2015-04-30
Mr Deputy Speaker Conlan took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Darwin High School accompanied by Peter Stretton and Jen Harker. A very good morning to you, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly disallows:
1. Subordinate Legislation No 41 of 2014, Gaming Machine Amendment (Aggregate Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014; and
The government has repealed Regulation 3 of the Gaming Machine Amendment (Aggregate Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014, meaning there is no upper limit on the number of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory. The government has amended Regulation 3 of the Gaming Machine Amendment (Maximum Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014, which increased the maximum number of electronic gambling machines from 10 to 20 in hotels and from 45 to 55 in clubs. The reason for this motion is simple: these changes should not have occurred until there had been proper consultation with the community, NGOs and industry, if at all, on what effects this change would have.
Unfortunately the minister for Licensing decided to announce on Friday 12 December at 5.45 pm, two weeks after the last day of parliamentary sittings was held on 27 November 2014, that he would introduce the changes through a media released headed, ‘Electronic gaming machine reforms’. There was no discussion. I believe the government tried to hide these changes and deliberately announced them hoping everyone would be asleep that night. Thankfully, someone from the media was on the ball and the issue received some attention, but unfortunately parliament had closed down so the matter could not be properly debated. The only way to now stop these regulations from being approved is by a motion of disallowance.
This motion says we know electronic gambling is the cause of social problems in some of the population, so before the government decides to add more pokies to more than 2000 pokies we already have in the NT, proper consultation is needed. Other people agree with this. I received a letter from NAAJA which says:
Banyan House wrote:
The Northern Territory Council of Social Service also wrote a letter saying it supports consultation in relation to this issue. It recommends an open and transparent community consultation process as well.
People would be quite aware of Nick Xenophon, who also wrote to me. He said:
I would love to know how that occurred.
He also said:
There were other comments; for example, a senior research fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research, Matt Stevens, made this comment:
I will quote my statement from the Hansard, when we debated this in the previous sittings:
There are concerns out there. It is obvious to any clear-thinking person that consultation should have occurred, but it has not. The government had no intention to consult and hoped it would not happen. It has been lobbied by one of the biggest financial supporters, the AHA (NT), and the government has given it what it wants. The AHA saw a chance to make more money with the influx of FIFOs into the Territory. It knew it had friends in the government; you can see that by what has happened.
The member for Fong Lim said pubs will become more family friendly. Not everyone wants to go to a pub and listen to pokies. I do not think the government should be promoting pubs for families. Families should be out in the open playing sport. If his comment has some element of truth, it is not a reason for raising the number of poker machines.
The minister for Gaming and Licensing was reported on the ABC on 15 December as saying:
One of the strongest cases for consultation has come from Amity. Last year when the Treasurer hinted he was proposing major increases in the number of machines, Amity, which is one of our most-respected NGOs, became aware of these changes. Here is a little about Amity for if you do not know about it:
I quoted that so you can hear the words of a body of people who have many years of experience working in the Northern Territory. I am not giving my opinion, although I will put my two bob worth in; I am basing much of my argument on what Amity has said.
Amity responded to the possible increase in pokies as hinted at by the Treasurer. The opening lines of the executive summary said:
That is ten years ago; I will get on to that later.
That is according to Young et al, 2006.
Amity goes on to say:
That is community consultation.
Out of that executive summary there were three recommendations: a community consultation process; a review of the Northern Territory Code of Practice; and an independent third party to conduct social impact studies.
Amity is saying that before you increase the number of pokies in clubs you need to consult. We had a matter of public importance in the last sittings in parliament where this issue received some attention.
The minister said consultation would be done through the Director-General, who is responsible for any increase in the number or introduction of electronic gaming machines.
He also went on to talk about people who spend their money on boats and other hobbies, but I am not sure what that has to do with the social impacts which occur from the misuse of and addiction to poker machines.
He mentioned the advantage of gaming machines in communities over card games. He referred to other forms of gambling, such as betting on cane toads, and said it was all about the game of your choice. If we start making it too hard, he claimed, people will find some other form of gambling. He went on to say that people have higher disposable incomes, that they live in units and are looking for somewhere to go. He also mentioned the benefits that come through the Community Benefit Fund.
Those comments show the government has little understanding of the problem. They believe there is no need for consultation. No one is saying we should not have pokies, although in our consultation process it should still be a question. After all, Western Australia only has pokies at the casino. We already have over 2000 pokies. Must we increase the number of machines in those pubs and clubs that already have them? That is what we need to be discussing.
No pubs or clubs in Western Australia have poker machines. They are only at the Burswood casino. Perhaps the minister should note what Amity says about the Western Australian experience.
