; the right thing needs to be done - so the minister wilts and sets up an inquiry.
Now we know why the minister resisted calling an inquiry. The system she claimed was protecting vulnerable children was in chaos. Twelve hundred reports of abuse and neglect lay unattended within the required time frames. This is a wealthy country. We often talk about the strength of the economy, the amount of money we have available to us; surely enough to afford a good system that can allow good people to extend good care to kids in need. I have been to poor countries. This is a wealthy country. Twelve hundred reports of abuse and neglect lay unattended - cries for help. Good citizens have raised the alarm; 1200 of them reported cases to be written off the books like a bad debt entry.
The percentage of cases investigated falling; the percentage of substantiated cases falling: the system is failing. And minister after Labor minister actively sought to conceal that fact. Two of these ministers retain their positions in the Henderson Cabinet. Children in care have lost their lives, but no ministers have lost their job. After all, that is what this is about - hold on, preserve that position - children have lost their lives, but you get to keep your job. That is not right. Over the term of this Labor government we have lies, we have deceit, untruths, spin and dysfunction.
Madam Speaker, we have five ministers for Child Protection, we have Cabinet ministers failing to bring honesty and integrity to parliament, to stand up for the standards our community expects us to stand up for, and chief amongst those are the vulnerable. We see a litany of failures in a dysfunctional system; one that fails the very people it is meant to protect, and a government that is supposed to support the people provided the protection, but it fails them too.
Chief Minister, the members for Karama and Arnhem must either tender their resignations, or they must be sacked.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this censure debate. It certainly it is a very serious censure brought by the opposition on an extremely serious matter.
I called the Opposition Leader a coward today in Question Time because he knows the standing orders of this parliament very well. He knew that despite my desire to answer his questions in Question Time, under standing orders I would be prohibited from doing it.
Mr Elferink: You are an outrage.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I see that as nothing but a cowardly attack and it is disappointing. Given the nature of the subject, it would be good to get to the …
Mr Mills: So you are more concerned about that, are you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: Typical. You are a fake.
Ms LAWRIE: … the substance of debate. It is certainly a shame the member for Araluen is not here because she has been the member of the opposition who has pursued the child protection system in the Territory with vigour from the moment she was elected to parliament. She certainly did a great deal of work in this area prior to being a member of parliament. She is the only one in opposition who has any creditability whatsoever in this place.
There are many times we will agree to disagree, but we have never had an issue where the fundamentals come to the importance of protecting children.
Political stunts, going after ministers, calling for resignations - that is the form of the CLP. Where we are focused, where we have been focused from day …
Mr Conlan: You have failed so badly you have no other choice.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … one in actually building a system that was almost, but not actually, operating. And I will explain where that comes from and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I will not be reading word for word from a speech. I will be talking about a child protection system in the Territory. It is interesting, the Leader of the Opposition often will talk on a subject and he will not read from a speech. He read from a speech today, word for word ...
Ms Purick: What is wrong with that? You lot read from speeches all the time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Resume your seat, minister.
Honourable members, this is a very serious debate, and it would be very helpful if you could hear the person who has the call. I remind you of Standing Order 51:
Deputy Chief Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: They are a little sensitive on the subject because they, perhaps, can smell the stench of hypocrisy …
Mr Bohlin: Too right!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: … we are certainly smelling on this side of the House regarding where the Leader of the Opposition is on the subject. He wants to attack people, but he does not really go to the issue of child protection, the systems, how they work, what does not work, what are the issues in them, and how to come up with ideas to approach and improve them. That is the debate you would have had from the member for Araluen. You would have had an attack, certainly, playing and attacking the individual, but you would have had more of the grunt around child protection and those issues.
We started in 2001, and I will go through that period from 2001 to today, because it is all here. It mentions since 2001 and the opposition censure is capturing every single child protection minister who has held the portfolio. When I am going through the history and you do not like to hear it, it is because it is actually in the body of the censure.
In 2001 we came to government. The facts are: $7m was the child protection budget, about 100 workers. The problem, quite aside from it being meagre, and the reality was there was no after-hours service which is actually when a significant number of workers needed to be available in child protection; and, critically important in the nature of children at risk in the Territory, which is what a children protection system works with, there was nothing outside the urban centres. Not only was there no system operating outside the urban centres but, I understand, there were actually no children in the out-of-home care system from remote areas - out of sight, out of mind, do not debate it, do not go there. If you go through the old Hansards of previous CLP governments it was not even on their radar.
Madam Speaker, you were the first of our members of parliament who had the responsibility, and child protection is a significant responsibility. It has statutory responsibilities but quite aside from the statutory requirements I do not believe there is a single member of parliament who would not have the greatest desire to protect children, regardless of their political background.
Everyone who is appointed a child protection minister goes in wanting to do the best they can to protect children - to understand the system, learn about the system, see where the strengths are, see where the weaknesses are, and do what they can, knowing they cannot prevent every child-at-risk situation. If we could, there would not be a child-at-risk situation. We are trying to work to improve it.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Nightcliff, you undertook the first of the reforms, which was an immediate injection of funding. You knew immediately they needed more resources to hire more child protection workers, even though, as the Chief Minister said in Question Time today, that was in the context of the significant issue we had inherited with the budget. We thought we had inherited a surplus budget, but the Percy Allan report showed we were actually in significant deficit, referred to as a black hole.
Despite that, when Labor was cutting government expenditure to try to climb out of deficit, child protection received increases; so, not just you, as a minister, but the entire Cabinet recognised the need to quickly inject funding to improve the system by hiring more workers.
We then had an industrial dispute to bring in after-hours service. The child protection workers were not used to working at night time - did not want to work at night time - but we knew we had to have a service operating 24 hours. So we took that on; industrial blues occurred.
We also knew we had to build our child protection system, but we had to build the non-government organisations around the hardcore agency child protection system to deal with the children at risk, the children out on the streets, the children who are not in the home being cared for properly. So we introduced funding to create, for the first time ever, a youth night patrol - get dedicated youth workers out on the streets to try to capture what is happening with the youth at risk. So, not just building up the child protection workers in the system, but also starting critically important work in the area of child protection of a non-government organisation system supporting children at risk; and we have progressed that to supporting families at risk, and I will talk about that as well.
Madam Speaker, you went into battle in a very tight fiscal environment for government and got a $53m commitment over five years to increase child protection, which was announced in 2003. It was a five-year funding plan, set up by government to increase the funds in child protection, to increase the workers in the system, and to improve the system itself. There are reforms associated, not just funding, there are significant reforms associated with that as well.
At the same time, work began on changing the legislative framework. The Community Welfare Act had not been looked at or improved in decades; they were completely non-contemporary childcare practices, so work started on reforming and bringing in contemporary legislative practices, and providing the framework. A great deal of work was done on that, and it took years and years. I will not stand here and say it did not take years - it did take years and years. I participated, as a backbencher in those days, in many of the forums and, ultimately, I inherited carriage of the legislation for quite a period of time.
The next minister was the member for Arafura. She came in and did what was critical, which was focusing on the causes of children entering the system. Significantly, at the time, and it is not necessarily what the opposition want in this debate, but the extremely high levels of children with STIs, the children experiencing abuse, were significantly in remote scenarios, and also petrol sniffers. Petrol sniffing was rife across the Territory at the time.
The member for Arafura focused strongly on the cause situation, the most at-risk children, the petrol sniffers - which is why we have the volatile substance abuse legislation; which is why she created an intensive family support service to work with the children at risk; which is why we brought in the petrol sniffing legislation, the substance abuse legislation, and also the funding for the non-government organisation system to get those kids out of the high risk situations. They were the ones; they are the horrendous report cases that ministers see. Horrendous reports do come across our desks. We cannot talk about it, we do not issue media releases about it, we would have been in breach of our own Community Welfare Act to have done that. We recognised and understood the confidentially.
So the member for Arafura went where no one had gone before. She went boldly and strongly into tackling petrol sniffing, but also working and supporting the non-government organisations to provide support to the families at risk. It had to be done. She took on the work, she did it and many government resources came in to support that work. BushMob is just one organisation among many I could name, CAYLUS is another, that are doing an amazing job on the ground in dealing with children at risk because of their substance abuse.
I then inherited the portfolio, and at the time the national debate was raging about do you have mandatory, or do you not have mandatory. We were holding the line on mandatory. We continued to reform the legislation to drive through the Care and Protection of Children Act; and I focused on the pointy end of the system. I had finished the work on delivering the Volatile Substance Abuse Act; I was still, at this stage, in receipt of the additional funding coming in year-on-year into the budget that you had secured, Madam Speaker, as member for Nightcliff; so both the member for Arafura and I were in that growth funding year-on-year period you had secured over that five year period.
What do you do with those extra resources? You look at where you put it. The member for Arafura strengthened the non-government system. The Leader of the Opposition asked questions about the foster carers and why was she not working with them: she was, very closely, having frequent meetings with the foster care associations, talking about the protocols existing between FACS and foster carers in strengthening those supports and understanding the actual care management plans for individual children in the out-of-home care system. All of that was happening; happening all the time. I know that because I followed on from where she had done that critically important work.
What I focused on was continuing work on building the supports in the non-government section, going back into what I call the pointy end of the system, which is the intake system, and getting an understanding of how that intake system was operating. No one was doing this at the time, but from what I had seen, what I had learned, and what I heard, I wanted to improve the intake system. That is where - and you heard the Chief Minister refer to it today - we introduced CAT Force, the Child Abuse Task Force. This came before The Little Children are Sacred Report; it was already in existence.
We created the resources to pull together for the first time in our nation, child abuse workers sitting beside police, co-located so they could cross-feed information on their systems about the notifications which came in; so when you ring the 1800 number to make a notification, it was going into that new intake system of CAT Force. It had not been done before in Australia, and we are still virtually the only jurisdiction doing that type of work with both police and child protection workers located together. The Children’s Commissioner, Howard Bath, went to the issue of notifications and how to deal with that, and it is critically important to improve those tools.
At the same time, I was preparing the work on Closing the Gap, which was saying we had growth in funding, but needed more growth in funding, particularly in the remote areas, particularly in the non-government sector, and also for the initiatives we now had such as the mobile child protection workers who go out into the bush. As I have said, today this system is far from perfect; today this system continues to need building; today we have an inquiry. But, there was not a month or a moment that went by for any child protection minister when we were not working and building with the experts in the field - fundamentally, the department, but also experts in the non-government sector. Each one of us were talking to experts interstate to get their advice on how things work and why things should work, so we could come back and challenge the system here and improve it. We were not hands off the wheel at any stage - quite the opposite.
Can I say, the work in preparation for the Little Children are Sacred report - reminding the parliament, because listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, you would think that just magically appeared - that report was instigated by the Labor government. The Chief Minister of the day put the team together of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild and said: ‘Go and do this report. We want to see what is happening regarding the care of children in our jurisdiction’. They called the report Little Children are Sacred. It was an inquiry initiated by the government, and it led to the Little Children are Sacred report. Of course the government at the time scrutinised every single recommendation of the report in detail, and adopted the recommendations we felt we could adopt.
The intervention occurred. Those of us around at the time know what that was. We know the intention regarding some of the politics; however, at the end of the day, we welcomed the additional resources. Regardless of how it occurred, why it occurred, we welcomed the additional resources.
Mr Elferink: Your Chief Minister, refused to go to the summit. He refused.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. The summit held by the then federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs was attended by me, the member for Arafura, and the member for Wanguri. Three ministers of the Northern Territory government attended …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: All the premiers were there, but not the Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that inane interjection that all the premiers were there. No. I was at the summit. No, they were not there. Ministers for Justice were there, Indigenous Policy ministers were there, the odd Child Protection minister was there, and Police ministers were there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: That is not my information.
Ms LAWRIE: Got it wrong again. No heads of government attended the summit - no premiers, no chief ministers; and the prime minister did not. It was what they call line-agency ministers. Yes, we attended the summit. And, yes, we were absolutely saying whatever it takes we will work with the federal government of the day to see more resources go on the ground. If you listened to the debate at the time about the Little Children are Sacred report, there were a few stand-out commentators such as former Australian of the Year, Dr Fiona Stanley. Bear in mind the debated we are now having is a debate about child protection in the Territory. During the debate she got to the crux of the issue and said: ‘How can you protect children when they are living in overcrowded housing?’ You have to tackle housing if you are truly going to tackle child protection from the preventative end, and that is what you have to do. You do not want to be just responding; you want to go in and deal with the preventative end of the child protection system.
Mr Elferink: Do you agree with that? And if so, how do you explain Deborah Melville’s conditions.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: So, that being said, clearly the government was focused on delivering additional housing in the bush to deal with the overcrowding where we have the most disadvantaged and at-risk children. And I am not saying for one minute that disadvantaged and at-risk does not occur in the suburbs - it does.
Mr Elferink: It does, and with kids in your care.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin
Mr Elferink: Please do.
Ms LAWRIE: In terms of the Melville child …
Mr Elferink: Her name is Deborah.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Her death was horrific, her death was tragic, and the moment …
Mr Elferink: The death was on your watch as a government.
Ms LAWRIE: The death was on my watch as a minister?
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: And the moment …
Mr Elferink: And your CEO knew, and the whole department knew.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: And the moment the alert came through of the child’s death, I was interrupted at Cabinet, I came out and I immediately instructed that all her siblings be removed from the care of those carers.
Mr Elferink: Have you read the coroner’s report?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I have read the coroner’s report.
Mr Elferink: You should have known months, years, beforehand.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I point out to the member for Port Darwin that at no stage does the coroner sheet home any blame to any ministers. It was a failing in the department.
Mr Elferink: So, ignorance is your excuse?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: Ignorance is your excuse? This is a disgrace. You are a disgraceful minister. I will have to get myself out of here.
Ms LAWRIE: I do not know a child protection minister in the country or in our jurisdiction who has not seen the most horrendous reports come before them, and who has not responded to those. What I did in responding was seek out an expert, a national expert, to undertake a high-risk audit, not just in child protection, but across all the divisions in the Department of Community Services.
I did not ignore Deborah’s death, I acted immediately to ensure the safety of her siblings, and I acted to get an expert. Howard Bath was sourced. I did not know him at the time, but he came. When I checked the references he came highly regarded as a pre-eminent expert in child protection in our nation. So, we sought out the best, and he agreed to undertake the high-risk audit which is referred to as the Bath 2007 Report.
We worked on ensuring that, through Closing the Gap, additional resources would come into Family and Community Services to build the system beyond the urban. One of the first things we did at the time was the trial at Maningrida, to put child protection workers into a community. They are from the community, they were trained, they were supported, they exist today and they are making a meaningful difference in Maningrida. We put the funding in to continue to roll-out those services in the large communities in the remote areas because we had built up workers in the urban centres, and we will continue to do that.
We have put programs such as Peace at Home in place in Katherine, but we knew that we had to fundamentally increase, and support, and create a structure in the remote areas that had not previously existed. As I said, we had inherited an out-of-sight-out-of-mind system and we were building it up. The work is not finished and the job is not done. The inquiry is critically important because it will, I hope, have more advice and more ways in which to improve that work we have commenced.
Under the changes that occurred in the Cabinet reshuffle, the member for Arafura came back into the portfolio and she continued to expand the Child Abuse Task Force. I cannot underestimate how important that task force is to responses to intake notifications. Having police and child protection workers together is a critically important aspect to responding to intakes.
She set up the Children’s Commissioner’s office, she expanded sexual assault services and the Residential Care Unit and Therapeutic Services - all the support systems you need to protect children and to provide support for children who are in the out-of-home care system, or who are at risk.
The member for Arnhem became the Minister for Child Protection, and she then did what the member for Arafura had done, looking at the causes of children at risk. Where the member for Arafura put in all the work around petrol sniffing, the member for Arnhem focused on domestic violence because, as we know, alcohol abuse in the home is putting children at risk of abuse. The domestic violence environment had to be tackled if you are truly going to get in at the grassroots, ground level and deal with the children who are at risk …
Mr Conlan: Why do something properly when you can really stuff it up?
Ms LAWRIE: I know they do not like to hear it. They like to pretend there is one solution and, if you find that magic solution, you can solve all the problems.
Also, the member for Arnhem continued the work on the Northern Territory Strong Men’s Council, which is one of the things that sets us aside from other jurisdictions. We deliberately wanted to work with the men in the communities. You cannot prevent harm to children without having the men being strong and being the champions of protecting the children. It is sometimes easier for governments to work just with the women, but we have gone out of our way to work with the men as well as we really wanted to provide the safeguards in place at community level to protect children. So, the Strong Men’s Council is a critically important council.
At the same time, we have had a focus on growing our own workers in the remote areas, as I have said; putting people through family violence training programs and sending them back into their communities skilled and trained to help with the care and protection of children system.
Focusing on the remote Aboriginal Family Worker System was the effort and work undertaken by the member of Arnhem when she had the portfolio. Of course, we know of the horrendous death of the infant, which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Arnhem requested an investigation into that take place, and that report has been tabled in the Assembly.
Also, issues around notifications again came to the fore - bearing in mind we had dealt with notifications earlier in putting together CAT Force. However, notifications again came to the fore, and the minister asked Howard Bath to investigate notifications; and that has been tabled.
If you look at this censure, they are saying we deliberately, as ministers, tried to avoid the care and protection of children. None of us did. Quite the contrary. We went out of our way to improve the system - not just the resources, not just the number of workers, but to actually improve the system itself and the support provided to prevent children from being harmed and to support people in the system at the coalface: the child protection workers, the families recruited to be foster carers in what we call our out-of-home system, and the non-government organisations that are critically important to the success of caring for families and children at risk.
There is no deceit. Every inquiry we have had, every investigation we have undertaken, has been public. There is a notable exception to that - the Howard Bath 2007 report. That was a high-risk audit; it has details of clients in the report. We issued the Executive Summary, we issued the recommendations, and we issued our response to what he told us to do. However, what you cannot do is identify clients – you cannot identify people who are still in the care system. That is a breach of confidence. It sounds simplistic to issue the report, but we have an obligation to the people who gave information in the high-risk audit confidentially – you actually have an obligation to keep that information confidential. Do you issue what is wrong, what is said to be wrong, which is the Executive Summary? Yes, you do. Do you issue the recommendations? Yes, you do, but you keep confidential individual cases, and that is at the heart of trying to work with families at risk, which is at the heart of trying to protect individuals. We have a system where people know they will be named, their children will be named, and the carer will be named. People do not divulge; that is the greatest risk. If people will not come forward, if they do not notify, if they are not entering the system, they are at the greatest risk.
The whole point of child protection is to increase confidence, to give greater notifications so we can follow up with the investigations and, hopefully, prevent harm; or, where harm is occurring, remove that child from harm. It is difficult, complex work. Mistakes are made through that process. The coroner pointed out the horrendous mistakes made for young Deborah. He pointed out how he saw to fix them, and we certainly instructed the department to follow up on all those recommendations; the recommendations of experts like Howard Bath and the recommendations coming out of coronial reports. It is a hard system for child protection workers; they can make a mistake, and a child can die. It is a terrible front-end system to work in.
I am not aware of any government which does not have an issue with child protection - we all do - New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT, Western Australia. The good thing is that the federal minister wants to introduce a national system that best protects children in care. That work is in early days yet, and many of us who have been working in the child protection area and wanting to see improvement, are very hopeful of the outcomes of that work.
The opposition would have people believe that we do not care, we are deceitful, we hide things, and we lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have initiated investigations; we have initiated inquiries; we have provided all that on the public record. We have increased the resources, we have increased the workers, we have increased the non-government organisation system; and every single one of us cares, and cares deeply. I am a mother of three kids; I understand the importance of caring for children. I understand the importance of not just caring for my own children, but every child in our community, and every child in our society.
Mr Conlan: That is what makes this so abhorrent, that you are the mother of three children, and you should know better.
Ms LAWRIE: You can play the petty politics. We will not be deterred from continuing to try to protect the children.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, my first comment today on this very serious issue and censure motion against this failing government is, just because the other governments have not fixed child protection is not an excuse, minister, for us not to fix it, and work towards lower expectations.
The main theme across this very serious issue is this government has been denying it is a crisis for years. The government says it is spending a great deal of money, they are pouring money into child protection. They may well be but there are no obvious outcomes of improvement. In fact, it appears to be getting worse. We are losing children, and we have a growing number of children at risk. The government says it throws money at it, and then it walks away and washes its hands of it. There is no leadership at the ministerial level, and no leadership at the bureaucratic level. Two high level people from the department have been sacked, and the minister knows why, and we know why. Four ministers in recent years - it is no wonder the department and the Territory are at a loss to understand why this serious issue is not getting better.
For a purported touchy-feely government, they are not doing a very good job of caring for children at risk, or children who have been taken into care. It is a hopeless situation, and it is not getting better. They have failed families in the Territory and, sadly and importantly, they have failed the children of the Northern Territory. They are shirking this serious responsibility entrusted to them. The ministers have ducked and weaved and, my colleague, the member for Blain, has given examples of how this has happened.
Minister, it is not about more mandatory reporting as stated in the paper today, because it has happened in the last six months – wrong! Mandatory reporting of child abuse has been in since the mid-1980s. We have had it for over 30 years, not the last six or 12 months.
This government is a deceitful, unpleasant outfit which treats accountability to parliament and Territorians as something of a joke. The government does, however, reflect the personalities of its members - they are arrogant, bullying, uncaring and cowardly. For more than eight years this government has consistently raised community expectations that it will bring about change and reform. But it has then let down the same community through inaction, incompetence, and inability to face the situation we have at hand - a crisis in child protection. Worse than that, it is the contempt with which this government, and this Labor Party, treats Territorians. There is no better example of that than occurred yesterday in this very Chamber.
The member of Macdonnell asked a question of the member Arnhem relating to government funding going into the outstation near the Angela Pamela exploration project near Alice Springs. It was quite a straightforward question: is the government’s uncharacteristic support of this new outstation linked to its location adjacent to the Angela Pamela uranium deposit? That question should have been answered in one or two ways - yes or no. But there were supposed audio issues in the Assembly yesterday, and the member for Arnhem claimed she could not hear most of the question. Instead of having the member for Macdonnell repeat the question, the member for Arnhem decided to go ahead with an answer even though, as she said herself, she had not heard most of the question. How does that work?
The member for Arnhem was talking about something when she did not even know what the subject was. Needless to say, her answer was as tepid and unrelated to the topic as you would expect from this minister. This is the same minister who was a willing participant in the culture of cover-up; the decade of deceit which has been a hallmark of the Henderson government’s handling of matters associated with child protection and childcare. Over the past decade this government has clocked up a long list of policy and administrative failures which have eroded trust within the community, and left a trail of innocent people within its wake. This government has failed children in the urban areas, and it has failed children in the bush areas. It has spectacularly failed across the Northern Territory when it comes to child protection.
Law and order is another noticeable area of government failure. Despite the quarterly statistics from the Department of Justice on violent crimes across the Territory, this government likes to play down the figures with excuses such as: more people are reporting violent crime. Of course, they are reporting violent crime, because there is more violent crime across the Territory.
Public housing is another obvious failure which has enormous human cost right across the Territory, and it is impacting into the area of child protection. The Henderson government has sold off approximately 2000 public houses since it has been in government; many were flogged off apparently to help finance its convention centre and its wave pool. We know there are long waiting lists to get into public housing - up to four years - we know there are houses left empty for months on end which has placed considerable pressure on the most vulnerable in our society: people on low incomes, people who are socially disadvantaged - groups in the Top End community and elsewhere. Many have been forced into situations of sharing with friends and family, resulting in overcrowding and additional pressure on the family groups.
We know with overcrowding and family and friends sharing there are social problems, particularly when it comes to the children who usually get pushed down the tree or, worse, pushed out of the house.
Children have been the silent victims of this government’s heartlessness. They are the most at risk when the family breaks down. It is in child protection where this government’s failures and deceptions have been the most horrific. It is in this crucial area of government service delivery that the human cost has been carried with such devastating consequences by the most needy and most vulnerable in the community.
It is the member for Arnhem who should carry some of the burden for this government’s failure, but she is not the only one. Before her was the member for Karama – all incompetent, just passing the baton in a race of who can be the most incompetent. This was so clearly displayed yesterday when the member for Arnhem tried to answer questions she did not hear. The member for Arnhem is a mouthpiece for this discredited government, a robot, a drone, a mere functionary of an apparatus that has stopped caring about its people and the people of the Northern Territory. It only cares about itself and its survival and will do anything, make any deal, to survive. They are not caring about the survival of the most vulnerable in our society - children at risk and children in care.
In October last year, after the opposition revealed a child in government care had suffered brain damage after being placed in the care of an uncle, you maintained Child Protection Services, minister, was functioning effectively. Another child dies in filth in a back yard in Palmerston and you say it is all okay, things are improving. I believe that is a distorted and sad view of the world.
The intake report released yesterday by Howard Bath shows this could not have been further from the truth. The weasel words of the member for Arnhem could not have sunk the reputation of this Assembly any lower. I look at the government benches and I see other former Child Protection ministers who were not prepared to stand up to the Labor Party machine, but are happy to host lavish parties, launch million dollar convention centres and go on trips to Asia without any results, while child protection workers groaned under the enormous weight of bulging caseloads. Estimates have shown, under questioning, that the caseloads were there and the child protection workers were not.
The member for Arafura quit the government not because of any moral issue to do with the care and protection of children; she quit the government because a reporter from the local newspaper wrote something mean about her. This is the same member who, when she was Deputy Chief Minister, condemned the federal government’s Emergency Response as setting back individual rights while completely ignoring the fact the Commonwealth intervention into the Northern Territory came about as a direct result of her government’s utter neglect of children. This government let the Commonwealth walk in and walk all over us, and the Commonwealth will not leave our borders for a long, long time. It is because of this government’s failure, this government’s incompetence that they let the Commonwealth walk in and take over the affairs that should be the responsibility of this government.
The member for Arafura was a key player in the Labor government’s culture of cover-up - it is a decade of deceit, and it is shameful. While this member sits embittered and angry on the backbench, having skulked back to Labor to prop up her failed mates, she will still not admit her government’s role in the failure to protect children.
In Tuesday’s Northern Territory News in the letter headed, Neglect Claims Denied, the member for Arafura distanced herself from the shambles that is child protection in the Northern Territory. Instead of putting up her hand, speaking up, being honest and acknowledging she contributed to the failure, the member for Arafura did what she has always done, and what these ministers do, and that is duck for cover. For the benefit of the public record I will read Ms Scrymgour’s letter to the Assembly:
As in the member for Arafura:
In other words, member for Arafura: ‘It was not my fault’.
The member for Arafura should have played handball, because that minister at the time, and the current ministers, are very good at handballing the problem. No one wants to take responsibility for the very serious problem and crisis we have in child protection and childcare. The member’s letter could serve as a template for how this government goes about its business; how its ministers duck and weave to avoid any responsibility for the terrible tragedies in the child protection system, and how they will do anything to avoid censure to the extent they will write a letter to the newspaper to protest their innocence, just weeks after a coronial report into Labor’s handling of the system damned Labor in the strongest possible terms - a coronial report.
The member for Arafura’s lack of shame and responsibility is a mirror of the entire Henderson government. The wonder is the members of this government can look in the mirror at all! How can they stand with their hands on their hearts and say: ‘We care and we will look after the children of the Northern Territory’? They cannot, and they have not, and it is shameful. At least the member for Arafura sits on the backbench where she cannot cause any further trouble or harm to the Territory’s children.
Sitting right there beside the Chief Minister, front and centre amid the carnage in child protection, is the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Karama. She was promoted to the Family and Community Services portfolio, a job she coveted, in July 2005 during the course of which she released 50 media releases relating to Sport and Recreation, compared to just 12 in the crucial role of Family and Community Services minister. In June 2006, she issued a media release in which she said:
This is despite the coroner’s report into the shocking and sad death of Deborah Melville, detailing allegations of physical abuse suffered by Kevin Melville, Deborah’s brother, that were never investigated by FACS, even though it came to their attention via a letter from the Assistant Principal of Humpty Doo Primary School.
In the Bath report - the one leaked to the media because the government would not make it public - it tells the story of John, a young boy who suffered severe burns to 10% of his body. For the benefit of Hansard, I will read the account of John as a way of illustrating little has changed within the agency:
This is just one example of many outlined by Howard Bath in the report the government refuses to release to the public.
What this shows, and other case studies by Howard Bath or highlighted by the coroner, is a systematic and systemic failing of a system under enormous stress - the same system that various government ministers have maintained is functioning well when, clearly, it is not. During all of this the Chief Minister sat silent and did nothing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that this government is failing to protect children because it is not prepared to admit it is incapable of dealing with this crisis and, for purely political reasons, it is not prepared to admit it cannot cope; and it cannot cope because it is incompetent. Perhaps the other shameful reason it does not care for Territory children is because children do not vote.
Mr Elferink: If you blokes are not going to talk, I will.
Ms Lawrie: Do not be ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot believe …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Minister for Children and Families is ready to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, the minister is there and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have given me the call …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I will move dissent from your ruling in a second, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you try this on.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will confer with the Clerk.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I find the comments by the member very offensive. I was not having a talk; I was receiving advice.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I have advice from the Deputy Clerk. Member for Port Darwin, you do have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot believe that this minister is so incompetent and so lazy that, under a censure motion directly affecting his own department, he cannot even get to his feet in this place and defend the disgraceful history of this government.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin knows very well that the member was there making himself ready to speak; he had just received advice. He is just painting a picture that he wants to paint. Let him speak to the motion. The member for Port Darwin knows it is two on two and he is just trying to make political grandstand here.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the lies continue. What lie did I hear during Question Time?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he cannot refer to lies or anything like that except by way of substantive motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, the level of interjections and shouting is not acceptable. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The deceit, the lies continue, and I can tell you the first lie I heard, which suddenly had to be backed off by the Chief Minister today, was that they introduced mandatory reporting for maltreatment of children. That legislation existed in the Northern Territory as early as 1983. He did some fancy footwork …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister made it very clear that we changed the threshold in mandatory reporting from …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Then the Chief Minister later on had to do some fancy footwork to skip around that particular issue. I can tell you, he only just got away with it, because someone shoved a piece of paper in his hand to remind him that legislation existed well before they got into government.
Lie number two: this assertion there was only $7m available in child protection back in 2001, and they increased child protection services to over $90m. That is disgraceful in the worst way, because anyone who knows that child protection and care, which we only got under the financial circumstances of the recession we had to have, that sort of budgeting did only, sadly, get $8m and yes, it has gone up under this government. We do not deny that, we accept it, but not to $90m. Child Protection Services gets $25.366m, which is down; a cut of $0.5m from the final estimate in 2008-09 of $25.852m. In the very year that calamitous coronial investigations find wanton disregard from even the most sensible systems of management inside the child protection system, what is this government’s response? A cut in child protection expenditure of $0.5m. What a disgrace; and the lies continue, the disgrace, the deceit of Territorians continues. To find myself on my feet unprepared, because the minister himself cannot get to his feet, for me demonstrates how tardy, how retarded this government’s capacity is to deal with these particular issues.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory today had the audacity to claim and, by way of interjection, say I was feigning my disgust. I am not feigning it. I am disgusted at what has occurred because not long before I came into this House I read, from cover to cover again, the inquest into the death of Deborah Melville. I cannot begin to describe the anger I felt as I read this last night, and read it again today. I actually lost sleep after I turned my light off and thought about what happened to that child
What makes this particular coronial investigation so unpalatable, and so ugly to the eye, is not only the horrendous death of this child occurred, but it occurred after about 20 or 30 failures of the system. If one of those failures had not occurred, this child would, in every likelihood, have survived. When I was reading this coronial investigation I started with my highlighter and I was going to mark out a few areas to quote, but I cannot do that because of the pages upon pages, upon pages which are dedicated to the systematic breaches of the law by FACS are there for all to see. If I was to simply stand here and quote what was necessary to quote to impress upon people the shortcomings of the government in relation to obeying the law only, my full time would be expended, plus some.
Let us put into context what we are talking about. A child under the care of this minister and of this government died from septicaemia arising from of a build-up of pus in her right leg caused by a bone infection. The infection was so profound that from her hip to her knee the leg had become a rotten mass. The autopsy discovered 1.5 litres of pus in that injury. A short time earlier, FACS workers had stopped and spoken to this child.
I will struggle to get through this, if you will excuse me, but I was struck by paragraph 237 of this report, and I quote:
This was a child in this government’s care. I cannot imagine how you can come into this House having read something like that, having read the litany of disgraceful management from the very frontline workers all the way up to David Ashbridge, who is mentioned by name in this report, a whole chain of command - and the minister knew nothing.
You cannot come into this House like a penitent coming in front of the people of the Northern Territory and pleading for forgiveness for the disgraceful mismanagement which has occurred. It defies reason. To stand there and slowly take us through what happened, what we did in 2001, what we did in 2002, what we did in 2003, and then we had a change in minister, and the new minister had a new focus, and all that stuff. Where is that reflected in the systematic breaches of the law by FACS? Where is the care of that level of management and competence in a minister and a government reflected in the page upon page of screaming indictment from the coroner’s pen? Where is that defence? ‘Oh, we knew nothing, we knew nothing’. Ashbridge knew. It says so in here. And small wonder he is gone because he carries an incredible burden as a result of what has happened here, as well as on other occasions.
We have heard the previous Health minister tell this House he had been deceived by Dr Ashbridge on at least two occasions, by omission. Why was Ashbridge still there? Because for some reason it is more important to keep CEOs who mislead by omission than it is to actually govern the Northern Territory. What on earth is going on? What is entering into the minds of you people?
It is absolutely exasperating to sit here and hear minister after minister think their function and role is nothing more than to be a figurehead in a department. No! When you become a minister, you find out what you are responsible for, you find out what your legislation says, and how to apply that legislation. Do we see that reflected in any minister? No, we do not. The ministers do not even know what their responsibilities are, and if you want evidence of that, look no further than the way they have reported the annual reports for this place. They come in here and say: ‘Oh, yeah, sorry we are a little bit late’. But it is the ministers’ responsibility to bring annual reports for this place in a timely fashion. They do not do it because they do not know what they are doing. They do not know what the law is, they are not told by their own departments, and they do not care to inquire because they are figureheads. Surely, it must occur to a minister at some point that they should actually ask a few critical, difficult questions of the CEOs and senior staff: ‘What is going on? What is happening here?’ Yet, year after year, we see none of that.
In 2007, Bath delivers the report to government, not to the department - to government - a whole pile of recommendations. How many of those are being instituted? All of them? Some of them? None of them? And yet, yesterday, where do we find the government at? ‘Oh, look, we have a problem,’ says the new Health minister number five in almost as many years, ‘We have a report which says there are systemic problems inside the department, and we are going to fix them’. You are joking, are you not? After 10 years, the best defence you have is: ‘Oh, we have improved the system’. The coroner says you have not.
The minister himself admitted yesterday in this place, by tabling that report, that you have not improved the system. Yes, you have spent more money, but the point is that I could drive down Mitchell Street tomorrow throwing money out of the car - that is not money well spent. It is up to the government, there is actually a hint in the word - govern-ment - to actually go out there and drive this stuff and take ownership of it, and say: ‘I am responsible’. But I have not heard one minister in this whole process say: ‘I am responsible’. Not one of you.
You try to find all the excuses in the world to avoid your responsibilities, and then shift the blame to someone who held the job 10 years ago. If I walked into a job and said: ‘The guy who did this job 10 years ago is the reason I have a problem today,’ how seriously do you think my employer would take me? Not at all. It is ridiculous. It is a stupid assertion. You cannot blame the Country Liberals, or anyone else, for a situation you inherited nearly a decade ago, especially seeing you have fixed it one, two, three, four, five, six times. You fixed it! This is you; this has nothing to do with history anymore. This is what the government of the Northern Territory has delivered to the people of the Northern Territory, to the children of the Northern Territory.
My fury rises at your incapacity to make those millions of dollars work. If you believe you do not have a problem, read the coroner’s report on Deborah Melville’s case and you will see a description of a department which is no better than Bedlam - it is actually described as a mad house by one of the witnesses – because no one takes command. Dr Ashbridge did not take command; it was someone else’s problem. He chose to ignore it; certainly did not tell the minister. The best defence the minister has is: I was kept in ignorance. No one actually said: ‘I am going to get involved in this investigation system, in what is happening at the front line’. In Deborah Melville’s case, the law was broken by the staff of FACS - and it was broken over and over again.
In there, believe it or not - get this! There is a description of one of the children in care being sexually abused when she was four or five. FACS got involved and the arrangement reached was that the adult who had access to the child should get less direct access to that child. Where was the report to police of a crime being committed? Surely, that was spoken about. What does the coroner say? The coroner is damning of the FACS workers, of course. But where was the system in place to train those FACS workers? That is what the coroner said: why were these FACS workers not told how to deal with something like that? They were not because the system had failed. I am not going to hold the minister responsible for a single failure of a single public servant to do a specific task; you cannot be held to that level of responsibility. But you are responsible for a complete and utter systemic collapse which ends up describing the operation of your own department as ‘a mad house’. That is what you are responsible for. That is what this is about. This is why we are trying to shake into this government some sense of responsibility for what they do.
Their defence, in the light of something like the Deborah Melville report, is just astonishing. Surely, there must come a point when a leader of government says: ‘We can no longer dress this up. We can no longer massage this message. We can no longer spin this in a particular way. We have to put our hands up and say we are guilty’.
That point has been reached and passed and, yes, to my dismay and ongoing astonishment, they continue to defend this as some form of improvement in the child welfare system in the Northern Territory. My goodness gracious, if this government believes this childcare system has improved simply because they are throwing money at it, they have not read the coronial inquiries that surround their system. They have not listened to Dr Bath. They have not listened to other non-government organisations which have made appeals to them. They have not listened to their own department - or chosen not to hear their own department - in this process. They are entirely culpable for what is wrong with child welfare in the Northern Territory.
This is a machine they have built and constructed from the ground up, and the responsibility cannot be sheeted home to some other place. Even if there had been no child protection system at all in place in 2001, if it had been completely non-existent, they would in no way be absolved from the death of Deborah Melville - it just does not work. They have taken on the responsibility; they have described the responsibility as being theirs and, when the responsibility comes home to roost, they seek every possible way to avoid any form of answerability to the people of Northern Territory.
What has happened in child welfare in the Northern Territory could only rest on their conscience and their record as a bloodstain
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I have been on the record saying that this is not a problem only for the government or the opposition; it is a problem for the community. Protection of children is the responsibility of the community, and I find it offensive when our own people use children as a political weapon, and I have said that …
Mr Tollner: Read the report!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr VATSKALIS: We have heard the opposition say many times that mandatory reporting was happening under the CLP, what they did not say was, it only happened if the child was injured; the child had to be in a hospital or a clinic for the mandatory reporting to take place. What we changed in our legislation was to say the ‘potential for harm’, and now we are moving to ‘cumulative risk’. The difference between these two is enormous. We do not report the child when the child is in hospital; you report the danger to the child before even thinking about hospital. That is the main difference.
The second one: we have the CLP referring always to Nanette Rogers. What Nanette Rogers did was a study of convicted men over a 10-year period which started in 1997 to 2007. It was not a study done in the time the ALP was in power; it was a time when both ALP and the CLP were in power.
The third one: we have said before that we respect the privacy of the families, and the reason I consulted with my advisor here was about what happened today in this House. On 20 January 2010, an article in the NT News reads:
I know we have parliamentary privilege in this House, but today both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition named that child. Tell me that this is not politics.
Are there problems with child protection? Yes, there are. Only in the Territory? No, there is not. There are problems all around Australia. It is a symptom of our community, it is a problem of our community and, as I have said before, let us work together to sort it out.
This afternoon there were claims by the opposition that a report was tabled by Dr Howard Bath. No, it was not. It was tabled by me yesterday. It was also claimed I tabled the reports because I had pressure from the opposition. No, I did not. I tabled it in accordance with the legislation we put in place in this House.
Madam Speaker, it is an incredibly sad fact of life that, in the Northern Territory and anywhere in Australia, there are families who neglect and abuse their children. It is also a positive sign that many people now cannot ignore the problem. They are prepared to stand up and be counted and they are prepared to report it. According to the most recent report, we have seen a jump in notifications from 3600 to nearly 6200. Sixteen hundred notifications have been investigated, and 800 have been substantiated. Out of the 6000 notifications, 800 have been found to be real, to be valid, and have been substantiated. The figures are terrible, but what I believe is great is the fact people choose to report 6000 incidents where they believed the child was at risk.
We intend to look after Territory children. We have said before, and we will say it again, we will make sure the Territory is a safe place for children. We have worked very hard and will continue to work very hard. No system is perfect. You can go anywhere in the Territory, in the private sector or the public sector, and you will find faults. You can go anywhere in Australia, in the public sector or the private sector, and you will find faults. Recently, the Ombudsman in Victoria identified a number of issues with its children’s services department; the Victorian department’s system was considered to be the best in the country.
I said we will try to do it. Did we get it right all the time? No, we did not. Do parents still abuse their children? Unfortunately, they still do. Do we need to invest more in this area? Yes, and we will. Do we need to change the way we do this? Yes, and we will. I said previously, the way we did business in England in 1950 to 1960 is not the appropriate way to do business in the Territory in 2010. When are we going to do this? As soon as possible. I do not believe we have the luxury of time, we have to act quickly. Again, I say we will do whatever is necessary to protect every child in the Territory.
You will remember in 2009 the then Minister for Children and Families made a request to the Children’s Commission for a report into the intake of response processes of the department. This was in response to frustration experienced by health professionals. On becoming the minister, I asked the commission to provide me with an interim report of what was happening with that report. I was very pleased to receive, in early January, that report which identified a number of issues which required our immediate attention.
I have received the report, and I have tabled it as required by legislation. I have also provided copies of this report to the Ombudsman, as she requested. This report shows a children’s investigation system under enormous stress, not only caused by the number of people notifying cases of children at risk of harm, or potential risk of harm, but also by the fact we cannot recruit professionals from all around Australia. If we can recruit professionals, they are under enormous stress. This is a profession which causes enormous stress to people, especially if these people are not senior, or have not been working for a long time. Many people who choose to come to the Territory are recent graduates, or people with limited experience. These are the people who experience enormous stress.
The report shows the need to review the central intake; the need for new structures to improve the efficiency of the intake system; increase the number of staff receiving information and review workloads; consider the long-term safety of infants and young children who come to the attention of the department. We have to give special consideration to specialist doctors and other people coming into contact with children, and to address backlogs in case work, and address recruitment and retention issues.
We have increased the number of people in the intake system. There are now 11 people working there. I have instructed my acting director to move quickly to address the other recommendations, especially with regard to support and training, and training not only in the professions, but in other areas, and provide support. We cannot expect professionals to investigate cases and come back and do their own photocopying and their own filing. We cannot expect professionals to go out and not be debriefed when they return and have the support of senior officers, because they will burn-out, as happened previously.
In October 2009 the former minister also requested a second report from the Children’s Commissioner. This report requested to review the specific circumstances of a child known to the child protection system, who had subsequently died. To protect the confidentiality of the child and the family, the baby is referred to in the report as Baby M. This report has also been tabled. The Children’s Commissioner reported that despite allegations Baby M died as a result of physical abuse, a preliminary investigation by the coroner found no evidence of maltreatment.
The report and the commission identified a number of issues we have to address. The recommendations include: the opinion of health personnel working with children should be afforded special consideration in assessing the risk; the department has to develop specific guidance for notification of vulnerable infants and very young children, and consideration of the parents’ capacity to ensure safety and wellbeing; Northern Territory Families and Children to develop specific intake decisions and make instruments to recognise people at risk.
I have accepted all the recommendations and appropriate instructions have been issued for these recommendations to be complied with as soon as possible.
The challenges presented in running the child protection system in the Territory are common to challenges faced right across Australia yet, in some very specific ways, unique, as we deliver cross-cultural services across vast distances. We have a very special creation: the tyranny of distance. The fact much of our population live in communities outside the urban centres; the fact that 30% of the population is Indigenous and have special cultural needs - they have special needs - they have complained the system is urbanised, and that is a valid complaint. How do you expect people in Arnhem Land to consult with a person in Darwin who, in some cases, has no idea what Arnhem Land is like? How do you expect people in Central Australia to deal with an office only based in Alice Springs?
The challenge of staffing is also much more intense. People prefer to stay down south rather than come to the Territory; it is the same challenge we face with our health personnel but we are determined to get it right. We have instigated the most comprehensive review of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. We have employed Dr Harper, Professor Neil Bartlett and Dr Roseby. We have made it clear we are prepared to allocate any resources they require and as much time as they want, because we want them to get it right.
This panel has brought a wealth of experience and expertise in the area of child protection. The board of inquiry will be assisted by a panel of eminent national child protection experts. This inquiry taking place now is critical to ensure Territorians have the opportunity to contribute to the future system’s structure and service, and also have the opportunity to identify faults. I have asked all the people in my department to feel free to contribute to this inquiry, provide solutions, and identify faults and problems. I have guaranteed they will be protected under the Inquiry Act, and an instrument signed by the Chief Executive Officer will provide the same guarantee. I have provided this advice in writing. I hope they will take this advice and they will stand up and provide this advice to the inquiry.
Many people have made comments about the Ombudsman and about the government’s intention to somehow stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry. We cannot stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry; the Ombudsman can have her own inquiry; she can do the same inquiry. I have advised the Ombudsman that I will provide her with any information she wants but, at the same time, I encourage her to work with Dr Howard Bath and the co-chairs in order to have an inquiry that work together. I am very pleased to say that following the provision of the intake report to the Ombudsman, she advised me that, having read the report, she realised a great deal of work has been done and she does not have to do it again herself; and that is very encouraging. What is also encouraging is she said she is prepared to work with Dr Bath and the co-chairs to have an inquiry.
People say: ‘You spend money and you have not achieved anything. You say you have done so much, but not everything is in good shape’. Let us go back and have a look at the history and have a look at what happened and what we have found.
We started from a very low base: $7m was the original budget and we said we bought it up to $90m. The member for Port Darwin jumped up again – Professor of Economics, as he is - and he challenged the budget. He said: ‘This is not true. We haven’t got $90m’. We do have $90m. For child protection we have $25m; for out-of-home care we have $30.5m; for family violence sexual assault - $30m; for the Children’s Commissioner - $0.6m; for family and parents support - $13m. Now, do not tell me that out-of-home care, the Children’s Commissioner and family and parents support is not part of the child protection budget. Again, the member for Port Darwin proves that he either does not know how to read the budget, or intentionally misinterprets it.
Going back in history, this is from the report produced by the then CLP government. In 1999-2000 there were only 94 Indigenous children in care. So, in 1999-2000 only 94 Indigenous children were in danger. Tell me then, how in 2002-03 that become 142 children? In 2004-05 became 218 children, in 2007-08, 271 children, and in 2008-09, 358 children. Is that because the Indigenous families all of a sudden became really bad? No, they did not, because Indigenous families care about their children. It is the same dysfunctional families, unfortunately, who do not care about their children. What changed is mandatory reporting, more people to receive complaints around the clock – not 9 am to 5 pm - around the clock. It is a combination of these factors and, as a result, more Indigenous children have been identified as being at risk of harm, and more Indigenous people in out-of-home care. They are not my statistics. They started with the CLP statistics.
There is no record of the people working in Child Protection in 1999-2000 or 1998-99. When we took government, we put in over 100 people; that has now risen to 223. With the establishment of Children’s Services in 2004 we have nine people more over establishment. So, more than double the people the CLP government had.
I asked for a list of the ministers who were changed, they claimed we have had five ministers in nine years. Can you tell me how many Leaders of the Opposition we have had in the past nine years? I can tell you, since 1978 to 1999, you changed 13 Health ministers. Of course, there is change, and there will be change; ministers change because governments change. There is something called elections every four years, and ministers change.
The member for Nightcliff, when she became the minister, managed to obtain an extra $2.4m. She established the Darwin Youth Night Patrol, and she announced, in 2003, $53.8m over five years.
The Honourable Marion Scrymgour, the member for Arafura, when she became minister developed and implemented the Care and Protection of Children Act. In 2005, she created the Intensive Family Support Service. In 2008, she opened the Bush Mob volatile substance abuse, alcohol and other drugs facility.
The member for Karama established the Child Abuse Task Force, the Children’s Commission Office, the expansion of sexual assault services, the Residential Care Unit and paediatric services.
The member for Arnhem, in 2008, introduced mandatory reporting of domestic violence. She founded the NT Strong Men’s Council, oversaw the implementation of the Safe Houses, expansion of Child Protection Services into remote areas; she amended section 20(c) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and announced the first comprehensive inquiry into the entire child protection system.
As whole-of-government we developed the Child Protection Register for Identified Convicted Paedophiles; and we announced $286m over five years.
I know the member for Goyder says: ‘You spend money, but what are the outcomes? You spend money without outcomes’. If you do not spend money you do not have any outcomes.
Mr Elferink: You do not have any outcomes, and you spend money!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Our outcomes are more efficient in receiving complaints of sexual assault …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have more people working there. I did not say there are no problems. Of course, there are problems. We said we are going to fix the problems but, if you do not have money, you do not have a service, and that is what happened in the CLP time - no money, no service, no kids in care. As simple as that.
I said before I have no intention of politicising the issue of children. I believe children are, and should be, above politics. One thing I will say, again, we can have arguments with the member for Araluen, but I recognise her passion about children. We can have blues here in this House about many issues, but I recognise her passion about Children’s Services.
One thing I know is how hypocritical is it for the CLP to come here now and talk about the government and Children’s Services. This is the party that took 10 years to put together a children’s protection policy. I went back to the 1980 election trying to find out if there was an announcement for children’s protection, and I could not find anything. There was one released only last week presented by the member for Araluen, and this policy includes elements the government already has in place: the whistleblowers legislation, the Children’s Commissioner - she wants to increase his powers, which is very welcome - I agree with that and I support it if it is logical. Then she comes out, the day after the NT News said the minister is thinking of splitting the department, and said: ‘We will split the department and put in an enormous amount of money - $9m’. Ten years too late, the CLP talks about children’s protection, when they ignored it when they were in government; they under-funded it while in government, where they had a small number of kids who …
Mr Elferink: When do you become responsible? At what point do you say this is …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: We now have the situation of them telling us how bad this government is and they are trying to tell us, in their time, everything was perfect. I throw a challenge to them. I have been in the media as the minister saying: ‘Yes, there are problems, and I want to fix them …
Mr Mills: You have missed the point completely.
Mr VATSKALIS: No, I did not miss the point of the opposition. I challenge you to rise to the occasion, walk together with me; I have no problems, I have done it before and I will do it again. This is an issue about politics; an issue of the Territory. This is not about me; this is about us. This report was tabled yesterday and I have already given instructions to the acting director to be acted upon - and that will happen.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I do not want to have an argument with anyone, because this is a really serious case, and these reports have highlighted systemic failure.
One of the very important things we need to understand as politicians, and mums and dads and grandparents, is that our culture, the Indigenous culture is very different to the culture of non-Indigenous people. We know, yes, we have put resources into family and community services, but let us not pat ourselves on the head and say: ‘We have done more than you’. We have not done enough. It is obvious from these reports that we have not done enough. We have our workers out in the communities now, but are we giving them the support that is required to meet the family obligations that these people have in remote Aboriginal communities?
The stress of a person living and working in a remote Aboriginal community is higher than any social worker who is based in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek. That person has obligations to the family and obligations to the whole community. They have to be very careful in the way they handle any kind of reporting. Have we have given them all the resources to sit down build the capacity of the people?
To build the capacity of the community is to understand the legislation. We were doing the legislation when the member for Arnhem had the portfolio, and I spoke in committee stage. I said that if there are any amendments, we need to make sure that there is an education strategy put in place for our people in the remote communities.
I will tell you of an incident which is very new. I will not mention any names, but I will mention the community. There is a little boy, about five-years-old, who, it would have been October last year, was taken by FACS from my community of Papunya, screaming, kicking his legs. His carer was in a neighbouring community at an art meeting, at Haasts Bluff. They took him from the school at Papunya. I took a photograph of that same little boy because I needed evidence that FACS is not following up on this little boy. Three weeks ago I took a photograph of him and his mother in a community in my electorate of Imanpa. A week ago, when I came back from Mutitjulu, Ayers Rock, the mother is at Mutitjulu. Yesterday, I rang the school at Papunya to see how things are going with this little boy, because I am curious. The school at Imanpa had rung the principal of the Papunya School and said: ‘We have so-and-so here, and he is a real little nuisance, none of the people here want him. His mum is at Mutitjulu. They are not the carers, the carers were at Papunya’. So, the principal says: ‘Well, how do we bring this little boy back to Papunya?’ It is not the responsibility of the community; it is not the responsibility of the mother. FACS initially took this little boy from the mother because she is an alcoholic. So, why is it that this little boy is allowed to go back to another community and be in the care of the alcoholic mother they removed him from?
Now, let me go back a step, because when they put this little boy into care at Papunya, he was put into the care of my Auntie. They took that little boy, screaming, to Alice Springs. Guess what? Six weeks later, they put him back into care into the same family with my cousin. They did not come to assess the family - same environment, same family, same overcrowded house that he was taken from.
This is what we are saying: you can pat yourself on the head as much you like and say that you have created housing for Indigenous people - which you have not. You have created all of these programs to help these communities, and yet our children are still struggling in the system.
Yesterday, I said in this House, the Aboriginal and Islander principle you have is based on placing a child based on its race, based on the culture, and no longer based on safety as the priority. That principle is good, as long as you have all the carers, Indigenous carers, you need to have in the system. You do not have that. Why should a child be placed in care based on his culture, rather than, first and foremost, the safety of the child?
Member for Karama, I heard you say you are a mother and you felt deeply about the death of these kids while you were minister. But remember, before you say that, these kids also belong to someone and, at the end of the day, you were the minister in charge. Did you scrutinise your department head? You would have been advised by your department head within days, if not seconds, of incidents occurring.
A mother has a compassion for any child in grief, homeless. I remember in Question Time the Chief Minister saying the member for Braitling and I walked around Alice Springs and did not report anything to the police when we saw underage children. Of course we did. The member for Braitling rang up, and I used his phone because I did not have my phone. I rang the police.
That night in Coles we saw a two-year-old baby sitting there looking after a drunken mother. But what do you do when the call centre does not answer?