Pokies are different from other forms of gambling. I also use the pokies every now and then, so I am not someone who does not know what they look like or how to use them. You do not do anything except sit, put your money in and hope money comes out. They have bright, colourful screens, lots of pretty pictures, plenty of cold drinks close by and catchy music that sticks in your brain the next time you go into a pub. That has all been deliberately and cleverly designed to attract you to play them next time you hear your favourite tune on the pokies. Pokies are designed to attract. Betting on cane toads does not have the attraction of ten or twenty pokies.
Mr Barrett: Of course it does.
Mr WOOD: I hope the member for Blain can find someone with a cane toad gambling addiction. The minister did not mention the downsides of gambling. He did not mention possible health concerns or the effect on work productivity. Amity quotes from a range of sources:
There are also political concerns, especially where community bodies are reliant on funds from poker machines. Government would not want to reduce revenue from poker machines as those groups reliant on that revenue could be upset, especially if those funds dried up.
You only had to listen to the minister’s answer in Question Time, when he praised the extra money he would get from taxing the casino poker machines. Raising taxes this way saves the government raising money from other normal sources. One way to increase the amount of tax raised is to have more pokies so the government has to support the AHA when asking for more poker machines. My understanding is this did not come from the clubs. I do not want to put the clubs in the same basket as the pubs. This appears to have been pressure from the AHA not the clubs. These issues should be part of the consultation process and are a community debate we need to have.
One of the serious issues the minister raised is the possibility of electronic gaming machines in communities. He compares playing cards with playing the pokies. A study has been done on that, but I will not go into that yet. Communities with clubs have the right to have pokies, subject to the decision of the Director-General, but the matter is bigger than him; he is limited in what he can do. We need a broad approach, not to pick on pubs one by one. We need a broader approach to look at the overall effect of these changes.
Introducing pokies into remote communities of the Territory could have a huge social impact, far wider than playing cards. The minister is saying the money will still be in the community and kids will still be fed. That is nice, but the member for Port Darwin might agree when I say it is taking the responsibility of parenting away. They can play the pokies, which will take their money, and still provide meals for their children while they play.
There are larger social effects. Having a problem with cards does not mean we introduce some other major gambling option. We need to be very careful that we do not hide the fact gambling is a major problem, especially in Indigenous communities. We wonder why kids do not turn up for school or are malnourished. You might point the finger at gambling, especially when it goes on for the whole weekend.
The minister raised a fair point about whether pokies should be in communities, but that is where the consultation should be. We should be discussing this with Aboriginal communities. If we are to discuss it with Aboriginal communities we should be talking to the little lady under the mango tree. For too long we have talked to people who turn up in a nice shirt and say, ‘I am the boss’, but these issues go further than who is the boss. They go to the heart of some of these communities. They affect mums and dads. If we talk about introducing poker machines, especially into remote communities, we want to make sure that people who make that decision are representatives from the community and are educated about the downsides of introducing this type of gambling into those communities.
That is why you want consultation. We have a moment, if the government thinks about this, to say, ‘Stop, we are thinking about this; we will now move into consultation and discuss it.’ We have not done that.
Introducing pokies into remote areas of the Territory could have a huge social impact, far wider than playing cards. Look at the number of Indigenous people at Lasseters. In winter it is nice and warm and there are meals; you can meet other people and there are pokies. They attract the lower economic groups who can least afford to be there. The consultation process would look at these and other issues, which is why there was a cap in the first place.
I quote from the former Leader of the Opposition during that debate:
She then went on to mention the roles of casinos:
The member for Karama raised some good points about the role of Director-General and the limitations on the assessment process. She also raised some interesting quotes from the estimates, which I also heard. I was there asking some of the questions. I will quote from her Hansard comments:
Where is this consultation? Consultation means we could look at online gambling, which industry is using as an argument against this motion. They say they are losing money because of online gambling. That can be part of the discussion, but we should not kid ourselves. The pubs want more pokies because they want to make more money. Just because online gambling may or may not reduce their profits, it does not make an argument to give them more pokies.
Consultation could let us establish a proper review of gambling in the Northern Territory. The last one was done in 2006. It was called the Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey. Consultation could see whether the Northern Territory Code of Practice, which was launched in 2003, is working and having an effect. Have all the codes been put into practice? As Amity said:
I received a note today that the department started a review two weeks ago. The minister might be able to give us news on that if possible.
I have tried to highlight in this debate the many reasons we need consultation. It was promised by the member for Fong Lim in the estimates. If he goes back on his promise the government needs to step up to the plate. This world is not about money, big business, big developers, and everything being about the economy – a lot of that runs on booze and gambling. It is about …
Mr Tollner: Here we go again.