Before Christmas I rang the police four times because an old lady was smashed in my street - there was no answer. I heard the minister saying, culturally, the Top End is different to Central Australia, as it is in the Barkly area. Of course it is! But why do we have one station only, in Darwin, which everyone reports children to?
The department should be divided between the Top End and the bottom end. We should have our own executive directors based in Central Australia; we should have our own call centre. FACS should be a stand-alone body outside the department of Health.
We need to put more resources into getting more Aboriginal carers. I remember sitting down with the member for Arnhem talking, on many occasions, about getting Indigenous people in our communities interested and registered as carers of our children, because it is important they maintain their identity and culture, and an understanding of where they come from. I believe what we have done under this principle is say: ‘Your safety is no longer paramount; that is secondary. We will look after your culture and your identity first, and we will think about your safety second’. That is just not on!
These reports have appeared because the government has sat on its hands. You have been brought to the table by media reporting. You have hidden the Bath report. The former Chief Minister sat on the Little Children are Sacred report for six weeks. Do not stand up and pat yourselves on the shoulder. Admit these mistakes were made; these are our Territory children.
I specifically want to indicate to my Indigenous colleagues in this parliament that it is very important we stand up and recognise these failures to our children in the communities. It is our children who are dying and being neglected because of their parents’ abuse.
This is not an argument. We have to work in this parliament to ensure we have the best resources in Family and Children’s Services. We have to ensure we build the capacity of families, and the children, and our communities at the same level we resource the agencies, so they are both growing together; it cannot be lopsided. You cannot be putting millions of dollars into this, and thousands of dollars into that, and it does not operate. We have to grow the two together and ensure there are mechanisms in place for the protection of our children first, and the safety of our children. That safety should be looked at not based on the colour of the child, but the safety of the child.
Are we taking that child out to Five Mile at Papunya and putting it in a home where it is going to sleep comfortably, or are we are putting it in a home that has 20 people? I can tell you, this little boy goes into the house at Five Mile, on my brother’s outstation, with 25 people - is that a good thing? Is that what you want children in your care to be doing? We had to educate my cousin and my auntie that they can go to FACS to get a fridge so that child’s food can be stored. There are two different rules, and we have to change that and treat every child with the basic respect and nurturing that we want, and have, for our own children.
It is so important that, in all this debate, we do not forget the growing of the community, the growing of the people, growing of the department, supporting the department with resources, and doing exactly the same at the bottom end. The Top End and the bottom end must be looked after properly, together, and made to grow together.
We must ensure that if we support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle, then we have many more Indigenous people caring for Indigenous kids. We must have them and we must educate them. If you have only a handful of Indigenous people out in the communities as carers and you have 600 kids in care, there is no way in the world that handful of people can look after and nurture those children. They must be resourced properly to ensure they understand that the safety of that child is paramount: taking the child to school, taking them to childcare, making sure they are in a safe home and making sure they have playground equipment.
One of the things I am really shocked by is the fact that kids which FACS put into the care of Indigenous people do not have the same resources as they would in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. These little kids run around with no clothes and are just expected to have a normal life. There are no safety requirements, no safety mechanisms put in place for this child, and this is a classic example. This example is only a month old. I took the photographs deliberately in order to see what was going on.
That is why I spoke to the principal of the Papunya School yesterday, to find out what is going on with this little boy in between Imanpa and Papunya. They had an agreement between family and family to take that little boy out to Imanpa for Christmas holidays to the mother. Well, Christmas is long over, school has started, and he is being a little nuisance at Imanpa and the mother is at Mutitjulu. He needs to be taken back to his agreed carers at Papunya, who are my auntie and my cousin.
These are the important factors we need to realise here, and the fact that you have been brought to this table and these reports have been placed before parliament is not because you agreed yourself to put these reports on the table, it is because the media has brought you ranting, screaming, legs up, straight to parliament to make sure the whole of the Territory is aware of failures of the department and the failure of the ministers - serious failures of the ministers.
Member for Karama, you can stand up in this House and say that you are a mother but, as I said, mothers do care for other children as well. As I said, the CEO of your department would have informed you within seconds; and, yes, you took the other siblings out of the care, but did you have a major look into your department and the systemic failures of your department prior to all these deaths? You should have known these kids were in serious trouble. If your department had not reported it to you then, as the minister, you were responsible.
At the end of the day, if you are going to look at this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle as the major threshold to maintain the law and culture and identity of the children in the care of FACS, and take safety out of the scenario; one of things you really have to understand and, I guess, this is more for the Indigenous ministers, is if Indigenous kids die in your care, as the member for Arnhem would know, there are serious repercussions. When Indigenous kids die in care Aboriginal people out there want to know what has happened.
I spoke last night in my adjournment about the magic of a certain man who died in Western Australia. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. It is the magic of Indigenous people to sing the wind to ensure certain things happen to certain people.
I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I put on the record my thanks for the member for Macdonnell and her comments. She made very relevant points.
It is hard seeing child abuse and being involved in child abuse. Getting into this job, for me, was quite amazing in many ways, because I find being a Territory member of parliament, as opposed to being a federal member of parliament, tends to be a lot closer the ground. You tend to be involved in the grassroots much more than you are as a federal member. Whilst you see people and interact with them on a personal basis, you certainly do not get to them as closely as you do when you are a Territory member. I imagine, in council, in local government, you would be much closer to people again.
In the last 18 months since I have been in this job, I have been involved in, or had my attention drawn to cases involving Family and Children’s Services, of child abuse and the like. Probably best known, was the 14-year-old girl being kicked out onto the streets by Territory Housing where there seemed to be a complete breakdown in communication between Territory Housing, Family and Community Services, and the police. In hindsight, it was fortunate I was on hand to intervene. I believe it is the role of any local member to get involved in those situations, and I did not do anything particularly special; any local member would have done the same thing.
On the same day I went to a house in Coconut Grove and met with a lady who had her children taken away. There were all types of problems: her children were escaping from their carer and coming back home; the mother was upset the children were being taken from her and put back with the carers. It was an extraordinarily distressing situation, and really tears at the heartstrings. I spent nearly an hour with this lady, but there was nothing much I could do apart from trying to comfort her and assure her the authorities and the courts would take her situation into account; and that was that. I could only comfort her.
On returning to my office I had a constituent come into my office with his girlfriend. His girlfriend’s sister, the night before, had committed suicide; she had hung herself. Why? Because Family and Community Services removed the children from her care and, whilst the children’s safety is of paramount importance, you wonder at times whether there is any counselling and support for the parents of the children who are removed. In many cases, people have problems with alcohol and drugs, domestic violence, and those type of problems and, in the heat of the moment, they tend to do stupid things - really stupid things that most people would not do – and as a result their children are placed in very unsafe situations, so something must be done. However, once the children are removed, that adds a new level of stress on these parents.
I remember that day I went home and I cried. I cried and I thought: This is absolutely terrible hearing these gut-wrenching stories and really feeling powerless to do a great deal at all. I understand there are all types of pressures put on people in departments and people at the coalface who have to deal with these issues. There is a myriad of issues, and it is not easy to explain away in a debate like this the pressures that people are put under.
On the other hand, I was involved in the federal parliament and I was very close, at the time, with Mal Brough and the Prime Minister when the federal government introduced the Northern Territory Emergency intervention. I remember, at that time, an absolutely damning report had come out about the state of communities the length and the breadth of the Northern Territory. In every single community that was investigated children and mothers and people were under immense pressure; there was massive overcrowding in housing; there were terrible, disgusting sexual acts taking place with children, why are they being bashed, and all this horrible stuff and, The Little Children are Sacred report which, I believe, every one knows about it, had been suppressed for months.
At the time, what really irked Mal Brough, and I remember sitting there talking to him and he was absolutely infuriated that he, as the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, had this report kept from him. Normally, when you have a report of that nature, it would be sent to Indigenous Affairs ministers all across the country and made available. Mal Brough had to go onto the Internet to get it. He was not even informed of it by Clare Martin. Before that, on 18 May, Mal Brough had identified there were these problems around Australia and he called for an urgent summit, and Clare Martin decided not to attend. She said: ‘It is not a problem’. I have a media release here from 18 May 2006 headed ‘Minister Brough Calls for a Talkfest’; and that is how Clare Martin treated it.
A member: She just did not get it.
Mr TOLLNER: She did not get it at all. She said:
Who would have said Mal Brough was not into action? All he wanted to do was sit down and talk with her and find out what some of the issues were. But, no, she would not have a bar of that. In the media release she says:
Clare is speaking money again. Despite the fact that the GST was pouring rivers of gold into the Northern Territory, Clare Martin is saying: ‘No, we need more’, and she said the Commonwealth should provide an extra $50m a year over the next decade for Aboriginal housing - $50m a year. What happened, of course, was she got more than $700m; it was $800m-odd that Mal Brough put up as part of the intervention, which has since been wound back to some $670m-odd by Mal Brough, but it was still far in excess of what Clare Martin was asking for at the time - $50m over 10 years. He got it to her straight up, and here we are now, some two-and-a-half years later, and how many houses have been built?
A member: Zero.
Mr TOLLNER: This is something that Clare Martin identified in her own media release on 18 May 2006: ‘If Brough wants to do something constructive, he should convince his Treasurer to provide the money needed to reduce the housing backlog in remote communities’. Well, he did. The money has been sitting there for two-and-a-half years.
This is here in black and white; you cannot deny it. You look around and see the things that are happening in this place. Constantly, we see reports being suppressed. The Bath report: Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit, still has not been publicly released. The government has been sitting on it since November 2007. Why? We had the Treasurer say today: ‘Oh, no, cannot do that’. She says it risks confidentiality; there are names in there that could get out into the public domain which would cause problems. If the Treasurer had one look at the report, at the table of contents, and read down the bottom, it says: The names of the individuals in this report have been changed to ensure their confidentiality. It is a complete cop-out to say: ‘Oh, no, we cannot release that report because we do not want to identify the people in it’. The people in it are not identified.
Dr Burns: What does Howard Bath say himself?
Mr TOLLNER: They are not identified. Howard Bath says down the bottom of the front page: ‘The names of individuals in this report have been changed to ensure confidentiality’. To ensure confidentiality! No, they try to sweep it under the carpet; they try to hide it. It is just disgusting.
I hear the Treasurer jumping up and down during Question Time, yelling at the Opposition Leader that he is despicable. Who is despicable? The person who will not stand up and account for their non-action? The person who wants to sweep all these problems under the table? It is just absolutely appalling! We see our own Child Protection minister jumping up and down that the Opposition Leader twice in this debate has breached a court order by naming Deborah Melville.
Dr Burns: No.
Mr TOLLNER: That is what he said; check the record. He said twice he has breached a court order. I looked on the Department of Justice website and there it is in big bold letters. You do and say anything to stop taking responsibility. It is someone else’s fault!
The minister came in several days ago said: ‘Uh, oh, look at the numbers, the way they are going. This was not a problem, but look at it now’. You ask: ‘Why is it going like that? Why do we have more people who are presenting themselves at Family and Children’s Services?’ The government says it is because of more reporting. What a load of nonsense! I will tell you what it is: it is because of the pressures this government is placing on families.
Ten years ago, when we had a Country Liberal government, we did not have the highest house prices and the highest rents in Australia; we did not have alcohol-fuelled violence like we have now; we did not have the pressures families are under like we have now. Why is that? It is a result of this government’s policies. This government is forcing families into break-up, in many cases. The single biggest cause of family breakdown is financial pressure. When money gets tight, families break up; it creates all sorts of troubles. That is where we are at the moment. It is just appalling.
They tried to stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry. Why? You should be welcoming these things, and you should be trying to do something to fix the problems. There is a merry-go-round of ministers. Why is there a merry-go-round of ministers? To ensure none of them are actually responsible. You get enough of them tied up in this portfolio area and they can all say: ‘I was only here for six or eight months, and I moved on. That was someone else’. ‘Oh, no, he was only here for a short time’. The coroner says exactly the same in his findings on Deborah Melville. Did we not see the Treasurer jumping up in Question Time to explain some of these decisions she makes? No! She is quite happy to handball it off to poor old dead-man-walking Hendo! It is just appalling.
Her public rating is through the floor as well. We know Hendo’s is, but he can take it. He can answer all those questions and paper over the lack of interest in this area. The Opposition Leader asked a question about 40 or 50 releases relating to Sport and Recreation, and only a couple about the Family and Children’s Services part of your portfolio. The Crusty Demons get more media than the Family and Children’s Services area. It is something which was identified years and years ago as a major problem.
On the front page of today’s The Australian there it is again in big bold letters, the disgrace that is the Northern Territory government and the way they handle child protection here. It is just embarrassing. Every time you go interstate and look at something apart from the Northern Territory News and read what people around the rest of the country think of us and think of this government, it makes you cringe. You do not want to tell anyone you are a Territorian. It is an absolute embarrassment. What do you do? You say: ‘Oh, no, no, they threw a whole heap of money at that problem’. Everything we see, everything you put out is about how much you are spending - it is just bizarre. At the bottom of Clare Martin’s release in 2006, she finishes with a classic finish-off line: ‘We have quadrupled the budget for child protection from under $8m to nearly $32m; increased funding for employment, education and training by 33%; and the Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget has risen 55%’. It is as though that is some type of achievement.
What about doing more with less? Or doing more with more? But things get worse. In every one of these reports - the Bath report, the coroner’s report, and I guarantee the Ombudsman’s report, if it comes out - will not be particularly nice to you guys either. Every single one of these things, every newspaper you pick up tells you how badly you are going, but you have the audacity and the absolute gall to stand up in this House and say things are fine, as though you are doing a wonderful job. This is absolutely sickening.
I am looking around to see where the member for Nelson is and hoping to God he is sitting here listening to this debate, because he is the bloke who is keeping you mob here. I want him to come in here and tell us his reasons for backing you; why he thinks you should be in government; why he thinks what you are doing is a great thing. Protecting the children has to be the most fundamental area of responsibility for any government.
The member for Casuarina says: ‘This is just politics’. He shrugs it off: ‘They are just being political’. You think: do these people have a caring bone in their bodies? Is there anything there?’ You look at the member for Karama, stony-faced, staring down the barrel; everyone is evil in this place.
As I have said, you have been caught out lying about this Bath report. You have been caught out lying in this debate itself. ‘We cannot release the Bath report to protect the confidentiality of the names of the people in it’. What rubbish! It is pointed out on page one of the report. It just runs off her lips: ‘I am being up-front. I am trying to help’. And you think: you absolute, lying bugger. You are not trying to help anyone. All you are trying to do is paper over your own bloody ineptitude and lack of care’. It is absolutely disgraceful.
I am going to wait to hear what the member for Nelson has to say about this. I am interested to know what he has to say about a government that can sit by and shrug off something like this and say: ‘No, we are doing fine. We have stuck nearly $90m bucks into this’. Do you people care? At least you should be asking the question, and she should be asking the question: What the hell has happened to our $90m?’ Where is it going when you get such reports coming from the coroner and Dr Bath as we have? Somewhere along the line, surely, the bell has to go off in your brain that says: ‘Hang on, these guys are talking about little kids’.
A girl died in the front yard of a house with a litre-and-a-half of pus in her leg. It makes me sick just thinking about it. But what do you guys say: ‘No no, nothing to do with us. We have stuck $90m into it’. This is absolutely appalling.
I will sit down now. Hopefully, after the next speaker or two, we will see what comes of this.
Mr GILES (Braitling): I will stand up quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, while we wait for the member for Nelson to come out of his office, where he is writing his speech. It is not just …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member should know by now that you cannot refer to a person’s presence or absence in the Chamber. How long have you been here? You have been here 18 months and you still …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Bohlin: You are the ones who are under scrutiny …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting!
Mr Bohlin: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr GILES: Let us remember, in the last five years, more than $0.5bn has been pulled out of Family and Children’s Services in the Northern Territory; $562m has been pulled out of the Family and Children’s Services portfolio in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Grants Commission reports, as their assessment, what should have been spent in the Northern Territory each year. For the last five years, the Northern Territory government has pulled out money. In the 2003-04 financial year, they pulled out $78m and spent $38m. They like to talk about the inputs financially – well, let us talk about them. They should have spent $116m in the 2003-04 financial year. They were even given an extra $99m from the Commonwealth government to help them, realising they do not have much money. Instead of spending the $99m extra they received, or the $116m they should have spent, they spent $38m - a $78m under-spend.
The under-spend in 2004-05 was $92m. In 2005-06, it was $116m under-spend. They spent 27% of what they should have spent on Family and Children’s Services in 2005-06 - 27%. In 2006-07, there was a $134m under-spend; they spent 25% of what they should have spent. There was a $134m under-spend in 2006-07; and, in 2007-08, $144m. They are winners! Each year they keep under-spending more and more - $144m under-spend; $145m rounded out. That is in the year after the Little Children are Sacred report came out. They actually increased their under-spend.
I was very interested to hear the comments by the member for Fong Lim when he was talking about the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and her comments about housing. I am also keen to look at what has been said by different Children’s Services ministers in estimates hearings in the past. I note, in 2005 - and this is in direct contradiction to what the member for Casuarina said that things have gone up because of our reporting. The member for Arafura, in 2005, said:
That is where she is talking about reporting. This is the lady who, only two years later, in response to the intervention which came about because of the failure of the Northern Territory government in child protection, called the intervention a political black Tampa. Seventy-five percent of all children protection issues in the Northern Territory are Indigenous and Clare Martin said: ‘There is no problem, we do not want to go to a meeting’, and put $50m up for housing. Well, he trumped that and put up $800m. After she said they need $50m for housing, and Rudd chucked in $800m, Macklin and Rudd downgrade it and the Territory government only put in $20m - and they have not built a house.
What makes it worse – and I am off subject here - they talk about the two houses in Wadeye that are completed but, apparently, you cannot move into them because they forgot to sign the lease over the land - so, they are sitting there empty. That is the worst part about it, if it is out of SIHIP money, but who knows? Who knows if it is out of SIHIP?
It was interesting reading the Living Black report online on SBS from Wednesday 26 March, 2008, where they make comment on the member from Arafura about her black Tampa incident. It said she has commented: ‘It was not about having an interest in children being abused’, and I am selectively quoting here, but it says, pulled off-line today: ‘The biggest deficit that we have on the ground in communities is housing. If you talk about the protection of children, how do you protect children if they are still in a house with 20 other people?’ Which is a very good point. He got that very important press release from the previous Chief Minister, because that black Tampa comment was made on 23 October 2007. This is where these comments are coming from, and a couple of years later, they still have not built a house with - it was $800m, but now it is back to $572m plus $20m a year for five years by the Northern Territory government - even though Clare Martin said that they needed $50m a year for 10 years, they could not even match that.
This censure motion brought on by the Leader of the Opposition is a very important censure, and the most important debate I have heard in this parliament to date. How can the government and members opposite, sit here and defend the legacy of this government, trying to play politics with it, like the member for Casuarina is, when they have underspent by more than $0.5bn? When you talk about $9m, or $7m, or these little figures they talk about, and I recognise it is not all about the inputs, it is about the outputs, but $0.5bn would go a long way to improving child protection in the Northern Territory, and you have ripped $0.5bn out.
The member for Macdonnell gave a good speech today when she talked about the reality of how things actually work. The Chief Minister was quite disgraceful today when he said: ‘The member for Macdonnell and I, walking the streets of Alice Springs …’, trying to say it was all about publicity, ‘… and we did not call the police’. Well, they did! Ring the police records; you will see the phone calls are on there. Check the missed calls, the ones that were not answered, that would be interesting, too. When they saw the two 14-year-olds, the boy and the girl who were so drunk they could not even stand up, punching each other and nearly going through the window of the TIO: ‘We called the police, waited there for 10 minutes, and could not find them. She was beating his head on the ground, he was beating hers. We asked them, before they started beating each other: “Where did you get the grog?” Well, their parents gave it to them. We called the police, the police had not arrived within 10 minutes; the male had hit the member for Macdonnell, physically punched the member for Macdonnell. I had to make a judgment call on the spot’, and this was not in the paper, ‘do I physically intervene here, and then it would be a case of a politician, and then they would really accuse me of looking for media, or do we just quickly walk away? We had to walk away and watch from a distance while we rang the police and waited; they did not turn up …’
A member: Did you arrange for that woman to be thrown out of the car?
Mr GILES: No, no, we did not arrange for that lady to get thrown out of the car, either. We did not arrange for her to throw her clothes off first …
A member: Yes, took her clothes off and threw them out of the car. It was a media stunt.
Mr GILES: … before getting out of the car. We called the police, at this stage, from a distance. The reason we went over to that lady to try to help was because we thought she might be dead, and you try to say we are chasing media. What an absolute farce – and you tell us to call the police.
This is not an indictment on the Police Commissioner, but we bumped into the Police Commissioner that night, half-an-hour before that happened, 200 m away from where it happened, and I asked him to come for a walk with me. No, he had other things on and he made clear his arrangements, and I appreciate that. That happened half and hour, maybe even less than half-an-hour, and you talk about this mandatory reporting of kids sitting in a hospital on 26 January 2010, somewhere between 10 pm and 1.30 am with a friend of mine who had an accident. You see one kid come in and go into the triage section - and this was not in the paper, by the way, I did not report this - there are many things not reported in the paper, you cynics.
In the triage, behind the door, there is a kid who has come in to get assessed about cuts he has got after an assault. I was sitting in there, it was a bit of a doorknocking, actually, you should have seen the people in the hospital, it was amazing. I was talking to both the security guards and the ambulance and everyone and I said: ‘Tell me exactly what is going on’. And this is how the whole thing started that night, because I had enough that night, and I put my Facebook load up on the iPhone, saying: ‘That is it; this is just rubbish, it was time to make a change in Alice Springs’. That is how it all started, that night in the hospital.
Ten kids came in ranging from about five to 15 in age, and they walk in, muscling up. ‘Where is he? Where is he?’ They were not far from me, and I said: ‘What is going on here?’ They started swearing - I will not swear, Madam Speaker. ‘Where is this f-ing bloke?’ The security guard came over: ‘What’s going on?’ ‘We’re going to beat that bloke up’. These are kids, five to 15, trying to beat up a bloke in hospital. If the security guard had not muscled them out of the hospital, while I was there, there would have been a big fight in the emergency room. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights they need two security guards in the emergency room in Alice Springs Hospital, because one is not enough on those nights. There is one every other night; two on those three nights. What do I do about those kids? Ring up the hotline in Darwin: ‘I have 10 kids here plus another one in triage about to have a fight in the emergency department’?
A member: Where is the Alice Springs Hospital again?
Mr GILES: There is that. Let us look at what actually happens in reporting cases right now. The member for Barkly may or may not be aware of this, but apart from some of the regular complaints made in Barkly, like the hospital and birthing services, one of the complaints I get all the time is: when people want to make a complaint to FACS about child protection matters, they go straight to Darwin. They are not allowed to go to the FACS staff in Tennant Creek - which is the same in Alice - and report a problem, a concern or an issue and have FACS intervene straight away. That is just ridiculous!
That is such a simple decision. Forget about the $0.5bn underspend by the Northern Territory government in five years - $562m underspend in five years. You should be able to walk into the local Tennant Creek office and say: ‘There is a child at risk, can you come and help?’ You cannot. You have to ring a Darwin hotline. This is not some Darwin-Alice-Tennant Creek-Berrimah line. This is just dumb policy. How do you expect to make change in that regard?
I recognise child protection is a serious issue, and I do not want to play politics like the member for Casuarina, the new minister. There have been reports going around for ages, like this one here by Julian Pocock; I believe it came out when the member for Nightcliff was the Children’s Services minister in 2003, so this has been an issue for a long time. Instead of improving services and improving spending, they cut $562m, more than half a billion dollars, out of the child protection budget.
They do not build any houses in two and-a-half years after Clare Martin, the previous Chief Minister, and the member for Arafura, who was the Child Protection minister, had publicly stated in the media and estimates process, housing is part of the solution for child protection. They still cannot build a house; they cannot invest money into it; they cannot put training or resourcing into FACS services; they cannot get the systems right in terms of reporting; they cannot work out when people come into the system. I cannot see how this is going to change in the future.
I will digress for one minute before I sit down. This is one thing I do not understand about FACS. My electorate officer does long-term foster care, and I used to do respite care myself, only for Aboriginal kids, when I was in New South Wales. My electorate officer does care, and she has been going through a situation where the child goes back to the family - I will not say from what community - at different periods of time. Every time she gets that child back it has not been fed for the whole weekend. Every time! Every time she gets that child back, it is malnourished and has not had enough fluid, water or otherwise. Every time the kid comes back it has nits. Every time something happens, there is an issue. This has been going on for years. She is going through a legal process now for longer term care.
This is a case on the FACS system which is continuing - every time the child goes back to the family it comes back with problems, whether it is malnourishment or otherwise. Surely, decisions need to be made in that situation, like every other situation. If government continues not to make decisions about rectifying these situations, they will continue to have massive numbers of people on their books and will never be able to cope with the increase in people who come through the front door.
I support this censure by the Opposition Leader. I recognise it is a significant issue, but I recognise that bad policy, bad management and inept practices by Labor in the Northern Territory on this issue, plus cross-portfolio issues in areas such as Housing, has resulted in the position we are in, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I cannot see how things will improve, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the argument has been put; the charges have been laid; nothing more can be added.
Madam Speaker, I move – That the motion to censure this government for its deceit, its neglect, its preservation of its own political interest ahead of children, be fully supported by the members of this Chamber.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! My recollection of most censure debates in this place is after the convention of two speakers from each side, the motion is usually put anyway.
Once the speakers are exhausted, usually - and we have been very patient here today - it is a technicality, but my recollection is the motion is put after all speakers, usually two on each side and if an Independent wants to speak. I believe, to some degree, we put convention out of the window. Let us put it to the vote, and let us see where it goes.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I was mistakenly of the opinion that the legislation before the House with respect to the sale of land was supposed to be a cure or silver bullet for the practice of gazumping. If you read the media reports, if you look at the previous history of the attempts to have this type of legislation enacted, it seems to have been on the agenda of the member for Nelson for quite some time
I believe the crux of the issue the embattled member for Nelson is trying to deal with, and has tried to deal with in the past, is to stamp out the practice of gazumping. I believe this is now something like the fourth or fifth attempt to have this type of legislation enacted. Either way, each and every time - up until today, of course - the member for Nelson has tried to have this legislation passed into law, it has been voted down by the Labor government of the day. Which takes us to where we are today: government sponsored legislation which, I have no doubt, is a constituent part of the deal which was struck between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister.
I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson a short time ago about this bill, and asked him how it was supposed to prevent gazumping. He informed me the intent of the bill was to try to reduce the incidence of gazumping. I do not know how this legislation is supposed to prevent an activity which resides in the domain of unethical real estate agents. That is where it resides; it cannot be controlled by law, it can only be controlled by changing the behaviour of those who carry out the practice.
I have worked as a real estate salesman in Queensland for 18 months, not a very long time in the scheme of things, but certainly long enough to experience a range of the highs and lows of the industry and, certainly, one of the lows of the industry is the practice of gazumping. Gazumping, simply explained, is this: an offer has been made to purchase real property; before or after that offer is presented to the vendor another offer comes in for the same real property. The second offer, which is usually a better offer than the first, is presented to the vendor without an opportunity for the first prospective purchaser to consider, or further consider, their position. I have seen it happen, and I have seen how much angst and pain this practice can cause both the vendors and prospective buyers.
There are some differences between the systems in Queensland and the Northern Territory, so I just acknowledge that there are some differences there. In Queensland, purchases of property are made on a contract form on day one, so the offer to purchase is actually made on a contract form and, once that form is signed by the purchaser, the conditions are completed: sale price; settlement date, all that type of thing is presented to a vendor, and once the vendor signs off on it, it becomes a contract, subject to a cooling off period. It can become a contract on the same day the offer is made. Notwithstanding the timeliness of the forming of a contract in Queensland, gazumping still takes place, and it takes place more often than it should.
In the Northern Territory, there is an offer document, which is signed by the prospective purchaser and presented to the vendor, signed off by them, that is sent off to the conveyancing lawyers, contracts are drawn up, and it does not form a contract until those contracts are signed by both sides, and exchanged. In the Northern Territory, the nett effect of that is just a longer period of time between offer and contract which, in effect, is a longer period of time in which the act of gazumping can occur.
The member for Nelson says this bill will reduce gazumping. I still do not see how. Offers in Queensland, which become the contract, often on the same day, have conditions on them, usually pest inspections, building inspections, subject to finance, and sometimes more obscure conditions, such as longer settlement periods. In the Northern Territory, the offer document carries the same conditions as the contract of sale
I gather the rationale of the member for Nelson for these provisions reducing the chances of gazumping is, with all the disclosure documents being bought and paid for by the vendor, the transition from offer to contract will be quicker. This may well be the case, but at the end of the day, it will not stop or reduce gazumping. If you have a look at the Queensland example, which I offered before, where a contract can occur within minutes, but more likely hours, of an offer being made, the practice of gazumping still occurs anyway.
Gazumping will continue to occur despite this legislation, because the practice, as I pointed out earlier, lies within the domain of unethical real estate agents. I have worked with some very good real estate agents, and I have seen some very bad ones. Like any profession, there are good and bad and, thankfully, there are many more good, honest and hard-working real estate agents in the industry than there are bad. But also, like many other industries, it is the bad ones who bring the industry into disrepute - just like politics - certainly good ones, certainly bad ones, and it is the bad ones who bring the profession of politics into disrepute.
It is the act of gazumping, amongst other things in the real estate industry, which brings the real estate industry into disrepute. The way to deal with that is to look at the practices of real estate agents. I said previously, real estate agents are the ones who practice this, and it is therefore the behaviour of that group of individuals who choose to allow gazumping to occur; it is their behaviour which needs to change.
When I was working in real estate we had a way of circumventing the practice of gazumping. It was an ethical way of dealing with multiple offers on a property, and that is where this arises - gazumping occurs because there is an offer on a property, and then another offer comes in, ergo two or more offers on a property. In my experience, this usually occurred on a Saturday, and it is probably easier to explain how a Saturday might run with a property on which two offers have been made.
Saturday is the busy day for real estate agents; they would be showing houses all morning, and start to take offers and contracts in the afternoon. You would receive an offer for a property which would be filled out on the contract form in Queensland; it would have the sale price, the conditions of sale, a pest report, inspection report on the building, all those types of things. I would then pick up the phone after I had completed that and ring the vendor and say: ‘Mr Smith, I am very pleased to let you know I have an offer on your property. I am really busy now, but I am going to come around at 5 pm today and show you the offer’. I would then hang up the phone.
If between then and 5 pm in the afternoon someone else came in to make an offer on the property, I would immediately hand that person over to one of my colleagues; because I never wanted to be in the position of being accused of favouring one purchaser over another. I would let the other real estate agent, one of my colleagues, deal directly with the second purchaser. The details of that contract would remain unknown to me, so I could not be in a position of influencing anyone. Rather than deciding myself which was going to be the best offer to take to my vendor, the two of us, the two real estate agents dealing with the purchasers, would contact them and say: ‘There are two offers on the property you are interested in, yours is one. The intention is to present those two offers to the vendor this afternoon. You have a one-off opportunity now to give me your very best offer for this property; the very most you are prepared to pay for it. It would involve the very best conditions you are willing to offer to complete the contract of sale’.
They would be advised there would be no Dutch auction; we would not play one purchaser off against the other. It was a straightforward, transparent process where no one was disadvantaged, everyone was in receipt of the same information, there could be no confusion, and there could be no allegations of any impropriety by the real estate agents.
Subsequent to that, the contracts or the offers would often be amended and the very best prices obtained from both respective purchasers. Those contracts or offers of purchase would be taken to the vendor; opened from a sealed envelope in front of the vendor, and the vendor would then be given the opportunity to choose which purchaser, which contract, which offer, he would like to accept. I do not believe you can legislate to do that.
Again, I point out the fact that it comes down to the ethical or otherwise behaviour of certain real estate agents. If you are an ethical agent, choose not to operate in that fashion, then gazumping does not occur. Everyone is on the same playing field with the same set of goal posts, but where you have unethical behaviour, gazumping can occur and those real estate agents, at the end of the day, really do not give a toss who buys the property. It is only in that fashion that real estate agents can properly, in my opinion, fulfil their duties to the vendor who, after all, is paying the bill.
If you can change the behaviour of real estate agents, that is the way to deal with the issue of gazumping, not by imposing what is effectively a levy on the homeowner or vendor. That is what this legislation will achieve; it will achieve nothing else but add a new tax to a vendor. It is not a tax where the government provides a service because they take money out of your pocket but, effectively, it is a levy, a tax by another name, because it is legislated that you have no choice but to pay for a raft of what we call in disclosure documents that must be prepared. As I go through the list of those disclosure documents, many of these will cause a cost on the vendor. I have not had to deal with many of these things, but I suspect there is a couple of thousand dollars worth of impost on a vendor. No doubt, they will build that into the cost of the property and Lord knows, we live in a Northern Territory where housing is already at grossly unaffordable levels as we speak, yet, this government would seek to add even more cost on purchases.
Caveat emptor – buyer beware. The vendor of any item, not just real estate, must not misrepresent the nature of the item for sale, but, at the end of the day, it has always been, and it should remain with the purchaser to satisfy themselves they are getting what they want. To that end, they sign offers and contracts with conditions that may, as I said before, include building, plumbing and pest reports. If you choose not to do that as a purchaser, you run the risk of not getting what you want, which is a house with plumbing that functions properly, no termites, and all the rest of it. But, it is a choice for the purchaser to get these reports and, if they do not - caveat emptor.
I have done it myself: bought a property without getting some of the reports done which was, in fact, my choice. Under this regime, there will be no choice. If the cost impost will not be on the purchaser, the cost shifts to the vendor and then there is no choice. If the government legislates to impose a cost like that, it becomes a levy, and will probably be called the Labor Government/Gerry Wood Levy on Vendors.
It will not solve the gazumping issue, because those few unethical real estate agents who continue this practice will still keep doing it. Regardless of the cost impost on vendors, regardless of what documents are required to be made available by vendors to prospective purchasers, and regardless of how you might try to truncate the time period between offers and signed and exchanged contracts of sale. If this is a vehicle to try to prevent, slow down, or stop gazumping from occurring - which, as I understand, is and has been the member for Nelson’s intent for many years - this is simply not the vehicle to do it. It simply imposes more cost on a vendor and it is entirely unfair.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, in closing debate, I will touch on the questions asked by members who have contributed.
I want to go back, first of all, to the legislation itself because there seems to be some confusion, having listened to the debate, about the government’s intention with the legislation. It was clear in the second reading speech - and I will reiterate it again today - this is not to stop the practise of gazumping. The government has not weighed into the ‘is there gazumping, is there not gazumping’ debate. We have let others have that debate.
We have been intent on looking at a system which is both fair and efficient when it comes to the sale of property in the Territory. What I said in the second reading speech, is we recognise, with all of the information available at sale, it should shorten the period before contracts are signed and, the shorter period you have the less likely gazumping occurs, rather than the system we have in the Territory where there can be a lengthy period from point of sale to signing the contract, because people go away and get all the reports they choose to get to satisfy themselves of the house. It is not a gazumping bill; it is not designed around gazumping, it is designed around improving the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing system in the Northern Territory.
The member for Katherine missed the point of the second reading speech of the legislation in his contribution to debate. I was interested in what he had to say about the ethical practices he undertook in Queensland. Queensland does not have legislation of this nature at all and, clearly, it has a completely different system to the Territory in the requirements within the industry.
We had a look around the nation at the various legislation that exists. People in the debate have referred to South Australia and New South Wales. We looked at where legislation exists, the nature of that legislation, and what is most contemporary in the legislation throughout the nation.
In New South Wales, the Conveyancing Act requires certain documents to be attached to a contract of sale before it is advertised or sold, which is very similar to what we are doing here. In South Australia, the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 requires that certain information must be provided to a buyer before settlement. In both these jurisdictions emphasis is on the vendor providing the information to the buyer. In Victoria, the Sale of Land Act 1962 requires sellers to disclose certain information to buyers before the buyer signs the contract.
If you were to listen to some of the contributions in debate from the opposition, the world as we know it is going to be a calamity and come crashing down around our heads, and add enormous costs imposts. Yet, here we have a regime in existence in Victoria since 1962 and, the last time I checked, it was a very buoyant property market in Victoria.
The ACT, on which we modelled most of our work, is the most contemporary. The Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003 has very similar provisions to this bill. We deliberately looked at other provisions around existing legislation; saw the ACT legislation was the most contemporary, so we have very similar provisions in our legislation. If you are wondering where the gist of all this came from, it came from looking at the ACT legislation following the debate that has raged over many years about whether the Territory needs final disclosure legislation.
I will go to that point regarding the length of the debate as it has raged. There seems to be confusion in the opposition about this; they seem to believe this has come along only because of the government’s agreement with the member for Nelson. Yes, we were happy to have an agreement with the member for Nelson, to have legislation of this nature because we have a track record of seeing the opportunity to provide these types of provisions in efficiency and fairness in the marketplace.
Tasmania has the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005. Again, it has similar provisions to the bill. They have not commenced it, but we know there are some differences there. The Tasmanian minister has stated it will be commenced in mid-2010, but, it is election year and it will be interesting to see what happens in Tassie.
When I looked at the history of this debate, it was quite informative. In the 1990s, there were identified problems which came to the attention of Consumer Affairs and, picking up on what the member for Nelson said in his debate contribution, it was about flooding in the rural area blocks, a big issue back in the 1990s. So, in 1997 when the CLP was in government, Consumer Affairs released to key stakeholders a discussion paper on possible vendor disclosure legislation. The former government took the issues no further. They backed down once they heard that industry was not particularly supportive and, I understand, there were concerns about the extent to which government building records existed at the time.
In February of 2003, the Attorney-General, the former member for Stuart, in his ministerial statement on Consumer Affairs, announced an intention to release a discussion paper on vendor disclosure. So we had the history of the 1990s, when it certainly was an issue; the previous CLP government forayed through Consumer Affairs on that issue, but backed off once they got some industry pushback. In 2003, our Attorney-General said: ‘We will put out a discussion paper on this’. In 2004, the member for Nelson introduced the Law of Property Amendment Bill which was, essentially, vendor disclosure legislation; and that was defeated. At that time in the debate, government repeated its support for vendor disclosure, but had issues with the legislation brought by the private member. In 2005, the member for Nelson introduced the Law of Property (Sale of Residential Property) Bill 2005 - again defeated. The government, again, repeated its support for vendor disclosure legislation, but had issues with the actual legislation.
In 2005, the Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, established the Property Law Task Force. This is where, I believe, traction continued on this in really trying to bring together the stakeholders affected by vendor disclosure legislation. The task force comprised members of the industry and professional bodies, as well as government agencies, and it worked on a number of projects. In March 2006, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper on vendor disclosure based on the work the task force had done.
In 2006, the member for Nelson had another crack at it introducing the Law of Property (Sales of Residential Property) Bill, which again was defeated. The government, again, repeated its support for vendor disclosure legislation. In October 2007, a discussion draft bill was released by the Attorney-General for public comment, so the task force work came through in a discussion paper, and the discussion paper come through into a draft bill which was released in October 2007.
There was quite a diverse range of stakeholder issues and comments about that draft bill, so it was sent to the Property Law Task Force for further comments. Ongoing discussions through 2008-09 with industry and professional groups went into the detail of the contents of the draft bill and the regulations required to support it.
We felt we had progressed far enough by October 2009 to introduce what I called a discussion draft bill and regulations, which we tabled in the Legislative Assembly. This was to ensure that although we had evolved various discussion papers and draft bills, we wanted everyone to have another crack at it, recognising that industry had, at that stage, concerns. When I talk about industry, of course, we were dealing very closely with the conveyancers, the Real Estate Institute and the Law Society.
As a result of that work, we introduced the legislation we had before us in November last year, and we are debating it today.
To say this is only because of an agreement with the member for Nelson, I believe, belies the years of work the Department of Justice has undertaken in working with all the stakeholders across this sector at the behest and bequest of various Attorneys-General. I am pleased to be here delivering on an agreement with the member for Nelson; I have no issues with that. However, you can see through the history, governments have made forays into this area, but have not been able to achieve industry consensus, and so have backed away.
The bill we have before us today is different to the draft bill. I take issue with the member for Goyder, who was obviously reading her comments around the draft bill rather than the bill before us. She certainly did not realise, in her debate, that this bill covers the entire Territory. The draft bill did not; this bill does.
Whilst there will be people who still find particular issue with what we have before us, we do have the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory saying they accept it. They accept, due to the amount of negotiation and work which has gone into this between government and the Real Estate Institute, that if you are going to have vendor disclosure what you have before you is as good as it gets regarding the legislation. They are satisfied with that.
Mr Elferink: No.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the member of Port Darwin cannot help himself; likes to shout out from across the Chamber, so I will quote Quentin Killian on ABC local radio who said the government had been:
The Law Society has confirmed it is happy with the bill and, I believe, the member for Nelson referred in his contribution to debate, that he had received a letter confirming they were happy with the bill.
When I picked up this work as incoming Attorney-General, I had meetings with the Real Estate Institute and with the Law Society and, at that stage, both organisations had issues on the table; very real, active issues, which is why we went down the path of the draft bill and the considerable negotiations and discussions with both. At the end of the day, both gave a tick to what we have before us. They know we have found a path through a vendor disclosure that provides fairness and reasonableness without being onerous on real estate agents and conveyancers who are at the coalface dealing with these matters.
The bill will minimise the amount of searching via prospective purchasers and the number of reports required for the sale of land. It ensures the seller gets together a standard set of documents and information regarding the property; and a great deal of work has gone into discussions between the department and the industry about that standard set of documents.
The bill will ensure buyers of property in the Northern Territory will be able to enter into binding contracts with the benefit of key information regarding the property.
There is also a provision that if you cannot provide that information as vendor, you can disclose that you cannot provide the information. Why would you need to do that? There are parts of the Territory not covered by the Building Act, so there will be information simply unavailable in those parts of the Territory. Equally, we know there are properties in Darwin which are pre-Cyclone Tracy, and documentation has been lost. There is a set of standard information you are required to provide, and I will go through that in a moment; equally, if you cannot, you say you cannot and you are not providing it. There is still an element of buyer beware within this if the information cannot be provided.
We have never said we will stop gazumping, but we have said by collecting the information you need to make the biggest decision in your life regarding purchase of property and doing that before the sale process starts, will reduce the ability for gazumping, because it reduces the time for contracts to be signed.
Once the bill is passed, the Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to finalise the regulations. I can say the regulations are very nearly there and they should be finalised within the coming weeks.
We are aiming for 1 July 2010 for commencement of this legislation and the Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to develop education information packages prior to that date; and they will conduct seminars or workshops throughout the Territory in the coming months. The Law Society and Real Estate Institute will be fully consulted, and seminars may be run in conjunction with these stakeholders. I know, for example, the Real Estate Institute is very keen to run the seminars in conjunction with Department of Justice officials and that is a great idea. Information kits will be provided to industry audiences outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement.
Articles and advertisements will be published in industry publications, for example, The Practitioner, DHA Investor, Real Estate Institute, Registrar-General’s newsletters, etcetera, outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement. Fact sheets and key links will be placed on relevant websites, for example, the Land Title Office, Consumer and Business Affairs, and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement.
As I said, we are aiming for 1 July 2010 for commencement, and after commencement there will be a public announcement accompanied by media release regarding the commencement of this vendor disclosure legislation. The information and fact sheet will be updated on the relevant websites, and there will be wide distribution of public information brochures outlining the requirements and rights of both vendors and purchasers for public display and collection. It is envisaged such flyers will be made available on counters in real estate agencies, mortgage brokers, land title offices, and handed out by conveyancers, lawyers, valuers, financial institutions, etcetera. The newspaper will have public notices educating the general public and key stakeholders about the new legislation; radio advertisements educating the general public and key stakeholders about the new legislation; and there will be newspaper Public Notices reminder advertisements every two months until December 2010.
So, you can see we will be working with industry in the finalisation of the regulations for commencement and a publication campaign and public awareness blitz to ensure everyone is aware of the responsibilities contained within the legislation.
The key features of change as a result of this legislation are obligations to apply in respect to the sale of most land, and that includes commercial land purchased by a business, and there was some discussion concerning this area. Essentially, we felt that whilst big businesses are used to doing due diligence, and medium-sized businesses do due diligence, there are scenarios where some small businesses do not undertake the extent of due diligence that perhaps they should in terms of purchase so we felt it better to scope business and commercial in.
It will not apply to some land, including land in proposed subdivisions and units under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Titles Schemes Act. Some other exemptions are set out in clause 8 of the bill, and some may appear in the proposed regulations. Essentially, it ensures the seller must provide a prospective purchaser with a draft contract of sale; a copy of the Certificate of Title; copies of registered encumbrances on the land, except a mortgage or a statutory easement or covenant; and a copy of any unregistered encumbrance on the land, for example, an unregistered lease or tenancy agreement. For units, copies of a registered plan scheme or other document, and prescribed reports or certificates; and these will be set out in the regulations.
It will be an offence to fail to disclose the required information, or if misleading information is provided by agents, sellers or experts. Failure to disclose information could also result in the rescission of the contract. There is a four day cooling-off period for sales of residential land other than by auction or tender. The cooling-off period can be shortened or extended if it is in the contract, or otherwise agreed in writing, or waived if a legal practitioner or conveyancing agent provides appropriate certification.
Going to the question specifically, I have already noted this legislation applies Territory-wide despite the mistake by the member for Goyder; that changed from draft bill to final bill. There is provision for contracts to be excluded from application of the act in terms of various relationships, which I will go through because you queried this point.
Exclusions include: the buyer as the registered owner of the land as a joint tenant or tenant in common; or the buyer is a related person of the seller; or the contract arises from the exercise of an option to buy the land; and either of the following apply: the option is contained in a will or lease; the period for exercise of the option is longer than 60 days; or the contract arises from an unsolicited offer to buy the land by or for the buyer.
For this section, the persons are related are:
That answers the query from the member for Goyder.
The member for Goyder also asked what if a report provided is amiss. Does the buyer settle on the property and then seek damages against the report writer. That is spelt out in section 14(1)(c), the buyer may:
She asked what if the report writer makes a mistake. Under section 24 (2) of the act:
This arose as a result of a misleading document being provided which caused the loss or expense.
She also asked, once a report is done, what happens if the seller changes the land or a building. Under section 22 of the act:
Under section 23 (1) of the act:
In this case, the document would be misleading because it is not current; but it is okay to provide a misleading or out-of-date document, as long as the seller points out to the buyer that it is misleading and incorrect. The report writer is not responsible for such a situation and is not liable provided the report was accurate at the time it was prepared.
Regarding documents being made available for inspection, the question was: what does ‘available for inspection’ mean? It is not defined, so it takes its ordinary meaning. It would include: physically providing the documents to a prospective buyer; having it there for anyone to see at an open inspection or open day; having the document available on a website or even e-mailing the documents to the buyer. The intention is that prospective buyers have the information available to them and they do not have to chase it up. Fact sheets and information will be developed to provide guidance on such issues, and this will be done hand-in-hand with the industry.
Regarding the query about more than one building, the member for Goyder asked: what if there is more than one building or structure on a block? The answer simply is: if there is a building on the land, then a report is needed for that building.
There was an assertion the act would cause delays. We contend that it will not. When asked whether this act will help to streamline the selling process, Quentin Killian, the CEO of REINT, responded that: yes, it would help.
There is a contention the act will increase costs. We argue that it will not; overall, for the sale of a property, it will reduce costs. Previously, every prospective purchaser paid for reports of this nature for the same property. Now, only one building status report will need to be paid for each property, and those people selling properties will benefit in the end when they choose to become purchasers. This legislation does not create an unbalanced relationship; it does the exact opposite - it evens up the balance.
The other comment from the member for Goyder is: lawyers about town are unhappy about this. This legislation has support of the Law Society; that support would not be forthcoming if lawyers were unhappy with this.
The member for Port Darwin said buyers may not want reports from vendors, so why force them to go to this expense? If no building status report is disclosed, the regulations will provide for the provision of a statement in the form of a warning from the seller to the buyer, saying that there is no building status report. This alerts the buyer to this fact and puts them on notice that there is no building status report.
Mr Elferink: So, you are saying that the regulations will nullify the effect of the act?
Ms LAWRIE: The other information is easily and inexpensively obtained and is information that any prudent buyer would generally want.
Mr Elferink: You are just telling me you are about to regulate out the purpose of the legislation?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: This is a silly thing, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is getting weirder.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin obviously did not listen to what I said about parts of the Territory not being in the Building Code areas; that sometimes those building status reports, for various technical reasons, are difficult; so, you can alert the buyer to the fact that there is not a building status report.
Mr Elferink: Does that require a building certifier? I thought it might.
Ms LAWRIE: The comment from the member for Port Darwin: this is a legal issue, not a moral issue; which was also echoed by the member for Braitling where he said it is already covered by Contract Law, and now when you purchase land, you can have inserted a clause to sign that the contract is subject to satisfactory reports being obtained. That is the case, but if the seller refuses to have such clauses in the contract, then there is nothing the buyer can do about it. The buyer either goes ahead with the purchase in the dark, with risks, or the buyer cools off while they await the reports coming back and risks someone else making a higher offer.
Mr Elferink: Is that how you are going to fix gazumping, is it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: That is at the heart of some of the issues here. I covered much of the politics of the member for Braitling’s contribution going back to the 1990s when this issue first came on government’s radar, and the various points in time.
The other concern of the member for Braitling was about divorcing couples selling their property will not be able to afford building status reports. Again, such sellers can rely on the ability to provide the warning to buyers in lieu of the building status report, which is provided for in the regulations. He said: ‘It is buyer beware when we go to the shops’. Well, actually it is not.
Mr Elferink: Does Gerry know about this clause in the regulations? Because he will not have seen the regulations yet, will he?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! You do not have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. The member for Nelson, unlike the member for Port Darwin, is fully briefed on the legislation and the regulations, and how they are forming, fully briefed unlike the member for Port Darwin who took no time to be briefed. Other members of the opposition made the effort.
In terms of going to the shops, we have the Trade Practices Act, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, Food Standards, Health Standards, Safety Standards, the list goes on.
The member for Katherine has already given his dissertation on being a real estate agent in Queensland. He was under the misapprehension that this is simply, purely and only about gazumping, when it is far more than that.
It is putting in place an efficient and fair system for the sale of property in the Territory. It has approval from the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, the Law Society and the conveyancers. The effort the officers of the Department of Justice have gone to in working through, in minutiae, all the details around vendor disclosure with all the stakeholders has been tremendous, and I thank them for that. It has gone from the history of the 1990s through to 2010 where, at various times, various governments, various Attorneys-General, have had a crack at it, with discussion papers and task forces and draft bills, and the effort of the Department of Justice has been significant. I thank them for that.
I thank the member for Nelson for doggedly pursuing this. He is a champion of the battler, and it is often the battlers who go into a situation without full information provided to them, and they get themselves in all sorts of strife. Fundamentally, this is the right thing to do; it is a fair thing to do; it puts balance back into the sale of property process in the Territory which had not been there. The timing is important because there are supply and demand issues in the Territory. If you ever needed this it would be when we are in a buoyant economy and people are coming here in droves for jobs and looking to purchase houses at the same time.
I thank everyone involved in this. It is important legislation. I know it is workable, because it has been raked over by the Real Estate Institute, the Law Society, and the conveyancers, and they have all come to an agreement that this is fair, reasonable and just legislation they can all live with. We will work very closely with them on finalising the regulations. You heard me talk about the extent to which we will be teaching people about the legislation; the rights, the responsibilities, drawing up standard forms for industry to make it as simple as possible for them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): My contribution will be quite short, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a note about whether the agreement I have with the Chief Minister in relation to the introduction of this bill is the reason the government has put forward this legislation today.
It is interesting to note there was a letter from the Director of Legal Policy dated 18 October 2007, which said on 14 March the Department of Justice released a discussion paper, and submissions from that discussion paper supported the implementation of vendor legislation in the Northern Territory.
Since that time I believe the Northern Territory government was going to introduce this particular legislation. I asked this to be put in the agreement simply to hasten the government, which had made this promise a number of times, because I was sick of waiting. I had introduced it three times into parliament; and they eventually said they were going to introduce their own legislation. I waited and waited, and the agreement gave me the opportunity to say: ‘This has to come forward; you made the promise’ - and today it has.
I am very glad it has. It helps those people who need assistance to ensure, when they purchase their house and make the biggest purchase of their life, they have some protection, and they know what they are buying. This is important legislation. We have this legislation in other parts of Australia. It has the support of the Law Society. It has the support of the Real Estate Institute, and it has the support of the Conveyancing Institute as well. I have been through all that, and I know that this is important legislation. It is important for the average person in the street, and it will help them ensure one of the biggest decisions of their life has some protection, and they will feel there is some backing in the law if things go wrong in these particular circumstances.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not normally engage in the unusual circumstance where we have a third reading debate, but I cannot let go what the member for Nelson has said.
He says the department, in 2007 said: ‘This is a good idea, it should be supported’. That is fine; that is what the department said. However, the department does not make government policy; government makes government policy.
Mr Wood: And they promised to bring it in.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, they promised, and they promised. They promised to release land in Bellamack in 2007. They make all sorts of promises, member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: What is your point?
Mr ELFERINK: The point is: is it the only thing that moved this government? Because in Cabinet they were very reluctant because they know the Real Estate Institute would be unhappy. Listen carefully to the language used by the Treasurer in relation to this matter about the Real Estate Institute. They said: ‘It is the best we can possibly do under the circumstances’. That is the type of language involved. They do not like this; they do not support this; they just know they have to suffer under it. They have chosen to negotiate the best possible position. That is what has occurred. This government had no intention of going down this path until they were forced to by the member for Nelson. That …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is wrong. I clearly articulated the effort of the former Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, in putting together a task force, getting the draft legislation through. Do not make mischief.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I saw no evidence whatsoever from the Planning minister they were going to do this until such time as it found its way into an agreement. They were never going to do it. The only time they said they were going to do it, and actually delivered, was after the agreement was signed. And what was the price paid for that agreement? That is the actual issue here. It is just not real to hear the member for Nelson leaping to the defence of government in this instance, because he knows full well …
Mr Wood: No, I am not. I am leaping to the defence of history, which you do not understand.
Mr ELFERINK: … the government had no intention of passing it and, if he believed for one second that the government was going to introduce this legislation, it would not have formed part of the agreement. It would not have formed part of the agreement, which means the fuzzy logic, in this particular instance, of the member for Nelson is the driver of this legislation; and we have an example of that particular logic during his contribution today.
Mr Wood: That is your opinion.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr Wood: That is why lawyers are not always right.
Mr ELFERINK: At least I had the courtesy to listen to you, member for Nelson, which was not the courtesy you extended to me, if I recall.
The fact is, this agreement, and no other thing, forced the government’s hand. If the member for Nelson believed for one second this was true, government would have introduced it in 2007 when Mr Bradshaw signed his letter. But, no; 2007, 2008, 2009 passed us by and not until 2010 does the legislative instrument find its way into this House for passage. Oh, but it was all going to happen anyway. Nonsense!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not usually speak in the third reading debate, but I feel the need to defend the member for Nelson.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I can assure the House, as the former Attorney-General, that there was always the intention of government …
Mr Elferink: I do not believe you. And Territorians will not.
Dr BURNS: If I could just have the courtesy of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was around the Cabinet table as Attorney-General. What I can tell this House is there were many technicalities, there were many issues to work through with industry and, to acknowledge the member for Nelson is right, it did take a long time. He was getting frustrated with it, but we also had our timetable in terms of consultation, in getting it right, and it was always government’s intention to introduce this legislation, full stop.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I could draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod. On behalf of members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I give my apologies to this House in advance in relation to my submission here today. Because of the untimely illness of the shadow Attorney-General, this has been thrust upon me at the last hour. So I issue an apology to members because of that. I hope I do the shadow Attorney-General justice here today in terms of the work I know she has done. She has briefed me briefly over the telephone, and I have sought to get my head around this as quickly as I possibly could.
I say at the outset, it is the intent of the Country Liberals to support the passage of this legislation. The thrust of this legislation is quite straightforward. There has been a very long-standing immunity throughout the judicial system within the British Empire, I believe, and its subsequent Commonwealth, that the Bench is immune from criminal and civil actions arising out of utterances and acts conducted by judges and magistrates representing Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s justice.
However, in the modern era we find increasing numbers of civil matters being pressured into the environment of being mediated prior to finding their way to the courtroom. If you look at the uniform civil procedures which operate in other jurisdictions, you will find there is an influence throughout those civil procedures which seems to favour the mediated process. Even if you speak to justices in the Northern Territory, they will be keen, if they have to adjudicate on an issue, that there is full communication between the two parties, particularly in a civil case, to ensure the issue is thrashed out and fleshed out as well as possible before it comes before them.
This would mean if there is proper communication between the parties, hopefully, they will come to some resolution, because the area of law in the dispute would be settled. Nevertheless, if they do come to court, and there has been fulsome correspondence between the two parties then, hopefully, they will have distilled the argument to one or two points of law. Consequently, the move to mediated outcomes as a thread of civil law has been receiving a benevolent eye from the courts for some time.
Consequently, this legislative instrument seeks to extend the immunities enjoyed by justices and magistrates to registrars and other judicial officers in the mediation environment; which makes sense. The processes sought or demanded of the court system and civil disputes, means a mediation process can be engaged in which, for a want of better words, is a pre-court hearing, and judicial officers take part in that.
This act moves to give some comfort to those judicial officers, acting in a quasi-judicial system, the immunities enjoyed. I note in the proposed new section 83A(9) the thrust of this is captured:
That is the process. You will notice the words ‘honest’ and ‘temperate’ because it helps the courts maintain the integrity they need to be seen as fair and impartial adjudicators of what happens in the community. I know the courts are particularly protective of their reputation; and so they should be, because it is on that reputation which the integrity of all decisions made relies.
This draws me to another matter along the lines of the Caesar’s wife approach, if you like - the not only beyond reproach, but seen to be beyond reproach - aspect of what this legislation refers to, albeit obiter, and another matter which comes out of Alice Springs.
I am aware in Alice Springs there is a registrar who, from time to time, acts as an Acting Magistrate. It is a buzz through the Alice Springs legal community at the moment that the Acting Magistrate also hears matters which are sponsored by CAALAS; in fact, of the criminal matters in the Alice Springs Courthouse, I suspect the majority at least, are sponsored by CAALAS. The reason for the concern of the Alice Springs legal fraternity is that this particular registrar’s husband is the principal legal officer of CAALAS. I do not for one second suggest any impropriety on either the registrar’s part, or on her husband’s part. There is no suggestion of it, and I make no allegation or impugn any immoral or unethical structure. However, it does place a question mark, which all judges and magistrates would understand, over the integrity people expect to see in the legal fraternity.
Judges and magistrates have disqualified themselves for less in hearing matters. I draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General in this instance, because I believe it is a sufficiently important issue to raise in this place for the attention of the Attorney-General and for her consideration.
Having made those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I signal our support for the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support. It would have been surprising for them not to support it, given this legislation is mediation and civil proceeding and benefits not only the parties, but the community as a whole, and the court itself.
The practice of mediation reflects the changing culture, both in the court and amongst the legal professions and the litigants. Referrals to mediation are targeted to particular cases which are most likely to benefit from mediation; for example, where there has been a development in the case of pre-trial management, or even during the trial.
Mediation frees up court time and resources to deal with those matters which can only be resolved through the court process. This bill amends the Supreme Court Act to formalise the practice of mediation that has developed within the Supreme Court, whereby the Master or registrar or judges have acted as mediators in civil proceedings, usually at the request of both parties. This practice often results in a settlement of the matter. Mediation can result in considerable savings of time and costs for parties, and the courts, through either successful settlement or agreement of elements of a case, resulting in shorter and more efficient trials.
The bill also ensures the persons participating in mediation are provided with the same privileges, protection and immunities under the Courts and Administrative Tribunal (Immunities) Act as would be provided to them during civil proceedings in the Supreme Court.
I thank the Chief Justice. As Attorney-General, I have seen the vigour with which he approaches the fairness of the judicial system over which he presides, and the emphasis the court provides to mediation is a very welcome emphasis indeed. We have very fine judges, and embracing mediation has been an innovative introduction into the Supreme Court. I was pleased to see the Supreme Court directions and to back that up with changes to the Supreme Court Act and to provide the appropriate immunities. My thanks to the Chief Justice and the judges for being contemporary in practice, of embracing mediation, not just paying lip service to it, but actually embracing mediation. I believe we are well served by the Chief Justice and judges we have in the Northern Territory. I thank the officers of the Department of Justice who have gone to the effort of implementing this as quickly as possible.
As soon as I saw the Supreme Court directions, I moved as quickly as possible to support it through this legislation. Some things can be done swiftly and easily, which is the case with this legislation we have before us. It is sensible. It is the right approach, and the right way to go in resolving legal disputes.
Some things, of course, are far more complex, far more difficult, and we had the good example today in the Chamber of both ends of that spectrum - the vendor disclosure, and the Supreme Court (Amendment) Mediation Bill.
I thank the opposition for their support. I do not like to make assumptions, but I felt quietly confident the shadow Attorney-General would have been supportive of this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 February 2010.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement. Territorians are positive and we get things done; that is why the Territory is a great place to live, and we can make it even better. The best way to make it better is to plan for a better Territory.
The need for a long-term plan which guides the Territory beyond a single term of a government brings together the interests of the community. It provides aspirations we can all reach for – which is a great idea - and is a passion of the Chief Minister. A passion driven by knowing we have long-term needs in the Territory, complex demands for resources, and a small but growing population, and a small but growing resource base.
We need to make smart decisions for the future so we all understand where we are going, and why. That is the shared vision which is Territory 2030 - which will inform all future decisions. It is critical to make day-to-day decisions, year-to-year decisions, and even decisions as part of five-year strategic plans, and we need to be guided by targets made clear in Territory 2030. Having a shared vision of where we want to be in 2030 will make those decisions so much easier, and we can be confident of the targets we have set because of the process in which they have been created.
I would like to refer to some of the figures in the Chief Minister’s statement.
There were more than 75 submissions from individuals and organisations and, in addition to written submissions, there were a number of community consultations between January and March 2009 in places such as Darwin, Katherine, Galiwinku, Alice Springs, Wadeye, Maningrida, Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt. There was a consultation draft, an extensive process which was made public, and there were a further 46 submissions to that, and more extensive programs and public consultations in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Tennant, Galiwinku, Angurugu, Ali Curung, Borroloola, Hermannsburg, Lajamanu - many places. It is clear this went through a rigorous and extensive consultation process which, I believe is critical to the formation of an excellent document.
I heard the member for Nelson express concerns about whether this strategy will sit on a shelf, or be a living document. I can safely say to the member for Nelson that this will be a living document. There is no doubt in my mind it will be a strategy which constantly informs government decisions and government directions. I believe the most significant measure of confidence we can have in the implementation of this plan is the acknowledgement we have made, as a government, that this is a community plan. There is a quote in the Chief Minister’s statement from the co-chairs of the steering committee, Ms O’Halloran and Mr Moss, that the goals and aims of the community are now the goals and aims of the government.
By acknowledging it is a community plan we have taken an unprecedented step to open up the Cabinet process of putting into the Cabinet sub-committee individuals from outside government; which the Chief Minister details in his statement. The foundation of this is through the Territory 2030 Cabinet sub-committee - which is what we are going to do to ensure this is implemented - and which has been established to oversee implementation of the strategy and to monitor and report on progress. This is the first time non-elected people have been brought into the Cabinet process in the Territory, and it is a very rare process in the entire nation.
The two co-chairs of the former Territory steering committee, Vicki O’Halloran and Bill Moss, will sit on the Cabinet sub-committee as full members and will represent the voice of the people and help keep focus on achieving the vision that Territorians have set out in Territory 2030. This is an element of the implementation that, I believe, is crucial.
In my original speech I talked about the draft Territory 2030 strategy document which came into the House last year, and is a decision which embraces the extensive community consultation and the nature of the creation of the strategy to ensure the spirit of contestability, open debate, and constructive consultation. The decision by the Chief Minister to not only entrust this job to an independent steering committee of outstanding people, but to formally make them part of the Cabinet process is significant; in fact, it is historic for the Territory.
Many people probably do not appreciate the significance of that step, but it is a measure of the seriousness and credibility we afford this strategy, that the Chief Minister has opened up the Cabinet process, that implementation of this document will be reporting back against the goals that are in the final strategy, that there will be a Cabinet sub-committee with independent people from outside government to make sure that we stay on track in achieving those clear, shared goals in the final Territory 2030 strategy. I have confidence in the Cabinet sub-committee and the Territory 2030 strategy because of the quality of the people on the steering committee who will be on the Cabinet sub-committee. That is a confidence shared by the Chief Minister and, I am sure, shared by all members in this House.
We talk about people of the calibre of Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville Community Services, and Bill Moss, Chairman of Moss Capital. On the steering committee we had Michael Berto, Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan, Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Denis Mackenzie. They are excellent people and that is one reason we have this quality document. They are quality people who have put together an excellent strategic plan - Territory 2030 - to which we will now be held accountable. And ‘how’ is outlined in the strategy – obviously it is important to know how we will be held accountable.
The key initiatives in that area are: every two years the Territory government will publish an official report on the progress made against each target; Territory 2030 strategy will be regularly reviewed by an independent steering committee which will make recommendations on any changes or re-alignment that might be needed; and government will also undertake a regular household survey to collect data for the targets which do not currently have reliable data sets. We do need to be held accountable and people do need to know how we will report and how we will make allowances for the passages of time. We are in 2010 and we are planning for 2030 and we must have a bridge from here to there, and people will know how we are tracking along the time and how we are going to make re-alignments as things emerge.
In terms of detail, the first priority listed for our immediate focus on page 8 of the strategy is Housing, a key issue. The availability of appropriate and affordable housing is a key issue affecting the social and economic wellbeing in the Territory. This is from the report:
That is all true. Housing is also mentioned first under the section in the strategy on Society on pages 21 and 22 to improve access to accommodation and a balanced housing market offering good value for money and affordability, ultimately becoming one of Australia’s most affordable housing markets across all market segments. I believe that is something we would all agree to in this House.
The Chief Minister in Question Time on Tuesday spoke about some of the things we are doing in 2010 to address these. First and foremost we are delivering more land and housing, and an exciting five new suburbs are under way this year which will deliver thousands of new homes over the next two years; planning for the new city of Weddell – no other government is planning for a new city; growing Palmerston – the mayor of Palmerston was in the gallery earlier; and the Wirrina project will be under way. I have spoken in this House before about Wirrina. We are being innovative in how we approach housing and we are being innovative at Wirrina in Parap.
Housing is clearly a challenge in the Territory; it is one we take seriously and one we all understand. The stress of finding a roof, or being able to afford a roof for yourself and your family, whether it is rented or paying a mortgage when you struggle to balance the income with your loan is why we are creating an affordable housing rental company. For a long time there have only been two sectors to the housing market: public housing, which has, over time, devolved from providing housing to a range of people from low income workers to social housing, to becoming more focused on social housing. That had been fine for a long time because the market had catered for a variety of people; it catered for everyone who wanted to find a house. However, what is now clear is the market is no longer providing housing that is affordable for low-income workers.
There is a need for a third sector to the housing market, between social housing/public housing and the market itself, which is where the affordable housing company model comes in and provides housing for low-income workers. It ensures those workers live in areas where the market would actually push them out, such as the CBD and not in my own electorate. It is a policy issue cities around the world have struggled with. Businesses in CBDs need a variety of workers, and can struggle to find workers if people cannot afford to live in the city.
I do not believe we are there yet in Darwin, but the warning signs are there, and that is where the affordable housing company comes in, and there are different models around the country for how those companies work. They rent their units at below 80% of the market rate, and they have an income cap. The company is separate from government and, with those measures - 80% of the market rent and the income cap - the company qualifies for Commonwealth rent assistance and for GST exemptions because it runs on a charity basis. Essentially, that means the affordable housing rental company gets greater value for every dollar it invests than Territory Housing. It is targeted at an area of the market which is not looked after by the market or public housing. So, it is creating housing for those low-income workers in areas where they are needed.
The first project which will involve the affordable housing rental company is the redevelopment of public housing on Parap Road. Wirrina, on the corner of Parap Road and Gregory Street, the first set of public housing units we are redeveloping has been demolished; it is a big empty block now, but members might have noticed we have kept all the big trees on the block because people love their trees. We are now going through the public tender process which is on time, which is always good for a project this size. We do not yet know the detail of what will go on that site, but we will have a process to discuss and consult on that.
One reason we are on time with that project is we were able to move tenants out of Wirrina faster than expected. As I am sure all members appreciate, there is always an anxious time when you move into a new house. We had a number of people who lived at Wirrina talk with me and my Electorate Officer about what is happening, where they might be going, and how I might be able to help them. I thank Territory Housing which, throughout that entire process have been very helpful and comforted people in what is an anxious time, and helping them find places where they wanted to live.
There is no doubt in my mind that housing model - Wirrina on the old site – that density of housing does not work. It was a building past its use-by date; it was built a long time before the current code, it was falling apart, and was getting more and more expensive to maintain, especially when repairs or basic maintenance needs were not directed to Territory Housing, which can happen amongst Territory Housing’s clientele. It is one reason why I went there regularly, and it is the reason the former member, Clare Martin, went there regularly; I went with her a couple of times, and it is something that I now take upon myself.
We used to go there to talk to residents, put on a barbecue, and cook up a few sausages, then I started taking down a pizza which proved to be very popular. The residents would tell you what they saw was wanting around the complex, and then you would work with Territory Housing and get it fixed, because they would not necessarily call Territory Housing directly to get those things fixed. That is often why, in those complexes, things can run down.
If members had not been there before, it was a very bad design, too. That horseshoe shape, with the common area in the middle had no breeze. It was not a tropical design, and was not an area that was pleasant to use; it was a very bad environmental design, and definitely something that needed to be replaced. There is a range of those high density units which need to be addressed and, hopefully, Wirrina can be an example for others to follow. That is something the Chief Minister is definitely interested in and it is something we said we would look at doing. There are complications with moving people, finding them new homes, building new houses, and that can create some blockages. However, it is something that I definitely …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. A quorum has been called. Ring the bells.
We have a quorum. You have the call, member for Fannie Bay.
Mr GUNNER: We need to find better ways of housing Territory Housing tenants. The housing conditions in those complexes are not good enough, which I am sure we all appreciate. As Territory 2030 states, we need innovation in how we approach traditional housing policy. When it comes to public housing, we believe that the mixed tenure model is a better model, to have a mix of public, affordable and private housing, rather than 100% public housing; and the first place we are trialling this model, as I have already mentioned, is at the old Wirrina units site, but it is not a model you can roll out quickly.
We will probably look at increasing the density of that Wirrina site. We have also knocked down six townhouses, and an elevated house has been moved. It is a very big block right on a public transport route on a main road, Parap Road, and opposite shops. They are the type of blocks to put high density for those three reasons - it is a good policy decision. So, essentially, innovation in how we do housing; an affordable housing rental company which rents out below the market rate to people on low incomes, and is determined through the Australian Taxation Office, so people qualify for the Commonwealth Rent Assistance; and you qualify for GST exemptions, and you get better value for your money. That is one of the innovations we are already pursuing in 2010 to tackle the housing situation.
We recognise the housing challenge that exists in the Territory; our population is growing faster than forecast, and that is captured in the 2030 strategy. Our Housing the Territory strategy came first, before the Territory 2030 strategy, but the Territory 2030 strategy definitely captures the spirit of the Housing the Territory strategy.
As I said previously, we make day-to-day decisions, year-to-year decisions and strategic plans and they will be guided by the targets in the Territory 2030 strategy and they will feed into our Housing the Territory strategy, and we will ensure we recognise the variety of needs that exist in the housing market at the moment.
The section on page 8, our immediate focus, then goes on to education which, obviously, is critical. As the report says, given the importance of education and health to the future of the Territory, we need to look at the foundations on which they are based: bold reform, including the exploration of new systems, alliances and relationships will be actioned. The 2030 strategy has a dedicated section for education, starting from page 12. Education and the principle of lifelong learning is the cornerstone of the Territory 2030 strategic plan, the core of education is the formal study from preschool through to the highest levels of academia.
In my electorate there are a number of excellent schools: Parap Primary, Stuart Park Primary, Darwin Middle and Darwin High, and the member for Daly knows the high quality education at Stuart Park Primary very well. I went to the Darwin High School graduation ceremony last year and they have an excellent reputation, and it is an excellent school which consistently produces high quality students. Since that graduation ceremony, the final Year 12 results have come out, and Darwin High again did amazingly well. I want to use Darwin High as an example through this section on education.
The top Year 12 student of the Northern Territory and Darwin High was Elizabeth Duguid. Lana Renshaw was Darwin High’s top Indigenous student. They had eight students in the top 20: Elizabeth Duguid; Lauren Burrow; Dipti Colombo; Angela Scott; Emma Williams; Carissa Liddle; Patricia Tamayo; and, Iona Watson. Eight of their students scored 11 perfect scores in individual subjects. Forty-four students received a TER above 90, and 70 received a TER above 80. Twenty-seven of the top 50 students in the NT came from Darwin High. Of the total marks awarded, 89.6% were passes, with 91% of students attaining their NTCE. It is an amazing result.
Since then, we have had the Board of Studies Awards, and Elizabeth Duguid won the Mathematics Teachers Association Northern Territory Mathematics Award; the Dennis Thompson Estate and Australian Veterinary Association Science Award, and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute Chemistry Award. Ian Moriarty won the Department of Business and Employment Information Technology Award; John Philip won the Rotary Club of Darwin Award; Ian McGregor won the Year 12 English Award; Emma Williams won the NT Music School Music Award; and Angus Robson and Caitlin Egan won Vocational Education and Training in School Awards.
Darwin High is going very well, but I know they do not rest on their laurels. They look to achieve every year, and they have created a culture of success and continual improvement at their school. It will be hard to top last year’s results, but I know they will try. What will help us to emulate that culture of success across schools, to find ways to improve education across the board, as they do at Darwin High every year, is to look at the foundations of education and the reforms needed and good data. That is where the Australian government initiative, My School, is so important because it is providing a high quality data resource, and it will only get better.
The Territory has had information on individual student reports in schools at the system levels since September 2009, but with My School is the first time with Northern Territory scores and fair comparisons with like schools across Australia. The breadth of My School information gives clarity about goals for future improvement, primarily to get schools that are comparable with like schools to also achieve at or above national means; and that it an essential target. The data we have …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended so he can complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: The data we have allows us to better set targets, better track targets, and better assign resources - money, people and equipment. That is a result of accountability and transparency. The website is a useful tool because we can see which schools are doing well, which schools need additional support or additional resources, and the $120m national partnership with the Australian government can now target our most needy students.
We have challenges with Indigenous education especially in remote communities and, in our urban schools; 86% of our students meet national benchmarks, but let us do better. The achievements of these students, their teachers and their parents should be acknowledged, but we should accept the challenge to do better.
Darwin High School always looks to do better; they have an excellent culture and that is something we can take on board in all other schools - a culture of success and everyone in the class actually wanting to achieve. Education is about their future. We are a growing place and we need to make sure our kids have the best chance to find a job, buy a home and have a decent place to live.
Part of the challenge in making sure we have a decent place to live is a sound environment policy. There is a dedicated section in the strategy on the environment on page 56. The Territory has a unique asset in its natural environment, but it comes with huge responsibilities. As we have grown we have seen increasing pressure placed on the natural environment as we try to balance the interests of economic development and environmental sustainability. We have had a debate over the last two days about the Environmental Protection Authority led by the minister, and that is something we are already taking on in 2010 with the EPA, and is something we need to keep an eye on over the next 20 years, the life of the plan - how we protect our environment.
The Chief Minister mentioned in Question Time on Tuesday some of the things we are doing in 2010 for the environment, and one of those is container deposit legislation, Cash for Containers, or as is known in America, the Bottle Bill. As I have mentioned in the House before, New York now has a bigger better Bottle Bill but everyone understands the principle at play here, and that is providing an incentive. People get money for recycling, for picking up rubbish. It is a simple idea that works well in South Australia, and we are going to do it here.
Litter is an issue in my electorate. There are some top spots in my electorate, but they can suffer from litter. I am sure my electorate is not alone in having that problem. Litter is an issue, landfill is an issue, and recycling is an issue. All three get swept up in the Cash for Containers debate. Litter gets recycled, which takes pressure off landfill. People get into the habit of recycling, and litter becomes treasure not trash. Cash for Containers goes a long way to addressing litter, landfill and recycling challenges.
As part of the reference group I went, with the member for Nelson and member for Macdonnell, to South Australia to see what they do and how they do it, and hear directly from experts on the ground. We spoke with them and we visited the collection depots, one of their super collectors where they coordinate the containers and ship them on; basically, the money end of the business. Cash for Containers, as we saw in South Australia, reduces litter, reduces the amount of landfill, and creates a culture of recycling in South Australia - and not just cans and bottles. At the collection depots in South Australia there was a queue of cars out into the street backing up traffic; we could not believe our eyes. I remember thinking the recyclers might have set it up, as there were 10 or 12 cars going down the driveway, out into the street and blocking up traffic. The people who came through had all their cans neatly piled up in their cartons. But it was not just cans and bottles; we saw all types of things: screen doors, computers, and batteries. People got into the habit of recycling things outside the Cash for Containers Bill they have in South Australia because it was part of their habit to recycle, and they did.
That is a great result, and is something we are going to be looking at doing in the Territory. I believe the minister is ensuring we deliver a system that is financially, legally and regionally robust. Work on the design scheme is proceeding well; there are no challenges we cannot meet, but we do need to get it right. The design of the scheme requires careful analysis and consideration. We want to see the benefits of Cash for Containers in place as soon as possible, but we need to get it right. I have every confidence in the minister that we are going through that process, and we will see a very legally, financially, and regionally robust model to ensure Cash for Containers works.
There is a great deal in the Territory 2030 strategy. Looking through some of the specific targets and actions at some of the elements that have not been raised in debate as yet, there is one I believe the Minister for Information, Communication and Technology Policy may have raised, one I have to declare a strong personal interest for on page 35, and I am sure the member for Fong Lim is aware of this issue, too. There is a section of Ludmilla where you cannot get broadband, you have to be on wireless broadband, and I do like the objective of identifying new solutions to key infrastructure challenges in the Territory by 2010, for rural roads and highways and, by 2012, high-speed broadband. That area in Ludmilla, which is quite close to the CBD, does not have access to broadband yet, which seems a bit strange in the CBD, but there a few of those black spots around the place. Telstra is not getting in there and fixing it. I have had long conversations with Telstra about the details of that and what is going on. But, we do not have it and we have to be on the wireless in that area.
Another of the specific objectives in the strategy was the call for statehood on page 23. Like the member for Goyder and others in this House, I am on the LCAC and the Statehood Steering Committee, and it is in the Territory 2030 strategy that statehood for the Territory is achieved and almost taken for granted that we will be able to do it by 2020. We have to do a great deal of work with the community first, and there are a few things we have to get through, but I have confidence it is moving in a careful way at the moment.
We had 100 people at the Elliott statehood forum the other day, which is a good result. We have to work carefully through that because statehood is what we would all like to achieve before 2020. We are working towards that and I believe that would be desirable. Being born here, loving the Territory, wanting the Territory to move on as a place to grow and mature, I know the step to statehood is an important one. It marks the maturity of our democracy and the maturity of our people, and I believe that is something we should all be working towards. It is bipartisan in nature, and I believe the community will come on board and we can work with the community to bring it forward.
On page 26, it talks about something quite small in the scheme of things. It says we will develop public art strategies for major centres based on the successful model of the Darwin Waterfront Precinct. Public art often falls down the line of priorities, but as a local member, I am interested in working on this. I have been talking to a few people, a few stakeholder groups, people who are interested in this area, and I believe there are things we can do in Darwin. There was Sculpture in the Park which has not happened for a couple of years, and there are things we can do when it comes to public art that would involve the community, and the Waterfront model is mentioned there. I believe we can do things in the Territory with public art, it is worth mentioning.
There is excellent work done in this strategy by the steering committee and the Chief Minister in pulling this together. He is to be commended. As I said, Territorians are positive and we get things done. That is why the Territory is a great place to live, and we can make it even better. The best way to make the Territory a better place to live is to plan for the Territory to be a better place; to have a long-term plan that guides the Territory beyond the single term of a government and brings together the interests of the community to provide aspirations we can all agree to, is a great idea. That is what we have here, that is why I am happy to back this strategy. That is why I am happy to support this statement.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers in relation to this statement, and the member for Fannie Bay for a very detailed contribution. I did not realise you were so artistic in nature, and that is good to see.
This plan has been created by Territorians for Territorians. It has been a bottom up approach in planning for the future of the Territory. No one knows better than Territorians what the aspirations are for the future of the Northern Territory. This is the first time this has been attempted anywhere in Australia. It is innovative, and I have had extraordinary feedback on its content and targets, and the breadth of the plan itself. It is certainly innovative and is the only plan that has been driven from the bottom up. It is about the aspirations of our fellow Territorians about the Territory 20 years from now. It tackles the difficult issues head on. Many of the targets will be very challenging to meet but, unless we stretch ourselves, we will never know. It has a great deal of vision about not only the wonderful place the Territory is today, but what it is going to look like in 20 years time.
It is a document unlike many strategic documents prepared by governments. It has very real targets and it demands action. Those targets demand action because they will be reported on every two years. Those targets will receive action and a really focused attempt to achieve them, not only from government but also from the community. It is an honest vision, and it is owned by the people of the Territory.
While members of the House, through the debate, have been generally supportive, I was slightly surprised at the tone of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. He seemed to be opposed to the way the plan has been put together. He seemed to be opposed and critical in his tone that it was a bottom-up approach. I suppose that is the difference - I am happy to receive the ideas, the aspirations, and the dreams of Territorians and include then in this agenda of the government I lead. The opposition does not really share that view. He retains the view, I believe, that government is about one good speech from the leader, and the rest of the Territory will follow like sheep.
That is not the way the world works these days. People receive information from so many sources, so many different messages, on a day-to-day basis that they do not really believe leaders, like the Sermon on the Mount, and everyone should follow you. Everyone has their own dreams and aspirations as individuals. They want governments to lead, but they also want governments to engage, consult, and work with the community rather than believe the soaring oratory of a great speech and everyone will follow blindly.
The Leader of the Opposition urges me to do something, even if it is controversial. Let us look at that. My government and the previous governments in which I was a minister have taken on very controversial issues, and we have led the community on many difficult debates. But, on each and every occasion, the opposition has opposed. They have not come on board. They have been directly critical and tried to tear down what have been far-reaching changes in public policy in the Northern Territory for the better. Let us look at some of those.
The middle schools reform was an absolutely fundamental major reform to education in the Northern Territory. It certainly was not cutting edge. It had occurred in most parts of Australia and the world, yet the opposition, from day one, was dead against the creation of middle schools. They fought tooth and nail at every step of the way at what should have been a commonsense reform. At the end of the day, the middle schools agenda was all about putting better structures and more focused support around a cohort of students in Years 7, 8 and 9. As a parent who had children caught in that cohort, I could see it was perfectly common sense, nothing to fear - better structures, better focus, and better support for those young people at a delicate stage of their development. What did we have from the opposition? Trenchant opposition for the sake of it.
Let us look at the reform of road safety. If anything should unite us here in this parliament it is the safety of Territorians and what will bring the road toll down. We took this on. We knew it would be very difficult, but we engaged the best policy experts we could to look at these issues, and eminent Territorians on the Road Safety Reform Committee we put in place. We looked at the evidence of what works and what does not work. What did we have from the opposition? Absolute opposition from day one. They were behind Internet groups, rounding up opposition for the sake of it, when we should have been focused on saving lives and looking at evidence-based approaches to that. These were reforms that were overwhelmingly supported by police - we have four ex-police officers sitting there - overwhelmingly supported by police …
Mr Tollner: You are about saving money on roads; that is what you are about.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: … and just total opposition for the sake of opposition. I still do not know what their policies are. I believe the member for Fong Lim has come out on some Internet site saying if they were to get back into government, within 100 days they would reintroduce open speed limits. I do not know if that is the policy of everyone over there, or just the mad ravings of the member for Fong Lim; but he has said in the first 100 days, if the CLP got in, he would reintroduce open speed limits, and they still have those ridiculous stickers on their laptops. The only political party in the world that believes the faster you drive the safer you are.
So, do we take on the tough issues? Yes, we do.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Another difficult area is local government reform. Dysfunctional councils everywhere across the Territory; 27 years to reform local government and they could not do it. Opposition every single step of the way.
Let us look at something closer to home, closer to this Parliament House - the location of the Convention Centre at the waterfront. Everyone I talk to who has visited the waterfront says what a magnificent addition to our capital city - and still they talk it down. They would never have done it; the Convention Centre would have been in a car park in town somewhere; we would not have leveraged $800m of private sector money into our community; we would not have created the thousands of ongoing jobs in tourism; we would have had a poxy, little convention centre in a car park in the middle of the town somewhere – no vision, and opposed us every step of the way. We do take tough decisions. We work with our community. The Country Liberal Party has opposed every significant initiative and reform of the government on every occasion.
What Territory 2030 is about is an opportunity to try to get bipartisan support for a long-term, strategic vision for the future of the Territory from the people of the Territory; and that is what we have done.
In terms of implementation, I accept the debate that everyone wants to know what we are going to do to implement the targets. All our public servants are engaged in the goals and targets of Territory 2030; briefing sessions are continuing across the public service and we are asking public servants, from the ground up, how we are going to work together to achieve these goals.
As I previously reported to the House, following the launch of the plan, I reshuffled Cabinet, restructured government to ensure we could implement the plan. As my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister stated in the House yesterday, CEOs will be made accountable for the work they are doing with their agencies to implement the strategy. It will be a part of their contracts to actually deliver on policies and programs that lead to the achievement of these targets, and they will also be subject to scrutiny, as well as other senior public servants and ministers by the 2030 Cabinet sub-committee to ensure implementation occurs. We are serious about the implementation of these targets.
Last night, I hosted thank you drinks for around 20 to 30 people in my office, people who have really worked hard in putting this document together.
The Opposition Leader says he wants to see work now - fair enough. Let us look at what is being done right now. We are delivering more land and housing faster than ever before in the Territory’s history. When they were last in government the Territory was in a hole, it was in an absolute hole - zero growth. The only growth industry in the Northern Territory when we came to government was the furniture removal business. People could not get out of the Territory quick enough.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Grace Bros Removals, You Pack It, they were doing business while the Territory was going down the gurgler. We were seeing the prices of their houses collapse. The legacy we inherited was a Territory economy in tatters, people leaving the Territory in droves; the only growth industry being the furniture removal business.
We are developing six new suburbs over the next five years, such is the wonderful place that is the Northern Territory, for people who want to come and live here. We are planning for a new city of Weddell, which will be developed with environmental considerations, a 21st century, green, tropical city, and homes for around 40 000 people. Alice Springs was landlocked. There was no land released in Alice Springs for the 10 years prior to us coming to government.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it is difficult. It is hard work negotiating with traditional owners, but we have achieved it and we are seeing land released; not as fast as I would like, but it is happening. In the last 10 years of the previous CLP government, there was not one block of land released in Alice Springs. We are talking about 54 blocks of land being released in Tennant Creek - it is decades since that happened. And Katherine, as well as Alice Springs.
We are working to turn Palmerston into the city of choice for families. One hundred and fifty houses this year under SIHIP and, at the moment, we are employing 100 Indigenous people under that program. It is a really good outcome. We have new public and emergency housing. We are developing 20 new towns across the Northern Territory. Twenty new towns, a new city, the population of the Territory growing like it has never grown before, economic growth at 5% - and all this mob opposite can do is talk the Territory down; walking around the Territory with big black clouds over their heads, talking doom and gloom.
We are greening the Territory and taking decisive action on climate change, unlike the member for Fong Lim who still believes climate change only exists on Triton. I will have to get a map of the heavens and find out where Triton is. I have to confess, I do not know.
We are reducing carbon emissions, driving investments in renewable energy resources, and an innovative plan for 20 towns to have stand-alone renewable energy. We will be introducing native vegetation legislation which will deliver on a single system of land clearing across all land tenures, and deliver on government’s commitment to be a low land clearing jurisdiction. We will be banning plastic shopping bags, introducing Cash for Containers, and continuing to develop the Eco-link conservation road from north to south - a real agenda for a green Territory in the Top End, and a green Territory in the Centre.
We are building a safer Territory. There had been a freeze on police recruitment. We now have low attrition rates in our police force; we have 330 extra police, and we have Police Beats established in Alice Springs, Casuarina, Nightcliff and Palmerston, with more to come in Parap, Karama and Katherine - delivering more police and a safer Territory.
Education underpins the vision of Territory 2030 and it is fundamental to meeting the challenges. Last year we released the Smart Territory Strategic Plan to focus on attendance. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s plan that was released in a hurry a couple of days ago, which did not mention attendance, did not mention the bush, did not mention Indigenous education. It really was a pathetic attempt. Unless we get kids to school they are not going to learn. Not a mention of attendance in the Leader of the Opposition’s plan. All these are happening right here, right now, and progressing towards the targets.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution to the debate. I acknowledge the member’s concerns, and I quote: ‘Some of the goals are not realistic or achievable unless you have the right people to drive it’, and I agree. I also note his comments about an incentive program. I will ask the member for Nelson to expand on some ideas around that; I believe it is a really good idea. I re-assure the member for Nelson, and reiterate, we have a strong public service committed to driving the plan. Within each agency there is a senior public servant identified as the Territory 2030 officer whose role it is to support their chief executive and work with the implementation unit within my department to streamline implementation across agencies. Incentives, in part, certainly do exist through the Chief Minister’s Awards for Excellence in the public sector, but I believe there is an opportunity to do more there, and I will talk to the member for Nelson about that.
I note that the member for Nelson would like to see more emphasis in the plan on employment, local government, and agriculture. I am happy to take these back to the Territory 2030 subcommittee.
We are a government with a private sector, and we created 6000 new jobs last year. Everywhere else in Australia people were losing their jobs; around the world people were losing their jobs in their millions. Here in the Northern Territory, we created 6000 new jobs last year. Employment and training are obviously intrinsically tied to education.
Many members opposite have also questioned whether we will implement the plan. I have outlined my commitment to do so. Let me repeat what I have said previously in the House. The government and Cabinet have been re-organised to ensure we do this; the public sector has been re-organised with an implementation committee in place; there is a working group of people based in Chief Minister’s department dedicated single-mindedly to driving the plan; agencies are asked to report against it to ministers; ministers are asked to report against their goals to me, and chief executives are having it written into their performance agreements. All of these things show how serious we are in implementing this plan.
In conclusion, delivering on the Territory 2030 vision is challenging, there is no doubt about it, but this government has never shied away from challenges. We have the vision and the determination and the will to see this implemented. We will be absolutely transparent in how we do this. There have been an incredible number of people involved in the consultation and the development of the Territory 2030 plan - this is a plan from the people.
I take the opportunity to thank the co-chairs, Vicki O’Halloran and Bill Moss, for their unwavering, passionate commitment to the future of the Territory during the past year leading up to the launch of Territory 2030. I thank them for the continuing commitment as members of the Cabinet subcommittee. I cannot forget the other members of the Territory 2030 committee: Michael Berto, Dr Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan AO, Professor Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Denis Mackenzie, who all worked tirelessly and, above all, believed in this plan for the Territory and the exciting future the Territory has
I also thank the many public servants who, under the stewardship of my CEO, Mike Burgess, worked long and hard during the development of the plan. There are quite often disparaging comments by members opposite about public servants but, by and large, we have a great public service and the public servants who worked on this plan, many of them worked extraordinary hours, and I thank them for it.
I make special mention of Dave Malone and Terri Hart for their considerable efforts. Above all, I thank the community, the people of the Northern Territory who went to the workshops, who put in submissions, who lodged submissions online, and whose vision is outlined in the plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting, please.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note statement – Primary Industry Production
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, as no one seems to wish to speak, I will speak. I would like to thank …
Members interjecting
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I remind members of the opposition when order is called, you are asked to be quiet. Minister, you have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank members who contributed to the debate, especially some members of the opposition.
Primary industry is great for the Territory; it is one of the vital industries of the Territory; after the mining industry, it is the greatest contributor to the GDP of the Territory. However, it is also important, apart from making statements in parliament, that in the next few months the government will develop a comprehensive Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy - a roadmap to support the physical element of the primary industry sector in the Territory.
The Agribusiness Strategy will clear the way forward for primary industries. It will be a comprehensive industry development strategy which will identify ways in which government, the private sector, and regional communities can grow our primary industries. It will focus on the progress of sustainable development of the Territory’s primary industry sector over the next five years. Key outcomes of the strategy will include the sustainable development of the primary industry sector to provide long-term growth and jobs for regional economies across the Territory, and a strong, ongoing strategic partnership with primary industry stakeholders across the Territory.
The next phrase in developing the Agribusiness Strategy has already commenced, and an issues paper has been prepared for consideration by industry and community stakeholders. I am sure the member for Katherine will be very interested, and I am happy to provide him with the document, and the first draft consultation is currently under way. The paper will assist industry and government to identify the key issues confronting the development of the industry. It will seek initial input from industry and the community concerning what they consider to be the key issues confronting industry development into the future. Following the consideration of the issues raised, a draft Agribusiness Strategy will be developed.
I welcome members’ support for this statement. Members opposite know of the reliance on our overseas cattle markets. Access to land and water are current initiatives in the area of biosecurity and a climatic change may affect us all - although I note some members of the position do not agree with this statement. The overseas market development for live cattle is very important. We have been undertaking a systemic approach in supporting our key markets in Indonesia, and exploring additional markets in South-East Asia. In the state of Sabah in Malaysia we support the industry through animal husbandry and abattoir practices, and the Northern Territory has always supplied cattle and technical support.
Following a number of delegations from the Northern Territory to Vietnam, and a Vietnamese delegation to the Territory, including a great deal of follow-up work by my department, together with industry, provided technical advice and assistance which has resulted in new feedlot construction to take Northern Territory cattle. I was present to witness the signing of an agreement to purchase between the North Australia Cattle Company and the Khan Hoa Trading and Investment Company, which was a significant milestone in the establishment of this trade and the opening of a new livestock market. I believe the first lot of live cattle into Vietnam will arrive about April.
In October 2009, I went to China where I met with officials from the Australian Embassy in Beijing to discuss a range of issues, including the resolution of the current bovine import health protocol. This is a large potential market for export cattle if this is resolved.
I recently travelled to Jakarta to meet with the newly appointed Minister for Agriculture, Mr Suswono. It is great when you hear feedback about a trip, and it is even better when you hear good feedback from members on the other side. I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the feedback he gave me on my trip to Jakarta - a very important trip considering, at the moment, Indonesia imports approximately 290 000 live cattle a year, worth approximately $180m to $190m. It is a significant market, but will be under threat especially if Brazil acquires disease-free status and starts exporting, mainly, boxed meat to Indonesia.
The meeting with Mr Suswono reinforced the importance of the trade for both Indonesia and the Northern Territory to ensure diplomatic and bureaucratic relations are maintained with this major market for our live cattle. I had the pleasure of inviting Mr Suswono to visit Darwin, especially to attend the Cattlemen’s Association AGM to be held in March.
The value of horticulture in the Northern Territory has grown significantly in the five years since 2005 when it was worth $99m. The industry is expected to contribute $224m of the Territory’s economy this year, a 126% increase over the last five years. So we must be doing something right.
The Northern Australian Land and Water Task Force was reconvened to establish better understanding of the opportunities for new, sustainable economic development in the north. Its report was released on 8 February 2010 and identifies opportunities for sustainable development throughout Northern Australia, and is likely to build on areas currently developed such as Alice Springs, Ti Tree, Katherine, the Douglas Daly region and, of course, the Ord. When it comes to the Ord, officials from Western Australia and the Territory continue to work together to examine future opportunities, particularly water planning - Lake Argyle in Western Australia and the water sources in the Northern Territory needs infrastructure to come from the west to the Northern Territory.
It is about balance, development and environmental consideration to ensure it is sustainable. Groundwater is the best prospect for boosting irrigation for farming and agriculture and mosaic agriculture - small-scale, widely distributed agriculture - is the most appropriate model for new agriculture, and we have planning under away to ensure sustainable development in the Northern Territory.
Of course, Northern Territory CLP Senator Nigel Scullion has confirmed the Country Liberal Party’s position, even though members opposite have remained extremely quiet on the task force reports. But the CLP, according to Nigel Scullion, will put bulldozers ahead of science every time.
The buffalo industry was raised by the member for Nelson. Buffalo is an alternative enterprise to cattle in the Northern Territory. The department’s buffalo industry research program has led buffalo research across Australia and has received international recognition. Research includes breeding programs to increase the availability of the Riverine-crosses that provide good quality milk, especially for the manufacturer of mozzarella cheese. Continuation of the program would depend on the development of markets that focus on farm animals, while the wild harvest food project continues in its current form.
My department of Resources has recently reprioritised funding to facilitate the increased biosecurity measures on stream. The department, in consultation with other agencies, is developing a Northern Territory Biosecurity Committee to further strengthen collaboration and coordination between responsible Northern Territory government agencies. The department of Resources has recently become a member of the Commonwealth Northern Australia Quorum Strategy Group.
In closing, we will be presenting the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy, a key initiative of this government which will focus on the progressive and sustainable development of the Northern Territory’s primary industry sector over the next five years. The key outcomes of the strategy include:
striking a balance between environment and development issues to ensure that the sector develops sustainably;
To reinforce the significance of this project, we will work with industry stakeholders throughout the Territory during the consultation phase. An issues paper has been prepared for consideration by industry and community stakeholders, and the first round of consultations are currently taking place. The development of the strategy will require significant input from peak industry associations and industry leaders. Importantly, the study will establish an ongoing process for the Primary Industry Group of my department to work in a genuine partnership with industry, not only on specific issues of concern, but to ensure ongoing involvement in business planning processes.
The department has restored an applied research program with over 40 current projects. Through the development of the agribusiness strategy, the research program will be reviewed with industry partners to ensure the strategy will achieve industry-sustainable growth potential.
Primary industry is a vital industry for the Territory. It not only contributes greatly to its gross state product, but it also has the ability to employ hundreds, if not thousands, of Territorians living away from urban centres, especially Indigenous Territorians.
Indigenous Territorians were the best stockmen in the 1950s and 1960s and they can come back now to bring land back into production, and bring kids back to the profession. I believe that would be significant development for the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute this evening to one of the giants of Territory sport, a man who devoted much of his long life to the great game of Rugby League - Aubrey Francis McPherson.
Better known as Frank, and known to his mates as Scrooge, he was instrumental in the creation of the Northern Territory Rugby Football League Association in 1950. For the next 60 years, Frank McPherson would serve the sport he loved as a player, then as an administrator, including stints as President and Secretary of what evolved into the Northern Territory Rugby League. His passion for the game culminated in the publication in 2003 of his eyewitness account, The First Fifty Years: Rugby League in the Territory.
Frank was born in New South Wales in 1924, and grew up in Newcastle, where he played a great deal of quality rugby, both League and Union, and completed an apprenticeship as an electrician. In 1947, at the age of 22, Frank arrived in Darwin. According to Frank, this is what happened next, and I quote:
For the next 63 years, Frank stuck to his guns. In the 1950s, Frank was one of the driving forces behind the creation of both Gardens Oval and Richardson Park. In 1960 and 1964, he helped to organise matches between Darwin and the touring France side. In 1966 he helped to organise a match between Darwin and the touring Great Britain teams. The locals were leading that game 4 to 3 with 20 minutes to go when, according to Frank, the timekeeper said: ‘Mac, old mate, I am going to ring the bell five minutes from now. If we are still in front this will be the shortest game in history and they can do what they bloody well like about it’. Unfortunately, Great Britain promptly scored under the posts and the chance for immortality was lost. Britain won 17 to 7.
Up to this time, Frank had been moonlighting as the NT News Rugby League reporter. On one famous occasion he wrote that Waratahs had no chance of beating Brothers, and vowed to eat his words if he was wrong. Inevitably, Waratahs gave Brothers a flogging. At the old Fannie Bay Hotel the next day, Frank placed a copy of his article between two slices of bread, flavoured it with tomato sauce and in front of the cameras, downed the lot. It was probably just as well for Frank’s digestion that Dennis Booth arrived in Darwin in 1966 and took over the Rugby League round as part of his job as the NT News Sports Editor.
Frank maintained his links with the NT News, and whenever a young sports writer joined the paper Frank saw it as his duty to welcome the newcomer, make a few introductions and offer as much help and advice as possible.
Journalist Mick Hedger remembers Frank’s regular visits to the media box during half time of the main game: ‘He would come over for a chat, but he would make sure he was back with his lovely wife, Jeannie, before the second half started’, Hedger said. ‘He was always willing to congratulate you on a good story, and that meant a lot to a reporter who was copping a bit of flack from all those critics whose teams had lost the week before’.
Frank’s outstanding commitment to the game was formally recognised two years ago when he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to Rugby League in the Northern Territory, something I am sure his local member, the member for Casuarina, is well aware of.
Frank is survived by his wife Jean, his four daughters, Lynette, Suzanne, Fleurette and Bronwyn, and by several grandchildren, including a few Rugby League players.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our thoughts are with the McPherson family, and with the League family as a whole. They have lost a great member of their team.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I acknowledge Northern Territory recipients of the Australia Day 2010 Honours. I extend my warm congratulations to the following people for the outstanding contributions they have made to the Territory.
Lieutenant Colonel Shane Leslie Gabriel, DSC of the Australian Army was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for distinguished command and leadership in action whilst Commanding Officer, Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force One in Afghanistan.
Mr Djambawa Miniyawainy Marawili, AM appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division for service to the arts as a sculptor and painter; to the preservation of Indigenous language and culture; to arts administration, and as a mentor of emerging artists.
Private David William Cox, MG and Corporal Giancarlos Brasil Taraborrelli, MG of the Australian Army were both awarded the Medal for Gallantry in the Military Division for gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances while serving in Afghanistan.
Captain Paul William Graham, DSM, Lieutenant Jacob Alexander Kleinman, DSM, Major David William McCammon DSM were each awarded the Distinguished Service Medal Australian Army for distinguished leadership in action as officers commanding, operational mentoring, and liaison teams in Afghanistan.
Mr Brian Robert Stacey, PSM awarded the Public Service Medal Australian Public Service for outstanding public service in the area of programs and services for Indigenous Australians. Brian Stacey is well known to everyone in this parliament, and very deserving of that award.
Detective Sergeant Wendy Schultz APM and Sergeant Shane Michael Taylor APM were awarded the Australian Police Medal for their distinguished police service.
Ms Joanne Killmister ESM was awarded the Emergency Services Medal for her distinguished contribution to emergency service.
Mr Eric James Cox OAM was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division for service to animal science through the management of projects at the Beatrice Hill Research Farm and to the community.
Ms Indrani Leelamani Gunaratnam OAM was also awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community of the Northern Territory through a range of social welfare, arts and sporting organisations.
Two officers were awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Military Division Australian Army for their meritorious service, Corporal Michael Anthony Cole OAM as a Senior Combat Engineer Mentor, and Warrant Officer Class 1, Craig Thomas Howe OAM as Regimental Sergeant Major.
In the military division, Warrant Officer Anthony James Lock OAM was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his meritorious service in the field of Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft Maintenance; Corporal Simon Lawrence Majewski CSM of the Australian Army was awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements as a section commander and acting platoon sergeant within the 7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment and in the development, training and deployment of the 1St Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team.
Receiving commendations for gallantry, Australian Army were: Corporal Bernard Ronald Ryan for gallantry in action whilst in advanced medical technician in Afghanistan, and Corporal Scott Philip Tampalini for gallantry in action whilst an operational mentoring and liaison team member in Afghanistan.
Major Michael Lee Murdoch and Private Thomas Boa-Jin Price both received the commendation for Distinguished Service Australian Army for their distinguished performance of duties in war-like operations whilst in Afghanistan.
Last, and by no means least, the person very well-known for her services to our own Cabinet Office, Ms Julie Anne Nicholson PSM was awarded the Public Service Medal, Northern Territory Public Service, an acknowledgement of Ms Nicholson’s outstanding service to government in the Northern Territory. Well done, Julie, a well deserved honour!
As a Territorian, I thank all the recipients and I am sure my colleagues in the House will join me in recognising the outstanding contributions these individuals have made to Australia, and also to the Northern Territory.
Investiture ceremonies conducted by the Administrator will soon take place in relevant locations around the Northern Territory. I look forward to participating in as many of those ceremonies as I can to add my personal thanks to all the people who have been acknowledged.
I wish each and every one of the recipients all the best at their impending investiture ceremonies, to be conducted by the Administrator. Congratulations to each of you. You are all very worthy recipients of these very prestigious awards.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a number of things I have heard in the Chamber today. I listened to the member for Fannie Bay talk about housing, low-income workers, affordable housing, creating housing, policy for low-income earners. That is fine, but I want to put on the record, and will continue to put on the record, how appalled I am at the current state of housing in the Northern Territory.
We talked about low-income workers and, as compassionate human beings I believe we should give people a hand up when they need it. And I am very happy to do that and to support any policy that helps people who need a hand up, maybe not for all their life, but certainly to get them on their feet and give them the opportunity to join in what we know as mainstream.
However, there is another class of people who are slightly above the low-income workers and they are the homeless working, or the working homeless, whichever way you want to phrase it. These are the people who have jobs and reside in their motor cars at Nightcliff beach; reside in caravans in caravan parks; reside in caravans in people’s back yards; and reside in campers that normally go on the back of utilities.
Recently, a lady and her daughter came in and said the only accommodation they could get was a camper that normally sits on the back of a utility; however, it was sitting in the back yard of someone’s house, along with a couple of caravans. She was offered it for $150 a week. It is slightly bigger than a toilet, and that is where she and her daughter were going to live. When she inspected it, she found it was so disgusting she would prefer to sleep in a tent in a caravan park - and that is exactly where she went.
When we talked about creating affordable housing, the Chief Minister talked about the fastest land release in the Territory. I am really amazed, because I heard that 1123 homes are going to be built. Fabulous! However, late last year the Chief Minister said in this very Chamber that in Darwin alone, to keep up with demand, we are going to require 1700 blocks of land. And lo and behold! Now, 600 or less than that is suddenly great and fantastic. The fastest land release?
I have heard the Chief Minister say for some years now how fantastic a place the Northern Territory is. How it is going gangbusters, I believe is the term he uses. It is amazing, because what we have not seen is the planning for something that is going gangbusters. One would have thought, a number of years ago when that term was thrown around very loosely in this Chamber, that the Territory economy is expanding, it is great, we are looking at fantastic things happening - talking up the economy. Yet, here is a government that totally fails to plan on so many levels it is absolutely astounding.
People who are what we now call the working homeless are astounded they cannot find a place to rent, let alone pay the cost of rent. Hence, they live in cars. The Chief Minister bangs on about the greatest business in the last days of the previous government were the furniture removalists. I wonder what is going to happen when, one day, there is a change of government here. I would suggest there will be so many people on that side of the House, and their advisors, running for cover that the furniture business will be even busier.
Dr Burns: Do not make too many assumptions.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston, who is always having a go at us for interjecting, but feels free to sit over there and interject. That may be true, but I find these things are cyclic and everyone has their turn; it is how quick, how fast, and how many run from the truth.
We are seeing now the results of the seeds that you sow or, in this case, the seeds you do not sow. We are now seeing chaos out there, across the board, in so many facets of government that are the consequences. We have to live with this; my kids have to live with this; their kids are going to have to live with this and, on top of that, they are going to be saddled with a couple of hundred billion dollars of federal debt, as well. We see the Territory’s debt spiralling up, out of control; we see a public service that is growing daily. I believe the former member for Nhulunbuy used to talk about, only a couple of years ago - correct me if I am wrong - natural attrition and all types of things, and we find there is extraordinary growth in everything. If you had extraordinary growth and outcomes, that would be great. However, the problem is we are seeing extraordinary expenditure, extraordinary growth, and we are going backwards in relation to outcomes.