Mr WOOD: The poor old member for Fong Lim.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim is interrupting. I like to gamble. I might not drink, but I do not mind other people drinking and gambling. However, this is not the issue.
Mr Tollner: Your issue is with big business and development.
Mr WOOD: No, I have not finished my sentence. It also has responsibilities to deal with the weak and vulnerable. That is what I think is missing. Sometimes the emphasis is on that side of the economy, and there is nothing wrong with that side. There is also a downside to the economy with these changes, which means there are issues with the weak and the vulnerable.
It is fine; we need big business.
Mr Tollner: Because we believe the only way we can help them is through having a strong economy.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I believe that if the government does not support this motion, we will know what kind of government we have. This is important.
I will read out Amity’s conclusion:
It also recommends community consultation prior to decisions on an increase in community gaming machines, and a review of the Northern Territory Code of Practice.
This is an important debate. After listening to the member for Fong Lim, you realise that when having an important debate he does not have a varying view; his view is fixed. If I raise concerns about gambling and alcohol, he says I am anti-gambling and anti-alcohol. I understand why some pubs would like to have poker machines. That is an issue we need to discuss. There is a new pub in the Litchfield area which does not have pokies. To some extent it is running unfairly when compared to all the pubs nearby. Perhaps it should get 10 pokies; I am not saying it should not. Entwined in this issue is the fact you have now changed it to 20. If we only allow pubs to have 10, should we also consider whether new or existing facilities without poker machines are allowed to have some.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Those need to be discussed. Should new pubs or clubs which do not have a licence for pokies be allowed to have them? On top of that, should the already allowed 10 poker machines become 20 poker machines? It is complex and there are arguments for and against it.
I have given you strong arguments for why we need to consult. We need to be careful because we know there are issues with increasing the number of poker machines. The evidence is there from the Menzies School of Health Research. The government should put this on hold for the time being and consult, as the member for Fong Lim promised. Let us do the right thing by the community.
The industry can be involved, but it should not be a one-sided debate where the industry discusses it with the member for Fong Lim, who said in the previous estimates that we would increase the pokies by a lot more than we are talking about today. That is too cosy a relationship when you are dealing with something that has social impact. It is bigger than the industry. The industry has every right to ask for more poker machines; I did not say they should not. That does not mean the government does what the industry asks. When making a decision the government has to look far wider than just that.
I also do not think it is right to simply say we will get more money from the Community Benefit Fund and that it will be of benefit to the community through improved sporting facilities. The end does not always justify the means. Sometimes the government has to look at where it gets its money and question where we are obtaining our taxes. Do we want to increase poker machines so we get more money through taxation? What is the downside of that decision?
I place on the record that the discussion is not about whether we have more or fewer pokies. If we are going down that path, before we make any decision – and it could be that we do not have any more pokies – we must consult. We need to talk to the community, the non-government organisations and the industry because they are just as important, and have a mature and reasonable debate over this issue, which is important. It should not go through a regulatory process. We should be required to bring this to parliament before there are any major changes.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the many points the member for Nelson made to this House. First, he suggested that we are lifting the cap on pokies in hotels, which he said is not needed as we have enough in the Northern Territory.
I will give you a little background, member for Nelson. The current gaming machine cap is 10 for pubs and 45 for clubs. You acknowledge that is the current stage. Currently, only pubs and clubs which have not reached their caps are eligible to apply for new gaming machines.
You mentioned the Litchfield pub and asked if they should have 10 machines. There is a document called Gambling Harm in the Northern Territory: An Atlas of Venue Catchments, which covers your question. When you referred to the Director-General, I believe you said he is limited in what he can do. I do not agree with that. The Director-General has an enormous amount of power in relation to venues. Venues must have a liquor licence and the only way you can get gaming machines is to have that licence. The Litchfield pub, for instance, had to put in a community impact statement. I have had feedback from the industry saying this is a bit harsh. I said, ‘No, the community impact statement is what gets you the machine. You have to do a lot of work.’ It costs them a bit of money to do that.
This atlas of the catchment areas is what the Director-General will be looking at. The Litchfield pub may say, ‘We want 10 machines’. It will go through the Director-General and provide him with a community impact statement. The Director-General will look at this atlas and say, ‘There are machines just down the road. You can have four machines and that is it.’ They will use a formula to determine the oversupply of machines in a specific area. As the population grows, other venues pop up. Those businesses want to be on a level playing field and offer amenities. The great majority of the population gambles responsibly. Sure, there are a few problems; we have problems in many areas of our community with minority groups.