I hear the current Treasurer talk regularly in this Chamber about how much money they have spent. Apart from the fact they have had the rivers of gold flowing in from the GST, and they have far more money than they care to admit, we are still going backwards.
It is appalling when you cannot to buy a house, and you cannot rent a house, and these people become outcasts – middle-income outcasts in a capital city. I mentioned this last night, but it would appear no one on the other side chooses to pay attention, if they continue down the path they are, we will perhaps have a fly in-fly out capital city. I have never heard of one of those in the world but from what I can gather when I do get to travel and see people at the airport and talk to them, they are flying back to other places in Australia – but not just one or two of them – hoards of them.
All these things: the housing crisis we are in, we have a child welfare crisis, we have a power crisis, and we have an education crisis. It is one crisis after another. I wonder what they are really doing about it. We have a 2030 Strategic Plan – fantastic - I love strategic plans, I believe they are a good idea and we will support strategic plans; critical path planning is essential in any organisation, and especially for government. But what appalls me is the state of the play in the community, at the coalface where real people have to live and work and try to survive, where kids have to try to survive.
We only ever have what we have on loan because, at some stage, we have to surrender it to our children and them to their children. I wonder what type of place the current government believes they are going to leave the children of the Northern Territory at the end of this parliamentary term - if it gets to run its full term. If it does run its full term, in two-and-a-half years, where are we going to be? Are we going to be further in debt? Are we going to have more crises? I cannot see any great solution to the raft of problems which beset our community in the Northern Territory.
I talk to young people daily; I read e-mails coming in daily about youth and the appalling situation in which youth find themselves. I will have more to say next week, and at every opportunity I can, in relation to what we have to do for the youth of the Northern Territory. As the shadow minister for Youth and for Seniors, I do not see very much being done for youth or for seniors by the current government. Youth have all types of problems at this stage, just trying to live, trying to survive, trying to stay out of trouble. The seniors are trying to make ends meet; power is going up, water is going up, everything is going up; they cannot go out of their homes; they cannot go to the shops, and when they do get to the shops, everything is going up because of the spiralling costs. It is a very poor report card.
If we are talking about My School, we should perhaps go My Parliament, and do a score card on the government, because we would probably get Es and Fs right across the board in many areas and in many ministries.
I find the government’s attitude to these things absolutely appalling. They should be condemned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I deal with a constituent issue arising out of my electorate. I am often mystified by the arbitrariness of the organs of government. Tonight I am, once again, mystified by the organs of government and the very arbitrary and indifferent nature of the way they go about things.
I wish to deal with an issue relating to Mr Tony Maroulis of Unit 93, 8 Gardiner Street, in my electorate. To give you a bit of background: Mr Maroulis purchased a unit at that location long before the location was completed in the construction process. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter, before I proceed any further, in relation to Mr Maroulis.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Basically, the letter is from the Assistant Director of Legislative Policy, and it deals with a Principal Place of Residence Rebate Decision.
Without reading out the whole letter, in essence, if Mr Maroulis was to move into that property three years after the date of entering into the contract, he would be entitled to a rebate under the Stamp Duty Act under a particular program. That rebate was available for three years after signing the contract.
The problem is that there were circumstances beyond Mr Maroulis’ control - and I have yet to have it confirmed. I understand there may have been some problems also with the approval process and inspections required by government itself. Mr Maroulis intended to move into the property very early and was delayed in moving into the property. Despite the fact he entered into the contract on 30 November 2005, he sought an extension and was given an extension until 31 March 2009. There were circumstances that had to do with Mr Maroulis, and were acknowledged in the Territory Revenue Office letter and because Mr Maroulis was three weeks late moving into the property due to circumstances utterly beyond his control, the decision was taken to deny Mr Maroulis the rebate he sought. I find that a disappointing decision on the part of the Taxation Office.
Nevertheless Mr Maroulis tried to negotiate with them and they were quite implacable in their position. I became aware of this when Mr Maroulis came to see me, and I wrote a letter to the Treasurer asking the Treasurer to look at this matter, because I believed there was a certain flexibility built into the Taxation Act regarding these decisions. I will read out what I wrote to the Treasurer:
I seek to correct the record: I said three weeks earlier, but in the letter I refer to 10 days, which is correct:
And this is the important part – may.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I received, on 16 November, a reply from the Treasurer. Basically, the answer was no, and I will table that in a second. It advised that Mr Maroulis did have a right to have the decision reconsidered but, in that letter, inter alia, the Treasurer says:
I accept that; that is granted.
I am surprised the minister all of a sudden feels that she is bound by this determination and by the structure of the act when she has shown, in the past, a positive enthusiasm for involving herself in the discretionary decisions of departments when taking matters to court. However, that is another matter.
Notably, at the end of this particular letter, I note that the minister says:
So, it demonstrates, in the final paragraph, that the arbitrary nature of the three-year time limit is precisely that, arbitrary.
I ask the Treasurer to have the Tax Office review this decision again, and if they feel they are so bound by the legislation that they cannot bring themselves to turn a benevolent eye upon Mr Maroulis’ case, then when the Treasurer gets round to reviewing the appropriateness of the three-year time limit, that she remembers Mr Maroulis’ case, because, once again, it is a normal, average, ordinary, Northern Territory taxpayer who is copping it in the neck from a government which switches on its compassion, and switches off its compassion and discretion as one would switch on and off a light switch.
I seek leave to table the Treasurer’s response.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night I addressed the House about Australia Day celebrations in Nhulunbuy, and this evening I would like to follow up with a further story about Australia Day.
It was indeed a very special day for one of my constituents, Mr Jambawa Marawili. There was well deserved recognition for Djambawa who was included on the Australia Day Honours List and awarded Member of the Order of Australia for:
Though I have only known Djambawa personally since becoming the local member, I am certainly familiar with his considerable achievements, having lived in the region for almost 20 years. He has an enormous and well-earned reputation, and respect, which stretches well beyond my electorate - a reputation at national and international level.
As a leader and ceremonial leader of the Madarrpa Clan, he carries an enormous workload in leading his people and his homeland community of Yilpara, also known as Baniyala, which is home to around 150 people. It is his leadership qualities, a combination of passion and determination with a strong sense of justice, which set him apart. His approach to life in his homeland community is actively entrepreneurial. At a time when there is much discussion around the government’s A Working Future policy in the Northern Territory homelands, Djambawa has aggressively pursed opportunities in eco-cultural tourism, in fishing and the arts and, in the last six months or so, he has also seen the opening of a community store in Yilpara. He does this not out of self-interest, but for the benefit and future of his clan, his community.
To this end, he is a strong advocate of the need for education for children and adults to enable them to function in a culturally supportive environment on country, and to have a bridge into the Balanda or non-Indigenous world, which is a bridge he crosses frequently, and this is what makes him such a strong role model and leader for this clan and community. His leadership roles are indeed widespread, with organisations such as the Association of Northern Kimberly and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists or ANKAA, the Northern Land Council, Laynhapuy Homelands and Yambirrpa School Council. It is without doubt his role as an artist, across a number of different mediums, which has launched him into the national and international arena and reinforced his leadership status.
Of course in Yolngu terms, in cultural terms, the concept of artist is inextricably intertwined with his cultural responsibilities, so it is his art which defines his leadership and delivers important and powerful messages on behalf of his people, and Yolngu people generally.
Notably, he was involved with the production of the Barunga statement, which was delivered to then Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1988.
In 1999, he was instrumental in initiating the Saltwater exhibition which saw clan leaders and artists work collaboratively to produce and share the stories of the Saltwater people of North East Arnhem Land. It was borne out of a terrible desecration of a sacred site for which Djambawa is custodian. The paintings became the medium to explain to Balanda, non-Indigenous people, the meaning and lore which are the essence of their culture, their being, and their place. Significantly, this series of paintings was the catalyst which drove the legal challenge to have ownership of sea country recognised - the intertidal zone - and culminated in last year’s decision by the High Court of Australia which ruled in favour of the Yolngu people in the historic Blue Mud Bay case, which impacts not only on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, but upon 86% of the Northern Territory coastline.
Djambawa’s impressive and lengthy list of exhibitions, including many solo exhibitions, is testimony to his place in the international art scene and his acclaim as an artist. He was winner of the prestigious National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award in 1996 for best bark painting; and he was most recently invited to exhibit at the third Moscow Biennale in September of last year, which followed a highly successful exhibition at the Art Gallery of Western Australia as part of Larrakitj, Kerry Stokes’ collection, in the earlier part of 2009.
I could think of no one more deserving than Mr Djambawa Marawili, from North East Arnhem Land, to receive this recognition of Member of the Order of Australia.
I also add, whilst on the subject of Yilpara, I was delighted to receive this afternoon, through Laynhapuy Homelands, Yilpara being the largest of the 26 or 27 Laynhapuy Homelands, an invitation for 24 March 2010 to attend the world premier launch of the Garranali Band, their album and an accompanying DVD. I have quickly responded to say yes, I will be there, and booked the time out in my diary.
I am going to make it an overnight visit to Yilpara, because I want to take the opportunity to visit the new school building. I lasted visited Yilpara late last year, and the school building was well under construction, but it is now completed; it is fitted out, and students are there.
This is a $2m investment by this government in Yilpara; it is a fantastic investment, it is a fantastic facility. In addition to the existing school buildings, there is now an extra building which houses two teaching and learning spaces, with a break-out computer room; there is a multipurpose learning resource centre with a break-out music room; there is a store room and a communications room, and here is an office. This building is fully air-conditioned and is part of the refurbishment of the existing school buildings, which are also air conditioned and had all of the louvers replaced. To top it all off, an ablutions block has been built for the school.
This school has always had good attendance, and this investment is a sign this government is committed to delivering positive outcomes for Territory students right across the Territory, and remote areas and homelands are no exception - unlike my colleagues on the opposite side who, in their 26 or 27 years as government, did next to nothing for homeland communities, let alone Indigenous students. This school now has fantastic, state-of-the-art facilities to enable it to deliver quality outcomes for these students.
I also add that this school has moved from being what is described as a homeland learning centre, where we would normally see visiting teachers spend a few nights of the week out there; this school now has permanent teachers based there. A little over a year ago, two three-bedroom houses were built at this community, which means we have teachers permanently based there - five days a week, every day of the school year we have staff out there.
With small school status came the appointment of a principal. I was delighted to learn at the start of this year that the new principal is Mr Pat Ellis. Pat was formerly Principal of Nhulunbuy Primary School and has been in China for a couple of years, I understand, teaching at international schools there. He has now returned to the Territory with his wife, Wendy, who is also a very experienced and accomplished school teacher. Pat is there as the principal and Wendy Ellis, his wife, is looking after the primary school section. Lyn McCormick, a fantastic teacher, is looking after the secondary program there and, in addition to that, the teachers are supported by tutors, including some Yolngu people from the community.
At this community, we will certainly see transformation of education for these students and state-of-the-art facilities in order to do it - a $2m investment and, across the Northern Territory this year alone, $300m being invested in remote community schools.
We have already seen the opening of Beswick and Borroloola schools, so I am delighted to see that Yilpara School is finally up and running with its new buildings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Telephones in Chamber - Broadcast Issues
Telephones in Chamber - Broadcast Issues
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been advised one of the causes of the sound problems we experienced yesterday was the use by members of iPhones and mobile phones in the Chamber. I remind members that it has been a long-standing rule of this House that the use of all mobile phones and iPhones in the Chamber is not allowed. I would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
A member: No UFOs then, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, sadly, no UFOs. That was not a UFO, anyway.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement -
Member for Arafura and Member for Araluen
and
Member for Nightcliff and Member for Brennan
Pairing Arrangement -
Member for Arafura and Member for Araluen
and
Member for Nightcliff and Member for Brennan
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs. The first pair is for the whole of the day for the member for Arafura and the member for Araluen. It is signed by the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
The second pair is for me, the member for Nightcliff, and the member for Brennan from 10.45am to the luncheon break.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that response to petition No 25 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Petition No 25
ANZAC Hill High School – remain as a Secondary Campus
Date presented: 12 October 2009
Presented by: Mr Giles
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 18 February 2010
Date response received: 18 February 2010
On 13 October 2009, petition No 25 was presented and read in the Legislative Assembly. The petition concerned ANZAC Hill High School - Remain as a Secondary Campus. I respond to the petition pursuant to Standing Order 100 as the Minister for Education and Training.
The petition read in the Legislative Assembly bore 665 signatures and called for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to commit to keeping the ANZAC Hill High School campus open as a separate campus within the new Centralian Middle School; and the core subjects of Maths, English and Special Education remain at both campuses and students and parents continue to have a choice of campus for education in Alice Springs.
In February 2009, the former Minister for Education and Training announced the creation of an Alice Springs middle school as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan to tackle youth crime and antisocial behaviour. Following an extensive community consultation process during 2009, the new Centralian Middle School opened with higher than anticipated enrolments with two separate campuses under one Principal and two Campus Heads at the beginning of the 2010 school year.
The Centralian Middle School is providing better tailored educational programs, including more specialist courses, and will improve vocational and alternative education pathways. Under the agreed model, students attend the Gillen campus to access a range of general and specialist subjects, with some students accessing the ANZAC Hill campus for additional specialist subjects.
Special education teachers are able to work with teachers, classes and individuals on both campuses.
I am absolutely committed to the delivery of high quality education that will ensure Northern Territory children are provided opportunities at school that will enable them to develop the skills required to participate fully in the economic and social development of the Northern Territory and the nation.
CONSUMER CREDIT (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 90)
(Serial 90)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Consumer Credit (Northern Territory) Act and make transitional arrangements and consequential amendments to other Northern Territory legislation following the passing of the Commonwealth legislation regulating consumer credit.
In March 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) committed to a comprehensive national regulatory reform agenda to deliver a seamless national economy in order to improve Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. To further these objectives COAG agreed in 2008 to a national scheme for the regulation of credit and finance broking. Under the national scheme the Commonwealth would pass the appropriate legislation and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) would take on the regulatory and enforcement role previously undertaken by the states and territories. The national scheme is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement that operates similarly to the Corporations Agreement 2002.
In October 2009, the Commonwealth established the new regulatory framework with the passage of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The framework allows for the registration of credit providers with ASIC from 1 April 2010 with the full licensing and regulatory scheme to operate from 1 July 2010. The new framework will provide consumers with consistent and better protections across Australia.
The reforms include: new, responsible lending conduct requirements imposed on licensees which will require that credit providers and services be suitable for consumers’ needs, and that the consumer has the capacity to repay; improve sanctions and enhance enforcement powers; protection for those consumers taking out loans to purchase, renovate or refinance a residential investment property; greater access for consumers to information including fees, charges and commissions; and greater access to low cost, external dispute resolution schemes rather than having to go to court.
With the passage of the Commonwealth legislation the Consumer Credit (Northern Territory) Act becomes redundant and is repealed by this bill. Similarly, Division 4 of Part 5 and Part 12 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, which deals with credit contracts and licensing of credit providers respectively, also becomes redundant and are repealed by this bill.
A number of minor consequential amendments are made to other acts that refer to credit legislation to refer to the new Commonwealth act. As the Northern Territory has no legislation dealing specifically with the regulation of finance brokers, this bill only deals with credit-related matters.
Part 6 of the bill contains transitional provisions and the regulation-making power. The regulation-making power is quite broad and is intended to allow regulations to be made to cater for unforeseen technical or other issues that might arise in the transition of regulation of the provision of credit from Territory legislation to Commonwealth legislation. At this time, no such regulations are proposed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arafura for the remainder of the sitting week.
Leave granted.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have 20 minutes in continuation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue from where I was yesterday. To recap, I congratulate the member for Brennan for his fantastic contribution yesterday to this debate, and for his ongoing commitment to the environment and to policy. It was the member for Brennan who has really forced the government to act in this case, and it is good to see the government has adopted much of what the member for Brennan was proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, support the implementation of this bill.
Something the member for Brennan said yesterday resonated well; it struck me as being exactly right, and that is the issue of climate change. The issue whether you believe or do not believe, whether you are sceptic, a denier, or a true believer, is one debate to have. However, the main issue here is actually reducing pollution wherever it may occur, and government should be working to that end.
Sadly, this government is only focused on one aspect of pollution reduction - that is of carbon pollution reduction. They have hung their total commitment on the environment to Kevin Rudd’s failed ETS policy. We have been sitting in this place for 12 or 18 months being berated by government members for not supporting Kevin Rudd in his great, big, new tax that would hit all Australians. The opposition has copped it in spades from the government, saying we should be kicking our Senator Nigel Scullion in the bottom, getting him to cross the floor in Canberra and support Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax - a tax that would raise billions and billions of dollars in revenue, and a big chunk of that money would be sent overseas to countries which would produce carbon credits for Australia. What a ludicrous idea! What sort of moribund thinking tells people that it is a good idea to tax the living daylights out of Australians and send that money overseas, when we have so many problems to deal with here in Australia with our environment and with pollution?
Kevin Rudd’s whole policy, the ETS, the whole carbon pollution reduction bill he put to the parliament, rested on a decision that was to be made in Copenhagen that would see all of the world follow Australia and start taxing their countries and sending their money overseas to other countries to purchase carbon credits. We all know what happened in Copenhagen; it was a complete shemozzle, and complete farce, and a failure of global proportions. Kevin Rudd is now standing around with egg on his face, and all those people who backed Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme are looking utterly stupid, to the point where we now see the situation in Canberra of Kevin Rudd wanting to talk about anything he possibly can - other than the ETS.
Kevin Rudd is ducking for cover. He refuses to explain his great, big, new tax to Australians, obviously it is not something he wanted to explain to Australians in the first place, but it has come to light that Kevin Rudd wanted to tax Australians and send those dollars overseas. How ridiculous! And it failed. It is doomed forever, and now this government in the Northern Territory is like a shag on a rock with no place to go.
Finally, thank heavens, we see them adopting Country Liberal policy. For that, everyone in this room should be ever thankful the member for Brennan has worked so hard and tirelessly on forcing government to this position, because it is something that will have an impact into the future.
This government has totally failed on the environment. We continue to pump raw sewage into our harbour, unlike any other city in Australia. Darwin is the worst polluter of our harbour per capita than any other harbour city in Australia, by far. We pump more sewage into our harbour per capita than any other place in Australia. We have seen the Chief Minister’s 2030 plan, where he is planning for the future, and there is no mention in there whatsoever of stopping that sewage being pumped into the harbour. You hear from all types of people about the threat of pumping raw sewage into the harbour has for our environment, but the government refuses to act.
It is interesting to note, the embattled Minister for Essential Services is the bloke who is also responsible for pumping sewage into our harbour. You have to ask the question: do you think he will do anything about it? Well, he did tell us he was spending $700m on Aboriginal housing a couple of years ago, and how many houses have been built for that $700m? They are claiming two. It would be good to see where those two houses are, because my understanding is those two houses were built for a COAG trial, but I am prepared to be proven wrong. The fact is: with $700m, they may have built two houses.
Yesterday, we heard the bizarre example of them spending $140m to build 85 houses in town camps in Alice Springs. Now, do the maths - $140m to build 85 houses. You have to ask the question: what are the chances of this government cleaning up our harbour? What are the chances of this government stopping the pumping of sewage directly into our harbour? I believe the Internet site still exists where people can see the sewage being pumped into our harbour. It is a terrible thing, and it needs to be addressed by this government. But this government, as with everything else, refuses to act.
You do not have to travel too far to see the litter and the rubbish in Aboriginal communities. In my electorate, the community of Bagot is full of litter and rubbish. The Territory government should be taking some responsibility for stopping Territorians littering, and not just Indigenous Territorians, but Territorians across the board. But it is a stand-out in most Aboriginal communities around the Territory, that there is so much litter. In Bagot, it is a bit hard to blame the Indigenous people who live there because there is actually no rubbish collection service provided to the Bagot community. Government should be taking that into account and organising clean-ups of that area as quickly as possible.
We have seen how this government reacts in certain areas; the classic was their botched handling of the McArthur River Mine environmental approval process - it was absolutely shameful. We saw the member for Arnhem making a complete dill of herself trying to stop this mine going ahead, and twisting and turning the environmental process - in this case not the member for Arnhem, but the government - to use every means to stop that mine. This mine represents 5% of the Territory’s gross state product, but this government was hell-bent on making sure that mine expansion did not go ahead and twisted environmental approvals to suit their own savage ends.
There is a whole range of areas, as was mentioned by, I believe, the member for Goyder yesterday, about diesel being used at Channel Island. We were going through a road train of diesel a day to keep the lights on in Darwin; again, because the Minister for Essential Services was so incompetent and did not do his job. But diesel is not only burned there, is it burned in practically every Aboriginal community right across the Territory at a massive cost to Territorians. A large part of the subsidies government provides to Power and Water goes to providing diesel to remote communities. We have a number of businesses in the Northern Territory which provide green energy sources, solar energy, photovoltaic energy, wind energy and a range of other renewable sources that can be utilised in these communities. What is government doing about it? Nothing, zip, zero! We do not see a big roll-out of solar technology or wind technology in remote communities - we see absolutely zero - and we continue to truck diesel to these communities at huge cost and huge danger to the environment. So much for the green credentials of the Northern Territory Labor Party!
It is like so many other things. I referred to the member for Karama yesterday as a clothes dryer: all spin and hot air. She is emblematic of the whole government – all spin and hot air. They come in here banging on about the environment, banging on about how terrible the Country Liberals are for not supporting Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax on everything and sending the money overseas as if it was some sort of – I believe Kevin Rudd’s own words: ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’. I believe it is the greatest moral challenge of our time when you want to tax Australians with a great, big, new tax and send a big whack of that money overseas - that is a moral challenge - particularly when we have so many things in Australia we should be doing, and could be doing right now, to address pollution in our environment.
There are so many areas of neglect for the environment this government refuses to accept. In another area, the member for Brennan, only a couple of weeks ago released our pollution reduction policy. I have to say there was a range of areas where he targeted practical measures to implement immediately to reduce pollution. I note the member for Stuart, the Environment minister, suggested we had stolen their policy. If that is true, if that is what you truly believe, implement it! We will give you the credit, as we are doing now, for implementing this policy. You have taken our policy and put it into the parliament and we reckon it is great. Good on you! You should be congratulated.
There is another policy the member for Brennan released a couple of weeks ago you should implement as well; in fact, you should implement it because you claim we stole it from you. If it is that good, implement it, because I believe it is a humdinger of a policy, it is a great policy and it should be implemented as a matter of course immediately. There is a whole range of practical measures in there which can be utilised immediately to reduce pollution in our environment.
I support this legislation; it is a good legislation. I have some concerns, such as the ability of the EPA to coerce information from businesses but, I believe, in the right hands, that is a useful tool. I would hate to see it in the wrong hands, but I have faith in the member for Stuart. I believe he is an honourable man and a decent bloke. I do not believe he is a person who would use his power as the minister in the wrong way. I am quite happy to support this legislation as it is.
I place on the record my thanks to the member for Brennan for the hard work he has done. I am also glad to see that finally government has stopped berating the opposition about kicking Nigel Scullion in the pants and getting down to Canberra to vote for a great, big, new tax on everything. A tax where most of the money would be sent overseas; a tax that would have absolutely no effect on the environment, would simply export jobs overseas, export industries overseas and export Australia’s great strategic strengths and advantages overseas. It was fantastic to see the meltdown of Kevin Rudd’s policy at the Copenhagen talks. That was a complete disaster and I believe it saved, not just Australia, but many counties in the world from almost financial meltdowns; good news there.
Thank you, member for Brennan; and I am pleased to support the policy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a couple of comments made by the member for Fong Lim, because they are valid. I heard him refer to Copenhagen and what happened at Copenhagen. I thought to myself, as we were leading up to Copenhagen, that there might be an international treaty that came down the pipeline which would enable the world to take steps forward. I was surprised to see the representative of Australia in Copenhagen, Penny Wong, standing shoulder to shoulder with the western nations and the OECD countries and challenge what was happening.
I was curious, so I started to ferret around the Internet to see if I could find a copy of the proposed treaty and, finally, I did find a copy. It took a surprisingly long time to find a treaty that was supposed to be at the centre of the world’s attention. It was a surprisingly difficult document to find. What you finally get when you look at the draft treaty is a document of 181 pages. I expected to read a document with a great deal of scientific substance to support the treaty itself and, whilst there are elements of that in the treaty, or the proposed treaty which finally did not pass muster in Copenhagen, it was curious what else was laced into that treaty. And that, I suspect, was the real reason Copenhagen failed - not because there was a lack of goodwill on the part of the OECD countries. If you read that document you very quickly realise what is written and what is being woven into the proposed document is a political philosophy as well as merely a climate-change philosophy. That treaty envisioned an organisation called COP, which was the council of something or other - I forget exactly what the acronym stands for, but it is continually mentioned through it - and it is a central tenet of the document.
COP is an organisation that would be unelected, from various countries around the world, which would oversee the policing of the treaty. In the treaty, depending on which variant would be agreed upon in Copenhagen, the OECD would be paying somewhere between $64bn and $150bn a year to other countries which was, essentially, untied money, which means there were nations in Africa and the Pacific which were looking forward to large amounts of capital flowing their way from the supposedly guilt-ridden countries of the west which had generated all this carbon dioxide, and it was now their moral duty to pay all this money to these countries who have not produced carbon dioxide.
On top of that, you have this organisation of unelected people who would have, essentially, policing rights - hence the acronym COP - over those countries, including the OECD countries. No longer is the issue we are talking about an international treaty. We are taking a very important step forward in the environment; we are talking about sovereignty and the implications this treaty would have on sovereignty.
I stand in this House not because I walk through the front door with a gun slung over my shoulder saying: ‘I have a right to be here’, but because the people who put me here chose to put me here. The people who are going to look after COP - those people who are going to be the ‘cops’ - were going to be the ones who would dictate to this nation, this jurisdiction, what was going to happen as a result of this treaty being ratified. This is what Kevin Rudd wanted us to sign up to.
I can tell you, I am not at all surprised that, at the last moment, he got cold feet. If Australians had realised the potentiality of that, let alone giving billions of dollars every year to African nations which, frankly, have a very poor track record in looking after untied funds, then I can well understand the reluctance of the OECD. I can well understand the reluctance of Penny Wong; I can well understand the sudden reluctance of Kevin Rudd because, I suspect, Mr Rudd was not fully informed of the contents of that 181-page draft treaty.
I almost get a sense it is one of those things that percolates along in the background: ‘Let the bureaucrats do it’, until we suddenly realise what we are left with …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, would you mind pausing. It is clear someone in the Chamber is using a mobile phone and it is affecting the sound system. Whoever it is, could they please not do that - no texting or e-mailing. It seems to come from that area over there. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is clear what was happening in the background was all these nice fuzzy ideas being loaded into this particular treaty, and it was only when we got to Copenhagen we started to realise some of the options would be unpalatable locally.
I accept there is a real potential, based on the popular science I have become aware of, that there may be a climate change impact based on the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am cautious about that information I read, because even the experts are far from agreement on the actual potentiality of the build-up of this carbon dioxide, how it manifests itself, if it manifests itself at all.
If you listen to Lord Monkton, he will give you one opinion; if you listen to Tim Flannery, he will give you another opinion. I am not a scientist, however, I am sufficiently concerned - I suspect probably the only one who is sufficiently concerned in this House - to know I have a responsibility to at least deal with that potential. I ask how many members of this House have a Prius or some sort of hybrid?
I do not like language. I heard the Chief Minister refer to things such as: ‘You have to believe in climate change’. No. It is not a religion; it is not an article of faith. It is an article of rational debate. But what has percolated into the system is irrationality, perpetrated by people you would expect to be the very paragons of rational conduct. The scientists who argue with all the might and integrity of the scientific philosophy have allowed themselves to be caught up in the irrational component of the debate. The recent leaked e-mails from England, where there was an description that we cannot include certain information or comments because it might be detrimental or used against the climate change debate, is very disappointing, not because it undermines all of the science that was ever done, but it diminishes the integrity of the scientific rationale, when the people who are supposed to be its high priests actually engage in conduct which is contrary to that philosophy.
I do have concerns, as the government has concerns, about the way we look after our environment. I believe that is an important decision that we should all make, not only for the future, but for ourselves. How we conduct ourselves should be important. We keep hearing we have to protect the planet for our kids. What about saying what is important in terms of how we conduct ourselves as people? I find it difficult to listen to the self-righteousness debates in this place, particularly of government members, in relation to their climate record when their own department of the Environment, by a factor of seven or eight, is the government’s greater polluter.
I am concerned that the government continues to go down the path it does. I believe this is worthwhile legislation which has been brought before this House because it is supported by a worthwhile policy. I urge government members to take a rational approach, rather than an irrational approach, to this particular issue, and support what is good legislation so we can do our small part.
I am mindful of my personal impact on the environment and my family is mindful of its impact on the environment. I believe we should all be doing our bit because of the potentialities. But to stand up in this place one day and complain that the opposition is playing politics, and then come in the next day and do precisely the same thing, does not augur well for the integrity of this particular government and how it deals with this, and other, issues.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, can I please ask you to not use that iPhone in the Chamber?
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, this is in flight mode.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Sanderson, it is affecting the sound system. You can actually hear it buzzing through the system. Please note that phones are not allowed to be on at all in the Chamber. Apparently it has to do with the frequency of the microphones, and it has been affecting the sound system.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, perhaps during the luncheon break I will see you in relation to the flight mode. It is not transmitting; it is not receiving.
Madam SPEAKER: Other members have asked me about that and we have sought advice, and apparently it affects the system as well. So if you could please turn it off, because I have been able to hear the buzzing.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will speak briefly in regard to this legislation which we are supporting. I want to make a couple of comments in regard to the EPA.
Whilst this legislation is fine, and I thank my colleague, the member for Brennan, and also the member for Fong Lim for their support, if the EPA is truly to work properly, then it needs to get across all the environmental issues that we are confronted with in the Northern Territory.
One that has concerned me for some time is the proposal by government to chop up Berrimah Farm for a housing estate. It is well-known and well recognised that the Berrimah Farm area has been a site of contamination for many decades. I know, and this House knows, the government contracted an environmental consulting firm to study Berrimah Farm. I have written to the minister seeking a status report, and received quite a useless letter back, all fluff and bubble and no substance, as to where the government is with the Berrimah Farm and, in particular, any remediation or rehabilitation work that needs to be done. We still do not have a report as to the extent of the contamination. Given the history of that farm and the way it has gone down south in regard to people living in previously contaminated areas, I believe the government would expose itself legally quite substantially, if they were to develop that farm into a housing estate.
Regarding the EPA and its work, we recently had a discussion paper from the Commonwealth regarding water and whether the north could be developed into a food bowl. That aside, the big issue of water supply in the Territory is a major issue. We still do not have any definitive vision or direction from this government regarding the future water supply for the Top End, in particular. Darwin River Dam wall has been raised, but with the growth of the population and the growth of industrial development, Darwin River Dam can no longer be the only water supply for the Darwin/Top End region. It concerns me that such a major project requiring new dam infrastructure pipelines, the EPA is perhaps not equipped to handle the environmental work; and that is a very great concern to us on this side.
Regarding the EPA and its work, they recently released their report, Ecological Sustainable Development in the Northern Territory. I have gone through it in a preliminary way, and I have some serious concerns with some things they are proposing. I will put the government on notice that our side will be coming back to them in regard to this report and some of the things being proposed.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank all members for their contributions. I reiterate this debate is all about the next stage in the evolution of the Environmental Protection Authority. It is quite amazing some of the members on the other side believe they have some credentials to talk about the environment generally, and about climate change. We on this side of the House know …
Ms Purick: Well, you do not. What have you got? You are an ex-footballer.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: ... how divided they really are on climate change in this debate …
Dr Burns: Look at your position over the years when you were with the Minerals Council.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Purick: Look at your position.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of Government Business and member for Goyder, cease interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, some of the contributions are quite amazing and quite disappointing, to put it bluntly.
I acknowledge the great work the member for Brennan has done, and the member for Nelson, regarding the next stage of the evolution of the EPA and the amendments we are talking about here today. I believe they have really overshadowed the great work the member for Brennan has done. I know he is genuine, and I am willing to work with him and quite prepared to sit around a table with my staff and work together in a bipartisan way on this. To have his colleagues politicise the whole thing, he must be extremely disappointed with the efforts of his colleagues.
While the debate has drifted away from the amendments we are putting forward today, on which the members for Brennan and Nelson have done much hard work, I am disappointed with the contributions, particularly from members on the other side.
I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their constructive comments on the amendments; the member for Daly and the member for Fannie Bay made positive, constructive comments and this is what this House is all about, and the environment is all about. We cannot live in denial; we cannot live with a divided regime in government or in parliament, which deny climate change and find it quite cute to come here and push their divisive views on climate change in a totally different context.
We are here today to talk about these amendments. They are good amendments which will empower the EPA and really push the intent of the EPA which is about being independent, about representing the community, and being there for the community to push any environmental concerns it has directly to them.
It is important to reiterate that it is this Labor government which created the first Territory’s EPA – something the CLP did not do in 26 years. If we are talking about credentials, if we are talking about track records on green initiatives, on the environment - and that is the first point we should look at - who created the first EPA in the Northern Territory? This Labor government.
In doing that in 2007, we joined the rest of Australia in having an independent environmental watchdog. We are now moving to make the Environmental Protection Authority stronger with a new auditing and monitoring role backed-up by new offences. These are areas that the EPA will be expected to keep a watching brief on but, as is the case now, the EPA will still be able to take on one-off projects.
Importantly, these changes keep our current regulatory framework intact, and there is no point in duplicating or lumping environmental assumptions together just for the sake of it. Instead, the EPA will have a very strategic role ensuring the whole of the system works together properly. The EPA is doing some great work already, and these amendments place them firmly as an EPA for the 21st century.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I thank the member for Nelson and the member for Brennan for their constructive contributions. There has been bipartisanship on the amendments to this bill. We have had a number of discussions with my office, in particular, and with the EPA board. I know the member for Brennan had some amendments of his own last year and we took those into account and have picked up on the spirit of those proposals. I thank him for his efforts
All of us have had the opportunity to consult directly with the EPA board on this bill, and I believe that clearly demonstrates to everyone in this House, and the community of the Northern Territory, that it is truly an independent body.
During the member for Brennan’s contribution, he made some comments and suggestions, and raised a number of issues which I would like to work through now. First, he raised the possibility that a chief executive might somehow delay the responses to the EPA; and there is no time limit specified. Member for Brennan, the bill says that when the EPA undertakes an assessment in respect of an agency, it needs to provide its proposed findings to the CE and provide a written response within a reasonable time. While no time limit is specified, I am advised this provision is similar to requirements for agencies in responding to the Auditor-General. So, there is a practice around these types of requirements, and I am sure no agency would unnecessarily delay this type of advice. I am equally sure the EPA would be raising it in the unlikely event it did occur.
The member for Brennan mentioned that the proposed administrative arrangements between the EPA and the minister could reduce the EPA’s independence. Absolutely not. Member for Brennan, clause 7A(4) of the bill clearly says:
- However, the arrangement does not affect the Authority’s independence.
I believe it is very clear. Also, I draw the member’s attention to section 8 of the Environment Protection Authority Act, which clearly says
- The Authority is not subject to the Minister's direction.
Nothing in this bill alters that existing provision.
The member for Brannan has queried whether CEs can simply ignore requests for information from the EPA. Member for Brennan, we are strengthening the powers of the EPA to require information in this bill; this is necessary to ensure that the EPA can carry out robust audits. Under this bill it will be an offence not to provide information when requested to do so by the EPA or to provide misleading information; and I do not see any exemption for CEs. So, that seems quite clear to me.
The member for Brennan also asked why there is no requirement for the minister to table their decision following receipt of the EPA’s advice. New clause 25 of the bill indicates I must give notice to the EPA of any decision I make. The EPA is independent, and I cannot imagine any circumstances where they would be shy about the advice they receive. So, I do not believe this a big problem, member for Brennan.
Finally, the reason why the EPA’s new monitoring capacities commenced after the rest of the provisions in the bill had been queried. This was at the EPA’s request, member for Brennan. This monitoring is a significant task and it will require new systems and processes to be developed. There is a range of options for service delivery which need to be explored by the EPA in consultation with the other agencies and the community. This will take some time, and they need to get it right. Twelve months to get this very important function working seems a reasonable time to me, member for Brennan.
The member for Brennan also queried whether the EPA should be looking at cumulative impacts. That is exactly what this bill does, member for Brennan. In Part 3, clause 13, proposed new clause 5A(1)(c) says this is the monitoring that the EPA will be tasked with.
Cumulative impacts, by definition, do not relate to the emissions of any one facility, and it is simply what Part 3, clause 13, proposed new clause 5A(3) of the bill is saying.
I am very pleased they have publicly indicated their support - that is the EPA and members in the House - for making the EPA a stronger organisation. I turn to some of the comments of other members on the amendments.
The member for Fong Lim’s debate centred on the issue of climate change. We know those opposite are divided on the climate change debate. I would like to leave climate change for another day because, as I said, there will be a statement to the House during these sittings on climate change which will provide everyone in this House with an opportunity to debate this important issue.
The member for Fong Lim is great with words, but he does get things a little mixed up, particularly his figures on climate change. When the member for Brennan launched their climate change policy last year, the member for Fong Lim actually said that calling it a climate change policy was not correct; it is intended to be a pollution reduction policy. On the one hand, we have the member for Brennan saying it is a climate change policy and, on the other hand, we have the member for Fong Lim saying it is not a climate change policy. This reinforces to me and government that they are really divided and do not know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change. They have no credibility. We can leave that for another day, as we will be debating the climate change policy in a statement to this House very soon.
I need to come back to some comments the member for Fong Lim made about the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program in town camps. He clearly does not understand it; I do not believe he has even been to a town camp in Alice Springs. To say $140m is going into new housing is not correct; it is actually $100m going into building 85 new homes, and also doing refurbishments. However, that is not all the package. It is also about fixing and making safe those homes in the town camps, and also cleaning up those town camps. As we have seen since the announcement in December last year, we have cleanup crews go through the town camps doing a fantastic job ...
Mr Bohlin: There would be more work achieved in that, than in the entire SIHIP project.
Mr HAMPTON: If the member for Drysdale went and had a look at those town camps tomorrow, he would be very excited about how they look ...
Mr Bohlin: I have worked in the area. I spent more time there than you have ever spent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to correct that misinformation from the member for Fong Lim - it is not $140m to build new homes, it is $100m to build 85 new homes; do the refurbishments; and also clean up those town camps and make safe many of the homes.
Regarding litter everywhere, it is this government which is proud of its green track record, and we are the ones introducing container deposit legislation - as we know the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay have been part of the working group - something the CLP never did in 26 years. This government is proud of its track record and will be delivering CDL, container deposit legislation, in 2011.
Buffalo Creek, again, great showmanship by the member for Fong Lim, but he does get it wrong …
Mr Elferink: 2011? You rejected the departmental submission.
Mr HAMPTON: … the member for Port Darwin, again. It is this government that is open and transparent about our green record, our environmental record. We are the ones who publicly released the harbour report card last and that clearly identified there is work to be done at Buffalo Creek, no doubt about it. That is why we have allocated money to fix Buffalo Creek and we have awarded the contract to do something about that issue. Work will be under way, commencing in March, on a diversion from Buffalo Creek away from that particular area. Work is under way; it has been awarded …
Mr Bohlin: From where? What location is it going to go to?
Mr HAMPTON: We are doing something about it. It is this mob over that side who live in denial. Who built the facilities back in those days which took sewage into the harbour? It is this government which is open and transparent about our environmental record. We are the ones who released the harbour report. Have a look and see; it is on the website. Buffalo Creek, it is acknowledged there are issues with it; it is there on the web for everyone to see. We are open and transparent about the report card on our harbour, but we are doing something about it. We are going to fix it.
Regarding the member for Fong Lim again, it is quite clear to me that this mob on the other side is divided on climate change. They have no idea, and they will remain divided. The member for Port Darwin has no idea about climate change and, once again, it reinforces to me how divided they are on climate change and their position. It is a pollution reduction policy, well, what a con job from the opposition.
Mr Elferink: Do you have the vaguest idea what I said?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Turning back to these amendments. I am very pleased the opposition supports the amendments, and the member for Nelson. I say a particular thanks to the EPA board and staff for their assistance in framing the amendment bill.
I commend this bill to members, and I thank them for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) BILL
(Serial 82)
(Serial 82)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I wish to talk on the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009, which is a bill for an act about the rights and duties of parties to contract for the sale of land.
The intention of this bill is to provide what is known as vendor disclosure. Vendor disclosure refers to the practice of the vendor, being the seller of property, disclosing information about the property to the purchaser or potential purchaser. This may be done by making a disclosure statement, giving certain undertakings, for example, in the contract of sale, and/or providing certain documents. Specifically, under this legislation, the issue revolves around the information which must be made available to a prospective purchaser at the beginning of the time that a property is for sale.
The consequence under this legislation for not making that information available is the purchaser could be considered to be not carrying on with an offer to purchase property, and to declare a contract invalid. The intended consequence is that a person who makes an offer to purchase a property can do so in the shortest period of time to prevent alternative offers being made to the vendor or seller.
If I can just go back a bit in time: this legislation has had a reasonably long history going back to at least 2004, perhaps longer, when the member for Nelson attempted to introduce a Law of Property Amendment Bill, which was unsuccessful and defeated by this Labor government that did not like what was put forward by the member for Nelson. I will highlight the government’s concerns at the time, and I quote from Hansard. The Attorney-General at the time, Dr Toyne, said:
- The comment I have received …
That is on the member for Nelson’s bill:
- … convinces me that we must tread this path carefully in order to achieve the right balance. For example, we do not want to compromise affordability for new homebuyers.
He goes on to say that Territory Housing advise that extra reports will increase further costs for a new home.
Even then the government knew there were some very clear issues of concern, and the minister of the time was aware of the possible negative consequences on the housing market that the kind of legislation we are debating today could bring. Even then, five years ago, this government knew that there were issues with affordability of housing. And, of course, five years down the track, we have the current problems that there is no affordable housing in the Territory.
In 2007, the member for Nelson brought forward a motion to push government into introducing what was loosely called then vendor protection legislation; and this was after three private member’s bills, I believe, which were all defeated by this Labor government.
Regarding the motion, the Attorney-General at that time stated:
- Our aim in initiating the reform …
which was reform of vendor issues in the residential market:
- … is to make property transactions more efficient and streamlined; minimise potential problems in property transactions …; minimise waste on multiple reports being created; and create easy and practical remedies for problems that may arise at a property transaction.
It sounds good, and I agree there should be less red tape, less complication, and remove the hindrance to people getting into their homes as quickly as possible. Quite clearly, that is not happening now. People cannot get into their homes as quickly as possible because they cannot afford to. That motion was defeated again by this Labor government. People I have spoken to regarding this legislation are not against vendor disclosure per se.
The real issue is the current system is not really broken. It actually works really well for buyers and sellers. Buyers have the certainty the property they are purchasing is adequate, as they control the reports being obtained. They have also the privity of contract to sue the report provider. The proposed system appears to enable the buyer to sue the service provider, but is limited to reports which are misleading, or otherwise prepared with the exercise of reasonable skill and care. What if the report provider does not exercise skill and care, but makes a mistake anyway because of a line ball call? It may mean also the buyer is one step removed from the service provider.
I know legal people in town recommend buyers obtain their own reports and not rely solely on the seller’s reports. That way they get firsthand information and can go back to the report author if something is amiss in the purchase of a property. Does the purchaser wait to settle on the property before taking action against vendor’s report provider? I ask that question of the minister.
From my discussions with industry people and businesses specifically, this legislation will not and does not make things simpler; it only complicates the process, and adds an additional layer of cost for no real benefit. In an already tight real estate market, it will simply add time and cost to bring a property onto the market.
I turn my attention now to some of the specifics of the bill and issues surrounding it, which are of concern. Both the member for Nelson and the minister, in her second reading speech, refer to gazumping and anti-gazumping when discussing this bill. This has nothing to do with it, and will not stop gazumping. What is being referred to over and over again as people being gazumped, is people who have actually placed deposits for a purchase and have been outbid. This practice is not illegal. In fact, it is not even unethical. It is inconvenient perhaps, and even downright annoying for the people who have placed the deposits, but they need to remember a deposit is just an expression of interest in purchasing the property. The deal is not concluded until both parties have signed and exchanged contracts. Until that point, the seller is within their legal and ethical rights to explore and accept all offers put to them. In fact, the agent is legally bound to provide the seller, their client, with any and all offers put forward until the time the contracts have been exchanged.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am trying to listen to the member for Goyder because this legislation …
Mr Elferink: The member for Nelson will not be quiet.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … having debated here in the House, the member for Drysdale is talking quite loudly on the side. I ask his interjections cease so we can listen to the opposition’s contribution to debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Member for Drysdale, you are interrupting debate, I was about to interrupt you myself.
Mr BOHLIN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was the member for Nelson.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for confessing, member for Nelson.
Ms PURICK: If I was selling a house I would expect the agent to get me the best possible deal within the bounds of the law. Trying to find the best price, before contracts have been signed, is not illegal. The bill will not change that practice. It will not act as anti-gazumping legislation. The sooner some members of this Chamber wake up to this fact and stop harping on about this, the better it will be for everyone, including consumers.
Additionally, I am concerned there has been a push by some members of this Chamber to put all responsibility on the seller, and the purchaser has no responsibility. In other words, do away completely with the concept of buyer beware. I agree the seller should be, and is expected to be honest in dealings, as is the responsibility of the purchaser to pursue actions and not to be ignorant of the amount and interest which he or she is about to buy and, in doing so, exercise proper caution. To have an unbalanced relationship in business is not only wrong, it is not proper, and should not be entertained in legislation in any form.
Another aspect of the legislation is what and where this legislation will apply. In the government’s own fact sheet dated around July 2009 titled Draft Vendor Disclosure and Cooling Off Legislation, it has a section ‘Does the legislation apply to the whole of the Northern Territory?’ The answer in the fact sheet is no. The legislation will only apply to local government areas of Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Katherine and Alice Springs. People of Tennant Creek, not covered; Pine Creek, not covered …
Mr Wood: You are out of date.
Ms PURICK: … Elliott and Mataranka, not covered. It should be covered across all of the Northern Territory and if it is out of date, fine. I look forward to the fact that it will cover everyone in the Northern Territory, including Noddy’s electorate.
I ask the question: why would the government be selective in the first place, if they have changed it? It tells me that the government has not really thought through this legislation and is not really serious about consumer protection.
In going through the legislation I offer comment on the following sections. In the bill some people in areas of property sale are excluded, such as joint tenants or tenants in common; it also excludes people who are related. However, the list of related people is limited and I ask the minister to amend the related members to include spouses, parents and children, grandparents, and those in de facto relationships, or other demonstrated family connection; because with the changing demographics in our society there are more relationships between grandparents and grandchildren in regard to property. I ask the minister to consider amending that to include spouses, parents, grandparents and, particularly, people in de facto relationships.
In disclosing information in section 12, what does ‘available for inspection’ mean? Does the documentation have to be physically provided to each prospective purchaser, or can the documents be held at the agent’s office and the potential purchasers advised to attend the office to inspect and get copies? It is not clear to me how the agent actually discharges this obligation.
Taking possession during the cooling off period, section 20(5), does not make sense to me because it conflicts with the seller’s right to charge a licence fee for early possession. Where are the rights of the seller articulated in this situation?
In section 24, what protection does the report provider have for alteration to the property made after the report is provided? For example, where a seller alters the property prior to sale, or alters the property after sale and claims the report was misleading or not prepared with reasonable skill or care. It is not clear to me. Perhaps the minister will be able to answer.
In regard to building status reports, it is interesting to note that the minister referred to building reports nine times in the second reading speech, but in the legislation there is no mention of building status reports. However, in the regulations there is reference to building reports. In clause 4(1) there is a requirement for a building report for an existing building on the land. My question is: what would be the situation where the parcel of land has more than one building or structure, as often occurs in the rural area – a shed, compliant shed, workshops, stables and the like? Are these to be included, or are they not to be included in providing documentation?
I know the development of regulations is well under way and that government is working with industry; I trust these discussions are full and frank, which will be needed if this legislation is to work properly.
In closing, I refer to my opening comments, which are: this legislation was not really needed.. Now that it is before the parliament it is important to get it right. I look forward to the minister’s reply to my questions and areas of concern. Second, it will not stop the activity loosely and wrongly referred to as gazumping, and the sooner people stop using that term the better for everyone. Third and last, and importantly, this legislation will not assist in getting houses and properties onto the open market and may, in fact, delay developments and add cost to an already tight housing market which is a direct result of this government’s failures in regard to land release policies and public housing.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, that was quite a pathetic effort from the Deputy Opposition Leader. I do not know why they put her in that position.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The members for Greatorex and Braitling - she referred to them as egotists in her diagnosis of the Estimates Committee last year. Egotistical, I think she called you, member for Greatorex, so she is having a fair crack at you in your performance in estimates last year …
Mr Conlan: That is all right. I have a healthy ego, mate. I am happy and proud of it.
Mr KNIGHT: Her performance here has been woeful. I believe you do a good job in estimates, but she …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance - he is meant to be talking about the legislation before the House, not estimates.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please resume your seat.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Greatorex, I think you do a great job in estimates. Sadly, your Deputy Leader thinks you are an egotist.
Mr Wood: And now for the debate.
Mr KNIGHT: And now for the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the property market in the Northern Territory is evolving. The consumer patterns are changing; the expectations of the community are certainly changing and we must change with those expectations and the property market and the purchasers as well. It is the position of this side of the House that we must change with that; we have to try to reduce that gazumping situation in the Northern Territory. Therefore, we are putting this legislation forward.
This legislation is a positive step for people buying property in the Northern Territory. This legislation is designed to improve the fairness and efficiency of the conveyancing process, as well. The bill seeks to ensure the buyer has access to the specific disclosure information of a property which is on the market. This includes, amongst other things, the proposed contract for the sale, extracts from the Land Register, and reports specified in the regulations. As someone who has bought and sold property in the Northern Territory, it is more convenient having that available at the property or with the agent. I certainly see some true advantages, from my point of view, for the seller as well. It is more attractive to buyers if all that information is readily available.
There has been vendor disclosure laws in other places in Australia - Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia - for some years now, and the Northern Territory is moving in that direction. All available evidence suggests vendor disclosure laws in those states have been working well.
There have been concerns about certain aspects of conveyancing practices in the Territory for a number of years now. There have been times when our laws needed to reflect contemporary values and expectations; and that is what my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is doing in this specific bill.
As the Business minister, I am pleased this bill is developed in consultation with the property industry. Both the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and the Australian Institute of Conveyancers were part of the Property and Commercial Law Task Force which advised the government on the development of this bill. I noted on ABC radio recently - it might have been yesterday - Quentin Killian from REINT was very positive about the way industry and government have worked together on developing this legislation. I quote Quentin: ‘We have a product that everybody can live with and get used to’. So, it is something that has changed, but it is positive change and it meets those expectations of the community. It is certainly great to hear those endorsements from the industry. I also note the property industry will continue to work with the government in drawing up the regulations on this particular bill.
This bill will require vendors to disclose comprehensive information about a property that is on the market. There are, though, limits on the information the vendor needs to make available; for instance, items such as pest control reports are no longer required to be provided by the vendor, as these have a limited life and may be out of date by the time the sale is actually finalised. The truth is, it is also important for people who are buying property to do their own homework; this legislation does not prevent all circumstances. People who are going into a transaction, which may be the biggest financial transaction of their life, need to do their own homework and go in with their eyes wide open. We have this legislation which is another tool, but it should not be rested on completely, so people still need to do their homework. While government is moving to enhance the conveyancing system, buyers need to be cautious and do their homework on the property and need to ask questions about the property.
Let us quickly have a look at the bill itself. In essence, the new requirements are for a vendor to provide the seller with a draft contract of sale; a four-day cooling off period for residential sales during which the seller can back out without any penalties; all information about the land obtained from the Land Titles Office, including registered and unregistered encumbrances; a certificate issued under the Land Titles Act incorporating individual compliance certificates under the Swimming Pool Safety Act and, where relevant, permits and approvals under the Building Act, and key decisions made by a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Title Schemes Act; disclosure of any personal information about the land such as drug premises orders, flooding, storm tides, seepage and tenancies; and a building report stating the extent to which the building complies with the Building Act, or an alternative building report stating that the building does not comply, or that it is not possible to establish whether the Building Act applies.
There is no doubt the conveyancing problem that has received most publicity in the Territory in recent years has been gazumping. This bill will have a genuine impact on the gazumping situation because, as you have just heard, there will now be requirements for the vendor to have all the necessary information available before actually putting the property on the market. I believe we all agree gazumping is something we want to try to minimise and, if possible, get rid of. I am confident this bill will go a long way to address that. I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this bill forward, and I congratulate the member for Nelson for his persistence in this matter.
As I said in commencing my contribution, expectations do change, and I believe the property market changes. We obviously have a very strong property market here, especially in the Top End, but also in other parts of the Northern Territory, and we have to provide protection where we need to. I do not believe this will encumber either the buyer or the seller in getting those transactions done effectively, or encumber the property market.
So, my congratulations, Attorney-General, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it seems a very long time since 2004 when I first brought legislation to this parliament in an attempt to do something that I believe has been long needed - that is the protection of people when they are purchasing the most important purchase of their life, and probably the most expensive purchase of their life. We have lived with a system which worked under the Latin motto, which I have forgotten, but it means buyer beware, and it has always confused me why we have buyer beware for a house, but when we go to buy a television, there are all types of guarantees on a purchase like that; or if you shake someone’s hand over the purchase of a car, that is regarded as a contract, but not so for a house.
I believe this legislation, without the rhetoric, is about the protection of people who can least afford to have a fall-out when it comes to purchasing a property. This started for me about 2003-04, when a lady rang me and said: ‘I was intending to purchase a house in Humpty Doo, and it had been sitting on the market for a while’. I knew the block of land and it was going for $95 000, which seems awfully cheap today when it would probably go for $395 000. The local real estate agent came around and shook hands with the lady because she said she would like to buy it, and she said: ‘I have to go to the bank because I hold money in trust’; and he said to her: ‘Madam, you have made a very good decision to buy this block of land’. Before she took the money out she was informed the real estate agent’s boss said he was to drop the claim as there had been a higher bid.
That is gazumping, whether you like it or not. It is not immoral; it is in the act you can do it, but is it the way we should be dealing with people? That is the question.
Someone whose hand is shaken and told they have made a very good purchase, you would expect that to be it, but not so. Why have real estate agents if you cannot get them to make the decision, if that is the case, member for Drysdale? They are the agents for the property owner. I had that lady sitting at my desk weeping. This was the one and only purchase in her life, and she had been gazumped. I believe that system needed changing. This legislation will not get rid of gazumping, but it will certainly make it much harder for it to occur.
The other matter which came to my attention, and I have raised it before, a young, single fellow decided to purchase a block of land on Power Road, Humpty Doo in a section which is not made. There are several blocks of land there, and he did not live in that area, and in the Dry Season everything looks fine. He paid $200 000 for a block of land which the real estate agent told him: ‘It floods a bit here’, and that was it. The next Wet Season came and it went entirely under water.
Mr Elferink: It is called a warranty, or a condition.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not a warranty, member for Port Darwin; it is telling the truth. That is the issue we are at because, as I said, this is the most important purchase for most people and this is the one we should provide safeguards for. If you want to stick up for the real estate industry, you are most welcome. They do a good job, but they also should have some responsibilities.
The way we sell land, I believe, should be in a way that people are able to purchase their block of land and house feeling secure that those who sold it to them did not sell them a lemon; they sold them something that was valuable and would last for many years. That is what it is about, and if people do not believe that is what it is about, if they believe the real estate agent is more important than people’s rights to purchase a property that is not a lemon, then so be it.
It has been said this will cost more. I can see the angle coming now: this legislation will drive up the cost of housing. These reports we are asking the seller to provide would also have to be purchased by anyone who wanted to find out the status of the house under the existing system. Those costs would have already been incurred by the person buying the house. The idea it will put some extraordinary cost on the house is a furphy. It would certainly put some cost on the house, but to say it would make a house unaffordable and to put it into that bracket is certainly an exaggeration of the facts. Much of the information you can get from the Lands Branch, or checking out some maps. There will be some other certificates which may cost slightly more, but the difference of making it affordable or not, I believe that is an exaggeration.
This legislation, as it says, is to improve the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing process for all concerned by ensuring, as far as practicable, the buyer has the same information as the seller at the earliest opportunity; and I believe that is very important.
We need to go back in history. Many people have said many things about this process. When I first introduced this legislation, we had long discussions with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and with the Conveyancing Institute of the Northern Territory. Before I introduced my legislation we had approval and agreements from both those bodies. It seems surprising to me when the government introduced this legislation the Real Estate Institute said they were not very happy with it. Whether that was because it was different legislation, which may be the case, but it is strange with time and changes of personnel, all of a sudden what was supported by both those groups - and the Conveyancing Institute still does support it - it became a different kettle of fish.
Thankfully, I believe the Real Estate Institute has come back and supported it. They did have some last minute suggestions which surprises me since this bill has been out for comment for such a long time and has been adjusted after comment. In fact, the Law Society commented quite broadly on the submissions and I believe those comments were taken up in this legislation.
I received a letter this morning from the Law Society and it says:
- I am writing to confirm that the Society is happy with the current version of the bill. The Society had some concerns with previous versions and worked through them with officers of the Department of Justice who took heed of our concerns. Appropriate amendments were made to the draft bill prior to introduction.
I understand, subject to passage of the bill, we will be shortly starting consultations with officers from the Department of Justice on draft regulations and amendments of the Law Society Contract of Sale to take into account changes to the legislation.
Whilst it will not deal with all the issues coming from the Territory’s current overheated real estate market, it will result in an improved situation for purchasers.
So, this has gone down a long and tortuous path. I stand here feeling slightly confused because, after many attempts to bring this legislation in, and being told by the Labor government that they did not support it, and then to hear the opposition today not singing praises about this legislation, I am still very pleased that this legislation is coming through today.
It has been said that gazumping should not be mentioned, it is not an issue, which sends an echo that the Real Estate Institute has got hold of this legislation and is using it for its own propaganda. I will mention an e-mail which was sent to me which says:
- I refer to the article in the Sunday Territorian dated 27 September 2007. The article stated that you attended the Property Council’s State of the Union lunch on Friday.
This is actually an e-mail to the representative of the real estate industry.
- You were quoted as stating: ‘Gazumping, as a real estate industry (representative), we would strongly refute that it occurs. We don’t believe it does’.
That was a question that was given to me at that particular lunch, and the person said:
- Funny you should make such a statement.
It was the very firm you worked for who gazumped my husband and I. Your principal [I will not mention any names] knew that a deposit had been taken on [such and such block of land].
And they actually claim here that $10 000 was offered them to hand the block back. They say:
- The joke is now on you. I am also writing a letter to the Editor refuting your statement in much the same terms as I have written here.
And they go on saying, basically, they have no time for that statement.
It is not the only e-mail I received, and it is not the only case I have. I remember a cattle station on the Roper River, where a family had saved up their money to buy this block of land, and they were gazumped at the last minute after being told they could buy it. It does occur. This act does not get rid of it, but it reduces the chances of it happening. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to get rid of it unless you immediately sign the contract on the spot. But, I believe it has been used unfairly.
Members of my close family had a block down the track and they behaved morally when it came to this. They visited this block with the real estate agent, they were made an offer and they said: ‘Yes, we will accept it’. Before they got home, the real estate said: ‘Well, I actually have a better offer’. They said: ‘No, we have shaken hands. We have told those people we are happy to accept their offer’. That is the way it should be, I believe.
However, it is not that way in law; in fact, it is encouraged in law not to do that, and I do not accept that is a fair thing. Shake hands with someone; say you are going to purchase it and, unless something untoward happens in the meantime, it is not the way we should do things. This does not get rid of it, but it at least tries to reduce it.
This bill is about checking people. I am not here to stand up to the big companies; they can handle themselves pretty well. I am here to stand up for the little people who sometimes get hurt and lose their entire life savings - like the young bloke who had a house and put $200 000 into a block of land that is useless unless he spends probably another $200 000 filling it with gravel. He lost his money. The real estate agent will tell him: ‘I thought it was wet’. It was flooded, and he was not told the truth. This legislation will go some way to protecting those people. It does not take responsibility away from the purchaser to do their own homework. If I was looking at a block, I would be hunting around to check some of the details myself before I went to see the owners. At least this puts some balance back into the system, and that is important.
I have been passionate about this for a long time and if it had failed today, I would reintroduce it again and again. When ordinary people come to you and weep because this system allows their future plans to be hijacked, a system where there is not enough protection for someone buying a block of land is not as it should be, and we need to do something about it. I do not accept the amount of money this will cost will make houses unaffordable. Better to buy a house where you know you are secure, that is as you expect, and which will not fall down. If you buy it without a Certificate of Occupancy, you can at least say: ‘I knew it might fall down, so I knew that could happen; at least I know that’. What we want is the person selling it to tell the truth about their block or house so you can make an intelligent decision about whether you purchase it.
There are some issues with the bill. The member for Goyder raised those, and I expect they will be answered. There have been some changes. The member for Goyder raised the issue of certain parcels of land in the Territory not being available. If anyone looked at the original draft and discussion papers, one of the things I asked for to be changed has been changed. It applies to the whole of the Territory, except for some minor areas. That does not give me confidence that this recent bill has been read, because that was in the draft last year. Those changes have come in, and people were asked to comment on those. They are what the Law Society and the Real Estate Institute commented on, and those comments have been taken into account. Some of the documents that were required have been taken out and put into the regulations and they are the comments that came back.
There has been a great deal of work done here, including by the industry. You will always get some people within the industry who are not happy but, overall, the Real Estate Institute is happy. We have comments from the conveyancing industry, which does not have a problem with it; they believe it is as good as you will get. The Australian Institute of Conveyancers supports the idea of inter-disclosure. It is not as though these discussions have occurred overnight; they were started in 2004, and I had many discussions walking up and down the steps of the Real Estate Institute in town, discussing this very issue.
I am very supportive of this legislation. I am sure the ordinary people of the Northern Territory would be supportive of this legislation, and I believe it is well overdue. It is legislation that people might laugh at here, but it is okay in other states, and it has been operating in other states successfully as well. If people can be protected in other states when they purchase a house or a block of land, they should be able to get the same protection in the Northern Territory. That is what this is all about - giving them the same rights as other Australians in other states.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill wholeheartedly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Nelson’s arguments and, with all due respect to the member for Nelson, I am struck by the inconsistent thinking and logic behind his arguments. I understand the emotional impact of a person weeping in front of your desk saying: ‘I have lost an opportunity’. I understand that a person who was sold one thing, or thought they were buying one thing, and actually purchased another, is a matter of great concern for the member for Nelson. I understand what is driving the member for Nelson in relation to this issue, but there are certain things we need to be clear about in how this legislative instrument operates and what it is trying to achieve.
I would remind honourable members of the organ called the Statute of Frauds, which was a legislative instrument from England in 1677, which is still referred to today whenever anyone studies contract law, particularly in the area of real property, because the Statute of Frauds required certain contracts to be committed to paper. The reason being, if you look at the history that created the drive behind the Statute of Frauds, was the problems the courts of that time were having in dealing with the elements of certain complicated contracts which were coming before them for adjudication. Such contracts were contracts of marriage and, included in the list, contracts for the purchase of land. The courts needed to be able to define, in a very specific and very real way, a vehicle by which they could look at a contract and know what the intent of the contracting parties was, and the best vehicle to do that was to have the item written down. That stands to reason.
The purchase of land, for most people, is by far the most expensive purchase they will ever make. The certainty that surrounds the arrangements for the transfer of that property from the possession of one person to the possession of another person is paramount. It is very important that the purchase of land be clearly defined in each individual case as to what is being purchased. It is for this reason, over the years, in different jurisdictions, standardised contracts of purchase have been created. These standardised contracts are then the benchmark upon which contracts can be based, but they can also be changed through negotiation between the parties, the elements of those contracts can be changed in all manner of ways.
For example, there may be certain guarantees or warranties required outside the normal formal contract. There may be a different purchase time or transference time inserted. The change may be as fundamental as the nature of the currency used to purchase the land. There are any numbers of permutations which may alter a standard transfer of land, and the underlying principle of all of this is the concept of the voluntariness of the contracting parties.
It is for that reason also that I have great concerns about the member for Nelson’s argument that this is a moral condition we are dealing with. No, it is a legal issue we are dealing with. The member for Nelson gave an example of one person considered they were morally bound by a contract where, at law, they were not. That is fine. That is the choice of the person who has decided to accept the payment. Again, what happens in that instance is choice is the overriding factor; the ability for separate parties to make determinations they see fit.
We have also heard an example for the justification of this legislation - a piece of land transferred from one person to another which turned out to be swampy. The member for Nelson said the person was told the land was not going to be swampy or inundated. That is a fraudulent misrepresentation, and there is a remedy for that already at law. That remedy is that if a fraudulent misrepresentation is discovered, then the contract is void ab initio, which means the contract never existed and the parties are returned to their original state, pre-contract.
I also point out; if the seller knew the land was inundated on a regular basis and remained silent about it that is called fraudulent concealment. I refer the member for Nelson to page 375 of Contract Law in Australia by Carter and Tolhurst, which says:
.
The problem with this legislation is we cross a threshold, and for this reason alone I am nervous about this instrument. Whilst I appreciate it operates in other jurisdictions, my criticism of it is consistent in those jurisdictions.
Currently, if you wish to purchase a property of any description, in terms of land, real property, and it has a building or a house on it, the purchaser may elect in the contract, and regularly does, that the contract is subject to certain things occurring - a satisfactory building report, a satisfactory electrical report, a satisfactory plumbing report. All these things are then items of research taken up by the purchaser, who then determines if it is something they want to look at. It is not an obligation; it is a choice which is made by the purchasing party.
What we are being asked to do in this environment, however, is impose an obligation. The obligation we are seeking to impose is the cost of making all that information available, irrelevant to the wishes of the parties.
One of my great criticisms of us as legislators, is we have this all too aggressive habit of casting a net into the future and hoping it catches only one variety of fish, and we are then surprised when we get results which have a negative impact.
There are circumstances in which people may wish to purchase premises where they want to forego the prerequisite inspections. There can be any number of examples of why that may occur, and that is a choice for the purchaser, and a risk they choose to take for all kinds of reasons. However, what we will do now, by passage of this legislation, is impose an obligation on the vendor to disclose or to have those things done. Why? Because the member for Nelson felt sad because somebody missed out; that is, unfortunately, how it works.
What concerns me more is the member for Nelson wants to impose a moral obligation on a seller in a contractual environment. That concerns me because there is no clear distinction in the member for Nelson’s mind between fraudulent misrepresentation, a moral obligation, and a normal contracting process. For him it is all about some results he feels are bad. The problem is, we really should remove those emotive responses from these types of debates and look at the core of what we are trying to do. The core of what we are trying to do is impose a duty on the vendor of property.
As a legislator, we impose all kinds of duties on people, and I sometimes worry about the consistent passage of legislation through this, and other Houses, which impose duties on people; we impose taxation, for argument’s sake. Now, there is a rationale for those types of things, but we must always cast a critical eye upon the rationale of why we do those these things.
I have seen members of government in the past cast a rational eye on this issue; and they came to the same conclusions I have just articulated, and came into this place and enunciated those conclusions in the same fashion I just articulated. So, while we might be seen as the hard-nosed so and so’s on this side of the House, we are consistent with our philosophy in relation to this, something which government is not. And it does not take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to expose what the real motivation for that decision is.
The government comes into this place and accuses members on this side of the House of engaging in politics in a crass way. But, in the process of them engaging in their politics of survival, what they are actually imposing on Territorians is another duty. This is the Paul Henderson survival duty tax, which is going to be imposed on vendors, and nothing else. It is inconsistent to one day argue one thing in this place, then return to this place and argue the opposite for no other reason than having to look after your agreement with the member for Nelson; especially when that agreement is based on a philosophical construct that, we have all heard today, is fuzzy at best and ill-considered at worst.
It is for that reason the Country Liberals will be opposing the passage of this legislation. We do not wish to excessively impose duties on people where duties currently do not exist. It has been the decision of other jurisdictions to impose that duty, and I am unsatisfied by anything I have read that it has improved those environments at all in terms of the outcomes from contractual parties. I still firmly believe for the sake of certainty on contracting parties it is the written document which should be relied on, and not a handshake. It is simply silliness to suggest that a person should be contractually bound on a handshake, as the member for Nelson has done.
For those reasons I am concerned at what we are doing in this place. I place on the record my personal objection. I find this particular legislation objectionable and, as far as I am concerned, this is nothing more, from a government’s point of view, than the most cynical exercise - the use of this House to achieve its political outcomes, which is political survival, and nothing else.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I did attend a briefing with the member for Goyder, and I do have interest in this, having worked in real estate and having an understanding of the housing market to some extent.
I have listened to what the member for Goyder and the member for Nelson said, and listened to what the member for Daly and the member for Port Darwin said.
My contribution on this matter is, while I recognise the current practices of people who are put in a difficult position, who sign up to accept a letter of offer, and have those letters trounced, I recognise that is a difficult place to be in.
But I also understand that the role of the agent is to find the best price for the buyer. When the buyer signs up an agent they sign them for a period of time, and that contractual arrangement with the agent is to find the best purchase price available in that period of time. So there is a liability on that agent to do the best for the buyer. So when we bring ideas to a legislative instrument like this to try to put safety nets in place so that the potential buyer is not hard done by, and does not have to go to the expense of going through all these reports and so forth, to be overturned, even if they do not go through those reports, as the member for Nelson said, the emotional hardship people go through makes it a difficult position, and we have to find a balance so these incidents do not occur.
I have to agree with the member for Port Darwin in not supporting this legislation. I do not believe this legislation is the right balance. What the member for Port Darwin said is right - this is legislation to support the agreement, rather than legislation to support the problem. This is the member for Nelson’s populism turned into policy, and that is a problem because it is not the right policy for the Northern Territory.
A few examples that relate to what we have heard today about the extra cost it puts onto selling a block of land: if you have a divorcing couple selling a block of land, they now have to go to added expense. If they do not have the financial capacity to go down this line, how are those people going to be able to sell their property? There are numerous examples where people do not have the money up-front to get to that position. What we have done in developing this legislation is come up with what I describe as half-baked legislation.
The member for Daly, quite rightly, referred to legislation from New South Wales and, I believe you also said Victoria and South Australia. If you go through the South Australian legislation, there is a high degree of transparency. There are a number of forms about sales agency agreements which talk about disclosure of benefits, bidder’s guides, collusive practices and warning notices, making sure all parties involved in any real estate transaction are highly informed about the process. This legislation does not go to the capacity or the extent they have gone to in South Australia. For that reason, I believe this legislation has problems.
That is why I say this legislation is just populism turned into policy, which does not solve the problem we have at the moment in the real estate industry; and that is of great concern. However, we have to remember how we got to this position, in the majority of cases, for gazumping - as we like to call the populist approach. It is because there is an over-demand rather than supply. There are certain occasions where that will not occur in the market but, generally speaking, it is because there are more people trying to buy property than those who are selling. That is due to bad economic management by the Northern Territory government in failing to release land and ensuring there are enough houses on the market. That is the reason we are in this position right now.
I note in my briefings from many people, including the real estate industry, someone gave me a copy of the letter sent out by the new Minister for Public and Affordable Housing - I did not know there was affordable housing in the Territory. The letter does not have a date on it, so I am assuming it was sent out some time after the most recent reshuffle. The flyer talks about Homestart NT and asks to be distributed to everyone so they can get some political support in Alice Springs, I believe. It has the Homestart NT income and purchase in it. It says here $120 000 is the Homestart purchase limit in Tennant Creek. Member for Barkly, there are good things happening in Tennant Creek with the mining industry potentially moving along, and we know the real estate industry is moving on, which is a good thing. I do a fair amount of work on real estate, and I do not know if there are too many properties under $120 000 now. My understanding is they are all $160 000 and above. I am not sure how easy it is to buy a house for $120 000 in Tennant Creek right now. I know in Alice Springs there is not one house available for $300 000.
Sitting here, I thought I would have a quick check on the realestate.com.au website. I have entered Palmerston and Darwin to look for any houses under $450 000. I can tell you, there is Unit 1/14 Lowe Court, no price; another one in Gardens Hill, no price; Gray, three-bedrooms, no car park, $449 000; Driver, $449 000. You can buy a unit in Larrakeyah for $400 000; in Woolner you can buy a unit for $420 000. There are only 14 properties listed, and the majority of these are under contract and this website is well updated. Driver for $420 000, which is under contract; Driver for $440 000, which is under contract; everything else on the second page is under contract. I do not know how Homestart works at $420 000 when there is not a house available in Darwin, Palmerston or the northern suburbs. How can this policy work?
This is part of the problem that impinges on the gazumping populist policy which has been turned into a legislative instrument to support this deal between the member for Nelson and the government. It was so important to get this out that they could not even get a proper flyer. They ripped it out of a book and sent torn pages out to the real estate industry to try to promote their wares.
The most normal and easily understood form of gazumping, which is where an agent accepts an offer and then takes another offer, is an auction. We go to an auction and someone puts in their bid and that bid is accepted, and if someone makes another bid, there is a new one accepted. If you look at the definition of gazumping, an auction fits right into that model.
What we see in this legislative model is a formulation where new things, such as inspections and building reports and so forth, have to be undertaken by the owner. Now, this is not a necessary requirement, and has not been sold as a necessary requirement, or been debated well enough so the Country Liberals can accept this meaning. When you sign any contract for the purchase of property, you sign with a cooling-off period that says ‘subject to inspection reports being conducted safely’. These are the things that can occur. If we want change in this area, we could have changed the signature of offer process so that people could not be gazumped, because if you signed a legal binding contract the process would be able to go through, subject to conditions. That is the necessary change that would need to happen in the gazumping model, if you support a populist approach like the member for Nelson’s. This is another area where we see a failure by trying to be all things to all people, trying to be heavily popular in your electorate, but when it comes to policy and good debate, rigor and analysis, it falls down, and this is why this has fallen down.
The populist approach is really coming to be the heart of Labor. I am sure the Attorney-General does not support this legislation; I know it has been voted down by this government before, but what we are seeing is more leftist Labor policies coming forward. It is about trying to remove the model of ‘buyer beware’ completely from the real estate industry. If you buy something from the shop, you do not have someone report to you that it is okay before you buy it; it is buyer beware. This is how things work. We know the member for Nelson is trying to get rid of buyer beware completely.
I am sure the government does not like this, but I will refer to comments made in the motion on vendor disclosure for land and house purchases, which was negated on 10 October 2007 by Mr Wood. I note that the former Treasurer, the former member for Nhulunbuy, spoke on this, and I note the comment by the member for Nelson at the time, when he said:
- I have always supported the idea that we should get rid of the concept of ‘buyer beware’ …
That is the member for Nelson. So what we are doing is putting complete responsibility onto the vendor in this argument, for some sort of populist or philosophical reason that people should be responsible for the decisions they make. Now, let us get out of the ideology of all this. If I am going to buy a house, it is my responsibility to check that the house is not going to flood. I went to buy a house in a place called Castlereagh in New South Wales at one point in time. It was a 19-acre property and there was a bit up high and everything else was low, so the first thing I did was check out whether it was flood prone.
In Alice Springs, we have 1 in 100 year floods, much to the contention of land release in Alice Springs at the moment, but if you are going to buy a property out near the AZRI area, you would check whether it will get flooded. You have a responsibility for yourself; you cannot pass it onto someone else because you are too immature, or stupid, to check these things out. The concept of buyer beware has to be in all parts of our lives, otherwise we abrogate responsibility to the other person when we have to make decisions in our lives; and this is also a component in real estate.
If the government really wanted change in this area, instead of trying to put the onus on the conveyancer they would have moved to put more responsibility on the agent not being able to accept an additional bid.
Signing a contract, not just the submission of a letter of offer, would have made liability in that area. I do not believe the changes we have in this legislation will make change, and I do not believe they are necessary to achieve the change of this populist policy. There are much easier ways to do it without being over-burdened. If you do want to go down this path, look at models in South Australia where you can adopt much stronger, transparent models which clearly spell out obligations to people, and clearly provide the necessary information so these circumstances might not arise in the future.
As I said previously, while we have a government failing to release land, and while we have a government failing to invest in housing, this is going to be a problem. We will see, as time goes on, and the cyclical nature of interest rates going up and more people have to sell due to hardship conditions that this is going to hurt those people and we will be back in this House trying to find alternate legislation to stop that process. We know interest rates are cyclical; they seem to go up when Labor is in government in Canberra and come down when the Liberals come back in. We are in the cycle now where we will see the federal Labor government, through their policies and practice, driving up interest rates which will have a negative effect on all the people in the Northern Territory who are mortgaged to the hilt, or trying to get into the housing market, trying to provide themselves with a house, and are in a difficult position.
I will leave my comments there. We will not support this legislation, not because we do not support populism, but because we do not think this is the right instrument to effect change in the area of gazumping in the Northern Territory, and not the right reforms required in the industry.
The reform required in the real estate industry is release of land so there are not 25 bidders on one house for sale, we do not have a line at the door, and when we look at the realestate.com website we can see there are properties for sale, and we are not going to put people who are already in hardship into more financial hardship as they try to dispose of property on an open market.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Hon Roger Steele and Mr Larry Johns
Hon Roger Steele and Mr Larry Johns
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Honourable Roger Steele, and Mr Larry Johns, a traditional owner from the Timber Creek area. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Ministers for Child Protection
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Ministers for Child Protection
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that - This Assembly censure the Chief Minister and all ministers and former ministers for Child Protection since 2001, which includes the member for Nightcliff, the member for Karama, the member for Arafura, the member for Arnhem, and the member for Casuarina, for
1. deliberately, deceitfully and wilfully lying to Territorians about the state of the child protection system in the Northern Territory;
Madam Speaker, this is the most serious of motions for anyone. I only hope that honourable members have read the coroner’s report. Have you read it? Have you read the story of the last days of the Melville child, and the Melville children? Have you read that story? Hold that as we consider the requirement for action, the requirement for a censure of this appalling Labor government.
Mr Elferink: They just vacated the room I might add, en masse.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The presence or absence of members in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: This government, in its nine years in power has seen a revolving door of ministers in the child protection portfolio. Six separate ministerial appointments, five different ministers. The member for Nightcliff held the portfolio of child protection from 27 August 2001 to 15 December 2003. I understand at that time a statement was made by the minister which said her inquiry into child protection in 2003 was the broadest ever into child protection. Such are the words, the fake assurances, which are offered with the simple purpose of protecting political interests.
The member for Arafura held the portfolio on two occasions, from 15 December 2003 to 11 July 2005, and from 7 August 2007 to 1 August 2008.
Minister Lawrie, snarls out interjections during Question Time and calls me despicable for asking such questions, but does not have the gall to actually answer a question that is asked of her and her responsibility for the protection of children. I ask you, honourable members, which one is despicable? Minister Lawrie held the portfolio from 11 July 2005 to 7 August 2007. I have always wondered how it was, once this appalling state of affairs became clear, that the portfolio was dropped like a hot potato. The only conclusion I can make is that the profound ambition of the person concerned would perhaps be compromised by holding an unpopular portfolio.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62, Offensive and Unbecoming Words. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know we have free-ranging debate in censure motions, but I believe he is really crossing the line here, and I believe it comes under Standing Order 62.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. What word are you talking about?
Dr BURNS: The assertions the Leader of the Opposition was just making. Everyone knows what they are. Do not play …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I will allow you to continue, but bear in mind that Standing Order 62 still relates to a censure motion. If you actually have words in a censure motion which are unparliamentary, they cannot appear in this speech either.
Mr MILLS: The member for Arnhem was minister from 18 August 2008 to 4 December last year. Lastly, the Labor spin machine flicked the current minister, the member for Casuarina, into the child protection role. That is six separate ministerial appointments, five different ministers, all moved at strategic times when the heat was on - move, move, move - we need to move to protect political interests; forget the children, that is a secondary issue; we have to protect the organisation, we have to protect the party.
The latest minister defends the proud record of his former colleagues, not having the courage to stand and make a frank admission that children have been exposed and neglected; not having the capacity in the face of the trauma experienced today by families who feel let down by a government that has the capacity to stand on its hind legs and make empty assurances.
After nine years, to stand and cast your excuse back almost a decade - what comfort is that for the Melville children? What comfort does that bring to those who are operating in a system on a daily basis confronting and being confronted by the trauma? I see it in my electorate office; I see neighbours who come to report to me and they are put through a bureaucratic rigmarole that does not allow them to even make the complaint. A senior citizen has to get on a bus to make a complaint at Casuarina after making a phone call and being told to come in, stand at the counter, make your complaint, get back on the bus, and go back to Palmerston. Nothing happens. Madness, chaos, disorder, dysfunction, lack of care, deceit, obstruction, denial – why?
Are you so shallow that your own pride needs to be protected above children? Is it any wonder we have a systematic failure in the child protection system when we have a systematic failure by this Labor administration to provide stable leadership for the Territory? Every one of those ministers, half of this government’s membership, has been at the helm of a dysfunctional child protection system. They have perpetuated a system of cover-up, of lies and deceit. They have failed to address the many reports and investigations. They have failed to seek the truth and, if they truly did know the truth, then they have been complicit in some of the worst behaviours known to society that occurred in my own town – in our own town.
I talk of sexual assault of children, of violence on innocence, of deaths from malnutrition, a lack of care, and a lack of decency. This government is complicit - it is on the record; it is plain for anyone to see - in the death of Territorians, and it is a disgrace.
If it were possible to hold those ministers accountable across the years, I ask them these questions. Why did the member for Nightcliff reject calls for an independent review into child protection in 2003? Why, when there was evidence in 2002 that 197 children under 14 suffered from sexually transmitted diseases? Why did the then minister fail to act? Why did the member for Nightcliff try to cover it up with an internal inquiry? Why would the member for Nightcliff say:
- The increase in STD notifications amongst young children is a cause of concern, but it is not accurate to represent this as a proxy measure for child sex abuse.
In 2003, the then minister assured parliament that:
- All allegations of abuse or neglect are assessed by Family and Children Services within 24 hours.
Yet, here we stand, six awful years later, to learn there are 1000 cases not investigated in the appropriate time frame and there is a severe staffing shortage - and this government is to blame. The then minister told parliament:
- Reform will yield a range of benefits such as better outcomes for children and families, and the review is considering the child protection system in its broadest form.
It is now 2010, and what we get from this government is another review. How exactly has the Territory benefited by those years of hard Labor but by a continued failure to address the issues in front of each of those five ministers since 2001? Chief Minister, the child protection system was, to quote the then minister: ‘under a lot of pressure’ in 2003. We now know, in the intervening years, the child protection system failed Territory children. Of course, that was just the first example of ministerial failure in the child protection area.
If I had the opportunity, I would ask the member for Arafura: Why, in 2004, when you were minister, would it have taken 57 days to investigate a case of child abuse? Why would teachers, carers and child protection workers’ warnings of child abuse be ignored in 2004? Perhaps I know the answer. I would know it was because today this government continues to fail to investigate cases of child abuse. I know it because, in 2004, there was understaffing of child protection workers. I know it because, in 2010, there continues to be understaffing in child protection systems.
I wonder about this government’s fixation with the amount of money being spent as a measure of performance. That does not speak to me of care. I know it is the number of cases of child abuse in our society that is the true measure of this government’s failures. The number of children whose reports indicate child abuse - that is the number - not the dollars. That is the number: those children who go to assemblies, those children who are sitting out there; those teachers who recognise and raise concerns. Is that concern heeded? That is the question.
I looked to other documents from that time, and I see the Ombudsman’s Annual Report of 2004-05. I note that in the course of investigation, it was found indications of some systemic defects in FACS administration processes began to emerge, which contradicted the department’s view that there were no underlying problems - all is okay. After some heavy lifting by the Ombudsman eventually the department agreed that some systemic issues were apparent. Why that cover-up? Why that failure to have the decency to acknowledge that the instrument, the organisation whose sole purpose was to protect children, went immediately into the default position of protecting its own interests ahead of children? Why would that be? Care! Care! Care!
I wonder, when the Ombudsman reports in her current inquiry - one this government tried to forestall with a shoddy internal review - will it show continuing systemic failures? I have, unfortunately, coroner’s reports, terrible reports, that show this government’s abject failures. I asked you at that time in 2004 if the minister was in control of her department. Obviously not. This government was flying blind and there was a lack of leadership to address systemic dysfunction.
Having the opportunity, I would ask the question of the responsible minister about 2005; I would ask about foster carers - not about numbers, but about whether they could look after the vulnerable. I would ask those questions because, even though you spoke in estimates about the number of carers that year, 2005, I would know that the 2007 Bath report would be critical of that part of your agency’s work. You spoke of the numbers; you never spoke about the capacity to deliver effective care to those in need. I wonder if you, with children in your care, would ensure that carers were supported to the hilt. I would, but the minister and this government obviously did not.
Of course, the solution to this government’s lack of care in child protection was what will they do? What do you think? They reshuffled the deck chairs - once the heat was on, move positions. Manage the situation - manage the political situation. After all, that is the higher order priority, obviously, judged and discerned by action. That is the action that can be seen; that is the conclusion that can be drawn.
But while the faces would change, the questions remain the same.
Given the opportunity, I would ask the member for Karama in her time as minister in 2006, were all child abuse reports investigated? Her claims then were that when a report of child abuse or neglect is received, we investigate immediately; and I can just hear that response being provided and that assurance being given. I can hear it, the measured tone, that sense of assurance. People go away, but now there is that growing, lingering, gnawing doubt - are these just words? Do they really care? Does it mean anything? Is that true? Is it true they are all investigated immediately, or is that just to suit the preservation of a perception? After all, perception is reality: I am sure that has been said many times on the other side. It is a sad reality for the Melville children, young Deborah in particular.
No, it is not true, Madam Speaker. This government does not investigate all cases of child abuse, and I know that from examples as a local member. I have tried writing letters to ministers to assist people through the system. Of course, the lid was blown off this disgraceful situation by the strength of Nanette Rogers speaking out on behalf of women and children. The subsequent Little Children are Sacred Report in 2007 showed how this government handled child protection. What did this government do then? It sat on the report; it did not do a thing. It failed children, and it failed the Territory. It resulted in the emergency response, and it was indicative of this government’s ongoing standards, if you can call them that, and performance. I ask the member for Karama: did you advise the Chief Minister to do the right thing? Did you urge her to do the right thing? Did you go into Cabinet and fight for the protection of children? What exactly did you do?
What you did was to fail to apply due care. You failed the system, and you failed the children. You failed the children, member for Karama. You allowed systemic failure to permeate the organisation and, under your watch, the coroner was damning about the death of Deborah Melville. She said:
- The chaotic and dysfunctional nature of the office environment and professional workings of FACS must reflect adversely on the senior management of the Department of Health and Families.
There is no more senior than the minister. The minister failed in 2007; another minister failed in 2003; in 2004, in 2005, in 2006 ministers failed, and they continue to fail today. This government has a culture of cover-up and a ministry of failures. If only the litany of disasters were finally to end with the government taking action after the Little Children are Sacred report, but that is not so.
What happened was this Chief Minister took the reins, but behind the scenes nothing changed. His Cabinet continued to talk about money being spent, as though that is some kind of laudable outcome, but children continue to be failed, and the dysfunction reigned.
How do I know this was a position of Cabinet? I know this because even when an acting minister spoke out about child protection it was a lie; it was to lie and deceive. Minister Burns said in January 2007:
- … every single case of reported child abuse is investigated.
Minister, that is not true, and you know it is not true. Every single member of this government stands condemned by their very own words:
- Any threats of child abuse are taken seriously and receive a full investigation, often with police involvement.
Minister, I am shocked. We have child protection workers speaking out; we have teachers, carers, and police trying to do the right thing. But here you stand condemned by your own words - another ministerial lie, another Cabinet lie, another Labor lie.
We also need to assess the words and actions of the most recent ex-minister for Child Protection, the member for Arnhem. When confronted with evidence of another shocking failure within the child protection system, she brazenly claimed she was happy with how the system was performing. How could you do that? She alone knew, but brazenly claims: Did that press conference go well? Yes, minister, you spoke well, you covered it up beautifully! Happy her department ignored repeated warnings from highly qualified social workers that the placement of a motherless infant with a relative was putting the child at risk of harm; happy about that, press conference went well. The assurance maintained with deception. Publicly unmoved the system had failed a child who consequently suffered brain damage.
When questioned about just the possibility the system failed this motherless infant, the minister refused to hear such a possibility. For a week the minister refused to initiate an inquiry - for a whole week - when the community would want to see a decisive response, a demonstration of profound and genuine, humble care. Refused to initiate and obstructed an inquiry into how an infant had been failed in the most fundamental way by the authorities charged with that protection.
Indeed, the minister publicly attacked the opposition for raising the matter. Such are the actions and responses of a government whose sole objective is to protect and preserve a deception about themselves.
The minister threatened to hunt down the brave individuals who felt compelled to go to the media. That was a shocking case of official neglect - hunt them down. One week after the injuries to this infant were raised the minister wilted under public pressure - and thank the Lord for that. People spoke up, they know what is right. And then the minister wilts. Pressure was exerted upon Cabinet - I think we are going to have to change tack here, the people are getting restless; they want someone to stand up and do the right thing. Well, there is some political merit in that. We are going to have to do that because the crowd has moved in that direction and they need to be served; the right thing needs to be done - so the minister wilts and sets up an inquiry.
Now we know why the minister resisted calling an inquiry. The system she claimed was protecting vulnerable children was in chaos. Twelve hundred reports of abuse and neglect lay unattended within the required time frames. This is a wealthy country. We often talk about the strength of the economy, the amount of money we have available to us; surely enough to afford a good system that can allow good people to extend good care to kids in need. I have been to poor countries. This is a wealthy country. Twelve hundred reports of abuse and neglect lay unattended - cries for help. Good citizens have raised the alarm; 1200 of them reported cases to be written off the books like a bad debt entry.
The percentage of cases investigated falling; the percentage of substantiated cases falling: the system is failing. And minister after Labor minister actively sought to conceal that fact. Two of these ministers retain their positions in the Henderson Cabinet. Children in care have lost their lives, but no ministers have lost their job. After all, that is what this is about - hold on, preserve that position - children have lost their lives, but you get to keep your job. That is not right. Over the term of this Labor government we have lies, we have deceit, untruths, spin and dysfunction.
Madam Speaker, we have five ministers for Child Protection, we have Cabinet ministers failing to bring honesty and integrity to parliament, to stand up for the standards our community expects us to stand up for, and chief amongst those are the vulnerable. We see a litany of failures in a dysfunctional system; one that fails the very people it is meant to protect, and a government that is supposed to support the people provided the protection, but it fails them too.
Chief Minister, the members for Karama and Arnhem must either tender their resignations, or they must be sacked.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this censure debate. It certainly it is a very serious censure brought by the opposition on an extremely serious matter.
I called the Opposition Leader a coward today in Question Time because he knows the standing orders of this parliament very well. He knew that despite my desire to answer his questions in Question Time, under standing orders I would be prohibited from doing it.
Mr Elferink: You are an outrage.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I see that as nothing but a cowardly attack and it is disappointing. Given the nature of the subject, it would be good to get to the …
Mr Mills: So you are more concerned about that, are you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: Typical. You are a fake.
Ms LAWRIE: … the substance of debate. It is certainly a shame the member for Araluen is not here because she has been the member of the opposition who has pursued the child protection system in the Territory with vigour from the moment she was elected to parliament. She certainly did a great deal of work in this area prior to being a member of parliament. She is the only one in opposition who has any creditability whatsoever in this place.
There are many times we will agree to disagree, but we have never had an issue where the fundamentals come to the importance of protecting children.
Political stunts, going after ministers, calling for resignations - that is the form of the CLP. Where we are focused, where we have been focused from day …
Mr Conlan: You have failed so badly you have no other choice.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … one in actually building a system that was almost, but not actually, operating. And I will explain where that comes from and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I will not be reading word for word from a speech. I will be talking about a child protection system in the Territory. It is interesting, the Leader of the Opposition often will talk on a subject and he will not read from a speech. He read from a speech today, word for word ...
Ms Purick: What is wrong with that? You lot read from speeches all the time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Resume your seat, minister.
Honourable members, this is a very serious debate, and it would be very helpful if you could hear the person who has the call. I remind you of Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance, which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a member speaking.
Deputy Chief Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: They are a little sensitive on the subject because they, perhaps, can smell the stench of hypocrisy …
Mr Bohlin: Too right!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: … we are certainly smelling on this side of the House regarding where the Leader of the Opposition is on the subject. He wants to attack people, but he does not really go to the issue of child protection, the systems, how they work, what does not work, what are the issues in them, and how to come up with ideas to approach and improve them. That is the debate you would have had from the member for Araluen. You would have had an attack, certainly, playing and attacking the individual, but you would have had more of the grunt around child protection and those issues.
We started in 2001, and I will go through that period from 2001 to today, because it is all here. It mentions since 2001 and the opposition censure is capturing every single child protection minister who has held the portfolio. When I am going through the history and you do not like to hear it, it is because it is actually in the body of the censure.
In 2001 we came to government. The facts are: $7m was the child protection budget, about 100 workers. The problem, quite aside from it being meagre, and the reality was there was no after-hours service which is actually when a significant number of workers needed to be available in child protection; and, critically important in the nature of children at risk in the Territory, which is what a children protection system works with, there was nothing outside the urban centres. Not only was there no system operating outside the urban centres but, I understand, there were actually no children in the out-of-home care system from remote areas - out of sight, out of mind, do not debate it, do not go there. If you go through the old Hansards of previous CLP governments it was not even on their radar.
Madam Speaker, you were the first of our members of parliament who had the responsibility, and child protection is a significant responsibility. It has statutory responsibilities but quite aside from the statutory requirements I do not believe there is a single member of parliament who would not have the greatest desire to protect children, regardless of their political background.
Everyone who is appointed a child protection minister goes in wanting to do the best they can to protect children - to understand the system, learn about the system, see where the strengths are, see where the weaknesses are, and do what they can, knowing they cannot prevent every child-at-risk situation. If we could, there would not be a child-at-risk situation. We are trying to work to improve it.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Nightcliff, you undertook the first of the reforms, which was an immediate injection of funding. You knew immediately they needed more resources to hire more child protection workers, even though, as the Chief Minister said in Question Time today, that was in the context of the significant issue we had inherited with the budget. We thought we had inherited a surplus budget, but the Percy Allan report showed we were actually in significant deficit, referred to as a black hole.
Despite that, when Labor was cutting government expenditure to try to climb out of deficit, child protection received increases; so, not just you, as a minister, but the entire Cabinet recognised the need to quickly inject funding to improve the system by hiring more workers.
We then had an industrial dispute to bring in after-hours service. The child protection workers were not used to working at night time - did not want to work at night time - but we knew we had to have a service operating 24 hours. So we took that on; industrial blues occurred.
We also knew we had to build our child protection system, but we had to build the non-government organisations around the hardcore agency child protection system to deal with the children at risk, the children out on the streets, the children who are not in the home being cared for properly. So we introduced funding to create, for the first time ever, a youth night patrol - get dedicated youth workers out on the streets to try to capture what is happening with the youth at risk. So, not just building up the child protection workers in the system, but also starting critically important work in the area of child protection of a non-government organisation system supporting children at risk; and we have progressed that to supporting families at risk, and I will talk about that as well.
Madam Speaker, you went into battle in a very tight fiscal environment for government and got a $53m commitment over five years to increase child protection, which was announced in 2003. It was a five-year funding plan, set up by government to increase the funds in child protection, to increase the workers in the system, and to improve the system itself. There are reforms associated, not just funding, there are significant reforms associated with that as well.
At the same time, work began on changing the legislative framework. The Community Welfare Act had not been looked at or improved in decades; they were completely non-contemporary childcare practices, so work started on reforming and bringing in contemporary legislative practices, and providing the framework. A great deal of work was done on that, and it took years and years. I will not stand here and say it did not take years - it did take years and years. I participated, as a backbencher in those days, in many of the forums and, ultimately, I inherited carriage of the legislation for quite a period of time.
The next minister was the member for Arafura. She came in and did what was critical, which was focusing on the causes of children entering the system. Significantly, at the time, and it is not necessarily what the opposition want in this debate, but the extremely high levels of children with STIs, the children experiencing abuse, were significantly in remote scenarios, and also petrol sniffers. Petrol sniffing was rife across the Territory at the time.
The member for Arafura focused strongly on the cause situation, the most at-risk children, the petrol sniffers - which is why we have the volatile substance abuse legislation; which is why she created an intensive family support service to work with the children at risk; which is why we brought in the petrol sniffing legislation, the substance abuse legislation, and also the funding for the non-government organisation system to get those kids out of the high risk situations. They were the ones; they are the horrendous report cases that ministers see. Horrendous reports do come across our desks. We cannot talk about it, we do not issue media releases about it, we would have been in breach of our own Community Welfare Act to have done that. We recognised and understood the confidentially.
So the member for Arafura went where no one had gone before. She went boldly and strongly into tackling petrol sniffing, but also working and supporting the non-government organisations to provide support to the families at risk. It had to be done. She took on the work, she did it and many government resources came in to support that work. BushMob is just one organisation among many I could name, CAYLUS is another, that are doing an amazing job on the ground in dealing with children at risk because of their substance abuse.
I then inherited the portfolio, and at the time the national debate was raging about do you have mandatory, or do you not have mandatory. We were holding the line on mandatory. We continued to reform the legislation to drive through the Care and Protection of Children Act; and I focused on the pointy end of the system. I had finished the work on delivering the Volatile Substance Abuse Act; I was still, at this stage, in receipt of the additional funding coming in year-on-year into the budget that you had secured, Madam Speaker, as member for Nightcliff; so both the member for Arafura and I were in that growth funding year-on-year period you had secured over that five year period.
What do you do with those extra resources? You look at where you put it. The member for Arafura strengthened the non-government system. The Leader of the Opposition asked questions about the foster carers and why was she not working with them: she was, very closely, having frequent meetings with the foster care associations, talking about the protocols existing between FACS and foster carers in strengthening those supports and understanding the actual care management plans for individual children in the out-of-home care system. All of that was happening; happening all the time. I know that because I followed on from where she had done that critically important work.
What I focused on was continuing work on building the supports in the non-government section, going back into what I call the pointy end of the system, which is the intake system, and getting an understanding of how that intake system was operating. No one was doing this at the time, but from what I had seen, what I had learned, and what I heard, I wanted to improve the intake system. That is where - and you heard the Chief Minister refer to it today - we introduced CAT Force, the Child Abuse Task Force. This came before The Little Children are Sacred Report; it was already in existence.
We created the resources to pull together for the first time in our nation, child abuse workers sitting beside police, co-located so they could cross-feed information on their systems about the notifications which came in; so when you ring the 1800 number to make a notification, it was going into that new intake system of CAT Force. It had not been done before in Australia, and we are still virtually the only jurisdiction doing that type of work with both police and child protection workers located together. The Children’s Commissioner, Howard Bath, went to the issue of notifications and how to deal with that, and it is critically important to improve those tools.
At the same time, I was preparing the work on Closing the Gap, which was saying we had growth in funding, but needed more growth in funding, particularly in the remote areas, particularly in the non-government sector, and also for the initiatives we now had such as the mobile child protection workers who go out into the bush. As I have said, today this system is far from perfect; today this system continues to need building; today we have an inquiry. But, there was not a month or a moment that went by for any child protection minister when we were not working and building with the experts in the field - fundamentally, the department, but also experts in the non-government sector. Each one of us were talking to experts interstate to get their advice on how things work and why things should work, so we could come back and challenge the system here and improve it. We were not hands off the wheel at any stage - quite the opposite.
Can I say, the work in preparation for the Little Children are Sacred report - reminding the parliament, because listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, you would think that just magically appeared - that report was instigated by the Labor government. The Chief Minister of the day put the team together of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild and said: ‘Go and do this report. We want to see what is happening regarding the care of children in our jurisdiction’. They called the report Little Children are Sacred. It was an inquiry initiated by the government, and it led to the Little Children are Sacred report. Of course the government at the time scrutinised every single recommendation of the report in detail, and adopted the recommendations we felt we could adopt.
The intervention occurred. Those of us around at the time know what that was. We know the intention regarding some of the politics; however, at the end of the day, we welcomed the additional resources. Regardless of how it occurred, why it occurred, we welcomed the additional resources.
Mr Elferink: Your Chief Minister, refused to go to the summit. He refused.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. The summit held by the then federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs was attended by me, the member for Arafura, and the member for Wanguri. Three ministers of the Northern Territory government attended …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: All the premiers were there, but not the Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that inane interjection that all the premiers were there. No. I was at the summit. No, they were not there. Ministers for Justice were there, Indigenous Policy ministers were there, the odd Child Protection minister was there, and Police ministers were there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: That is not my information.
Ms LAWRIE: Got it wrong again. No heads of government attended the summit - no premiers, no chief ministers; and the prime minister did not. It was what they call line-agency ministers. Yes, we attended the summit. And, yes, we were absolutely saying whatever it takes we will work with the federal government of the day to see more resources go on the ground. If you listened to the debate at the time about the Little Children are Sacred report, there were a few stand-out commentators such as former Australian of the Year, Dr Fiona Stanley. Bear in mind the debated we are now having is a debate about child protection in the Territory. During the debate she got to the crux of the issue and said: ‘How can you protect children when they are living in overcrowded housing?’ You have to tackle housing if you are truly going to tackle child protection from the preventative end, and that is what you have to do. You do not want to be just responding; you want to go in and deal with the preventative end of the child protection system.
Mr Elferink: Do you agree with that? And if so, how do you explain Deborah Melville’s conditions.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: So, that being said, clearly the government was focused on delivering additional housing in the bush to deal with the overcrowding where we have the most disadvantaged and at-risk children. And I am not saying for one minute that disadvantaged and at-risk does not occur in the suburbs - it does.
Mr Elferink: It does, and with kids in your care.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin
Mr Elferink: Please do.
Ms LAWRIE: In terms of the Melville child …
Mr Elferink: Her name is Deborah.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Her death was horrific, her death was tragic, and the moment …
Mr Elferink: The death was on your watch as a government.
Ms LAWRIE: The death was on my watch as a minister?
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: And the moment …
Mr Elferink: And your CEO knew, and the whole department knew.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: And the moment the alert came through of the child’s death, I was interrupted at Cabinet, I came out and I immediately instructed that all her siblings be removed from the care of those carers.
Mr Elferink: Have you read the coroner’s report?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I have read the coroner’s report.
Mr Elferink: You should have known months, years, beforehand.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I point out to the member for Port Darwin that at no stage does the coroner sheet home any blame to any ministers. It was a failing in the department.
Mr Elferink: So, ignorance is your excuse?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: Ignorance is your excuse? This is a disgrace. You are a disgraceful minister. I will have to get myself out of here.
Ms LAWRIE: I do not know a child protection minister in the country or in our jurisdiction who has not seen the most horrendous reports come before them, and who has not responded to those. What I did in responding was seek out an expert, a national expert, to undertake a high-risk audit, not just in child protection, but across all the divisions in the Department of Community Services.
I did not ignore Deborah’s death, I acted immediately to ensure the safety of her siblings, and I acted to get an expert. Howard Bath was sourced. I did not know him at the time, but he came. When I checked the references he came highly regarded as a pre-eminent expert in child protection in our nation. So, we sought out the best, and he agreed to undertake the high-risk audit which is referred to as the Bath 2007 Report.
We worked on ensuring that, through Closing the Gap, additional resources would come into Family and Community Services to build the system beyond the urban. One of the first things we did at the time was the trial at Maningrida, to put child protection workers into a community. They are from the community, they were trained, they were supported, they exist today and they are making a meaningful difference in Maningrida. We put the funding in to continue to roll-out those services in the large communities in the remote areas because we had built up workers in the urban centres, and we will continue to do that.
We have put programs such as Peace at Home in place in Katherine, but we knew that we had to fundamentally increase, and support, and create a structure in the remote areas that had not previously existed. As I said, we had inherited an out-of-sight-out-of-mind system and we were building it up. The work is not finished and the job is not done. The inquiry is critically important because it will, I hope, have more advice and more ways in which to improve that work we have commenced.
Under the changes that occurred in the Cabinet reshuffle, the member for Arafura came back into the portfolio and she continued to expand the Child Abuse Task Force. I cannot underestimate how important that task force is to responses to intake notifications. Having police and child protection workers together is a critically important aspect to responding to intakes.
She set up the Children’s Commissioner’s office, she expanded sexual assault services and the Residential Care Unit and Therapeutic Services - all the support systems you need to protect children and to provide support for children who are in the out-of-home care system, or who are at risk.
The member for Arnhem became the Minister for Child Protection, and she then did what the member for Arafura had done, looking at the causes of children at risk. Where the member for Arafura put in all the work around petrol sniffing, the member for Arnhem focused on domestic violence because, as we know, alcohol abuse in the home is putting children at risk of abuse. The domestic violence environment had to be tackled if you are truly going to get in at the grassroots, ground level and deal with the children who are at risk …
Mr Conlan: Why do something properly when you can really stuff it up?
Ms LAWRIE: I know they do not like to hear it. They like to pretend there is one solution and, if you find that magic solution, you can solve all the problems.
Also, the member for Arnhem continued the work on the Northern Territory Strong Men’s Council, which is one of the things that sets us aside from other jurisdictions. We deliberately wanted to work with the men in the communities. You cannot prevent harm to children without having the men being strong and being the champions of protecting the children. It is sometimes easier for governments to work just with the women, but we have gone out of our way to work with the men as well as we really wanted to provide the safeguards in place at community level to protect children. So, the Strong Men’s Council is a critically important council.
At the same time, we have had a focus on growing our own workers in the remote areas, as I have said; putting people through family violence training programs and sending them back into their communities skilled and trained to help with the care and protection of children system.
Focusing on the remote Aboriginal Family Worker System was the effort and work undertaken by the member of Arnhem when she had the portfolio. Of course, we know of the horrendous death of the infant, which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Arnhem requested an investigation into that take place, and that report has been tabled in the Assembly.
Also, issues around notifications again came to the fore - bearing in mind we had dealt with notifications earlier in putting together CAT Force. However, notifications again came to the fore, and the minister asked Howard Bath to investigate notifications; and that has been tabled.
If you look at this censure, they are saying we deliberately, as ministers, tried to avoid the care and protection of children. None of us did. Quite the contrary. We went out of our way to improve the system - not just the resources, not just the number of workers, but to actually improve the system itself and the support provided to prevent children from being harmed and to support people in the system at the coalface: the child protection workers, the families recruited to be foster carers in what we call our out-of-home system, and the non-government organisations that are critically important to the success of caring for families and children at risk.
There is no deceit. Every inquiry we have had, every investigation we have undertaken, has been public. There is a notable exception to that - the Howard Bath 2007 report. That was a high-risk audit; it has details of clients in the report. We issued the Executive Summary, we issued the recommendations, and we issued our response to what he told us to do. However, what you cannot do is identify clients – you cannot identify people who are still in the care system. That is a breach of confidence. It sounds simplistic to issue the report, but we have an obligation to the people who gave information in the high-risk audit confidentially – you actually have an obligation to keep that information confidential. Do you issue what is wrong, what is said to be wrong, which is the Executive Summary? Yes, you do. Do you issue the recommendations? Yes, you do, but you keep confidential individual cases, and that is at the heart of trying to work with families at risk, which is at the heart of trying to protect individuals. We have a system where people know they will be named, their children will be named, and the carer will be named. People do not divulge; that is the greatest risk. If people will not come forward, if they do not notify, if they are not entering the system, they are at the greatest risk.
The whole point of child protection is to increase confidence, to give greater notifications so we can follow up with the investigations and, hopefully, prevent harm; or, where harm is occurring, remove that child from harm. It is difficult, complex work. Mistakes are made through that process. The coroner pointed out the horrendous mistakes made for young Deborah. He pointed out how he saw to fix them, and we certainly instructed the department to follow up on all those recommendations; the recommendations of experts like Howard Bath and the recommendations coming out of coronial reports. It is a hard system for child protection workers; they can make a mistake, and a child can die. It is a terrible front-end system to work in.