You said there are various forms of gaming. Electronic gaming machines are a form of gaming, as is horse racing, betting on the football, and even betting on elections; there are all sorts of things. Where do we go with gaming? You quoted a number of people, saying we should do this and that, and that we should not allow any of this. Are those people also suggesting that we shut down all forms of gaming? If there are problem gamblers in the community, the way to deal with that is through education and helping those people to not get addicted.
Whether it is horse racing, betting on elections or betting on cane toads at the Humpty Doo pub, people will find some way of gambling. It has been around for time immemorial. Responsible governments need to ensure there are education programs in place. With so many social issues, be it the Internet, domestic violence, gaming, alcohol or drug abuse, the remedy is through education. As a responsible government it behoves us to make sure we all work towards getting those education programs in place, especially for young people so addiction does not manifest when they become adults.
The reforms we have made will introduce an increase in the venue cap from 45 to 55 for clubs and 10 to 20 for hotels and taverns, effective as of 1 July 2015. The cap of 1190 machines has been in place since 2008 and is outdated. The 1190 machine figure was an arbitrary figure determined on the basis that it was the total number of electronic gaming machines in community venues at the time the cap was put in place.
Since 2008 the Territory’s population has increased significantly. Many new licensed venues have opened which may wish to pursue the option of offering gaming machines as a legitimate form of entertainment. The member for Nelson mentioned the Litchfield Tavern, but there are other licensed premises that would like to avail themselves so they operate on a level playing field and offer the same amenities as the places up the road.
Again, that is all subject to community impact statements and the atlas of venue catchments. If someone wants to build a hotel somewhere and does not have any gaming machines, but wants them, they would be strongly advised to look at this atlas and figure out whether or not it is worth building there. If they do not want gaming machines then they may have something different. The Director-General of Licensing will be using the atlas as a reference, along with many others, to determine whether or not a venue can have electronic gaming machines.
You mentioned that you have consulted with Amity, Somerville, Banyan House and a number of others you received letters from. Member for Nelson, have you consulted the industry to see what its view is? Have you consulted the AHA or pubs and clubs? What are their views? I did not hear anything in your speech about consulting the other side.
From what you have said we have a simple one-sided argument from those opposed to gambling and gaming machines. I accept it if that is what you want to do; it is fine, but there is another side to this story. People want a level playing field.
With the cap in place these people are being prevented from having that. We are restoring an even playing field so new entrants are not competing at a disadvantage. There are accepted norms in the community that people should be able to play on a level playing field, provided they fit within things such as the atlas of venue catchments.
The Giles government is committed to a balanced regulation approach to gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine will be subject to a comprehensive assessment process, some of which I have already mentioned. I mention it again because it is very relevant. With regard to community impact statements, I have had feedback from the business community and those who want to build new pubs saying it is a little harsh and rigorous.
I make no apologies to them. It is there so we have community consultation through the community impact statement process.
Perhaps we are shifting that consultation with the local community to others who may be totally opposed. Through the community impact statement in their area, some people in the community want that amenity.
It is a comprehensive process which will include community consultation, periods of public objection, examination of socio-demographic factors, density of machines and a community impact analysis. Safeguards are built into this process. Some of your points are valid, but we have addressed those through a very rigorous community impact statement process.
The Territory government has proposed amending regulations under the Gaming Machine Act as part of important licensing reforms. These changes will enable the transfer and substitution of a gaming machine licence between premises when sought in conjunction with a similar application under the Liquor Act. For example, if I was a licensee and owned a pub with gaming machines and I wanted to sell my business, I would have to make sure that when I sell the licence I am able to transfer the gaming machines. That does not happen automatically. There is a rigorous process to obtain a gaming licence and if you are not up to speed with financial management and criminal record checks you will not get the gaming machine licence. If you pass all those tests it is a simple transfer of the liquor licence and the gaming licence at the same time.
That is creating a level playing field and ensuring that if you are a business person who builds up great clientele, and you are a responsible provider of entertainment and services in the community, you can simply transfer that to another business operator.
We have ensured that if you transfer these machines from one building to another you are able to do that if the location change is as a result of landlords not renewing a lease, a building being demolished, cyclone damage and needing to rebuild, or simply move to another premises. You can transfer those licences.
The transfer of gaming machines applies when a licensed venue changes ownership but remains in the same location allowing licences to transfer to the new owner without a new application or the fees for machines being sought. That allows gaming machine licences to be transferred from one corporate entity to another in the same way the liquor licence is being transferred.