I am not aware of any government which does not have an issue with child protection - we all do - New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT, Western Australia. The good thing is that the federal minister wants to introduce a national system that best protects children in care. That work is in early days yet, and many of us who have been working in the child protection area and wanting to see improvement, are very hopeful of the outcomes of that work.
The opposition would have people believe that we do not care, we are deceitful, we hide things, and we lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have initiated investigations; we have initiated inquiries; we have provided all that on the public record. We have increased the resources, we have increased the workers, we have increased the non-government organisation system; and every single one of us cares, and cares deeply. I am a mother of three kids; I understand the importance of caring for children. I understand the importance of not just caring for my own children, but every child in our community, and every child in our society.
Mr Conlan: That is what makes this so abhorrent, that you are the mother of three children, and you should know better.
Ms LAWRIE: You can play the petty politics. We will not be deterred from continuing to try to protect the children.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, my first comment today on this very serious issue and censure motion against this failing government is, just because the other governments have not fixed child protection is not an excuse, minister, for us not to fix it, and work towards lower expectations.
The main theme across this very serious issue is this government has been denying it is a crisis for years. The government says it is spending a great deal of money, they are pouring money into child protection. They may well be but there are no obvious outcomes of improvement. In fact, it appears to be getting worse. We are losing children, and we have a growing number of children at risk. The government says it throws money at it, and then it walks away and washes its hands of it. There is no leadership at the ministerial level, and no leadership at the bureaucratic level. Two high level people from the department have been sacked, and the minister knows why, and we know why. Four ministers in recent years - it is no wonder the department and the Territory are at a loss to understand why this serious issue is not getting better.
For a purported touchy-feely government, they are not doing a very good job of caring for children at risk, or children who have been taken into care. It is a hopeless situation, and it is not getting better. They have failed families in the Territory and, sadly and importantly, they have failed the children of the Northern Territory. They are shirking this serious responsibility entrusted to them. The ministers have ducked and weaved and, my colleague, the member for Blain, has given examples of how this has happened.
Minister, it is not about more mandatory reporting as stated in the paper today, because it has happened in the last six months – wrong! Mandatory reporting of child abuse has been in since the mid-1980s. We have had it for over 30 years, not the last six or 12 months.
This government is a deceitful, unpleasant outfit which treats accountability to parliament and Territorians as something of a joke. The government does, however, reflect the personalities of its members - they are arrogant, bullying, uncaring and cowardly. For more than eight years this government has consistently raised community expectations that it will bring about change and reform. But it has then let down the same community through inaction, incompetence, and inability to face the situation we have at hand - a crisis in child protection. Worse than that, it is the contempt with which this government, and this Labor Party, treats Territorians. There is no better example of that than occurred yesterday in this very Chamber.
The member of Macdonnell asked a question of the member Arnhem relating to government funding going into the outstation near the Angela Pamela exploration project near Alice Springs. It was quite a straightforward question: is the government’s uncharacteristic support of this new outstation linked to its location adjacent to the Angela Pamela uranium deposit? That question should have been answered in one or two ways - yes or no. But there were supposed audio issues in the Assembly yesterday, and the member for Arnhem claimed she could not hear most of the question. Instead of having the member for Macdonnell repeat the question, the member for Arnhem decided to go ahead with an answer even though, as she said herself, she had not heard most of the question. How does that work?
The member for Arnhem was talking about something when she did not even know what the subject was. Needless to say, her answer was as tepid and unrelated to the topic as you would expect from this minister. This is the same minister who was a willing participant in the culture of cover-up; the decade of deceit which has been a hallmark of the Henderson government’s handling of matters associated with child protection and childcare. Over the past decade this government has clocked up a long list of policy and administrative failures which have eroded trust within the community, and left a trail of innocent people within its wake. This government has failed children in the urban areas, and it has failed children in the bush areas. It has spectacularly failed across the Northern Territory when it comes to child protection.
Law and order is another noticeable area of government failure. Despite the quarterly statistics from the Department of Justice on violent crimes across the Territory, this government likes to play down the figures with excuses such as: more people are reporting violent crime. Of course, they are reporting violent crime, because there is more violent crime across the Territory.
Public housing is another obvious failure which has enormous human cost right across the Territory, and it is impacting into the area of child protection. The Henderson government has sold off approximately 2000 public houses since it has been in government; many were flogged off apparently to help finance its convention centre and its wave pool. We know there are long waiting lists to get into public housing - up to four years - we know there are houses left empty for months on end which has placed considerable pressure on the most vulnerable in our society: people on low incomes, people who are socially disadvantaged - groups in the Top End community and elsewhere. Many have been forced into situations of sharing with friends and family, resulting in overcrowding and additional pressure on the family groups.
We know with overcrowding and family and friends sharing there are social problems, particularly when it comes to the children who usually get pushed down the tree or, worse, pushed out of the house.
Children have been the silent victims of this government’s heartlessness. They are the most at risk when the family breaks down. It is in child protection where this government’s failures and deceptions have been the most horrific. It is in this crucial area of government service delivery that the human cost has been carried with such devastating consequences by the most needy and most vulnerable in the community.
It is the member for Arnhem who should carry some of the burden for this government’s failure, but she is not the only one. Before her was the member for Karama – all incompetent, just passing the baton in a race of who can be the most incompetent. This was so clearly displayed yesterday when the member for Arnhem tried to answer questions she did not hear. The member for Arnhem is a mouthpiece for this discredited government, a robot, a drone, a mere functionary of an apparatus that has stopped caring about its people and the people of the Northern Territory. It only cares about itself and its survival and will do anything, make any deal, to survive. They are not caring about the survival of the most vulnerable in our society - children at risk and children in care.
In October last year, after the opposition revealed a child in government care had suffered brain damage after being placed in the care of an uncle, you maintained Child Protection Services, minister, was functioning effectively. Another child dies in filth in a back yard in Palmerston and you say it is all okay, things are improving. I believe that is a distorted and sad view of the world.
The intake report released yesterday by Howard Bath shows this could not have been further from the truth. The weasel words of the member for Arnhem could not have sunk the reputation of this Assembly any lower. I look at the government benches and I see other former Child Protection ministers who were not prepared to stand up to the Labor Party machine, but are happy to host lavish parties, launch million dollar convention centres and go on trips to Asia without any results, while child protection workers groaned under the enormous weight of bulging caseloads. Estimates have shown, under questioning, that the caseloads were there and the child protection workers were not.
The member for Arafura quit the government not because of any moral issue to do with the care and protection of children; she quit the government because a reporter from the local newspaper wrote something mean about her. This is the same member who, when she was Deputy Chief Minister, condemned the federal government’s Emergency Response as setting back individual rights while completely ignoring the fact the Commonwealth intervention into the Northern Territory came about as a direct result of her government’s utter neglect of children. This government let the Commonwealth walk in and walk all over us, and the Commonwealth will not leave our borders for a long, long time. It is because of this government’s failure, this government’s incompetence that they let the Commonwealth walk in and take over the affairs that should be the responsibility of this government.
The member for Arafura was a key player in the Labor government’s culture of cover-up - it is a decade of deceit, and it is shameful. While this member sits embittered and angry on the backbench, having skulked back to Labor to prop up her failed mates, she will still not admit her government’s role in the failure to protect children.
In Tuesday’s Northern Territory News in the letter headed, Neglect Claims Denied, the member for Arafura distanced herself from the shambles that is child protection in the Northern Territory. Instead of putting up her hand, speaking up, being honest and acknowledging she contributed to the failure, the member for Arafura did what she has always done, and what these ministers do, and that is duck for cover. For the benefit of the public record I will read Ms Scrymgour’s letter to the Assembly:
In the NT News, February 9, 2010, was a story by Nick Calacouras headed, ‘Territory ministers ‘neglected’ children’. It purported to inform readers of the contents of a November 2007 ‘Northern Territory Community Services High-risk audit’ report by Dr Howard Bath.
Calacouras wrote that the report ‘blamed government ministers for child protection failings’. Nowhere in the report did Dr Bath, in fact, say that.
In identifying relevant system failures, Dr Bath noted the difficulties experienced by child protection staff at the coalface in coping with large caseloads and effectively implementing existing policy and protocols. Reviews and file monitoring by more senior staff (tasks delegated to them by the minister under section 6 of the Community Welfare Act in force at the time of the Bath report and by the CEO under section 303 of the Care and Protection of Children Act which has replaced it) were, and still are, necessarily dependent on primary interaction between case workers and children in care.
The Calacouras story specifically referred to me …
As in the member for Arafura:
- … in a paragraph relating three-monthly reviews of children in care. The 45 cases audited by Dr Bath were not cases from my second period as Child Protection Minister, which was August 2007 to August 2008, and Dr Bath did not allege that I (or any other minister) neglected children.
In other words, member for Arafura: ‘It was not my fault’.
The member for Arafura should have played handball, because that minister at the time, and the current ministers, are very good at handballing the problem. No one wants to take responsibility for the very serious problem and crisis we have in child protection and childcare. The member’s letter could serve as a template for how this government goes about its business; how its ministers duck and weave to avoid any responsibility for the terrible tragedies in the child protection system, and how they will do anything to avoid censure to the extent they will write a letter to the newspaper to protest their innocence, just weeks after a coronial report into Labor’s handling of the system damned Labor in the strongest possible terms - a coronial report.
The member for Arafura’s lack of shame and responsibility is a mirror of the entire Henderson government. The wonder is the members of this government can look in the mirror at all! How can they stand with their hands on their hearts and say: ‘We care and we will look after the children of the Northern Territory’? They cannot, and they have not, and it is shameful. At least the member for Arafura sits on the backbench where she cannot cause any further trouble or harm to the Territory’s children.
Sitting right there beside the Chief Minister, front and centre amid the carnage in child protection, is the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Karama. She was promoted to the Family and Community Services portfolio, a job she coveted, in July 2005 during the course of which she released 50 media releases relating to Sport and Recreation, compared to just 12 in the crucial role of Family and Community Services minister. In June 2006, she issued a media release in which she said:
- When a report of child abuse or neglect is received, we investigate immediately.
This is despite the coroner’s report into the shocking and sad death of Deborah Melville, detailing allegations of physical abuse suffered by Kevin Melville, Deborah’s brother, that were never investigated by FACS, even though it came to their attention via a letter from the Assistant Principal of Humpty Doo Primary School.
In the Bath report - the one leaked to the media because the government would not make it public - it tells the story of John, a young boy who suffered severe burns to 10% of his body. For the benefit of Hansard, I will read the account of John as a way of illustrating little has changed within the agency:
- John is a young boy who suffered burns to 10% of his body whilst in care of a relative carer. He had a history of early medical problems relating to feeding and body weight, and his mother was often unable and/or unwilling to provide appropriate care for him. John was hospitalised on a number of occasions and FACS was in receipt of a number of notifications of concern about John’s care.
The boy had been looked after by many different carers, and was eventually placed with a relative carer L who, at one point, handed him back to his mother, who handed him on to others. He was eventually handed in to the police by an unrelated person, who was unaware of the boy’s identity. John was subsequently returned to L, who lived close to the boy’s mother. The burns occurred whilst John was in the care of L. Several other women, including John’s mother, saw the burns but he was not taken to hospital until around two weeks after the incident.
This is just one example of many outlined by Howard Bath in the report the government refuses to release to the public.
What this shows, and other case studies by Howard Bath or highlighted by the coroner, is a systematic and systemic failing of a system under enormous stress - the same system that various government ministers have maintained is functioning well when, clearly, it is not. During all of this the Chief Minister sat silent and did nothing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that this government is failing to protect children because it is not prepared to admit it is incapable of dealing with this crisis and, for purely political reasons, it is not prepared to admit it cannot cope; and it cannot cope because it is incompetent. Perhaps the other shameful reason it does not care for Territory children is because children do not vote.
Mr Elferink: If you blokes are not going to talk, I will.
Ms Lawrie: Do not be ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot believe …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Minister for Children and Families is ready to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, the minister is there and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have given me the call …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I will move dissent from your ruling in a second, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you try this on.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will confer with the Clerk.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I find the comments by the member very offensive. I was not having a talk; I was receiving advice.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I have advice from the Deputy Clerk. Member for Port Darwin, you do have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot believe that this minister is so incompetent and so lazy that, under a censure motion directly affecting his own department, he cannot even get to his feet in this place and defend the disgraceful history of this government.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin knows very well that the member was there making himself ready to speak; he had just received advice. He is just painting a picture that he wants to paint. Let him speak to the motion. The member for Port Darwin knows it is two on two and he is just trying to make political grandstand here.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the lies continue. What lie did I hear during Question Time?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he cannot refer to lies or anything like that except by way of substantive motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, the level of interjections and shouting is not acceptable. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The deceit, the lies continue, and I can tell you the first lie I heard, which suddenly had to be backed off by the Chief Minister today, was that they introduced mandatory reporting for maltreatment of children. That legislation existed in the Northern Territory as early as 1983. He did some fancy footwork …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister made it very clear that we changed the threshold in mandatory reporting from …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Then the Chief Minister later on had to do some fancy footwork to skip around that particular issue. I can tell you, he only just got away with it, because someone shoved a piece of paper in his hand to remind him that legislation existed well before they got into government.
Lie number two: this assertion there was only $7m available in child protection back in 2001, and they increased child protection services to over $90m. That is disgraceful in the worst way, because anyone who knows that child protection and care, which we only got under the financial circumstances of the recession we had to have, that sort of budgeting did only, sadly, get $8m and yes, it has gone up under this government. We do not deny that, we accept it, but not to $90m. Child Protection Services gets $25.366m, which is down; a cut of $0.5m from the final estimate in 2008-09 of $25.852m. In the very year that calamitous coronial investigations find wanton disregard from even the most sensible systems of management inside the child protection system, what is this government’s response? A cut in child protection expenditure of $0.5m. What a disgrace; and the lies continue, the disgrace, the deceit of Territorians continues. To find myself on my feet unprepared, because the minister himself cannot get to his feet, for me demonstrates how tardy, how retarded this government’s capacity is to deal with these particular issues.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory today had the audacity to claim and, by way of interjection, say I was feigning my disgust. I am not feigning it. I am disgusted at what has occurred because not long before I came into this House I read, from cover to cover again, the inquest into the death of Deborah Melville. I cannot begin to describe the anger I felt as I read this last night, and read it again today. I actually lost sleep after I turned my light off and thought about what happened to that child
What makes this particular coronial investigation so unpalatable, and so ugly to the eye, is not only the horrendous death of this child occurred, but it occurred after about 20 or 30 failures of the system. If one of those failures had not occurred, this child would, in every likelihood, have survived. When I was reading this coronial investigation I started with my highlighter and I was going to mark out a few areas to quote, but I cannot do that because of the pages upon pages, upon pages which are dedicated to the systematic breaches of the law by FACS are there for all to see. If I was to simply stand here and quote what was necessary to quote to impress upon people the shortcomings of the government in relation to obeying the law only, my full time would be expended, plus some.
Let us put into context what we are talking about. A child under the care of this minister and of this government died from septicaemia arising from of a build-up of pus in her right leg caused by a bone infection. The infection was so profound that from her hip to her knee the leg had become a rotten mass. The autopsy discovered 1.5 litres of pus in that injury. A short time earlier, FACS workers had stopped and spoken to this child.
I will struggle to get through this, if you will excuse me, but I was struck by paragraph 237 of this report, and I quote:
- Toni Melville said that she went outside to see Deborah, who was screaming and howling that she needed the light on. Toni told Tiayana to turn the light on and she did. Jacqueline said to her, ‘well Deborah, the light’s on, look up there you can see the light and Deborah looked up said: ‘Yeah - yeah I can see the light’ and then after that she died.
This was a child in this government’s care. I cannot imagine how you can come into this House having read something like that, having read the litany of disgraceful management from the very frontline workers all the way up to David Ashbridge, who is mentioned by name in this report, a whole chain of command - and the minister knew nothing.
You cannot come into this House like a penitent coming in front of the people of the Northern Territory and pleading for forgiveness for the disgraceful mismanagement which has occurred. It defies reason. To stand there and slowly take us through what happened, what we did in 2001, what we did in 2002, what we did in 2003, and then we had a change in minister, and the new minister had a new focus, and all that stuff. Where is that reflected in the systematic breaches of the law by FACS? Where is the care of that level of management and competence in a minister and a government reflected in the page upon page of screaming indictment from the coroner’s pen? Where is that defence? ‘Oh, we knew nothing, we knew nothing’. Ashbridge knew. It says so in here. And small wonder he is gone because he carries an incredible burden as a result of what has happened here, as well as on other occasions.
We have heard the previous Health minister tell this House he had been deceived by Dr Ashbridge on at least two occasions, by omission. Why was Ashbridge still there? Because for some reason it is more important to keep CEOs who mislead by omission than it is to actually govern the Northern Territory. What on earth is going on? What is entering into the minds of you people?
It is absolutely exasperating to sit here and hear minister after minister think their function and role is nothing more than to be a figurehead in a department. No! When you become a minister, you find out what you are responsible for, you find out what your legislation says, and how to apply that legislation. Do we see that reflected in any minister? No, we do not. The ministers do not even know what their responsibilities are, and if you want evidence of that, look no further than the way they have reported the annual reports for this place. They come in here and say: ‘Oh, yeah, sorry we are a little bit late’. But it is the ministers’ responsibility to bring annual reports for this place in a timely fashion. They do not do it because they do not know what they are doing. They do not know what the law is, they are not told by their own departments, and they do not care to inquire because they are figureheads. Surely, it must occur to a minister at some point that they should actually ask a few critical, difficult questions of the CEOs and senior staff: ‘What is going on? What is happening here?’ Yet, year after year, we see none of that.
In 2007, Bath delivers the report to government, not to the department - to government - a whole pile of recommendations. How many of those are being instituted? All of them? Some of them? None of them? And yet, yesterday, where do we find the government at? ‘Oh, look, we have a problem,’ says the new Health minister number five in almost as many years, ‘We have a report which says there are systemic problems inside the department, and we are going to fix them’. You are joking, are you not? After 10 years, the best defence you have is: ‘Oh, we have improved the system’. The coroner says you have not.
The minister himself admitted yesterday in this place, by tabling that report, that you have not improved the system. Yes, you have spent more money, but the point is that I could drive down Mitchell Street tomorrow throwing money out of the car - that is not money well spent. It is up to the government, there is actually a hint in the word - govern-ment - to actually go out there and drive this stuff and take ownership of it, and say: ‘I am responsible’. But I have not heard one minister in this whole process say: ‘I am responsible’. Not one of you.
You try to find all the excuses in the world to avoid your responsibilities, and then shift the blame to someone who held the job 10 years ago. If I walked into a job and said: ‘The guy who did this job 10 years ago is the reason I have a problem today,’ how seriously do you think my employer would take me? Not at all. It is ridiculous. It is a stupid assertion. You cannot blame the Country Liberals, or anyone else, for a situation you inherited nearly a decade ago, especially seeing you have fixed it one, two, three, four, five, six times. You fixed it! This is you; this has nothing to do with history anymore. This is what the government of the Northern Territory has delivered to the people of the Northern Territory, to the children of the Northern Territory.
My fury rises at your incapacity to make those millions of dollars work. If you believe you do not have a problem, read the coroner’s report on Deborah Melville’s case and you will see a description of a department which is no better than Bedlam - it is actually described as a mad house by one of the witnesses – because no one takes command. Dr Ashbridge did not take command; it was someone else’s problem. He chose to ignore it; certainly did not tell the minister. The best defence the minister has is: I was kept in ignorance. No one actually said: ‘I am going to get involved in this investigation system, in what is happening at the front line’. In Deborah Melville’s case, the law was broken by the staff of FACS - and it was broken over and over again.
In there, believe it or not - get this! There is a description of one of the children in care being sexually abused when she was four or five. FACS got involved and the arrangement reached was that the adult who had access to the child should get less direct access to that child. Where was the report to police of a crime being committed? Surely, that was spoken about. What does the coroner say? The coroner is damning of the FACS workers, of course. But where was the system in place to train those FACS workers? That is what the coroner said: why were these FACS workers not told how to deal with something like that? They were not because the system had failed. I am not going to hold the minister responsible for a single failure of a single public servant to do a specific task; you cannot be held to that level of responsibility. But you are responsible for a complete and utter systemic collapse which ends up describing the operation of your own department as ‘a mad house’. That is what you are responsible for. That is what this is about. This is why we are trying to shake into this government some sense of responsibility for what they do.
Their defence, in the light of something like the Deborah Melville report, is just astonishing. Surely, there must come a point when a leader of government says: ‘We can no longer dress this up. We can no longer massage this message. We can no longer spin this in a particular way. We have to put our hands up and say we are guilty’.
That point has been reached and passed and, yes, to my dismay and ongoing astonishment, they continue to defend this as some form of improvement in the child welfare system in the Northern Territory. My goodness gracious, if this government believes this childcare system has improved simply because they are throwing money at it, they have not read the coronial inquiries that surround their system. They have not listened to Dr Bath. They have not listened to other non-government organisations which have made appeals to them. They have not listened to their own department - or chosen not to hear their own department - in this process. They are entirely culpable for what is wrong with child welfare in the Northern Territory.
This is a machine they have built and constructed from the ground up, and the responsibility cannot be sheeted home to some other place. Even if there had been no child protection system at all in place in 2001, if it had been completely non-existent, they would in no way be absolved from the death of Deborah Melville - it just does not work. They have taken on the responsibility; they have described the responsibility as being theirs and, when the responsibility comes home to roost, they seek every possible way to avoid any form of answerability to the people of Northern Territory.
What has happened in child welfare in the Northern Territory could only rest on their conscience and their record as a bloodstain
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I have been on the record saying that this is not a problem only for the government or the opposition; it is a problem for the community. Protection of children is the responsibility of the community, and I find it offensive when our own people use children as a political weapon, and I have said that …
Mr Tollner: Read the report!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr VATSKALIS: We have heard the opposition say many times that mandatory reporting was happening under the CLP, what they did not say was, it only happened if the child was injured; the child had to be in a hospital or a clinic for the mandatory reporting to take place. What we changed in our legislation was to say the ‘potential for harm’, and now we are moving to ‘cumulative risk’. The difference between these two is enormous. We do not report the child when the child is in hospital; you report the danger to the child before even thinking about hospital. That is the main difference.
The second one: we have the CLP referring always to Nanette Rogers. What Nanette Rogers did was a study of convicted men over a 10-year period which started in 1997 to 2007. It was not a study done in the time the ALP was in power; it was a time when both ALP and the CLP were in power.
The third one: we have said before that we respect the privacy of the families, and the reason I consulted with my advisor here was about what happened today in this House. On 20 January 2010, an article in the NT News reads:
- Mills breaches suppression order. Opposition Leader Terry Mills yesterday breached a court suppression order by naming a child involved in a coronial inquiry. Mr Mills made a press release to at least eight journalists which contained a breach of the Evidence Act in the first sentence. Two further breaches were contained within the body of the text. The Department of Justice issued a letter 20 minutes later reminding journalists not to name the child involved. Within eight minutes, Mr Mills issued a correction and apologised for his mistake.
I know we have parliamentary privilege in this House, but today both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition named that child. Tell me that this is not politics.
Are there problems with child protection? Yes, there are. Only in the Territory? No, there is not. There are problems all around Australia. It is a symptom of our community, it is a problem of our community and, as I have said before, let us work together to sort it out.
This afternoon there were claims by the opposition that a report was tabled by Dr Howard Bath. No, it was not. It was tabled by me yesterday. It was also claimed I tabled the reports because I had pressure from the opposition. No, I did not. I tabled it in accordance with the legislation we put in place in this House.
Madam Speaker, it is an incredibly sad fact of life that, in the Northern Territory and anywhere in Australia, there are families who neglect and abuse their children. It is also a positive sign that many people now cannot ignore the problem. They are prepared to stand up and be counted and they are prepared to report it. According to the most recent report, we have seen a jump in notifications from 3600 to nearly 6200. Sixteen hundred notifications have been investigated, and 800 have been substantiated. Out of the 6000 notifications, 800 have been found to be real, to be valid, and have been substantiated. The figures are terrible, but what I believe is great is the fact people choose to report 6000 incidents where they believed the child was at risk.
We intend to look after Territory children. We have said before, and we will say it again, we will make sure the Territory is a safe place for children. We have worked very hard and will continue to work very hard. No system is perfect. You can go anywhere in the Territory, in the private sector or the public sector, and you will find faults. You can go anywhere in Australia, in the public sector or the private sector, and you will find faults. Recently, the Ombudsman in Victoria identified a number of issues with its children’s services department; the Victorian department’s system was considered to be the best in the country.
I said we will try to do it. Did we get it right all the time? No, we did not. Do parents still abuse their children? Unfortunately, they still do. Do we need to invest more in this area? Yes, and we will. Do we need to change the way we do this? Yes, and we will. I said previously, the way we did business in England in 1950 to 1960 is not the appropriate way to do business in the Territory in 2010. When are we going to do this? As soon as possible. I do not believe we have the luxury of time, we have to act quickly. Again, I say we will do whatever is necessary to protect every child in the Territory.
You will remember in 2009 the then Minister for Children and Families made a request to the Children’s Commission for a report into the intake of response processes of the department. This was in response to frustration experienced by health professionals. On becoming the minister, I asked the commission to provide me with an interim report of what was happening with that report. I was very pleased to receive, in early January, that report which identified a number of issues which required our immediate attention.
I have received the report, and I have tabled it as required by legislation. I have also provided copies of this report to the Ombudsman, as she requested. This report shows a children’s investigation system under enormous stress, not only caused by the number of people notifying cases of children at risk of harm, or potential risk of harm, but also by the fact we cannot recruit professionals from all around Australia. If we can recruit professionals, they are under enormous stress. This is a profession which causes enormous stress to people, especially if these people are not senior, or have not been working for a long time. Many people who choose to come to the Territory are recent graduates, or people with limited experience. These are the people who experience enormous stress.
The report shows the need to review the central intake; the need for new structures to improve the efficiency of the intake system; increase the number of staff receiving information and review workloads; consider the long-term safety of infants and young children who come to the attention of the department. We have to give special consideration to specialist doctors and other people coming into contact with children, and to address backlogs in case work, and address recruitment and retention issues.
We have increased the number of people in the intake system. There are now 11 people working there. I have instructed my acting director to move quickly to address the other recommendations, especially with regard to support and training, and training not only in the professions, but in other areas, and provide support. We cannot expect professionals to investigate cases and come back and do their own photocopying and their own filing. We cannot expect professionals to go out and not be debriefed when they return and have the support of senior officers, because they will burn-out, as happened previously.
In October 2009 the former minister also requested a second report from the Children’s Commissioner. This report requested to review the specific circumstances of a child known to the child protection system, who had subsequently died. To protect the confidentiality of the child and the family, the baby is referred to in the report as Baby M. This report has also been tabled. The Children’s Commissioner reported that despite allegations Baby M died as a result of physical abuse, a preliminary investigation by the coroner found no evidence of maltreatment.
The report and the commission identified a number of issues we have to address. The recommendations include: the opinion of health personnel working with children should be afforded special consideration in assessing the risk; the department has to develop specific guidance for notification of vulnerable infants and very young children, and consideration of the parents’ capacity to ensure safety and wellbeing; Northern Territory Families and Children to develop specific intake decisions and make instruments to recognise people at risk.
I have accepted all the recommendations and appropriate instructions have been issued for these recommendations to be complied with as soon as possible.
The challenges presented in running the child protection system in the Territory are common to challenges faced right across Australia yet, in some very specific ways, unique, as we deliver cross-cultural services across vast distances. We have a very special creation: the tyranny of distance. The fact much of our population live in communities outside the urban centres; the fact that 30% of the population is Indigenous and have special cultural needs - they have special needs - they have complained the system is urbanised, and that is a valid complaint. How do you expect people in Arnhem Land to consult with a person in Darwin who, in some cases, has no idea what Arnhem Land is like? How do you expect people in Central Australia to deal with an office only based in Alice Springs?
The challenge of staffing is also much more intense. People prefer to stay down south rather than come to the Territory; it is the same challenge we face with our health personnel but we are determined to get it right. We have instigated the most comprehensive review of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. We have employed Dr Harper, Professor Neil Bartlett and Dr Roseby. We have made it clear we are prepared to allocate any resources they require and as much time as they want, because we want them to get it right.
This panel has brought a wealth of experience and expertise in the area of child protection. The board of inquiry will be assisted by a panel of eminent national child protection experts. This inquiry taking place now is critical to ensure Territorians have the opportunity to contribute to the future system’s structure and service, and also have the opportunity to identify faults. I have asked all the people in my department to feel free to contribute to this inquiry, provide solutions, and identify faults and problems. I have guaranteed they will be protected under the Inquiry Act, and an instrument signed by the Chief Executive Officer will provide the same guarantee. I have provided this advice in writing. I hope they will take this advice and they will stand up and provide this advice to the inquiry.
Many people have made comments about the Ombudsman and about the government’s intention to somehow stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry. We cannot stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry; the Ombudsman can have her own inquiry; she can do the same inquiry. I have advised the Ombudsman that I will provide her with any information she wants but, at the same time, I encourage her to work with Dr Howard Bath and the co-chairs in order to have an inquiry that work together. I am very pleased to say that following the provision of the intake report to the Ombudsman, she advised me that, having read the report, she realised a great deal of work has been done and she does not have to do it again herself; and that is very encouraging. What is also encouraging is she said she is prepared to work with Dr Bath and the co-chairs to have an inquiry.
People say: ‘You spend money and you have not achieved anything. You say you have done so much, but not everything is in good shape’. Let us go back and have a look at the history and have a look at what happened and what we have found.
We started from a very low base: $7m was the original budget and we said we bought it up to $90m. The member for Port Darwin jumped up again – Professor of Economics, as he is - and he challenged the budget. He said: ‘This is not true. We haven’t got $90m’. We do have $90m. For child protection we have $25m; for out-of-home care we have $30.5m; for family violence sexual assault - $30m; for the Children’s Commissioner - $0.6m; for family and parents support - $13m. Now, do not tell me that out-of-home care, the Children’s Commissioner and family and parents support is not part of the child protection budget. Again, the member for Port Darwin proves that he either does not know how to read the budget, or intentionally misinterprets it.
Going back in history, this is from the report produced by the then CLP government. In 1999-2000 there were only 94 Indigenous children in care. So, in 1999-2000 only 94 Indigenous children were in danger. Tell me then, how in 2002-03 that become 142 children? In 2004-05 became 218 children, in 2007-08, 271 children, and in 2008-09, 358 children. Is that because the Indigenous families all of a sudden became really bad? No, they did not, because Indigenous families care about their children. It is the same dysfunctional families, unfortunately, who do not care about their children. What changed is mandatory reporting, more people to receive complaints around the clock – not 9 am to 5 pm - around the clock. It is a combination of these factors and, as a result, more Indigenous children have been identified as being at risk of harm, and more Indigenous people in out-of-home care. They are not my statistics. They started with the CLP statistics.
There is no record of the people working in Child Protection in 1999-2000 or 1998-99. When we took government, we put in over 100 people; that has now risen to 223. With the establishment of Children’s Services in 2004 we have nine people more over establishment. So, more than double the people the CLP government had.
I asked for a list of the ministers who were changed, they claimed we have had five ministers in nine years. Can you tell me how many Leaders of the Opposition we have had in the past nine years? I can tell you, since 1978 to 1999, you changed 13 Health ministers. Of course, there is change, and there will be change; ministers change because governments change. There is something called elections every four years, and ministers change.
The member for Nightcliff, when she became the minister, managed to obtain an extra $2.4m. She established the Darwin Youth Night Patrol, and she announced, in 2003, $53.8m over five years.
The Honourable Marion Scrymgour, the member for Arafura, when she became minister developed and implemented the Care and Protection of Children Act. In 2005, she created the Intensive Family Support Service. In 2008, she opened the Bush Mob volatile substance abuse, alcohol and other drugs facility.
The member for Karama established the Child Abuse Task Force, the Children’s Commission Office, the expansion of sexual assault services, the Residential Care Unit and paediatric services.
The member for Arnhem, in 2008, introduced mandatory reporting of domestic violence. She founded the NT Strong Men’s Council, oversaw the implementation of the Safe Houses, expansion of Child Protection Services into remote areas; she amended section 20(c) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and announced the first comprehensive inquiry into the entire child protection system.
As whole-of-government we developed the Child Protection Register for Identified Convicted Paedophiles; and we announced $286m over five years.
I know the member for Goyder says: ‘You spend money, but what are the outcomes? You spend money without outcomes’. If you do not spend money you do not have any outcomes.
Mr Elferink: You do not have any outcomes, and you spend money!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Our outcomes are more efficient in receiving complaints of sexual assault …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have more people working there. I did not say there are no problems. Of course, there are problems. We said we are going to fix the problems but, if you do not have money, you do not have a service, and that is what happened in the CLP time - no money, no service, no kids in care. As simple as that.
I said before I have no intention of politicising the issue of children. I believe children are, and should be, above politics. One thing I will say, again, we can have arguments with the member for Araluen, but I recognise her passion about children. We can have blues here in this House about many issues, but I recognise her passion about Children’s Services.
One thing I know is how hypocritical is it for the CLP to come here now and talk about the government and Children’s Services. This is the party that took 10 years to put together a children’s protection policy. I went back to the 1980 election trying to find out if there was an announcement for children’s protection, and I could not find anything. There was one released only last week presented by the member for Araluen, and this policy includes elements the government already has in place: the whistleblowers legislation, the Children’s Commissioner - she wants to increase his powers, which is very welcome - I agree with that and I support it if it is logical. Then she comes out, the day after the NT News said the minister is thinking of splitting the department, and said: ‘We will split the department and put in an enormous amount of money - $9m’. Ten years too late, the CLP talks about children’s protection, when they ignored it when they were in government; they under-funded it while in government, where they had a small number of kids who …
Mr Elferink: When do you become responsible? At what point do you say this is …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: We now have the situation of them telling us how bad this government is and they are trying to tell us, in their time, everything was perfect. I throw a challenge to them. I have been in the media as the minister saying: ‘Yes, there are problems, and I want to fix them …
Mr Mills: You have missed the point completely.
Mr VATSKALIS: No, I did not miss the point of the opposition. I challenge you to rise to the occasion, walk together with me; I have no problems, I have done it before and I will do it again. This is an issue about politics; an issue of the Territory. This is not about me; this is about us. This report was tabled yesterday and I have already given instructions to the acting director to be acted upon - and that will happen.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I do not want to have an argument with anyone, because this is a really serious case, and these reports have highlighted systemic failure.
One of the very important things we need to understand as politicians, and mums and dads and grandparents, is that our culture, the Indigenous culture is very different to the culture of non-Indigenous people. We know, yes, we have put resources into family and community services, but let us not pat ourselves on the head and say: ‘We have done more than you’. We have not done enough. It is obvious from these reports that we have not done enough. We have our workers out in the communities now, but are we giving them the support that is required to meet the family obligations that these people have in remote Aboriginal communities?
The stress of a person living and working in a remote Aboriginal community is higher than any social worker who is based in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek. That person has obligations to the family and obligations to the whole community. They have to be very careful in the way they handle any kind of reporting. Have we have given them all the resources to sit down build the capacity of the people?
To build the capacity of the community is to understand the legislation. We were doing the legislation when the member for Arnhem had the portfolio, and I spoke in committee stage. I said that if there are any amendments, we need to make sure that there is an education strategy put in place for our people in the remote communities.
I will tell you of an incident which is very new. I will not mention any names, but I will mention the community. There is a little boy, about five-years-old, who, it would have been October last year, was taken by FACS from my community of Papunya, screaming, kicking his legs. His carer was in a neighbouring community at an art meeting, at Haasts Bluff. They took him from the school at Papunya. I took a photograph of that same little boy because I needed evidence that FACS is not following up on this little boy. Three weeks ago I took a photograph of him and his mother in a community in my electorate of Imanpa. A week ago, when I came back from Mutitjulu, Ayers Rock, the mother is at Mutitjulu. Yesterday, I rang the school at Papunya to see how things are going with this little boy, because I am curious. The school at Imanpa had rung the principal of the Papunya School and said: ‘We have so-and-so here, and he is a real little nuisance, none of the people here want him. His mum is at Mutitjulu. They are not the carers, the carers were at Papunya’. So, the principal says: ‘Well, how do we bring this little boy back to Papunya?’ It is not the responsibility of the community; it is not the responsibility of the mother. FACS initially took this little boy from the mother because she is an alcoholic. So, why is it that this little boy is allowed to go back to another community and be in the care of the alcoholic mother they removed him from?
Now, let me go back a step, because when they put this little boy into care at Papunya, he was put into the care of my Auntie. They took that little boy, screaming, to Alice Springs. Guess what? Six weeks later, they put him back into care into the same family with my cousin. They did not come to assess the family - same environment, same family, same overcrowded house that he was taken from.
This is what we are saying: you can pat yourself on the head as much you like and say that you have created housing for Indigenous people - which you have not. You have created all of these programs to help these communities, and yet our children are still struggling in the system.
Yesterday, I said in this House, the Aboriginal and Islander principle you have is based on placing a child based on its race, based on the culture, and no longer based on safety as the priority. That principle is good, as long as you have all the carers, Indigenous carers, you need to have in the system. You do not have that. Why should a child be placed in care based on his culture, rather than, first and foremost, the safety of the child?
Member for Karama, I heard you say you are a mother and you felt deeply about the death of these kids while you were minister. But remember, before you say that, these kids also belong to someone and, at the end of the day, you were the minister in charge. Did you scrutinise your department head? You would have been advised by your department head within days, if not seconds, of incidents occurring.
A mother has a compassion for any child in grief, homeless. I remember in Question Time the Chief Minister saying the member for Braitling and I walked around Alice Springs and did not report anything to the police when we saw underage children. Of course we did. The member for Braitling rang up, and I used his phone because I did not have my phone. I rang the police.
That night in Coles we saw a two-year-old baby sitting there looking after a drunken mother. But what do you do when the call centre does not answer?
Before Christmas I rang the police four times because an old lady was smashed in my street - there was no answer. I heard the minister saying, culturally, the Top End is different to Central Australia, as it is in the Barkly area. Of course it is! But why do we have one station only, in Darwin, which everyone reports children to?
The department should be divided between the Top End and the bottom end. We should have our own executive directors based in Central Australia; we should have our own call centre. FACS should be a stand-alone body outside the department of Health.
We need to put more resources into getting more Aboriginal carers. I remember sitting down with the member for Arnhem talking, on many occasions, about getting Indigenous people in our communities interested and registered as carers of our children, because it is important they maintain their identity and culture, and an understanding of where they come from. I believe what we have done under this principle is say: ‘Your safety is no longer paramount; that is secondary. We will look after your culture and your identity first, and we will think about your safety second’. That is just not on!
These reports have appeared because the government has sat on its hands. You have been brought to the table by media reporting. You have hidden the Bath report. The former Chief Minister sat on the Little Children are Sacred report for six weeks. Do not stand up and pat yourselves on the shoulder. Admit these mistakes were made; these are our Territory children.
I specifically want to indicate to my Indigenous colleagues in this parliament that it is very important we stand up and recognise these failures to our children in the communities. It is our children who are dying and being neglected because of their parents’ abuse.
This is not an argument. We have to work in this parliament to ensure we have the best resources in Family and Children’s Services. We have to ensure we build the capacity of families, and the children, and our communities at the same level we resource the agencies, so they are both growing together; it cannot be lopsided. You cannot be putting millions of dollars into this, and thousands of dollars into that, and it does not operate. We have to grow the two together and ensure there are mechanisms in place for the protection of our children first, and the safety of our children. That safety should be looked at not based on the colour of the child, but the safety of the child.
Are we taking that child out to Five Mile at Papunya and putting it in a home where it is going to sleep comfortably, or are we are putting it in a home that has 20 people? I can tell you, this little boy goes into the house at Five Mile, on my brother’s outstation, with 25 people - is that a good thing? Is that what you want children in your care to be doing? We had to educate my cousin and my auntie that they can go to FACS to get a fridge so that child’s food can be stored. There are two different rules, and we have to change that and treat every child with the basic respect and nurturing that we want, and have, for our own children.
It is so important that, in all this debate, we do not forget the growing of the community, the growing of the people, growing of the department, supporting the department with resources, and doing exactly the same at the bottom end. The Top End and the bottom end must be looked after properly, together, and made to grow together.
We must ensure that if we support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle, then we have many more Indigenous people caring for Indigenous kids. We must have them and we must educate them. If you have only a handful of Indigenous people out in the communities as carers and you have 600 kids in care, there is no way in the world that handful of people can look after and nurture those children. They must be resourced properly to ensure they understand that the safety of that child is paramount: taking the child to school, taking them to childcare, making sure they are in a safe home and making sure they have playground equipment.
One of the things I am really shocked by is the fact that kids which FACS put into the care of Indigenous people do not have the same resources as they would in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. These little kids run around with no clothes and are just expected to have a normal life. There are no safety requirements, no safety mechanisms put in place for this child, and this is a classic example. This example is only a month old. I took the photographs deliberately in order to see what was going on.
That is why I spoke to the principal of the Papunya School yesterday, to find out what is going on with this little boy in between Imanpa and Papunya. They had an agreement between family and family to take that little boy out to Imanpa for Christmas holidays to the mother. Well, Christmas is long over, school has started, and he is being a little nuisance at Imanpa and the mother is at Mutitjulu. He needs to be taken back to his agreed carers at Papunya, who are my auntie and my cousin.
These are the important factors we need to realise here, and the fact that you have been brought to this table and these reports have been placed before parliament is not because you agreed yourself to put these reports on the table, it is because the media has brought you ranting, screaming, legs up, straight to parliament to make sure the whole of the Territory is aware of failures of the department and the failure of the ministers - serious failures of the ministers.
Member for Karama, you can stand up in this House and say that you are a mother but, as I said, mothers do care for other children as well. As I said, the CEO of your department would have informed you within seconds; and, yes, you took the other siblings out of the care, but did you have a major look into your department and the systemic failures of your department prior to all these deaths? You should have known these kids were in serious trouble. If your department had not reported it to you then, as the minister, you were responsible.
At the end of the day, if you are going to look at this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle as the major threshold to maintain the law and culture and identity of the children in the care of FACS, and take safety out of the scenario; one of things you really have to understand and, I guess, this is more for the Indigenous ministers, is if Indigenous kids die in your care, as the member for Arnhem would know, there are serious repercussions. When Indigenous kids die in care Aboriginal people out there want to know what has happened.
I spoke last night in my adjournment about the magic of a certain man who died in Western Australia. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. It is the magic of Indigenous people to sing the wind to ensure certain things happen to certain people.
I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I put on the record my thanks for the member for Macdonnell and her comments. She made very relevant points.
It is hard seeing child abuse and being involved in child abuse. Getting into this job, for me, was quite amazing in many ways, because I find being a Territory member of parliament, as opposed to being a federal member of parliament, tends to be a lot closer the ground. You tend to be involved in the grassroots much more than you are as a federal member. Whilst you see people and interact with them on a personal basis, you certainly do not get to them as closely as you do when you are a Territory member. I imagine, in council, in local government, you would be much closer to people again.
In the last 18 months since I have been in this job, I have been involved in, or had my attention drawn to cases involving Family and Children’s Services, of child abuse and the like. Probably best known, was the 14-year-old girl being kicked out onto the streets by Territory Housing where there seemed to be a complete breakdown in communication between Territory Housing, Family and Community Services, and the police. In hindsight, it was fortunate I was on hand to intervene. I believe it is the role of any local member to get involved in those situations, and I did not do anything particularly special; any local member would have done the same thing.
On the same day I went to a house in Coconut Grove and met with a lady who had her children taken away. There were all types of problems: her children were escaping from their carer and coming back home; the mother was upset the children were being taken from her and put back with the carers. It was an extraordinarily distressing situation, and really tears at the heartstrings. I spent nearly an hour with this lady, but there was nothing much I could do apart from trying to comfort her and assure her the authorities and the courts would take her situation into account; and that was that. I could only comfort her.
On returning to my office I had a constituent come into my office with his girlfriend. His girlfriend’s sister, the night before, had committed suicide; she had hung herself. Why? Because Family and Community Services removed the children from her care and, whilst the children’s safety is of paramount importance, you wonder at times whether there is any counselling and support for the parents of the children who are removed. In many cases, people have problems with alcohol and drugs, domestic violence, and those type of problems and, in the heat of the moment, they tend to do stupid things - really stupid things that most people would not do – and as a result their children are placed in very unsafe situations, so something must be done. However, once the children are removed, that adds a new level of stress on these parents.
I remember that day I went home and I cried. I cried and I thought: This is absolutely terrible hearing these gut-wrenching stories and really feeling powerless to do a great deal at all. I understand there are all types of pressures put on people in departments and people at the coalface who have to deal with these issues. There is a myriad of issues, and it is not easy to explain away in a debate like this the pressures that people are put under.
On the other hand, I was involved in the federal parliament and I was very close, at the time, with Mal Brough and the Prime Minister when the federal government introduced the Northern Territory Emergency intervention. I remember, at that time, an absolutely damning report had come out about the state of communities the length and the breadth of the Northern Territory. In every single community that was investigated children and mothers and people were under immense pressure; there was massive overcrowding in housing; there were terrible, disgusting sexual acts taking place with children, why are they being bashed, and all this horrible stuff and, The Little Children are Sacred report which, I believe, every one knows about it, had been suppressed for months.
At the time, what really irked Mal Brough, and I remember sitting there talking to him and he was absolutely infuriated that he, as the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, had this report kept from him. Normally, when you have a report of that nature, it would be sent to Indigenous Affairs ministers all across the country and made available. Mal Brough had to go onto the Internet to get it. He was not even informed of it by Clare Martin. Before that, on 18 May, Mal Brough had identified there were these problems around Australia and he called for an urgent summit, and Clare Martin decided not to attend. She said: ‘It is not a problem’. I have a media release here from 18 May 2006 headed ‘Minister Brough Calls for a Talkfest’; and that is how Clare Martin treated it.
A member: She just did not get it.
Mr TOLLNER: She did not get it at all. She said:
- Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough has offered more talk rather than action to tackle the problems in Aboriginal communities.
Who would have said Mal Brough was not into action? All he wanted to do was sit down and talk with her and find out what some of the issues were. But, no, she would not have a bar of that. In the media release she says:
- If Mr Brough wants to do something constructive he should convince his Treasurer to provide the money needed to reduce the housing backlog in remote communities.
Clare is speaking money again. Despite the fact that the GST was pouring rivers of gold into the Northern Territory, Clare Martin is saying: ‘No, we need more’, and she said the Commonwealth should provide an extra $50m a year over the next decade for Aboriginal housing - $50m a year. What happened, of course, was she got more than $700m; it was $800m-odd that Mal Brough put up as part of the intervention, which has since been wound back to some $670m-odd by Mal Brough, but it was still far in excess of what Clare Martin was asking for at the time - $50m over 10 years. He got it to her straight up, and here we are now, some two-and-a-half years later, and how many houses have been built?
A member: Zero.
Mr TOLLNER: This is something that Clare Martin identified in her own media release on 18 May 2006: ‘If Brough wants to do something constructive, he should convince his Treasurer to provide the money needed to reduce the housing backlog in remote communities’. Well, he did. The money has been sitting there for two-and-a-half years.
This is here in black and white; you cannot deny it. You look around and see the things that are happening in this place. Constantly, we see reports being suppressed. The Bath report: Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit, still has not been publicly released. The government has been sitting on it since November 2007. Why? We had the Treasurer say today: ‘Oh, no, cannot do that’. She says it risks confidentiality; there are names in there that could get out into the public domain which would cause problems. If the Treasurer had one look at the report, at the table of contents, and read down the bottom, it says: The names of the individuals in this report have been changed to ensure their confidentiality. It is a complete cop-out to say: ‘Oh, no, we cannot release that report because we do not want to identify the people in it’. The people in it are not identified.
Dr Burns: What does Howard Bath say himself?
Mr TOLLNER: They are not identified. Howard Bath says down the bottom of the front page: ‘The names of individuals in this report have been changed to ensure confidentiality’. To ensure confidentiality! No, they try to sweep it under the carpet; they try to hide it. It is just disgusting.
I hear the Treasurer jumping up and down during Question Time, yelling at the Opposition Leader that he is despicable. Who is despicable? The person who will not stand up and account for their non-action? The person who wants to sweep all these problems under the table? It is just absolutely appalling! We see our own Child Protection minister jumping up and down that the Opposition Leader twice in this debate has breached a court order by naming Deborah Melville.
Dr Burns: No.
Mr TOLLNER: That is what he said; check the record. He said twice he has breached a court order. I looked on the Department of Justice website and there it is in big bold letters. You do and say anything to stop taking responsibility. It is someone else’s fault!
The minister came in several days ago said: ‘Uh, oh, look at the numbers, the way they are going. This was not a problem, but look at it now’. You ask: ‘Why is it going like that? Why do we have more people who are presenting themselves at Family and Children’s Services?’ The government says it is because of more reporting. What a load of nonsense! I will tell you what it is: it is because of the pressures this government is placing on families.
Ten years ago, when we had a Country Liberal government, we did not have the highest house prices and the highest rents in Australia; we did not have alcohol-fuelled violence like we have now; we did not have the pressures families are under like we have now. Why is that? It is a result of this government’s policies. This government is forcing families into break-up, in many cases. The single biggest cause of family breakdown is financial pressure. When money gets tight, families break up; it creates all sorts of troubles. That is where we are at the moment. It is just appalling.
They tried to stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry. Why? You should be welcoming these things, and you should be trying to do something to fix the problems. There is a merry-go-round of ministers. Why is there a merry-go-round of ministers? To ensure none of them are actually responsible. You get enough of them tied up in this portfolio area and they can all say: ‘I was only here for six or eight months, and I moved on. That was someone else’. ‘Oh, no, he was only here for a short time’. The coroner says exactly the same in his findings on Deborah Melville. Did we not see the Treasurer jumping up in Question Time to explain some of these decisions she makes? No! She is quite happy to handball it off to poor old dead-man-walking Hendo! It is just appalling.
Her public rating is through the floor as well. We know Hendo’s is, but he can take it. He can answer all those questions and paper over the lack of interest in this area. The Opposition Leader asked a question about 40 or 50 releases relating to Sport and Recreation, and only a couple about the Family and Children’s Services part of your portfolio. The Crusty Demons get more media than the Family and Children’s Services area. It is something which was identified years and years ago as a major problem.
On the front page of today’s The Australian there it is again in big bold letters, the disgrace that is the Northern Territory government and the way they handle child protection here. It is just embarrassing. Every time you go interstate and look at something apart from the Northern Territory News and read what people around the rest of the country think of us and think of this government, it makes you cringe. You do not want to tell anyone you are a Territorian. It is an absolute embarrassment. What do you do? You say: ‘Oh, no, no, they threw a whole heap of money at that problem’. Everything we see, everything you put out is about how much you are spending - it is just bizarre. At the bottom of Clare Martin’s release in 2006, she finishes with a classic finish-off line: ‘We have quadrupled the budget for child protection from under $8m to nearly $32m; increased funding for employment, education and training by 33%; and the Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget has risen 55%’. It is as though that is some type of achievement.
What about doing more with less? Or doing more with more? But things get worse. In every one of these reports - the Bath report, the coroner’s report, and I guarantee the Ombudsman’s report, if it comes out - will not be particularly nice to you guys either. Every single one of these things, every newspaper you pick up tells you how badly you are going, but you have the audacity and the absolute gall to stand up in this House and say things are fine, as though you are doing a wonderful job. This is absolutely sickening.
I am looking around to see where the member for Nelson is and hoping to God he is sitting here listening to this debate, because he is the bloke who is keeping you mob here. I want him to come in here and tell us his reasons for backing you; why he thinks you should be in government; why he thinks what you are doing is a great thing. Protecting the children has to be the most fundamental area of responsibility for any government.
The member for Casuarina says: ‘This is just politics’. He shrugs it off: ‘They are just being political’. You think: do these people have a caring bone in their bodies? Is there anything there?’ You look at the member for Karama, stony-faced, staring down the barrel; everyone is evil in this place.
As I have said, you have been caught out lying about this Bath report. You have been caught out lying in this debate itself. ‘We cannot release the Bath report to protect the confidentiality of the names of the people in it’. What rubbish! It is pointed out on page one of the report. It just runs off her lips: ‘I am being up-front. I am trying to help’. And you think: you absolute, lying bugger. You are not trying to help anyone. All you are trying to do is paper over your own bloody ineptitude and lack of care’. It is absolutely disgraceful.
I am going to wait to hear what the member for Nelson has to say about this. I am interested to know what he has to say about a government that can sit by and shrug off something like this and say: ‘No, we are doing fine. We have stuck nearly $90m bucks into this’. Do you people care? At least you should be asking the question, and she should be asking the question: What the hell has happened to our $90m?’ Where is it going when you get such reports coming from the coroner and Dr Bath as we have? Somewhere along the line, surely, the bell has to go off in your brain that says: ‘Hang on, these guys are talking about little kids’.
A girl died in the front yard of a house with a litre-and-a-half of pus in her leg. It makes me sick just thinking about it. But what do you guys say: ‘No no, nothing to do with us. We have stuck $90m into it’. This is absolutely appalling.
I will sit down now. Hopefully, after the next speaker or two, we will see what comes of this.
Mr GILES (Braitling): I will stand up quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, while we wait for the member for Nelson to come out of his office, where he is writing his speech. It is not just …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member should know by now that you cannot refer to a person’s presence or absence in the Chamber. How long have you been here? You have been here 18 months and you still …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Bohlin: You are the ones who are under scrutiny …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting!
Mr Bohlin: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr GILES: Let us remember, in the last five years, more than $0.5bn has been pulled out of Family and Children’s Services in the Northern Territory; $562m has been pulled out of the Family and Children’s Services portfolio in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Grants Commission reports, as their assessment, what should have been spent in the Northern Territory each year. For the last five years, the Northern Territory government has pulled out money. In the 2003-04 financial year, they pulled out $78m and spent $38m. They like to talk about the inputs financially – well, let us talk about them. They should have spent $116m in the 2003-04 financial year. They were even given an extra $99m from the Commonwealth government to help them, realising they do not have much money. Instead of spending the $99m extra they received, or the $116m they should have spent, they spent $38m - a $78m under-spend.
The under-spend in 2004-05 was $92m. In 2005-06, it was $116m under-spend. They spent 27% of what they should have spent on Family and Children’s Services in 2005-06 - 27%. In 2006-07, there was a $134m under-spend; they spent 25% of what they should have spent. There was a $134m under-spend in 2006-07; and, in 2007-08, $144m. They are winners! Each year they keep under-spending more and more - $144m under-spend; $145m rounded out. That is in the year after the Little Children are Sacred report came out. They actually increased their under-spend.
I was very interested to hear the comments by the member for Fong Lim when he was talking about the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and her comments about housing. I am also keen to look at what has been said by different Children’s Services ministers in estimates hearings in the past. I note, in 2005 - and this is in direct contradiction to what the member for Casuarina said that things have gone up because of our reporting. The member for Arafura, in 2005, said:
- … I am not saying that in 2001 due to a Labor government that suddenly all that reporting was there - that trend was showing for two years. If you follow the comparative data from those two years you could see the steady increase.
That is where she is talking about reporting. This is the lady who, only two years later, in response to the intervention which came about because of the failure of the Northern Territory government in child protection, called the intervention a political black Tampa. Seventy-five percent of all children protection issues in the Northern Territory are Indigenous and Clare Martin said: ‘There is no problem, we do not want to go to a meeting’, and put $50m up for housing. Well, he trumped that and put up $800m. After she said they need $50m for housing, and Rudd chucked in $800m, Macklin and Rudd downgrade it and the Territory government only put in $20m - and they have not built a house.
What makes it worse – and I am off subject here - they talk about the two houses in Wadeye that are completed but, apparently, you cannot move into them because they forgot to sign the lease over the land - so, they are sitting there empty. That is the worst part about it, if it is out of SIHIP money, but who knows? Who knows if it is out of SIHIP?
It was interesting reading the Living Black report online on SBS from Wednesday 26 March, 2008, where they make comment on the member from Arafura about her black Tampa incident. It said she has commented: ‘It was not about having an interest in children being abused’, and I am selectively quoting here, but it says, pulled off-line today: ‘The biggest deficit that we have on the ground in communities is housing. If you talk about the protection of children, how do you protect children if they are still in a house with 20 other people?’ Which is a very good point. He got that very important press release from the previous Chief Minister, because that black Tampa comment was made on 23 October 2007. This is where these comments are coming from, and a couple of years later, they still have not built a house with - it was $800m, but now it is back to $572m plus $20m a year for five years by the Northern Territory government - even though Clare Martin said that they needed $50m a year for 10 years, they could not even match that.
This censure motion brought on by the Leader of the Opposition is a very important censure, and the most important debate I have heard in this parliament to date. How can the government and members opposite, sit here and defend the legacy of this government, trying to play politics with it, like the member for Casuarina is, when they have underspent by more than $0.5bn? When you talk about $9m, or $7m, or these little figures they talk about, and I recognise it is not all about the inputs, it is about the outputs, but $0.5bn would go a long way to improving child protection in the Northern Territory, and you have ripped $0.5bn out.
The member for Macdonnell gave a good speech today when she talked about the reality of how things actually work. The Chief Minister was quite disgraceful today when he said: ‘The member for Macdonnell and I, walking the streets of Alice Springs …’, trying to say it was all about publicity, ‘… and we did not call the police’. Well, they did! Ring the police records; you will see the phone calls are on there. Check the missed calls, the ones that were not answered, that would be interesting, too. When they saw the two 14-year-olds, the boy and the girl who were so drunk they could not even stand up, punching each other and nearly going through the window of the TIO: ‘We called the police, waited there for 10 minutes, and could not find them. She was beating his head on the ground, he was beating hers. We asked them, before they started beating each other: “Where did you get the grog?” Well, their parents gave it to them. We called the police, the police had not arrived within 10 minutes; the male had hit the member for Macdonnell, physically punched the member for Macdonnell. I had to make a judgment call on the spot’, and this was not in the paper, ‘do I physically intervene here, and then it would be a case of a politician, and then they would really accuse me of looking for media, or do we just quickly walk away? We had to walk away and watch from a distance while we rang the police and waited; they did not turn up …’
A member: Did you arrange for that woman to be thrown out of the car?
Mr GILES: No, no, we did not arrange for that lady to get thrown out of the car, either. We did not arrange for her to throw her clothes off first …
A member: Yes, took her clothes off and threw them out of the car. It was a media stunt.
Mr GILES: … before getting out of the car. We called the police, at this stage, from a distance. The reason we went over to that lady to try to help was because we thought she might be dead, and you try to say we are chasing media. What an absolute farce – and you tell us to call the police.
This is not an indictment on the Police Commissioner, but we bumped into the Police Commissioner that night, half-an-hour before that happened, 200 m away from where it happened, and I asked him to come for a walk with me. No, he had other things on and he made clear his arrangements, and I appreciate that. That happened half and hour, maybe even less than half-an-hour, and you talk about this mandatory reporting of kids sitting in a hospital on 26 January 2010, somewhere between 10 pm and 1.30 am with a friend of mine who had an accident. You see one kid come in and go into the triage section - and this was not in the paper, by the way, I did not report this - there are many things not reported in the paper, you cynics.
In the triage, behind the door, there is a kid who has come in to get assessed about cuts he has got after an assault. I was sitting in there, it was a bit of a doorknocking, actually, you should have seen the people in the hospital, it was amazing. I was talking to both the security guards and the ambulance and everyone and I said: ‘Tell me exactly what is going on’. And this is how the whole thing started that night, because I had enough that night, and I put my Facebook load up on the iPhone, saying: ‘That is it; this is just rubbish, it was time to make a change in Alice Springs’. That is how it all started, that night in the hospital.
Ten kids came in ranging from about five to 15 in age, and they walk in, muscling up. ‘Where is he? Where is he?’ They were not far from me, and I said: ‘What is going on here?’ They started swearing - I will not swear, Madam Speaker. ‘Where is this f-ing bloke?’ The security guard came over: ‘What’s going on?’ ‘We’re going to beat that bloke up’. These are kids, five to 15, trying to beat up a bloke in hospital. If the security guard had not muscled them out of the hospital, while I was there, there would have been a big fight in the emergency room. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights they need two security guards in the emergency room in Alice Springs Hospital, because one is not enough on those nights. There is one every other night; two on those three nights. What do I do about those kids? Ring up the hotline in Darwin: ‘I have 10 kids here plus another one in triage about to have a fight in the emergency department’?
A member: Where is the Alice Springs Hospital again?
Mr GILES: There is that. Let us look at what actually happens in reporting cases right now. The member for Barkly may or may not be aware of this, but apart from some of the regular complaints made in Barkly, like the hospital and birthing services, one of the complaints I get all the time is: when people want to make a complaint to FACS about child protection matters, they go straight to Darwin. They are not allowed to go to the FACS staff in Tennant Creek - which is the same in Alice - and report a problem, a concern or an issue and have FACS intervene straight away. That is just ridiculous!
That is such a simple decision. Forget about the $0.5bn underspend by the Northern Territory government in five years - $562m underspend in five years. You should be able to walk into the local Tennant Creek office and say: ‘There is a child at risk, can you come and help?’ You cannot. You have to ring a Darwin hotline. This is not some Darwin-Alice-Tennant Creek-Berrimah line. This is just dumb policy. How do you expect to make change in that regard?
I recognise child protection is a serious issue, and I do not want to play politics like the member for Casuarina, the new minister. There have been reports going around for ages, like this one here by Julian Pocock; I believe it came out when the member for Nightcliff was the Children’s Services minister in 2003, so this has been an issue for a long time. Instead of improving services and improving spending, they cut $562m, more than half a billion dollars, out of the child protection budget.
They do not build any houses in two and-a-half years after Clare Martin, the previous Chief Minister, and the member for Arafura, who was the Child Protection minister, had publicly stated in the media and estimates process, housing is part of the solution for child protection. They still cannot build a house; they cannot invest money into it; they cannot put training or resourcing into FACS services; they cannot get the systems right in terms of reporting; they cannot work out when people come into the system. I cannot see how this is going to change in the future.
I will digress for one minute before I sit down. This is one thing I do not understand about FACS. My electorate officer does long-term foster care, and I used to do respite care myself, only for Aboriginal kids, when I was in New South Wales. My electorate officer does care, and she has been going through a situation where the child goes back to the family - I will not say from what community - at different periods of time. Every time she gets that child back it has not been fed for the whole weekend. Every time! Every time she gets that child back, it is malnourished and has not had enough fluid, water or otherwise. Every time the kid comes back it has nits. Every time something happens, there is an issue. This has been going on for years. She is going through a legal process now for longer term care.
This is a case on the FACS system which is continuing - every time the child goes back to the family it comes back with problems, whether it is malnourishment or otherwise. Surely, decisions need to be made in that situation, like every other situation. If government continues not to make decisions about rectifying these situations, they will continue to have massive numbers of people on their books and will never be able to cope with the increase in people who come through the front door.
I support this censure by the Opposition Leader. I recognise it is a significant issue, but I recognise that bad policy, bad management and inept practices by Labor in the Northern Territory on this issue, plus cross-portfolio issues in areas such as Housing, has resulted in the position we are in, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I cannot see how things will improve, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the argument has been put; the charges have been laid; nothing more can be added.
Madam Speaker, I move – That the motion to censure this government for its deceit, its neglect, its preservation of its own political interest ahead of children, be fully supported by the members of this Chamber.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! My recollection of most censure debates in this place is after the convention of two speakers from each side, the motion is usually put anyway.
Once the speakers are exhausted, usually - and we have been very patient here today - it is a technicality, but my recollection is the motion is put after all speakers, usually two on each side and if an Independent wants to speak. I believe, to some degree, we put convention out of the window. Let us put it to the vote, and let us see where it goes.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) BILL
(Serial 82)
(Serial 82)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I was mistakenly of the opinion that the legislation before the House with respect to the sale of land was supposed to be a cure or silver bullet for the practice of gazumping. If you read the media reports, if you look at the previous history of the attempts to have this type of legislation enacted, it seems to have been on the agenda of the member for Nelson for quite some time
I believe the crux of the issue the embattled member for Nelson is trying to deal with, and has tried to deal with in the past, is to stamp out the practice of gazumping. I believe this is now something like the fourth or fifth attempt to have this type of legislation enacted. Either way, each and every time - up until today, of course - the member for Nelson has tried to have this legislation passed into law, it has been voted down by the Labor government of the day. Which takes us to where we are today: government sponsored legislation which, I have no doubt, is a constituent part of the deal which was struck between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister.
I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson a short time ago about this bill, and asked him how it was supposed to prevent gazumping. He informed me the intent of the bill was to try to reduce the incidence of gazumping. I do not know how this legislation is supposed to prevent an activity which resides in the domain of unethical real estate agents. That is where it resides; it cannot be controlled by law, it can only be controlled by changing the behaviour of those who carry out the practice.
I have worked as a real estate salesman in Queensland for 18 months, not a very long time in the scheme of things, but certainly long enough to experience a range of the highs and lows of the industry and, certainly, one of the lows of the industry is the practice of gazumping. Gazumping, simply explained, is this: an offer has been made to purchase real property; before or after that offer is presented to the vendor another offer comes in for the same real property. The second offer, which is usually a better offer than the first, is presented to the vendor without an opportunity for the first prospective purchaser to consider, or further consider, their position. I have seen it happen, and I have seen how much angst and pain this practice can cause both the vendors and prospective buyers.
There are some differences between the systems in Queensland and the Northern Territory, so I just acknowledge that there are some differences there. In Queensland, purchases of property are made on a contract form on day one, so the offer to purchase is actually made on a contract form and, once that form is signed by the purchaser, the conditions are completed: sale price; settlement date, all that type of thing is presented to a vendor, and once the vendor signs off on it, it becomes a contract, subject to a cooling off period. It can become a contract on the same day the offer is made. Notwithstanding the timeliness of the forming of a contract in Queensland, gazumping still takes place, and it takes place more often than it should.
In the Northern Territory, there is an offer document, which is signed by the prospective purchaser and presented to the vendor, signed off by them, that is sent off to the conveyancing lawyers, contracts are drawn up, and it does not form a contract until those contracts are signed by both sides, and exchanged. In the Northern Territory, the nett effect of that is just a longer period of time between offer and contract which, in effect, is a longer period of time in which the act of gazumping can occur.
The member for Nelson says this bill will reduce gazumping. I still do not see how. Offers in Queensland, which become the contract, often on the same day, have conditions on them, usually pest inspections, building inspections, subject to finance, and sometimes more obscure conditions, such as longer settlement periods. In the Northern Territory, the offer document carries the same conditions as the contract of sale
I gather the rationale of the member for Nelson for these provisions reducing the chances of gazumping is, with all the disclosure documents being bought and paid for by the vendor, the transition from offer to contract will be quicker. This may well be the case, but at the end of the day, it will not stop or reduce gazumping. If you have a look at the Queensland example, which I offered before, where a contract can occur within minutes, but more likely hours, of an offer being made, the practice of gazumping still occurs anyway.
Gazumping will continue to occur despite this legislation, because the practice, as I pointed out earlier, lies within the domain of unethical real estate agents. I have worked with some very good real estate agents, and I have seen some very bad ones. Like any profession, there are good and bad and, thankfully, there are many more good, honest and hard-working real estate agents in the industry than there are bad. But also, like many other industries, it is the bad ones who bring the industry into disrepute - just like politics - certainly good ones, certainly bad ones, and it is the bad ones who bring the profession of politics into disrepute.
It is the act of gazumping, amongst other things in the real estate industry, which brings the real estate industry into disrepute. The way to deal with that is to look at the practices of real estate agents. I said previously, real estate agents are the ones who practice this, and it is therefore the behaviour of that group of individuals who choose to allow gazumping to occur; it is their behaviour which needs to change.
When I was working in real estate we had a way of circumventing the practice of gazumping. It was an ethical way of dealing with multiple offers on a property, and that is where this arises - gazumping occurs because there is an offer on a property, and then another offer comes in, ergo two or more offers on a property. In my experience, this usually occurred on a Saturday, and it is probably easier to explain how a Saturday might run with a property on which two offers have been made.
Saturday is the busy day for real estate agents; they would be showing houses all morning, and start to take offers and contracts in the afternoon. You would receive an offer for a property which would be filled out on the contract form in Queensland; it would have the sale price, the conditions of sale, a pest report, inspection report on the building, all those types of things. I would then pick up the phone after I had completed that and ring the vendor and say: ‘Mr Smith, I am very pleased to let you know I have an offer on your property. I am really busy now, but I am going to come around at 5 pm today and show you the offer’. I would then hang up the phone.
If between then and 5 pm in the afternoon someone else came in to make an offer on the property, I would immediately hand that person over to one of my colleagues; because I never wanted to be in the position of being accused of favouring one purchaser over another. I would let the other real estate agent, one of my colleagues, deal directly with the second purchaser. The details of that contract would remain unknown to me, so I could not be in a position of influencing anyone. Rather than deciding myself which was going to be the best offer to take to my vendor, the two of us, the two real estate agents dealing with the purchasers, would contact them and say: ‘There are two offers on the property you are interested in, yours is one. The intention is to present those two offers to the vendor this afternoon. You have a one-off opportunity now to give me your very best offer for this property; the very most you are prepared to pay for it. It would involve the very best conditions you are willing to offer to complete the contract of sale’.
They would be advised there would be no Dutch auction; we would not play one purchaser off against the other. It was a straightforward, transparent process where no one was disadvantaged, everyone was in receipt of the same information, there could be no confusion, and there could be no allegations of any impropriety by the real estate agents.
Subsequent to that, the contracts or the offers would often be amended and the very best prices obtained from both respective purchasers. Those contracts or offers of purchase would be taken to the vendor; opened from a sealed envelope in front of the vendor, and the vendor would then be given the opportunity to choose which purchaser, which contract, which offer, he would like to accept. I do not believe you can legislate to do that.
Again, I point out the fact that it comes down to the ethical or otherwise behaviour of certain real estate agents. If you are an ethical agent, choose not to operate in that fashion, then gazumping does not occur. Everyone is on the same playing field with the same set of goal posts, but where you have unethical behaviour, gazumping can occur and those real estate agents, at the end of the day, really do not give a toss who buys the property. It is only in that fashion that real estate agents can properly, in my opinion, fulfil their duties to the vendor who, after all, is paying the bill.
If you can change the behaviour of real estate agents, that is the way to deal with the issue of gazumping, not by imposing what is effectively a levy on the homeowner or vendor. That is what this legislation will achieve; it will achieve nothing else but add a new tax to a vendor. It is not a tax where the government provides a service because they take money out of your pocket but, effectively, it is a levy, a tax by another name, because it is legislated that you have no choice but to pay for a raft of what we call in disclosure documents that must be prepared. As I go through the list of those disclosure documents, many of these will cause a cost on the vendor. I have not had to deal with many of these things, but I suspect there is a couple of thousand dollars worth of impost on a vendor. No doubt, they will build that into the cost of the property and Lord knows, we live in a Northern Territory where housing is already at grossly unaffordable levels as we speak, yet, this government would seek to add even more cost on purchases.
Caveat emptor – buyer beware. The vendor of any item, not just real estate, must not misrepresent the nature of the item for sale, but, at the end of the day, it has always been, and it should remain with the purchaser to satisfy themselves they are getting what they want. To that end, they sign offers and contracts with conditions that may, as I said before, include building, plumbing and pest reports. If you choose not to do that as a purchaser, you run the risk of not getting what you want, which is a house with plumbing that functions properly, no termites, and all the rest of it. But, it is a choice for the purchaser to get these reports and, if they do not - caveat emptor.
I have done it myself: bought a property without getting some of the reports done which was, in fact, my choice. Under this regime, there will be no choice. If the cost impost will not be on the purchaser, the cost shifts to the vendor and then there is no choice. If the government legislates to impose a cost like that, it becomes a levy, and will probably be called the Labor Government/Gerry Wood Levy on Vendors.
It will not solve the gazumping issue, because those few unethical real estate agents who continue this practice will still keep doing it. Regardless of the cost impost on vendors, regardless of what documents are required to be made available by vendors to prospective purchasers, and regardless of how you might try to truncate the time period between offers and signed and exchanged contracts of sale. If this is a vehicle to try to prevent, slow down, or stop gazumping from occurring - which, as I understand, is and has been the member for Nelson’s intent for many years - this is simply not the vehicle to do it. It simply imposes more cost on a vendor and it is entirely unfair.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, in closing debate, I will touch on the questions asked by members who have contributed.
I want to go back, first of all, to the legislation itself because there seems to be some confusion, having listened to the debate, about the government’s intention with the legislation. It was clear in the second reading speech - and I will reiterate it again today - this is not to stop the practise of gazumping. The government has not weighed into the ‘is there gazumping, is there not gazumping’ debate. We have let others have that debate.
We have been intent on looking at a system which is both fair and efficient when it comes to the sale of property in the Territory. What I said in the second reading speech, is we recognise, with all of the information available at sale, it should shorten the period before contracts are signed and, the shorter period you have the less likely gazumping occurs, rather than the system we have in the Territory where there can be a lengthy period from point of sale to signing the contract, because people go away and get all the reports they choose to get to satisfy themselves of the house. It is not a gazumping bill; it is not designed around gazumping, it is designed around improving the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing system in the Northern Territory.
The member for Katherine missed the point of the second reading speech of the legislation in his contribution to debate. I was interested in what he had to say about the ethical practices he undertook in Queensland. Queensland does not have legislation of this nature at all and, clearly, it has a completely different system to the Territory in the requirements within the industry.
We had a look around the nation at the various legislation that exists. People in the debate have referred to South Australia and New South Wales. We looked at where legislation exists, the nature of that legislation, and what is most contemporary in the legislation throughout the nation.
In New South Wales, the Conveyancing Act requires certain documents to be attached to a contract of sale before it is advertised or sold, which is very similar to what we are doing here. In South Australia, the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 requires that certain information must be provided to a buyer before settlement. In both these jurisdictions emphasis is on the vendor providing the information to the buyer. In Victoria, the Sale of Land Act 1962 requires sellers to disclose certain information to buyers before the buyer signs the contract.
If you were to listen to some of the contributions in debate from the opposition, the world as we know it is going to be a calamity and come crashing down around our heads, and add enormous costs imposts. Yet, here we have a regime in existence in Victoria since 1962 and, the last time I checked, it was a very buoyant property market in Victoria.
The ACT, on which we modelled most of our work, is the most contemporary. The Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003 has very similar provisions to this bill. We deliberately looked at other provisions around existing legislation; saw the ACT legislation was the most contemporary, so we have very similar provisions in our legislation. If you are wondering where the gist of all this came from, it came from looking at the ACT legislation following the debate that has raged over many years about whether the Territory needs final disclosure legislation.
I will go to that point regarding the length of the debate as it has raged. There seems to be confusion in the opposition about this; they seem to believe this has come along only because of the government’s agreement with the member for Nelson. Yes, we were happy to have an agreement with the member for Nelson, to have legislation of this nature because we have a track record of seeing the opportunity to provide these types of provisions in efficiency and fairness in the marketplace.
Tasmania has the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005. Again, it has similar provisions to the bill. They have not commenced it, but we know there are some differences there. The Tasmanian minister has stated it will be commenced in mid-2010, but, it is election year and it will be interesting to see what happens in Tassie.
When I looked at the history of this debate, it was quite informative. In the 1990s, there were identified problems which came to the attention of Consumer Affairs and, picking up on what the member for Nelson said in his debate contribution, it was about flooding in the rural area blocks, a big issue back in the 1990s. So, in 1997 when the CLP was in government, Consumer Affairs released to key stakeholders a discussion paper on possible vendor disclosure legislation. The former government took the issues no further. They backed down once they heard that industry was not particularly supportive and, I understand, there were concerns about the extent to which government building records existed at the time.
In February of 2003, the Attorney-General, the former member for Stuart, in his ministerial statement on Consumer Affairs, announced an intention to release a discussion paper on vendor disclosure. So we had the history of the 1990s, when it certainly was an issue; the previous CLP government forayed through Consumer Affairs on that issue, but backed off once they got some industry pushback. In 2003, our Attorney-General said: ‘We will put out a discussion paper on this’. In 2004, the member for Nelson introduced the Law of Property Amendment Bill which was, essentially, vendor disclosure legislation; and that was defeated. At that time in the debate, government repeated its support for vendor disclosure, but had issues with the legislation brought by the private member. In 2005, the member for Nelson introduced the Law of Property (Sale of Residential Property) Bill 2005 - again defeated. The government, again, repeated its support for vendor disclosure legislation, but had issues with the actual legislation.
In 2005, the Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, established the Property Law Task Force. This is where, I believe, traction continued on this in really trying to bring together the stakeholders affected by vendor disclosure legislation. The task force comprised members of the industry and professional bodies, as well as government agencies, and it worked on a number of projects. In March 2006, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper on vendor disclosure based on the work the task force had done.
In 2006, the member for Nelson had another crack at it introducing the Law of Property (Sales of Residential Property) Bill, which again was defeated. The government, again, repeated its support for vendor disclosure legislation. In October 2007, a discussion draft bill was released by the Attorney-General for public comment, so the task force work came through in a discussion paper, and the discussion paper come through into a draft bill which was released in October 2007.
There was quite a diverse range of stakeholder issues and comments about that draft bill, so it was sent to the Property Law Task Force for further comments. Ongoing discussions through 2008-09 with industry and professional groups went into the detail of the contents of the draft bill and the regulations required to support it.
We felt we had progressed far enough by October 2009 to introduce what I called a discussion draft bill and regulations, which we tabled in the Legislative Assembly. This was to ensure that although we had evolved various discussion papers and draft bills, we wanted everyone to have another crack at it, recognising that industry had, at that stage, concerns. When I talk about industry, of course, we were dealing very closely with the conveyancers, the Real Estate Institute and the Law Society.
As a result of that work, we introduced the legislation we had before us in November last year, and we are debating it today.
To say this is only because of an agreement with the member for Nelson, I believe, belies the years of work the Department of Justice has undertaken in working with all the stakeholders across this sector at the behest and bequest of various Attorneys-General. I am pleased to be here delivering on an agreement with the member for Nelson; I have no issues with that. However, you can see through the history, governments have made forays into this area, but have not been able to achieve industry consensus, and so have backed away.
The bill we have before us today is different to the draft bill. I take issue with the member for Goyder, who was obviously reading her comments around the draft bill rather than the bill before us. She certainly did not realise, in her debate, that this bill covers the entire Territory. The draft bill did not; this bill does.
Whilst there will be people who still find particular issue with what we have before us, we do have the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory saying they accept it. They accept, due to the amount of negotiation and work which has gone into this between government and the Real Estate Institute, that if you are going to have vendor disclosure what you have before you is as good as it gets regarding the legislation. They are satisfied with that.
Mr Elferink: No.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the member of Port Darwin cannot help himself; likes to shout out from across the Chamber, so I will quote Quentin Killian on ABC local radio who said the government had been:
Fantastic in negotiating with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory.
The Law Society has confirmed it is happy with the bill and, I believe, the member for Nelson referred in his contribution to debate, that he had received a letter confirming they were happy with the bill.
When I picked up this work as incoming Attorney-General, I had meetings with the Real Estate Institute and with the Law Society and, at that stage, both organisations had issues on the table; very real, active issues, which is why we went down the path of the draft bill and the considerable negotiations and discussions with both. At the end of the day, both gave a tick to what we have before us. They know we have found a path through a vendor disclosure that provides fairness and reasonableness without being onerous on real estate agents and conveyancers who are at the coalface dealing with these matters.
The bill will minimise the amount of searching via prospective purchasers and the number of reports required for the sale of land. It ensures the seller gets together a standard set of documents and information regarding the property; and a great deal of work has gone into discussions between the department and the industry about that standard set of documents.
The bill will ensure buyers of property in the Northern Territory will be able to enter into binding contracts with the benefit of key information regarding the property.
There is also a provision that if you cannot provide that information as vendor, you can disclose that you cannot provide the information. Why would you need to do that? There are parts of the Territory not covered by the Building Act, so there will be information simply unavailable in those parts of the Territory. Equally, we know there are properties in Darwin which are pre-Cyclone Tracy, and documentation has been lost. There is a set of standard information you are required to provide, and I will go through that in a moment; equally, if you cannot, you say you cannot and you are not providing it. There is still an element of buyer beware within this if the information cannot be provided.
We have never said we will stop gazumping, but we have said by collecting the information you need to make the biggest decision in your life regarding purchase of property and doing that before the sale process starts, will reduce the ability for gazumping, because it reduces the time for contracts to be signed.
Once the bill is passed, the Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to finalise the regulations. I can say the regulations are very nearly there and they should be finalised within the coming weeks.
We are aiming for 1 July 2010 for commencement of this legislation and the Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to develop education information packages prior to that date; and they will conduct seminars or workshops throughout the Territory in the coming months. The Law Society and Real Estate Institute will be fully consulted, and seminars may be run in conjunction with these stakeholders. I know, for example, the Real Estate Institute is very keen to run the seminars in conjunction with Department of Justice officials and that is a great idea. Information kits will be provided to industry audiences outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement.
Articles and advertisements will be published in industry publications, for example, The Practitioner, DHA Investor, Real Estate Institute, Registrar-General’s newsletters, etcetera, outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement. Fact sheets and key links will be placed on relevant websites, for example, the Land Title Office, Consumer and Business Affairs, and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, outlining the requirements of the impending legislation and the date of commencement.
As I said, we are aiming for 1 July 2010 for commencement, and after commencement there will be a public announcement accompanied by media release regarding the commencement of this vendor disclosure legislation. The information and fact sheet will be updated on the relevant websites, and there will be wide distribution of public information brochures outlining the requirements and rights of both vendors and purchasers for public display and collection. It is envisaged such flyers will be made available on counters in real estate agencies, mortgage brokers, land title offices, and handed out by conveyancers, lawyers, valuers, financial institutions, etcetera. The newspaper will have public notices educating the general public and key stakeholders about the new legislation; radio advertisements educating the general public and key stakeholders about the new legislation; and there will be newspaper Public Notices reminder advertisements every two months until December 2010.
So, you can see we will be working with industry in the finalisation of the regulations for commencement and a publication campaign and public awareness blitz to ensure everyone is aware of the responsibilities contained within the legislation.
The key features of change as a result of this legislation are obligations to apply in respect to the sale of most land, and that includes commercial land purchased by a business, and there was some discussion concerning this area. Essentially, we felt that whilst big businesses are used to doing due diligence, and medium-sized businesses do due diligence, there are scenarios where some small businesses do not undertake the extent of due diligence that perhaps they should in terms of purchase so we felt it better to scope business and commercial in.
It will not apply to some land, including land in proposed subdivisions and units under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Titles Schemes Act. Some other exemptions are set out in clause 8 of the bill, and some may appear in the proposed regulations. Essentially, it ensures the seller must provide a prospective purchaser with a draft contract of sale; a copy of the Certificate of Title; copies of registered encumbrances on the land, except a mortgage or a statutory easement or covenant; and a copy of any unregistered encumbrance on the land, for example, an unregistered lease or tenancy agreement. For units, copies of a registered plan scheme or other document, and prescribed reports or certificates; and these will be set out in the regulations.
It will be an offence to fail to disclose the required information, or if misleading information is provided by agents, sellers or experts. Failure to disclose information could also result in the rescission of the contract. There is a four day cooling-off period for sales of residential land other than by auction or tender. The cooling-off period can be shortened or extended if it is in the contract, or otherwise agreed in writing, or waived if a legal practitioner or conveyancing agent provides appropriate certification.
Going to the question specifically, I have already noted this legislation applies Territory-wide despite the mistake by the member for Goyder; that changed from draft bill to final bill. There is provision for contracts to be excluded from application of the act in terms of various relationships, which I will go through because you queried this point.
Exclusions include: the buyer as the registered owner of the land as a joint tenant or tenant in common; or the buyer is a related person of the seller; or the contract arises from the exercise of an option to buy the land; and either of the following apply: the option is contained in a will or lease; the period for exercise of the option is longer than 60 days; or the contract arises from an unsolicited offer to buy the land by or for the buyer.
For this section, the persons are related are:
- (a) individuals who are spouses of each other, or who are a parent and child;
- (b) related bodies corporate under section 50 of the Corporations Act 2001(a related body corporate);
- (c) trustees of the same trust, or different trusts if there is a beneficiary common to both trusts;
- (d) an individual and a body corporate if the individual is a majority shareholder, director or secretary of the body corporate or related body corporate;
- (e) an individual and a trustee of a trust of which the individual is a beneficiary;
- (f) a body corporate and a trustee of a trust of which:
- (i) the body corporate or a majority shareholder, director or secretary of the body corporate is a beneficiary; or
- (ii) a related body corporate is a beneficiary;
- (g persons who acquire interests in a body corporate as a result of acquisitions that together form or arise from substantially one transaction or one series of transactions.
That answers the query from the member for Goyder.
The member for Goyder also asked what if a report provided is amiss. Does the buyer settle on the property and then seek damages against the report writer. That is spelt out in section 14(1)(c), the buyer may:
- (i) rescind the contract; or
She asked what if the report writer makes a mistake. Under section 24 (2) of the act:
- The person who prepared the document is liable to compensate the buyer for the loss or expense.
This arose as a result of a misleading document being provided which caused the loss or expense.
She also asked, once a report is done, what happens if the seller changes the land or a building. Under section 22 of the act:
- A person must not make a misleading statement in a document that is, or purports to be, a required document.
Under section 23 (1) of the act:
- A person must not give a misleading document that is, or purports to be, a required document to someone else (the receiver).
In this case, the document would be misleading because it is not current; but it is okay to provide a misleading or out-of-date document, as long as the seller points out to the buyer that it is misleading and incorrect. The report writer is not responsible for such a situation and is not liable provided the report was accurate at the time it was prepared.
Regarding documents being made available for inspection, the question was: what does ‘available for inspection’ mean? It is not defined, so it takes its ordinary meaning. It would include: physically providing the documents to a prospective buyer; having it there for anyone to see at an open inspection or open day; having the document available on a website or even e-mailing the documents to the buyer. The intention is that prospective buyers have the information available to them and they do not have to chase it up. Fact sheets and information will be developed to provide guidance on such issues, and this will be done hand-in-hand with the industry.
Regarding the query about more than one building, the member for Goyder asked: what if there is more than one building or structure on a block? The answer simply is: if there is a building on the land, then a report is needed for that building.
There was an assertion the act would cause delays. We contend that it will not. When asked whether this act will help to streamline the selling process, Quentin Killian, the CEO of REINT, responded that: yes, it would help.
There is a contention the act will increase costs. We argue that it will not; overall, for the sale of a property, it will reduce costs. Previously, every prospective purchaser paid for reports of this nature for the same property. Now, only one building status report will need to be paid for each property, and those people selling properties will benefit in the end when they choose to become purchasers. This legislation does not create an unbalanced relationship; it does the exact opposite - it evens up the balance.
The other comment from the member for Goyder is: lawyers about town are unhappy about this. This legislation has support of the Law Society; that support would not be forthcoming if lawyers were unhappy with this.
The member for Port Darwin said buyers may not want reports from vendors, so why force them to go to this expense? If no building status report is disclosed, the regulations will provide for the provision of a statement in the form of a warning from the seller to the buyer, saying that there is no building status report. This alerts the buyer to this fact and puts them on notice that there is no building status report.
Mr Elferink: So, you are saying that the regulations will nullify the effect of the act?
Ms LAWRIE: The other information is easily and inexpensively obtained and is information that any prudent buyer would generally want.
Mr Elferink: You are just telling me you are about to regulate out the purpose of the legislation?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: This is a silly thing, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is getting weirder.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin obviously did not listen to what I said about parts of the Territory not being in the Building Code areas; that sometimes those building status reports, for various technical reasons, are difficult; so, you can alert the buyer to the fact that there is not a building status report.
Mr Elferink: Does that require a building certifier? I thought it might.
Ms LAWRIE: The comment from the member for Port Darwin: this is a legal issue, not a moral issue; which was also echoed by the member for Braitling where he said it is already covered by Contract Law, and now when you purchase land, you can have inserted a clause to sign that the contract is subject to satisfactory reports being obtained. That is the case, but if the seller refuses to have such clauses in the contract, then there is nothing the buyer can do about it. The buyer either goes ahead with the purchase in the dark, with risks, or the buyer cools off while they await the reports coming back and risks someone else making a higher offer.
Mr Elferink: Is that how you are going to fix gazumping, is it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: That is at the heart of some of the issues here. I covered much of the politics of the member for Braitling’s contribution going back to the 1990s when this issue first came on government’s radar, and the various points in time.
The other concern of the member for Braitling was about divorcing couples selling their property will not be able to afford building status reports. Again, such sellers can rely on the ability to provide the warning to buyers in lieu of the building status report, which is provided for in the regulations. He said: ‘It is buyer beware when we go to the shops’. Well, actually it is not.
Mr Elferink: Does Gerry know about this clause in the regulations? Because he will not have seen the regulations yet, will he?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! You do not have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. The member for Nelson, unlike the member for Port Darwin, is fully briefed on the legislation and the regulations, and how they are forming, fully briefed unlike the member for Port Darwin who took no time to be briefed. Other members of the opposition made the effort.
In terms of going to the shops, we have the Trade Practices Act, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, Food Standards, Health Standards, Safety Standards, the list goes on.
The member for Katherine has already given his dissertation on being a real estate agent in Queensland. He was under the misapprehension that this is simply, purely and only about gazumping, when it is far more than that.
It is putting in place an efficient and fair system for the sale of property in the Territory. It has approval from the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, the Law Society and the conveyancers. The effort the officers of the Department of Justice have gone to in working through, in minutiae, all the details around vendor disclosure with all the stakeholders has been tremendous, and I thank them for that. It has gone from the history of the 1990s through to 2010 where, at various times, various governments, various Attorneys-General, have had a crack at it, with discussion papers and task forces and draft bills, and the effort of the Department of Justice has been significant. I thank them for that.
I thank the member for Nelson for doggedly pursuing this. He is a champion of the battler, and it is often the battlers who go into a situation without full information provided to them, and they get themselves in all sorts of strife. Fundamentally, this is the right thing to do; it is a fair thing to do; it puts balance back into the sale of property process in the Territory which had not been there. The timing is important because there are supply and demand issues in the Territory. If you ever needed this it would be when we are in a buoyant economy and people are coming here in droves for jobs and looking to purchase houses at the same time.
I thank everyone involved in this. It is important legislation. I know it is workable, because it has been raked over by the Real Estate Institute, the Law Society, and the conveyancers, and they have all come to an agreement that this is fair, reasonable and just legislation they can all live with. We will work very closely with them on finalising the regulations. You heard me talk about the extent to which we will be teaching people about the legislation; the rights, the responsibilities, drawing up standard forms for industry to make it as simple as possible for them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): My contribution will be quite short, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a note about whether the agreement I have with the Chief Minister in relation to the introduction of this bill is the reason the government has put forward this legislation today.
It is interesting to note there was a letter from the Director of Legal Policy dated 18 October 2007, which said on 14 March the Department of Justice released a discussion paper, and submissions from that discussion paper supported the implementation of vendor legislation in the Northern Territory.
Since that time I believe the Northern Territory government was going to introduce this particular legislation. I asked this to be put in the agreement simply to hasten the government, which had made this promise a number of times, because I was sick of waiting. I had introduced it three times into parliament; and they eventually said they were going to introduce their own legislation. I waited and waited, and the agreement gave me the opportunity to say: ‘This has to come forward; you made the promise’ - and today it has.
I am very glad it has. It helps those people who need assistance to ensure, when they purchase their house and make the biggest purchase of their life, they have some protection, and they know what they are buying. This is important legislation. We have this legislation in other parts of Australia. It has the support of the Law Society. It has the support of the Real Estate Institute, and it has the support of the Conveyancing Institute as well. I have been through all that, and I know that this is important legislation. It is important for the average person in the street, and it will help them ensure one of the biggest decisions of their life has some protection, and they will feel there is some backing in the law if things go wrong in these particular circumstances.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not normally engage in the unusual circumstance where we have a third reading debate, but I cannot let go what the member for Nelson has said.
He says the department, in 2007 said: ‘This is a good idea, it should be supported’. That is fine; that is what the department said. However, the department does not make government policy; government makes government policy.
Mr Wood: And they promised to bring it in.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, they promised, and they promised. They promised to release land in Bellamack in 2007. They make all sorts of promises, member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: What is your point?
Mr ELFERINK: The point is: is it the only thing that moved this government? Because in Cabinet they were very reluctant because they know the Real Estate Institute would be unhappy. Listen carefully to the language used by the Treasurer in relation to this matter about the Real Estate Institute. They said: ‘It is the best we can possibly do under the circumstances’. That is the type of language involved. They do not like this; they do not support this; they just know they have to suffer under it. They have chosen to negotiate the best possible position. That is what has occurred. This government had no intention of going down this path until they were forced to by the member for Nelson. That …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is wrong. I clearly articulated the effort of the former Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, in putting together a task force, getting the draft legislation through. Do not make mischief.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I saw no evidence whatsoever from the Planning minister they were going to do this until such time as it found its way into an agreement. They were never going to do it. The only time they said they were going to do it, and actually delivered, was after the agreement was signed. And what was the price paid for that agreement? That is the actual issue here. It is just not real to hear the member for Nelson leaping to the defence of government in this instance, because he knows full well …
Mr Wood: No, I am not. I am leaping to the defence of history, which you do not understand.
Mr ELFERINK: … the government had no intention of passing it and, if he believed for one second that the government was going to introduce this legislation, it would not have formed part of the agreement. It would not have formed part of the agreement, which means the fuzzy logic, in this particular instance, of the member for Nelson is the driver of this legislation; and we have an example of that particular logic during his contribution today.
Mr Wood: That is your opinion.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr Wood: That is why lawyers are not always right.
Mr ELFERINK: At least I had the courtesy to listen to you, member for Nelson, which was not the courtesy you extended to me, if I recall.
The fact is, this agreement, and no other thing, forced the government’s hand. If the member for Nelson believed for one second this was true, government would have introduced it in 2007 when Mr Bradshaw signed his letter. But, no; 2007, 2008, 2009 passed us by and not until 2010 does the legislative instrument find its way into this House for passage. Oh, but it was all going to happen anyway. Nonsense!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not usually speak in the third reading debate, but I feel the need to defend the member for Nelson.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I can assure the House, as the former Attorney-General, that there was always the intention of government …
Mr Elferink: I do not believe you. And Territorians will not.
Dr BURNS: If I could just have the courtesy of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was around the Cabinet table as Attorney-General. What I can tell this House is there were many technicalities, there were many issues to work through with industry and, to acknowledge the member for Nelson is right, it did take a long time. He was getting frustrated with it, but we also had our timetable in terms of consultation, in getting it right, and it was always government’s intention to introduce this legislation, full stop.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT
(MEDIATION) BILL
(Serial 63)
(MEDIATION) BILL
(Serial 63)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
_______________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Robert Macleod
Mr Robert Macleod
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I could draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod. On behalf of members, I extend you a warm welcome.
_______________
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I give my apologies to this House in advance in relation to my submission here today. Because of the untimely illness of the shadow Attorney-General, this has been thrust upon me at the last hour. So I issue an apology to members because of that. I hope I do the shadow Attorney-General justice here today in terms of the work I know she has done. She has briefed me briefly over the telephone, and I have sought to get my head around this as quickly as I possibly could.
I say at the outset, it is the intent of the Country Liberals to support the passage of this legislation. The thrust of this legislation is quite straightforward. There has been a very long-standing immunity throughout the judicial system within the British Empire, I believe, and its subsequent Commonwealth, that the Bench is immune from criminal and civil actions arising out of utterances and acts conducted by judges and magistrates representing Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s justice.
However, in the modern era we find increasing numbers of civil matters being pressured into the environment of being mediated prior to finding their way to the courtroom. If you look at the uniform civil procedures which operate in other jurisdictions, you will find there is an influence throughout those civil procedures which seems to favour the mediated process. Even if you speak to justices in the Northern Territory, they will be keen, if they have to adjudicate on an issue, that there is full communication between the two parties, particularly in a civil case, to ensure the issue is thrashed out and fleshed out as well as possible before it comes before them.
This would mean if there is proper communication between the parties, hopefully, they will come to some resolution, because the area of law in the dispute would be settled. Nevertheless, if they do come to court, and there has been fulsome correspondence between the two parties then, hopefully, they will have distilled the argument to one or two points of law. Consequently, the move to mediated outcomes as a thread of civil law has been receiving a benevolent eye from the courts for some time.
Consequently, this legislative instrument seeks to extend the immunities enjoyed by justices and magistrates to registrars and other judicial officers in the mediation environment; which makes sense. The processes sought or demanded of the court system and civil disputes, means a mediation process can be engaged in which, for a want of better words, is a pre-court hearing, and judicial officers take part in that.
This act moves to give some comfort to those judicial officers, acting in a quasi-judicial system, the immunities enjoyed. I note in the proposed new section 83A(9) the thrust of this is captured:
- A person conducting or participating in a mediation for a civil proceeding has the same immunity for an honest act, or honest and temperate statement or act, done or made during the mediation, as conferred by the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act on a person conducting or participating in the proceeding.
That is the process. You will notice the words ‘honest’ and ‘temperate’ because it helps the courts maintain the integrity they need to be seen as fair and impartial adjudicators of what happens in the community. I know the courts are particularly protective of their reputation; and so they should be, because it is on that reputation which the integrity of all decisions made relies.
This draws me to another matter along the lines of the Caesar’s wife approach, if you like - the not only beyond reproach, but seen to be beyond reproach - aspect of what this legislation refers to, albeit obiter, and another matter which comes out of Alice Springs.
I am aware in Alice Springs there is a registrar who, from time to time, acts as an Acting Magistrate. It is a buzz through the Alice Springs legal community at the moment that the Acting Magistrate also hears matters which are sponsored by CAALAS; in fact, of the criminal matters in the Alice Springs Courthouse, I suspect the majority at least, are sponsored by CAALAS. The reason for the concern of the Alice Springs legal fraternity is that this particular registrar’s husband is the principal legal officer of CAALAS. I do not for one second suggest any impropriety on either the registrar’s part, or on her husband’s part. There is no suggestion of it, and I make no allegation or impugn any immoral or unethical structure. However, it does place a question mark, which all judges and magistrates would understand, over the integrity people expect to see in the legal fraternity.
Judges and magistrates have disqualified themselves for less in hearing matters. I draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General in this instance, because I believe it is a sufficiently important issue to raise in this place for the attention of the Attorney-General and for her consideration.
Having made those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I signal our support for the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support. It would have been surprising for them not to support it, given this legislation is mediation and civil proceeding and benefits not only the parties, but the community as a whole, and the court itself.
The practice of mediation reflects the changing culture, both in the court and amongst the legal professions and the litigants. Referrals to mediation are targeted to particular cases which are most likely to benefit from mediation; for example, where there has been a development in the case of pre-trial management, or even during the trial.
Mediation frees up court time and resources to deal with those matters which can only be resolved through the court process. This bill amends the Supreme Court Act to formalise the practice of mediation that has developed within the Supreme Court, whereby the Master or registrar or judges have acted as mediators in civil proceedings, usually at the request of both parties. This practice often results in a settlement of the matter. Mediation can result in considerable savings of time and costs for parties, and the courts, through either successful settlement or agreement of elements of a case, resulting in shorter and more efficient trials.
The bill also ensures the persons participating in mediation are provided with the same privileges, protection and immunities under the Courts and Administrative Tribunal (Immunities) Act as would be provided to them during civil proceedings in the Supreme Court.
I thank the Chief Justice. As Attorney-General, I have seen the vigour with which he approaches the fairness of the judicial system over which he presides, and the emphasis the court provides to mediation is a very welcome emphasis indeed. We have very fine judges, and embracing mediation has been an innovative introduction into the Supreme Court. I was pleased to see the Supreme Court directions and to back that up with changes to the Supreme Court Act and to provide the appropriate immunities. My thanks to the Chief Justice and the judges for being contemporary in practice, of embracing mediation, not just paying lip service to it, but actually embracing mediation. I believe we are well served by the Chief Justice and judges we have in the Northern Territory. I thank the officers of the Department of Justice who have gone to the effort of implementing this as quickly as possible.
As soon as I saw the Supreme Court directions, I moved as quickly as possible to support it through this legislation. Some things can be done swiftly and easily, which is the case with this legislation we have before us. It is sensible. It is the right approach, and the right way to go in resolving legal disputes.
Some things, of course, are far more complex, far more difficult, and we had the good example today in the Chamber of both ends of that spectrum - the vendor disclosure, and the Supreme Court (Amendment) Mediation Bill.
I thank the opposition for their support. I do not like to make assumptions, but I felt quietly confident the shadow Attorney-General would have been supportive of this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note statement - Territory 2030
Note statement - Territory 2030
Continued from 16 February 2010.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement. Territorians are positive and we get things done; that is why the Territory is a great place to live, and we can make it even better. The best way to make it better is to plan for a better Territory.
The need for a long-term plan which guides the Territory beyond a single term of a government brings together the interests of the community. It provides aspirations we can all reach for – which is a great idea - and is a passion of the Chief Minister. A passion driven by knowing we have long-term needs in the Territory, complex demands for resources, and a small but growing population, and a small but growing resource base.
We need to make smart decisions for the future so we all understand where we are going, and why. That is the shared vision which is Territory 2030 - which will inform all future decisions. It is critical to make day-to-day decisions, year-to-year decisions, and even decisions as part of five-year strategic plans, and we need to be guided by targets made clear in Territory 2030. Having a shared vision of where we want to be in 2030 will make those decisions so much easier, and we can be confident of the targets we have set because of the process in which they have been created.
I would like to refer to some of the figures in the Chief Minister’s statement.
There were more than 75 submissions from individuals and organisations and, in addition to written submissions, there were a number of community consultations between January and March 2009 in places such as Darwin, Katherine, Galiwinku, Alice Springs, Wadeye, Maningrida, Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt. There was a consultation draft, an extensive process which was made public, and there were a further 46 submissions to that, and more extensive programs and public consultations in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Tennant, Galiwinku, Angurugu, Ali Curung, Borroloola, Hermannsburg, Lajamanu - many places. It is clear this went through a rigorous and extensive consultation process which, I believe is critical to the formation of an excellent document.
I heard the member for Nelson express concerns about whether this strategy will sit on a shelf, or be a living document. I can safely say to the member for Nelson that this will be a living document. There is no doubt in my mind it will be a strategy which constantly informs government decisions and government directions. I believe the most significant measure of confidence we can have in the implementation of this plan is the acknowledgement we have made, as a government, that this is a community plan. There is a quote in the Chief Minister’s statement from the co-chairs of the steering committee, Ms O’Halloran and Mr Moss, that the goals and aims of the community are now the goals and aims of the government.
By acknowledging it is a community plan we have taken an unprecedented step to open up the Cabinet process of putting into the Cabinet sub-committee individuals from outside government; which the Chief Minister details in his statement. The foundation of this is through the Territory 2030 Cabinet sub-committee - which is what we are going to do to ensure this is implemented - and which has been established to oversee implementation of the strategy and to monitor and report on progress. This is the first time non-elected people have been brought into the Cabinet process in the Territory, and it is a very rare process in the entire nation.
The two co-chairs of the former Territory steering committee, Vicki O’Halloran and Bill Moss, will sit on the Cabinet sub-committee as full members and will represent the voice of the people and help keep focus on achieving the vision that Territorians have set out in Territory 2030. This is an element of the implementation that, I believe, is crucial.
In my original speech I talked about the draft Territory 2030 strategy document which came into the House last year, and is a decision which embraces the extensive community consultation and the nature of the creation of the strategy to ensure the spirit of contestability, open debate, and constructive consultation. The decision by the Chief Minister to not only entrust this job to an independent steering committee of outstanding people, but to formally make them part of the Cabinet process is significant; in fact, it is historic for the Territory.
Many people probably do not appreciate the significance of that step, but it is a measure of the seriousness and credibility we afford this strategy, that the Chief Minister has opened up the Cabinet process, that implementation of this document will be reporting back against the goals that are in the final strategy, that there will be a Cabinet sub-committee with independent people from outside government to make sure that we stay on track in achieving those clear, shared goals in the final Territory 2030 strategy. I have confidence in the Cabinet sub-committee and the Territory 2030 strategy because of the quality of the people on the steering committee who will be on the Cabinet sub-committee. That is a confidence shared by the Chief Minister and, I am sure, shared by all members in this House.
We talk about people of the calibre of Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville Community Services, and Bill Moss, Chairman of Moss Capital. On the steering committee we had Michael Berto, Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan, Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Denis Mackenzie. They are excellent people and that is one reason we have this quality document. They are quality people who have put together an excellent strategic plan - Territory 2030 - to which we will now be held accountable. And ‘how’ is outlined in the strategy – obviously it is important to know how we will be held accountable.
The key initiatives in that area are: every two years the Territory government will publish an official report on the progress made against each target; Territory 2030 strategy will be regularly reviewed by an independent steering committee which will make recommendations on any changes or re-alignment that might be needed; and government will also undertake a regular household survey to collect data for the targets which do not currently have reliable data sets. We do need to be held accountable and people do need to know how we will report and how we will make allowances for the passages of time. We are in 2010 and we are planning for 2030 and we must have a bridge from here to there, and people will know how we are tracking along the time and how we are going to make re-alignments as things emerge.
In terms of detail, the first priority listed for our immediate focus on page 8 of the strategy is Housing, a key issue. The availability of appropriate and affordable housing is a key issue affecting the social and economic wellbeing in the Territory. This is from the report:
- Our major towns and cities have an acute shortage of houses for sale or rent. The shortage is increasing prices and reducing affordability. This is an issue that must be addressed as a matter of priority. The Territory must achieve a balanced housing market across all market segments and it will require innovation in the way we approach traditional housing policy.
That is all true. Housing is also mentioned first under the section in the strategy on Society on pages 21 and 22 to improve access to accommodation and a balanced housing market offering good value for money and affordability, ultimately becoming one of Australia’s most affordable housing markets across all market segments. I believe that is something we would all agree to in this House.
The Chief Minister in Question Time on Tuesday spoke about some of the things we are doing in 2010 to address these. First and foremost we are delivering more land and housing, and an exciting five new suburbs are under way this year which will deliver thousands of new homes over the next two years; planning for the new city of Weddell – no other government is planning for a new city; growing Palmerston – the mayor of Palmerston was in the gallery earlier; and the Wirrina project will be under way. I have spoken in this House before about Wirrina. We are being innovative in how we approach housing and we are being innovative at Wirrina in Parap.
Housing is clearly a challenge in the Territory; it is one we take seriously and one we all understand. The stress of finding a roof, or being able to afford a roof for yourself and your family, whether it is rented or paying a mortgage when you struggle to balance the income with your loan is why we are creating an affordable housing rental company. For a long time there have only been two sectors to the housing market: public housing, which has, over time, devolved from providing housing to a range of people from low income workers to social housing, to becoming more focused on social housing. That had been fine for a long time because the market had catered for a variety of people; it catered for everyone who wanted to find a house. However, what is now clear is the market is no longer providing housing that is affordable for low-income workers.
There is a need for a third sector to the housing market, between social housing/public housing and the market itself, which is where the affordable housing company model comes in and provides housing for low-income workers. It ensures those workers live in areas where the market would actually push them out, such as the CBD and not in my own electorate. It is a policy issue cities around the world have struggled with. Businesses in CBDs need a variety of workers, and can struggle to find workers if people cannot afford to live in the city.
I do not believe we are there yet in Darwin, but the warning signs are there, and that is where the affordable housing company comes in, and there are different models around the country for how those companies work. They rent their units at below 80% of the market rate, and they have an income cap. The company is separate from government and, with those measures - 80% of the market rent and the income cap - the company qualifies for Commonwealth rent assistance and for GST exemptions because it runs on a charity basis. Essentially, that means the affordable housing rental company gets greater value for every dollar it invests than Territory Housing. It is targeted at an area of the market which is not looked after by the market or public housing. So, it is creating housing for those low-income workers in areas where they are needed.
The first project which will involve the affordable housing rental company is the redevelopment of public housing on Parap Road. Wirrina, on the corner of Parap Road and Gregory Street, the first set of public housing units we are redeveloping has been demolished; it is a big empty block now, but members might have noticed we have kept all the big trees on the block because people love their trees. We are now going through the public tender process which is on time, which is always good for a project this size. We do not yet know the detail of what will go on that site, but we will have a process to discuss and consult on that.
One reason we are on time with that project is we were able to move tenants out of Wirrina faster than expected. As I am sure all members appreciate, there is always an anxious time when you move into a new house. We had a number of people who lived at Wirrina talk with me and my Electorate Officer about what is happening, where they might be going, and how I might be able to help them. I thank Territory Housing which, throughout that entire process have been very helpful and comforted people in what is an anxious time, and helping them find places where they wanted to live.
There is no doubt in my mind that housing model - Wirrina on the old site – that density of housing does not work. It was a building past its use-by date; it was built a long time before the current code, it was falling apart, and was getting more and more expensive to maintain, especially when repairs or basic maintenance needs were not directed to Territory Housing, which can happen amongst Territory Housing’s clientele. It is one reason why I went there regularly, and it is the reason the former member, Clare Martin, went there regularly; I went with her a couple of times, and it is something that I now take upon myself.
We used to go there to talk to residents, put on a barbecue, and cook up a few sausages, then I started taking down a pizza which proved to be very popular. The residents would tell you what they saw was wanting around the complex, and then you would work with Territory Housing and get it fixed, because they would not necessarily call Territory Housing directly to get those things fixed. That is often why, in those complexes, things can run down.
If members had not been there before, it was a very bad design, too. That horseshoe shape, with the common area in the middle had no breeze. It was not a tropical design, and was not an area that was pleasant to use; it was a very bad environmental design, and definitely something that needed to be replaced. There is a range of those high density units which need to be addressed and, hopefully, Wirrina can be an example for others to follow. That is something the Chief Minister is definitely interested in and it is something we said we would look at doing. There are complications with moving people, finding them new homes, building new houses, and that can create some blockages. However, it is something that I definitely …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. A quorum has been called. Ring the bells.
We have a quorum. You have the call, member for Fannie Bay.
Mr GUNNER: We need to find better ways of housing Territory Housing tenants. The housing conditions in those complexes are not good enough, which I am sure we all appreciate. As Territory 2030 states, we need innovation in how we approach traditional housing policy. When it comes to public housing, we believe that the mixed tenure model is a better model, to have a mix of public, affordable and private housing, rather than 100% public housing; and the first place we are trialling this model, as I have already mentioned, is at the old Wirrina units site, but it is not a model you can roll out quickly.
We will probably look at increasing the density of that Wirrina site. We have also knocked down six townhouses, and an elevated house has been moved. It is a very big block right on a public transport route on a main road, Parap Road, and opposite shops. They are the type of blocks to put high density for those three reasons - it is a good policy decision. So, essentially, innovation in how we do housing; an affordable housing rental company which rents out below the market rate to people on low incomes, and is determined through the Australian Taxation Office, so people qualify for the Commonwealth Rent Assistance; and you qualify for GST exemptions, and you get better value for your money. That is one of the innovations we are already pursuing in 2010 to tackle the housing situation.
We recognise the housing challenge that exists in the Territory; our population is growing faster than forecast, and that is captured in the 2030 strategy. Our Housing the Territory strategy came first, before the Territory 2030 strategy, but the Territory 2030 strategy definitely captures the spirit of the Housing the Territory strategy.
As I said previously, we make day-to-day decisions, year-to-year decisions and strategic plans and they will be guided by the targets in the Territory 2030 strategy and they will feed into our Housing the Territory strategy, and we will ensure we recognise the variety of needs that exist in the housing market at the moment.
The section on page 8, our immediate focus, then goes on to education which, obviously, is critical. As the report says, given the importance of education and health to the future of the Territory, we need to look at the foundations on which they are based: bold reform, including the exploration of new systems, alliances and relationships will be actioned. The 2030 strategy has a dedicated section for education, starting from page 12. Education and the principle of lifelong learning is the cornerstone of the Territory 2030 strategic plan, the core of education is the formal study from preschool through to the highest levels of academia.
In my electorate there are a number of excellent schools: Parap Primary, Stuart Park Primary, Darwin Middle and Darwin High, and the member for Daly knows the high quality education at Stuart Park Primary very well. I went to the Darwin High School graduation ceremony last year and they have an excellent reputation, and it is an excellent school which consistently produces high quality students. Since that graduation ceremony, the final Year 12 results have come out, and Darwin High again did amazingly well. I want to use Darwin High as an example through this section on education.
The top Year 12 student of the Northern Territory and Darwin High was Elizabeth Duguid. Lana Renshaw was Darwin High’s top Indigenous student. They had eight students in the top 20: Elizabeth Duguid; Lauren Burrow; Dipti Colombo; Angela Scott; Emma Williams; Carissa Liddle; Patricia Tamayo; and, Iona Watson. Eight of their students scored 11 perfect scores in individual subjects. Forty-four students received a TER above 90, and 70 received a TER above 80. Twenty-seven of the top 50 students in the NT came from Darwin High. Of the total marks awarded, 89.6% were passes, with 91% of students attaining their NTCE. It is an amazing result.
Since then, we have had the Board of Studies Awards, and Elizabeth Duguid won the Mathematics Teachers Association Northern Territory Mathematics Award; the Dennis Thompson Estate and Australian Veterinary Association Science Award, and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute Chemistry Award. Ian Moriarty won the Department of Business and Employment Information Technology Award; John Philip won the Rotary Club of Darwin Award; Ian McGregor won the Year 12 English Award; Emma Williams won the NT Music School Music Award; and Angus Robson and Caitlin Egan won Vocational Education and Training in School Awards.
Darwin High is going very well, but I know they do not rest on their laurels. They look to achieve every year, and they have created a culture of success and continual improvement at their school. It will be hard to top last year’s results, but I know they will try. What will help us to emulate that culture of success across schools, to find ways to improve education across the board, as they do at Darwin High every year, is to look at the foundations of education and the reforms needed and good data. That is where the Australian government initiative, My School, is so important because it is providing a high quality data resource, and it will only get better.
The Territory has had information on individual student reports in schools at the system levels since September 2009, but with My School is the first time with Northern Territory scores and fair comparisons with like schools across Australia. The breadth of My School information gives clarity about goals for future improvement, primarily to get schools that are comparable with like schools to also achieve at or above national means; and that it an essential target. The data we have …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended so he can complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: The data we have allows us to better set targets, better track targets, and better assign resources - money, people and equipment. That is a result of accountability and transparency. The website is a useful tool because we can see which schools are doing well, which schools need additional support or additional resources, and the $120m national partnership with the Australian government can now target our most needy students.
We have challenges with Indigenous education especially in remote communities and, in our urban schools; 86% of our students meet national benchmarks, but let us do better. The achievements of these students, their teachers and their parents should be acknowledged, but we should accept the challenge to do better.
Darwin High School always looks to do better; they have an excellent culture and that is something we can take on board in all other schools - a culture of success and everyone in the class actually wanting to achieve. Education is about their future. We are a growing place and we need to make sure our kids have the best chance to find a job, buy a home and have a decent place to live.
Part of the challenge in making sure we have a decent place to live is a sound environment policy. There is a dedicated section in the strategy on the environment on page 56. The Territory has a unique asset in its natural environment, but it comes with huge responsibilities. As we have grown we have seen increasing pressure placed on the natural environment as we try to balance the interests of economic development and environmental sustainability. We have had a debate over the last two days about the Environmental Protection Authority led by the minister, and that is something we are already taking on in 2010 with the EPA, and is something we need to keep an eye on over the next 20 years, the life of the plan - how we protect our environment.
The Chief Minister mentioned in Question Time on Tuesday some of the things we are doing in 2010 for the environment, and one of those is container deposit legislation, Cash for Containers, or as is known in America, the Bottle Bill. As I have mentioned in the House before, New York now has a bigger better Bottle Bill but everyone understands the principle at play here, and that is providing an incentive. People get money for recycling, for picking up rubbish. It is a simple idea that works well in South Australia, and we are going to do it here.
Litter is an issue in my electorate. There are some top spots in my electorate, but they can suffer from litter. I am sure my electorate is not alone in having that problem. Litter is an issue, landfill is an issue, and recycling is an issue. All three get swept up in the Cash for Containers debate. Litter gets recycled, which takes pressure off landfill. People get into the habit of recycling, and litter becomes treasure not trash. Cash for Containers goes a long way to addressing litter, landfill and recycling challenges.
As part of the reference group I went, with the member for Nelson and member for Macdonnell, to South Australia to see what they do and how they do it, and hear directly from experts on the ground. We spoke with them and we visited the collection depots, one of their super collectors where they coordinate the containers and ship them on; basically, the money end of the business. Cash for Containers, as we saw in South Australia, reduces litter, reduces the amount of landfill, and creates a culture of recycling in South Australia - and not just cans and bottles. At the collection depots in South Australia there was a queue of cars out into the street backing up traffic; we could not believe our eyes. I remember thinking the recyclers might have set it up, as there were 10 or 12 cars going down the driveway, out into the street and blocking up traffic. The people who came through had all their cans neatly piled up in their cartons. But it was not just cans and bottles; we saw all types of things: screen doors, computers, and batteries. People got into the habit of recycling things outside the Cash for Containers Bill they have in South Australia because it was part of their habit to recycle, and they did.
That is a great result, and is something we are going to be looking at doing in the Territory. I believe the minister is ensuring we deliver a system that is financially, legally and regionally robust. Work on the design scheme is proceeding well; there are no challenges we cannot meet, but we do need to get it right. The design of the scheme requires careful analysis and consideration. We want to see the benefits of Cash for Containers in place as soon as possible, but we need to get it right. I have every confidence in the minister that we are going through that process, and we will see a very legally, financially, and regionally robust model to ensure Cash for Containers works.
There is a great deal in the Territory 2030 strategy. Looking through some of the specific targets and actions at some of the elements that have not been raised in debate as yet, there is one I believe the Minister for Information, Communication and Technology Policy may have raised, one I have to declare a strong personal interest for on page 35, and I am sure the member for Fong Lim is aware of this issue, too. There is a section of Ludmilla where you cannot get broadband, you have to be on wireless broadband, and I do like the objective of identifying new solutions to key infrastructure challenges in the Territory by 2010, for rural roads and highways and, by 2012, high-speed broadband. That area in Ludmilla, which is quite close to the CBD, does not have access to broadband yet, which seems a bit strange in the CBD, but there a few of those black spots around the place. Telstra is not getting in there and fixing it. I have had long conversations with Telstra about the details of that and what is going on. But, we do not have it and we have to be on the wireless in that area.
Another of the specific objectives in the strategy was the call for statehood on page 23. Like the member for Goyder and others in this House, I am on the LCAC and the Statehood Steering Committee, and it is in the Territory 2030 strategy that statehood for the Territory is achieved and almost taken for granted that we will be able to do it by 2020. We have to do a great deal of work with the community first, and there are a few things we have to get through, but I have confidence it is moving in a careful way at the moment.
We had 100 people at the Elliott statehood forum the other day, which is a good result. We have to work carefully through that because statehood is what we would all like to achieve before 2020. We are working towards that and I believe that would be desirable. Being born here, loving the Territory, wanting the Territory to move on as a place to grow and mature, I know the step to statehood is an important one. It marks the maturity of our democracy and the maturity of our people, and I believe that is something we should all be working towards. It is bipartisan in nature, and I believe the community will come on board and we can work with the community to bring it forward.
On page 26, it talks about something quite small in the scheme of things. It says we will develop public art strategies for major centres based on the successful model of the Darwin Waterfront Precinct. Public art often falls down the line of priorities, but as a local member, I am interested in working on this. I have been talking to a few people, a few stakeholder groups, people who are interested in this area, and I believe there are things we can do in Darwin. There was Sculpture in the Park which has not happened for a couple of years, and there are things we can do when it comes to public art that would involve the community, and the Waterfront model is mentioned there. I believe we can do things in the Territory with public art, it is worth mentioning.
There is excellent work done in this strategy by the steering committee and the Chief Minister in pulling this together. He is to be commended. As I said, Territorians are positive and we get things done. That is why the Territory is a great place to live, and we can make it even better. The best way to make the Territory a better place to live is to plan for the Territory to be a better place; to have a long-term plan that guides the Territory beyond the single term of a government and brings together the interests of the community to provide aspirations we can all agree to, is a great idea. That is what we have here, that is why I am happy to back this strategy. That is why I am happy to support this statement.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers in relation to this statement, and the member for Fannie Bay for a very detailed contribution. I did not realise you were so artistic in nature, and that is good to see.
This plan has been created by Territorians for Territorians. It has been a bottom up approach in planning for the future of the Territory. No one knows better than Territorians what the aspirations are for the future of the Northern Territory. This is the first time this has been attempted anywhere in Australia. It is innovative, and I have had extraordinary feedback on its content and targets, and the breadth of the plan itself. It is certainly innovative and is the only plan that has been driven from the bottom up. It is about the aspirations of our fellow Territorians about the Territory 20 years from now. It tackles the difficult issues head on. Many of the targets will be very challenging to meet but, unless we stretch ourselves, we will never know. It has a great deal of vision about not only the wonderful place the Territory is today, but what it is going to look like in 20 years time.
It is a document unlike many strategic documents prepared by governments. It has very real targets and it demands action. Those targets demand action because they will be reported on every two years. Those targets will receive action and a really focused attempt to achieve them, not only from government but also from the community. It is an honest vision, and it is owned by the people of the Territory.
While members of the House, through the debate, have been generally supportive, I was slightly surprised at the tone of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. He seemed to be opposed to the way the plan has been put together. He seemed to be opposed and critical in his tone that it was a bottom-up approach. I suppose that is the difference - I am happy to receive the ideas, the aspirations, and the dreams of Territorians and include then in this agenda of the government I lead. The opposition does not really share that view. He retains the view, I believe, that government is about one good speech from the leader, and the rest of the Territory will follow like sheep.
That is not the way the world works these days. People receive information from so many sources, so many different messages, on a day-to-day basis that they do not really believe leaders, like the Sermon on the Mount, and everyone should follow you. Everyone has their own dreams and aspirations as individuals. They want governments to lead, but they also want governments to engage, consult, and work with the community rather than believe the soaring oratory of a great speech and everyone will follow blindly.
The Leader of the Opposition urges me to do something, even if it is controversial. Let us look at that. My government and the previous governments in which I was a minister have taken on very controversial issues, and we have led the community on many difficult debates. But, on each and every occasion, the opposition has opposed. They have not come on board. They have been directly critical and tried to tear down what have been far-reaching changes in public policy in the Northern Territory for the better. Let us look at some of those.
The middle schools reform was an absolutely fundamental major reform to education in the Northern Territory. It certainly was not cutting edge. It had occurred in most parts of Australia and the world, yet the opposition, from day one, was dead against the creation of middle schools. They fought tooth and nail at every step of the way at what should have been a commonsense reform. At the end of the day, the middle schools agenda was all about putting better structures and more focused support around a cohort of students in Years 7, 8 and 9. As a parent who had children caught in that cohort, I could see it was perfectly common sense, nothing to fear - better structures, better focus, and better support for those young people at a delicate stage of their development. What did we have from the opposition? Trenchant opposition for the sake of it.
Let us look at the reform of road safety. If anything should unite us here in this parliament it is the safety of Territorians and what will bring the road toll down. We took this on. We knew it would be very difficult, but we engaged the best policy experts we could to look at these issues, and eminent Territorians on the Road Safety Reform Committee we put in place. We looked at the evidence of what works and what does not work. What did we have from the opposition? Absolute opposition from day one. They were behind Internet groups, rounding up opposition for the sake of it, when we should have been focused on saving lives and looking at evidence-based approaches to that. These were reforms that were overwhelmingly supported by police - we have four ex-police officers sitting there - overwhelmingly supported by police …
Mr Tollner: You are about saving money on roads; that is what you are about.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: … and just total opposition for the sake of opposition. I still do not know what their policies are. I believe the member for Fong Lim has come out on some Internet site saying if they were to get back into government, within 100 days they would reintroduce open speed limits. I do not know if that is the policy of everyone over there, or just the mad ravings of the member for Fong Lim; but he has said in the first 100 days, if the CLP got in, he would reintroduce open speed limits, and they still have those ridiculous stickers on their laptops. The only political party in the world that believes the faster you drive the safer you are.
So, do we take on the tough issues? Yes, we do.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Another difficult area is local government reform. Dysfunctional councils everywhere across the Territory; 27 years to reform local government and they could not do it. Opposition every single step of the way.
Let us look at something closer to home, closer to this Parliament House - the location of the Convention Centre at the waterfront. Everyone I talk to who has visited the waterfront says what a magnificent addition to our capital city - and still they talk it down. They would never have done it; the Convention Centre would have been in a car park in town somewhere; we would not have leveraged $800m of private sector money into our community; we would not have created the thousands of ongoing jobs in tourism; we would have had a poxy, little convention centre in a car park in the middle of the town somewhere – no vision, and opposed us every step of the way. We do take tough decisions. We work with our community. The Country Liberal Party has opposed every significant initiative and reform of the government on every occasion.
What Territory 2030 is about is an opportunity to try to get bipartisan support for a long-term, strategic vision for the future of the Territory from the people of the Territory; and that is what we have done.
In terms of implementation, I accept the debate that everyone wants to know what we are going to do to implement the targets. All our public servants are engaged in the goals and targets of Territory 2030; briefing sessions are continuing across the public service and we are asking public servants, from the ground up, how we are going to work together to achieve these goals.
As I previously reported to the House, following the launch of the plan, I reshuffled Cabinet, restructured government to ensure we could implement the plan. As my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister stated in the House yesterday, CEOs will be made accountable for the work they are doing with their agencies to implement the strategy. It will be a part of their contracts to actually deliver on policies and programs that lead to the achievement of these targets, and they will also be subject to scrutiny, as well as other senior public servants and ministers by the 2030 Cabinet sub-committee to ensure implementation occurs. We are serious about the implementation of these targets.
Last night, I hosted thank you drinks for around 20 to 30 people in my office, people who have really worked hard in putting this document together.
The Opposition Leader says he wants to see work now - fair enough. Let us look at what is being done right now. We are delivering more land and housing faster than ever before in the Territory’s history. When they were last in government the Territory was in a hole, it was in an absolute hole - zero growth. The only growth industry in the Northern Territory when we came to government was the furniture removal business. People could not get out of the Territory quick enough.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Grace Bros Removals, You Pack It, they were doing business while the Territory was going down the gurgler. We were seeing the prices of their houses collapse. The legacy we inherited was a Territory economy in tatters, people leaving the Territory in droves; the only growth industry being the furniture removal business.
We are developing six new suburbs over the next five years, such is the wonderful place that is the Northern Territory, for people who want to come and live here. We are planning for a new city of Weddell, which will be developed with environmental considerations, a 21st century, green, tropical city, and homes for around 40 000 people. Alice Springs was landlocked. There was no land released in Alice Springs for the 10 years prior to us coming to government.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it is difficult. It is hard work negotiating with traditional owners, but we have achieved it and we are seeing land released; not as fast as I would like, but it is happening. In the last 10 years of the previous CLP government, there was not one block of land released in Alice Springs. We are talking about 54 blocks of land being released in Tennant Creek - it is decades since that happened. And Katherine, as well as Alice Springs.
We are working to turn Palmerston into the city of choice for families. One hundred and fifty houses this year under SIHIP and, at the moment, we are employing 100 Indigenous people under that program. It is a really good outcome. We have new public and emergency housing. We are developing 20 new towns across the Northern Territory. Twenty new towns, a new city, the population of the Territory growing like it has never grown before, economic growth at 5% - and all this mob opposite can do is talk the Territory down; walking around the Territory with big black clouds over their heads, talking doom and gloom.
We are greening the Territory and taking decisive action on climate change, unlike the member for Fong Lim who still believes climate change only exists on Triton. I will have to get a map of the heavens and find out where Triton is. I have to confess, I do not know.
We are reducing carbon emissions, driving investments in renewable energy resources, and an innovative plan for 20 towns to have stand-alone renewable energy. We will be introducing native vegetation legislation which will deliver on a single system of land clearing across all land tenures, and deliver on government’s commitment to be a low land clearing jurisdiction. We will be banning plastic shopping bags, introducing Cash for Containers, and continuing to develop the Eco-link conservation road from north to south - a real agenda for a green Territory in the Top End, and a green Territory in the Centre.
We are building a safer Territory. There had been a freeze on police recruitment. We now have low attrition rates in our police force; we have 330 extra police, and we have Police Beats established in Alice Springs, Casuarina, Nightcliff and Palmerston, with more to come in Parap, Karama and Katherine - delivering more police and a safer Territory.
Education underpins the vision of Territory 2030 and it is fundamental to meeting the challenges. Last year we released the Smart Territory Strategic Plan to focus on attendance. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s plan that was released in a hurry a couple of days ago, which did not mention attendance, did not mention the bush, did not mention Indigenous education. It really was a pathetic attempt. Unless we get kids to school they are not going to learn. Not a mention of attendance in the Leader of the Opposition’s plan. All these are happening right here, right now, and progressing towards the targets.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution to the debate. I acknowledge the member’s concerns, and I quote: ‘Some of the goals are not realistic or achievable unless you have the right people to drive it’, and I agree. I also note his comments about an incentive program. I will ask the member for Nelson to expand on some ideas around that; I believe it is a really good idea. I re-assure the member for Nelson, and reiterate, we have a strong public service committed to driving the plan. Within each agency there is a senior public servant identified as the Territory 2030 officer whose role it is to support their chief executive and work with the implementation unit within my department to streamline implementation across agencies. Incentives, in part, certainly do exist through the Chief Minister’s Awards for Excellence in the public sector, but I believe there is an opportunity to do more there, and I will talk to the member for Nelson about that.
I note that the member for Nelson would like to see more emphasis in the plan on employment, local government, and agriculture. I am happy to take these back to the Territory 2030 subcommittee.
We are a government with a private sector, and we created 6000 new jobs last year. Everywhere else in Australia people were losing their jobs; around the world people were losing their jobs in their millions. Here in the Northern Territory, we created 6000 new jobs last year. Employment and training are obviously intrinsically tied to education.
Many members opposite have also questioned whether we will implement the plan. I have outlined my commitment to do so. Let me repeat what I have said previously in the House. The government and Cabinet have been re-organised to ensure we do this; the public sector has been re-organised with an implementation committee in place; there is a working group of people based in Chief Minister’s department dedicated single-mindedly to driving the plan; agencies are asked to report against it to ministers; ministers are asked to report against their goals to me, and chief executives are having it written into their performance agreements. All of these things show how serious we are in implementing this plan.
In conclusion, delivering on the Territory 2030 vision is challenging, there is no doubt about it, but this government has never shied away from challenges. We have the vision and the determination and the will to see this implemented. We will be absolutely transparent in how we do this. There have been an incredible number of people involved in the consultation and the development of the Territory 2030 plan - this is a plan from the people.
I take the opportunity to thank the co-chairs, Vicki O’Halloran and Bill Moss, for their unwavering, passionate commitment to the future of the Territory during the past year leading up to the launch of Territory 2030. I thank them for the continuing commitment as members of the Cabinet subcommittee. I cannot forget the other members of the Territory 2030 committee: Michael Berto, Dr Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan AO, Professor Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Denis Mackenzie, who all worked tirelessly and, above all, believed in this plan for the Territory and the exciting future the Territory has
I also thank the many public servants who, under the stewardship of my CEO, Mike Burgess, worked long and hard during the development of the plan. There are quite often disparaging comments by members opposite about public servants but, by and large, we have a great public service and the public servants who worked on this plan, many of them worked extraordinary hours, and I thank them for it.
I make special mention of Dave Malone and Terri Hart for their considerable efforts. Above all, I thank the community, the people of the Northern Territory who went to the workshops, who put in submissions, who lodged submissions online, and whose vision is outlined in the plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting, please.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note statement – Primary Industry Production
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, as no one seems to wish to speak, I will speak. I would like to thank …
Members interjecting
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I remind members of the opposition when order is called, you are asked to be quiet. Minister, you have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank members who contributed to the debate, especially some members of the opposition.
Primary industry is great for the Territory; it is one of the vital industries of the Territory; after the mining industry, it is the greatest contributor to the GDP of the Territory. However, it is also important, apart from making statements in parliament, that in the next few months the government will develop a comprehensive Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy - a roadmap to support the physical element of the primary industry sector in the Territory.
The Agribusiness Strategy will clear the way forward for primary industries. It will be a comprehensive industry development strategy which will identify ways in which government, the private sector, and regional communities can grow our primary industries. It will focus on the progress of sustainable development of the Territory’s primary industry sector over the next five years. Key outcomes of the strategy will include the sustainable development of the primary industry sector to provide long-term growth and jobs for regional economies across the Territory, and a strong, ongoing strategic partnership with primary industry stakeholders across the Territory.
The next phrase in developing the Agribusiness Strategy has already commenced, and an issues paper has been prepared for consideration by industry and community stakeholders. I am sure the member for Katherine will be very interested, and I am happy to provide him with the document, and the first draft consultation is currently under way. The paper will assist industry and government to identify the key issues confronting the development of the industry. It will seek initial input from industry and the community concerning what they consider to be the key issues confronting industry development into the future. Following the consideration of the issues raised, a draft Agribusiness Strategy will be developed.
I welcome members’ support for this statement. Members opposite know of the reliance on our overseas cattle markets. Access to land and water are current initiatives in the area of biosecurity and a climatic change may affect us all - although I note some members of the position do not agree with this statement. The overseas market development for live cattle is very important. We have been undertaking a systemic approach in supporting our key markets in Indonesia, and exploring additional markets in South-East Asia. In the state of Sabah in Malaysia we support the industry through animal husbandry and abattoir practices, and the Northern Territory has always supplied cattle and technical support.
Following a number of delegations from the Northern Territory to Vietnam, and a Vietnamese delegation to the Territory, including a great deal of follow-up work by my department, together with industry, provided technical advice and assistance which has resulted in new feedlot construction to take Northern Territory cattle. I was present to witness the signing of an agreement to purchase between the North Australia Cattle Company and the Khan Hoa Trading and Investment Company, which was a significant milestone in the establishment of this trade and the opening of a new livestock market. I believe the first lot of live cattle into Vietnam will arrive about April.
In October 2009, I went to China where I met with officials from the Australian Embassy in Beijing to discuss a range of issues, including the resolution of the current bovine import health protocol. This is a large potential market for export cattle if this is resolved.
I recently travelled to Jakarta to meet with the newly appointed Minister for Agriculture, Mr Suswono. It is great when you hear feedback about a trip, and it is even better when you hear good feedback from members on the other side. I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the feedback he gave me on my trip to Jakarta - a very important trip considering, at the moment, Indonesia imports approximately 290 000 live cattle a year, worth approximately $180m to $190m. It is a significant market, but will be under threat especially if Brazil acquires disease-free status and starts exporting, mainly, boxed meat to Indonesia.
The meeting with Mr Suswono reinforced the importance of the trade for both Indonesia and the Northern Territory to ensure diplomatic and bureaucratic relations are maintained with this major market for our live cattle. I had the pleasure of inviting Mr Suswono to visit Darwin, especially to attend the Cattlemen’s Association AGM to be held in March.
The value of horticulture in the Northern Territory has grown significantly in the five years since 2005 when it was worth $99m. The industry is expected to contribute $224m of the Territory’s economy this year, a 126% increase over the last five years. So we must be doing something right.
The Northern Australian Land and Water Task Force was reconvened to establish better understanding of the opportunities for new, sustainable economic development in the north. Its report was released on 8 February 2010 and identifies opportunities for sustainable development throughout Northern Australia, and is likely to build on areas currently developed such as Alice Springs, Ti Tree, Katherine, the Douglas Daly region and, of course, the Ord. When it comes to the Ord, officials from Western Australia and the Territory continue to work together to examine future opportunities, particularly water planning - Lake Argyle in Western Australia and the water sources in the Northern Territory needs infrastructure to come from the west to the Northern Territory.
It is about balance, development and environmental consideration to ensure it is sustainable. Groundwater is the best prospect for boosting irrigation for farming and agriculture and mosaic agriculture - small-scale, widely distributed agriculture - is the most appropriate model for new agriculture, and we have planning under away to ensure sustainable development in the Northern Territory.
Of course, Northern Territory CLP Senator Nigel Scullion has confirmed the Country Liberal Party’s position, even though members opposite have remained extremely quiet on the task force reports. But the CLP, according to Nigel Scullion, will put bulldozers ahead of science every time.
The buffalo industry was raised by the member for Nelson. Buffalo is an alternative enterprise to cattle in the Northern Territory. The department’s buffalo industry research program has led buffalo research across Australia and has received international recognition. Research includes breeding programs to increase the availability of the Riverine-crosses that provide good quality milk, especially for the manufacturer of mozzarella cheese. Continuation of the program would depend on the development of markets that focus on farm animals, while the wild harvest food project continues in its current form.
My department of Resources has recently reprioritised funding to facilitate the increased biosecurity measures on stream. The department, in consultation with other agencies, is developing a Northern Territory Biosecurity Committee to further strengthen collaboration and coordination between responsible Northern Territory government agencies. The department of Resources has recently become a member of the Commonwealth Northern Australia Quorum Strategy Group.
In closing, we will be presenting the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy, a key initiative of this government which will focus on the progressive and sustainable development of the Northern Territory’s primary industry sector over the next five years. The key outcomes of the strategy include:
striking a balance between environment and development issues to ensure that the sector develops sustainably;
To reinforce the significance of this project, we will work with industry stakeholders throughout the Territory during the consultation phase. An issues paper has been prepared for consideration by industry and community stakeholders, and the first round of consultations are currently taking place. The development of the strategy will require significant input from peak industry associations and industry leaders. Importantly, the study will establish an ongoing process for the Primary Industry Group of my department to work in a genuine partnership with industry, not only on specific issues of concern, but to ensure ongoing involvement in business planning processes.
The department has restored an applied research program with over 40 current projects. Through the development of the agribusiness strategy, the research program will be reviewed with industry partners to ensure the strategy will achieve industry-sustainable growth potential.
Primary industry is a vital industry for the Territory. It not only contributes greatly to its gross state product, but it also has the ability to employ hundreds, if not thousands, of Territorians living away from urban centres, especially Indigenous Territorians.
Indigenous Territorians were the best stockmen in the 1950s and 1960s and they can come back now to bring land back into production, and bring kids back to the profession. I believe that would be significant development for the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute this evening to one of the giants of Territory sport, a man who devoted much of his long life to the great game of Rugby League - Aubrey Francis McPherson.
Better known as Frank, and known to his mates as Scrooge, he was instrumental in the creation of the Northern Territory Rugby Football League Association in 1950. For the next 60 years, Frank McPherson would serve the sport he loved as a player, then as an administrator, including stints as President and Secretary of what evolved into the Northern Territory Rugby League. His passion for the game culminated in the publication in 2003 of his eyewitness account, The First Fifty Years: Rugby League in the Territory.
Frank was born in New South Wales in 1924, and grew up in Newcastle, where he played a great deal of quality rugby, both League and Union, and completed an apprenticeship as an electrician. In 1947, at the age of 22, Frank arrived in Darwin. According to Frank, this is what happened next, and I quote:
- I commenced work at the local power house located in the Salonika area of the district of Parap-Parap and was after a couple of day, invited to go and watch the ‘footie’’.
Being a product of a League and Union environment I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw what appeared to be fifty-plus men and boys kicking a ball around and, to my mind and training, with no rules whatsoever.
- I was to find out later this was a game called Aussie Rules, a game I had never heard of, much less seen.
- I said to myself on that very day that this parody of Gaelic football would have to move over.
For the next 63 years, Frank stuck to his guns. In the 1950s, Frank was one of the driving forces behind the creation of both Gardens Oval and Richardson Park. In 1960 and 1964, he helped to organise matches between Darwin and the touring France side. In 1966 he helped to organise a match between Darwin and the touring Great Britain teams. The locals were leading that game 4 to 3 with 20 minutes to go when, according to Frank, the timekeeper said: ‘Mac, old mate, I am going to ring the bell five minutes from now. If we are still in front this will be the shortest game in history and they can do what they bloody well like about it’. Unfortunately, Great Britain promptly scored under the posts and the chance for immortality was lost. Britain won 17 to 7.
Up to this time, Frank had been moonlighting as the NT News Rugby League reporter. On one famous occasion he wrote that Waratahs had no chance of beating Brothers, and vowed to eat his words if he was wrong. Inevitably, Waratahs gave Brothers a flogging. At the old Fannie Bay Hotel the next day, Frank placed a copy of his article between two slices of bread, flavoured it with tomato sauce and in front of the cameras, downed the lot. It was probably just as well for Frank’s digestion that Dennis Booth arrived in Darwin in 1966 and took over the Rugby League round as part of his job as the NT News Sports Editor.
Frank maintained his links with the NT News, and whenever a young sports writer joined the paper Frank saw it as his duty to welcome the newcomer, make a few introductions and offer as much help and advice as possible.
Journalist Mick Hedger remembers Frank’s regular visits to the media box during half time of the main game: ‘He would come over for a chat, but he would make sure he was back with his lovely wife, Jeannie, before the second half started’, Hedger said. ‘He was always willing to congratulate you on a good story, and that meant a lot to a reporter who was copping a bit of flack from all those critics whose teams had lost the week before’.
Frank’s outstanding commitment to the game was formally recognised two years ago when he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to Rugby League in the Northern Territory, something I am sure his local member, the member for Casuarina, is well aware of.
Frank is survived by his wife Jean, his four daughters, Lynette, Suzanne, Fleurette and Bronwyn, and by several grandchildren, including a few Rugby League players.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our thoughts are with the McPherson family, and with the League family as a whole. They have lost a great member of their team.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I acknowledge Northern Territory recipients of the Australia Day 2010 Honours. I extend my warm congratulations to the following people for the outstanding contributions they have made to the Territory.
Lieutenant Colonel Shane Leslie Gabriel, DSC of the Australian Army was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for distinguished command and leadership in action whilst Commanding Officer, Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force One in Afghanistan.
Mr Djambawa Miniyawainy Marawili, AM appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division for service to the arts as a sculptor and painter; to the preservation of Indigenous language and culture; to arts administration, and as a mentor of emerging artists.
Private David William Cox, MG and Corporal Giancarlos Brasil Taraborrelli, MG of the Australian Army were both awarded the Medal for Gallantry in the Military Division for gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances while serving in Afghanistan.
Captain Paul William Graham, DSM, Lieutenant Jacob Alexander Kleinman, DSM, Major David William McCammon DSM were each awarded the Distinguished Service Medal Australian Army for distinguished leadership in action as officers commanding, operational mentoring, and liaison teams in Afghanistan.
Mr Brian Robert Stacey, PSM awarded the Public Service Medal Australian Public Service for outstanding public service in the area of programs and services for Indigenous Australians. Brian Stacey is well known to everyone in this parliament, and very deserving of that award.
Detective Sergeant Wendy Schultz APM and Sergeant Shane Michael Taylor APM were awarded the Australian Police Medal for their distinguished police service.
Ms Joanne Killmister ESM was awarded the Emergency Services Medal for her distinguished contribution to emergency service.
Mr Eric James Cox OAM was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division for service to animal science through the management of projects at the Beatrice Hill Research Farm and to the community.
Ms Indrani Leelamani Gunaratnam OAM was also awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community of the Northern Territory through a range of social welfare, arts and sporting organisations.
Two officers were awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Military Division Australian Army for their meritorious service, Corporal Michael Anthony Cole OAM as a Senior Combat Engineer Mentor, and Warrant Officer Class 1, Craig Thomas Howe OAM as Regimental Sergeant Major.
In the military division, Warrant Officer Anthony James Lock OAM was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his meritorious service in the field of Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft Maintenance; Corporal Simon Lawrence Majewski CSM of the Australian Army was awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements as a section commander and acting platoon sergeant within the 7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment and in the development, training and deployment of the 1St Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team.
Receiving commendations for gallantry, Australian Army were: Corporal Bernard Ronald Ryan for gallantry in action whilst in advanced medical technician in Afghanistan, and Corporal Scott Philip Tampalini for gallantry in action whilst an operational mentoring and liaison team member in Afghanistan.
Major Michael Lee Murdoch and Private Thomas Boa-Jin Price both received the commendation for Distinguished Service Australian Army for their distinguished performance of duties in war-like operations whilst in Afghanistan.
Last, and by no means least, the person very well-known for her services to our own Cabinet Office, Ms Julie Anne Nicholson PSM was awarded the Public Service Medal, Northern Territory Public Service, an acknowledgement of Ms Nicholson’s outstanding service to government in the Northern Territory. Well done, Julie, a well deserved honour!
As a Territorian, I thank all the recipients and I am sure my colleagues in the House will join me in recognising the outstanding contributions these individuals have made to Australia, and also to the Northern Territory.
Investiture ceremonies conducted by the Administrator will soon take place in relevant locations around the Northern Territory. I look forward to participating in as many of those ceremonies as I can to add my personal thanks to all the people who have been acknowledged.
I wish each and every one of the recipients all the best at their impending investiture ceremonies, to be conducted by the Administrator. Congratulations to each of you. You are all very worthy recipients of these very prestigious awards.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a number of things I have heard in the Chamber today. I listened to the member for Fannie Bay talk about housing, low-income workers, affordable housing, creating housing, policy for low-income earners. That is fine, but I want to put on the record, and will continue to put on the record, how appalled I am at the current state of housing in the Northern Territory.
We talked about low-income workers and, as compassionate human beings I believe we should give people a hand up when they need it. And I am very happy to do that and to support any policy that helps people who need a hand up, maybe not for all their life, but certainly to get them on their feet and give them the opportunity to join in what we know as mainstream.
However, there is another class of people who are slightly above the low-income workers and they are the homeless working, or the working homeless, whichever way you want to phrase it. These are the people who have jobs and reside in their motor cars at Nightcliff beach; reside in caravans in caravan parks; reside in caravans in people’s back yards; and reside in campers that normally go on the back of utilities.
Recently, a lady and her daughter came in and said the only accommodation they could get was a camper that normally sits on the back of a utility; however, it was sitting in the back yard of someone’s house, along with a couple of caravans. She was offered it for $150 a week. It is slightly bigger than a toilet, and that is where she and her daughter were going to live. When she inspected it, she found it was so disgusting she would prefer to sleep in a tent in a caravan park - and that is exactly where she went.
When we talked about creating affordable housing, the Chief Minister talked about the fastest land release in the Territory. I am really amazed, because I heard that 1123 homes are going to be built. Fabulous! However, late last year the Chief Minister said in this very Chamber that in Darwin alone, to keep up with demand, we are going to require 1700 blocks of land. And lo and behold! Now, 600 or less than that is suddenly great and fantastic. The fastest land release?
I have heard the Chief Minister say for some years now how fantastic a place the Northern Territory is. How it is going gangbusters, I believe is the term he uses. It is amazing, because what we have not seen is the planning for something that is going gangbusters. One would have thought, a number of years ago when that term was thrown around very loosely in this Chamber, that the Territory economy is expanding, it is great, we are looking at fantastic things happening - talking up the economy. Yet, here is a government that totally fails to plan on so many levels it is absolutely astounding.
People who are what we now call the working homeless are astounded they cannot find a place to rent, let alone pay the cost of rent. Hence, they live in cars. The Chief Minister bangs on about the greatest business in the last days of the previous government were the furniture removalists. I wonder what is going to happen when, one day, there is a change of government here. I would suggest there will be so many people on that side of the House, and their advisors, running for cover that the furniture business will be even busier.
Dr Burns: Do not make too many assumptions.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston, who is always having a go at us for interjecting, but feels free to sit over there and interject. That may be true, but I find these things are cyclic and everyone has their turn; it is how quick, how fast, and how many run from the truth.
We are seeing now the results of the seeds that you sow or, in this case, the seeds you do not sow. We are now seeing chaos out there, across the board, in so many facets of government that are the consequences. We have to live with this; my kids have to live with this; their kids are going to have to live with this and, on top of that, they are going to be saddled with a couple of hundred billion dollars of federal debt, as well. We see the Territory’s debt spiralling up, out of control; we see a public service that is growing daily. I believe the former member for Nhulunbuy used to talk about, only a couple of years ago - correct me if I am wrong - natural attrition and all types of things, and we find there is extraordinary growth in everything. If you had extraordinary growth and outcomes, that would be great. However, the problem is we are seeing extraordinary expenditure, extraordinary growth, and we are going backwards in relation to outcomes.
I hear the current Treasurer talk regularly in this Chamber about how much money they have spent. Apart from the fact they have had the rivers of gold flowing in from the GST, and they have far more money than they care to admit, we are still going backwards.
It is appalling when you cannot to buy a house, and you cannot rent a house, and these people become outcasts – middle-income outcasts in a capital city. I mentioned this last night, but it would appear no one on the other side chooses to pay attention, if they continue down the path they are, we will perhaps have a fly in-fly out capital city. I have never heard of one of those in the world but from what I can gather when I do get to travel and see people at the airport and talk to them, they are flying back to other places in Australia – but not just one or two of them – hoards of them.
All these things: the housing crisis we are in, we have a child welfare crisis, we have a power crisis, and we have an education crisis. It is one crisis after another. I wonder what they are really doing about it. We have a 2030 Strategic Plan – fantastic - I love strategic plans, I believe they are a good idea and we will support strategic plans; critical path planning is essential in any organisation, and especially for government. But what appalls me is the state of the play in the community, at the coalface where real people have to live and work and try to survive, where kids have to try to survive.
We only ever have what we have on loan because, at some stage, we have to surrender it to our children and them to their children. I wonder what type of place the current government believes they are going to leave the children of the Northern Territory at the end of this parliamentary term - if it gets to run its full term. If it does run its full term, in two-and-a-half years, where are we going to be? Are we going to be further in debt? Are we going to have more crises? I cannot see any great solution to the raft of problems which beset our community in the Northern Territory.
I talk to young people daily; I read e-mails coming in daily about youth and the appalling situation in which youth find themselves. I will have more to say next week, and at every opportunity I can, in relation to what we have to do for the youth of the Northern Territory. As the shadow minister for Youth and for Seniors, I do not see very much being done for youth or for seniors by the current government. Youth have all types of problems at this stage, just trying to live, trying to survive, trying to stay out of trouble. The seniors are trying to make ends meet; power is going up, water is going up, everything is going up; they cannot go out of their homes; they cannot go to the shops, and when they do get to the shops, everything is going up because of the spiralling costs. It is a very poor report card.
If we are talking about My School, we should perhaps go My Parliament, and do a score card on the government, because we would probably get Es and Fs right across the board in many areas and in many ministries.
I find the government’s attitude to these things absolutely appalling. They should be condemned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I deal with a constituent issue arising out of my electorate. I am often mystified by the arbitrariness of the organs of government. Tonight I am, once again, mystified by the organs of government and the very arbitrary and indifferent nature of the way they go about things.
I wish to deal with an issue relating to Mr Tony Maroulis of Unit 93, 8 Gardiner Street, in my electorate. To give you a bit of background: Mr Maroulis purchased a unit at that location long before the location was completed in the construction process. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter, before I proceed any further, in relation to Mr Maroulis.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Basically, the letter is from the Assistant Director of Legislative Policy, and it deals with a Principal Place of Residence Rebate Decision.
Without reading out the whole letter, in essence, if Mr Maroulis was to move into that property three years after the date of entering into the contract, he would be entitled to a rebate under the Stamp Duty Act under a particular program. That rebate was available for three years after signing the contract.
The problem is that there were circumstances beyond Mr Maroulis’ control - and I have yet to have it confirmed. I understand there may have been some problems also with the approval process and inspections required by government itself. Mr Maroulis intended to move into the property very early and was delayed in moving into the property. Despite the fact he entered into the contract on 30 November 2005, he sought an extension and was given an extension until 31 March 2009. There were circumstances that had to do with Mr Maroulis, and were acknowledged in the Territory Revenue Office letter and because Mr Maroulis was three weeks late moving into the property due to circumstances utterly beyond his control, the decision was taken to deny Mr Maroulis the rebate he sought. I find that a disappointing decision on the part of the Taxation Office.
Nevertheless Mr Maroulis tried to negotiate with them and they were quite implacable in their position. I became aware of this when Mr Maroulis came to see me, and I wrote a letter to the Treasurer asking the Treasurer to look at this matter, because I believed there was a certain flexibility built into the Taxation Act regarding these decisions. I will read out what I wrote to the Treasurer:
- Dear Treasurer, I am writing to you with regard to an administrative decision taken by the Territory Revenue Office concerning a rejection of a Principal Place of Residence Rebate (PPRR) affecting Mr Tony Maroulis of 93/8 Gardens Street, Darwin.
The circumstances regarding this decision are outlined in the attached letter. In essence there is no dispute surrounding the facts between the Territory Revenue Office and Mr Maroulis.
What is central to the matter is that the Commissioner for Revenue accepts that the circumstances surrounding the application were based on circumstances utterly beyond the control of Mr Maroulis and that there was a mere 10 day delay past the regulatory deadline of 3 years. It needs to be borne … …
I seek to correct the record: I said three weeks earlier, but in the letter I refer to 10 days, which is correct:
- … in mind that the 3 year deadline is a mere arbitrary time frame to enable the scheme to have cut off in this period. It could just as easily been four years or two.
I also note that appeals process outlined by section 113 of the Taxation Administration Act (NT) contains the following:
(1): If an objection is properly made within the time allowed under this Act, a decision maker must consider the objection and may …
And this is the important part – may.
- The presence of the word ‘may’ grants a discretionary power to the decision maker. That discretion in these particular circumstances should fall to the benefit of Mr Maroulis, who has done everything in his power to comply with the demands of the law. As a legislator, when a word like ‘may’ is inserted, it is done so in legislation to entrust administrative decision makers to rely on their common sense and wisdom to make appropriate decisions. I condescend to remind you of a quote that finds its way into the occasional administrative law case from Emerson:
- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
- The point is made by Kitto J in R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 177 at 188, who observed:
- As a general principle of law applied many times in this Court and not questioned by anyone in the present case, that discretion allowed by statute to the holder of an office is intended to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice …
I further point out that Roger Douglas in Douglas and Jones Administrative Law (Federation Press 2002 at page 508) observes:
- This means that repositories of discretionary powers err if they ‘fetter’ their discretion by binding themselves to exercise the power only in accordance with policy or with some self imposed rule.
In summary it is in this instance simple to assert that the discretionary power exists and that I would suggest it has not been exercised in favour of Mr Maroulis unreasonably.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I received, on 16 November, a reply from the Treasurer. Basically, the answer was no, and I will table that in a second. It advised that Mr Maroulis did have a right to have the decision reconsidered but, in that letter, inter alia, the Treasurer says:
- The Commissioner of Territory Revenue advises me that Mr Maroulis is ineligible for the stamp duty Principal Place of Residence Rebate (PPRR) on his purchase of 93/8 Gardiner Street as the home was not built within three years time limit set out in the Stamp Duty Act.
The act does not provide for this time limit to be extended.
I accept that; that is granted.
- Despite your suggestion to the contrary, I am advised that the Commissioner does not have the discretion to allow Mr Maroulis’ objection because the three-year limit is fixed under the Act.
I am surprised the minister all of a sudden feels that she is bound by this determination and by the structure of the act when she has shown, in the past, a positive enthusiasm for involving herself in the discretionary decisions of departments when taking matters to court. However, that is another matter.
Notably, at the end of this particular letter, I note that the minister says:
- The three-year time limit has been applied consistently in relation to determining the eligibility of other applicants. Nonetheless, the Henderson Government is currently reviewing the appropriateness of the three-year time limit.
So, it demonstrates, in the final paragraph, that the arbitrary nature of the three-year time limit is precisely that, arbitrary.
I ask the Treasurer to have the Tax Office review this decision again, and if they feel they are so bound by the legislation that they cannot bring themselves to turn a benevolent eye upon Mr Maroulis’ case, then when the Treasurer gets round to reviewing the appropriateness of the three-year time limit, that she remembers Mr Maroulis’ case, because, once again, it is a normal, average, ordinary, Northern Territory taxpayer who is copping it in the neck from a government which switches on its compassion, and switches off its compassion and discretion as one would switch on and off a light switch.
I seek leave to table the Treasurer’s response.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night I addressed the House about Australia Day celebrations in Nhulunbuy, and this evening I would like to follow up with a further story about Australia Day.
It was indeed a very special day for one of my constituents, Mr Jambawa Marawili. There was well deserved recognition for Djambawa who was included on the Australia Day Honours List and awarded Member of the Order of Australia for:
- Service to the arts as a sculptor and painter, to the preservation of Indigenous culture, to arts administration, and as a mentor of emerging artists.
Though I have only known Djambawa personally since becoming the local member, I am certainly familiar with his considerable achievements, having lived in the region for almost 20 years. He has an enormous and well-earned reputation, and respect, which stretches well beyond my electorate - a reputation at national and international level.
As a leader and ceremonial leader of the Madarrpa Clan, he carries an enormous workload in leading his people and his homeland community of Yilpara, also known as Baniyala, which is home to around 150 people. It is his leadership qualities, a combination of passion and determination with a strong sense of justice, which set him apart. His approach to life in his homeland community is actively entrepreneurial. At a time when there is much discussion around the government’s A Working Future policy in the Northern Territory homelands, Djambawa has aggressively pursed opportunities in eco-cultural tourism, in fishing and the arts and, in the last six months or so, he has also seen the opening of a community store in Yilpara. He does this not out of self-interest, but for the benefit and future of his clan, his community.
To this end, he is a strong advocate of the need for education for children and adults to enable them to function in a culturally supportive environment on country, and to have a bridge into the Balanda or non-Indigenous world, which is a bridge he crosses frequently, and this is what makes him such a strong role model and leader for this clan and community. His leadership roles are indeed widespread, with organisations such as the Association of Northern Kimberly and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists or ANKAA, the Northern Land Council, Laynhapuy Homelands and Yambirrpa School Council. It is without doubt his role as an artist, across a number of different mediums, which has launched him into the national and international arena and reinforced his leadership status.
Of course in Yolngu terms, in cultural terms, the concept of artist is inextricably intertwined with his cultural responsibilities, so it is his art which defines his leadership and delivers important and powerful messages on behalf of his people, and Yolngu people generally.
Notably, he was involved with the production of the Barunga statement, which was delivered to then Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1988.
In 1999, he was instrumental in initiating the Saltwater exhibition which saw clan leaders and artists work collaboratively to produce and share the stories of the Saltwater people of North East Arnhem Land. It was borne out of a terrible desecration of a sacred site for which Djambawa is custodian. The paintings became the medium to explain to Balanda, non-Indigenous people, the meaning and lore which are the essence of their culture, their being, and their place. Significantly, this series of paintings was the catalyst which drove the legal challenge to have ownership of sea country recognised - the intertidal zone - and culminated in last year’s decision by the High Court of Australia which ruled in favour of the Yolngu people in the historic Blue Mud Bay case, which impacts not only on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, but upon 86% of the Northern Territory coastline.
Djambawa’s impressive and lengthy list of exhibitions, including many solo exhibitions, is testimony to his place in the international art scene and his acclaim as an artist. He was winner of the prestigious National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award in 1996 for best bark painting; and he was most recently invited to exhibit at the third Moscow Biennale in September of last year, which followed a highly successful exhibition at the Art Gallery of Western Australia as part of Larrakitj, Kerry Stokes’ collection, in the earlier part of 2009.
I could think of no one more deserving than Mr Djambawa Marawili, from North East Arnhem Land, to receive this recognition of Member of the Order of Australia.
I also add, whilst on the subject of Yilpara, I was delighted to receive this afternoon, through Laynhapuy Homelands, Yilpara being the largest of the 26 or 27 Laynhapuy Homelands, an invitation for 24 March 2010 to attend the world premier launch of the Garranali Band, their album and an accompanying DVD. I have quickly responded to say yes, I will be there, and booked the time out in my diary.
I am going to make it an overnight visit to Yilpara, because I want to take the opportunity to visit the new school building. I lasted visited Yilpara late last year, and the school building was well under construction, but it is now completed; it is fitted out, and students are there.
This is a $2m investment by this government in Yilpara; it is a fantastic investment, it is a fantastic facility. In addition to the existing school buildings, there is now an extra building which houses two teaching and learning spaces, with a break-out computer room; there is a multipurpose learning resource centre with a break-out music room; there is a store room and a communications room, and here is an office. This building is fully air-conditioned and is part of the refurbishment of the existing school buildings, which are also air conditioned and had all of the louvers replaced. To top it all off, an ablutions block has been built for the school.
This school has always had good attendance, and this investment is a sign this government is committed to delivering positive outcomes for Territory students right across the Territory, and remote areas and homelands are no exception - unlike my colleagues on the opposite side who, in their 26 or 27 years as government, did next to nothing for homeland communities, let alone Indigenous students. This school now has fantastic, state-of-the-art facilities to enable it to deliver quality outcomes for these students.
I also add that this school has moved from being what is described as a homeland learning centre, where we would normally see visiting teachers spend a few nights of the week out there; this school now has permanent teachers based there. A little over a year ago, two three-bedroom houses were built at this community, which means we have teachers permanently based there - five days a week, every day of the school year we have staff out there.
With small school status came the appointment of a principal. I was delighted to learn at the start of this year that the new principal is Mr Pat Ellis. Pat was formerly Principal of Nhulunbuy Primary School and has been in China for a couple of years, I understand, teaching at international schools there. He has now returned to the Territory with his wife, Wendy, who is also a very experienced and accomplished school teacher. Pat is there as the principal and Wendy Ellis, his wife, is looking after the primary school section. Lyn McCormick, a fantastic teacher, is looking after the secondary program there and, in addition to that, the teachers are supported by tutors, including some Yolngu people from the community.
At this community, we will certainly see transformation of education for these students and state-of-the-art facilities in order to do it - a $2m investment and, across the Northern Territory this year alone, $300m being invested in remote community schools.
We have already seen the opening of Beswick and Borroloola schools, so I am delighted to see that Yilpara School is finally up and running with its new buildings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016