This does not mean there will be an increase in the number of gaming machines in the community. You suggested that it will go from 45 to 55 and that pubs will double the number of machines, but there is no guarantee that anyone will get extra machines. I tried to make that very clear in the previous presentation. In my discussions with people in the community I make it very clear by saying that does not mean anyone will get more machines.
You must go through a community impact statement to get one extra machine. The atlas of venue catchments is the type of document the Director-General will look at. The community impact statement, the public consultation and whatever is going on in relation to the local area where this happens all feed back into the decision-making process. A recommendation will then come through regarding what will happen with increases.
If a purchaser wants to increase gaming machine numbers, they need to apply for an increase in accordance with the requirements of the Gaming Machine Act. All of these matters relating to probity will continue to apply to the transfer application process to ensure the integrity of the industry is maintained. We want to make sure we get the right people and, for want of a better word, there are no crooks in the business.
Under these proposed amendments new owners can trade sooner, which is improving industry, government revenue and employment opportunities. We want to make sure businesses can provide legitimate entertainment services with the least amount of red tape. However, with the greatest amount of respect to our community, we want to make sure those community impact statements are maintained as robust exercises.
The substitution of gaming machine licences applies to licensees who are relocating to the new venues and want to take their gaming machines with them. That allows businesses to move. Substitution of a licence for machines to be moved to a different venue will still undergo thorough examination with regard to business acumen and financial security for the licensee, as would be required for a new machine application, including the public consultation process.
You can move machines from one venue to another but you must go through a process to determine whether it is a suitable venue. You do not want to put machines in the spare classroom at one of the schools or something like that. It must be a suitable premises, and the impact on the community must be taken into account. That is a job for the Director-General, using robust procedures.
Given that gaming machines will be put into a different venue and potentially a new suburb, the critical part of the decision-making process for a substitution application will include a community impact statement for the relative local community area. I hope that allays some of your fears; we will not allow people to put machines wherever they like and automatically go up to the recommended increased numbers.
Community impact analysis requires that the local community affected by gaming machines is examined to identify areas of concern and provide opportunity for industry to address areas of concern. Community consultation is also undertaken as part of preparing a community impact analysis.
Consideration will also be given to the density of gaming machines and the socio-demographic risk within the geographic area, in addition to other considerations required by the Gaming Machine Act. These licensing reforms will create an improved and faster approach to dealing with gaming machine licences when ownership of a venue changes hands or a corporate restructure is undertaken, and allows licences to move to alternative premises. This is about reducing red tape, making it easier to do business and cutting down the time and expense of doing business while maintaining the integrity of the industry and entertainment venues.
The proposed changes will not waive normal assessment requirements but will substantially improve processing times, allowing businesses to become operational much sooner.
I will deal with some of the issues the member for Nelson raised in relation to community consultation. In the process of implementing these licence reforms the Northern Territory government is committed to a balanced and regulated approach to gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine is subjected to a comprehensive assessment process.
It is important to ensure that everyone listening and reading understands this is not a lay-down misere or that there will necessarily be an increase in machines. The requirement of this process is community consultation, including a period of public objection prior to approval of any application for a new machine. The organisations you mentioned and people living in the area have an opportunity to raise their concerns. They can also choose to support the application. We look at the arguments for and against it. When it is all weighed up, the Director-General will make recommendations and decisions on what will happen in relation to the number of machines, if any machines go into that location.
As a component of the community impact analysis the applicant must consult with local community, including amelioration organisations such as Amity, Somerville, Banyan House and any other groups which help not only gamblers experiencing problems with electronic gaming machines, but those experiencing problems with horse racing, cane toad racing, or whatever their gambling of choice is. It is an important part of these amendments. In addition to the community impact analysis requirements each application will also need to be advertised, providing another avenue for community input into the process.
A number of issues were raised by the member for Nelson, including NAAJA’s concerns about Aboriginal communities. He also spoke about some of the things I have previously said in the House about this matter. Those are real issues. I do not know who the member for Nelson has spoken to in relation to this, but I have spoken to people who live in or have spent many years in communities. I am sure the member for Nelson, who has lived in communities, is aware of the gambling problem that has existed for many years in Aboriginal communities, not just in the last year or two.
I told a story about something that happened three or four years ago in a community. I will not mention the community because it might focus on the person. A 12-year-old girl was involved in a card game and won $22 000, and within an hour the drug dealers had that money. She was running around with a big bag of dope, giving it to her girlfriends who were between 10 and 14 years of age, and who were smoking the dope. Those who have worked in communities understand the problems there. Young girls intoxicated through drugs are very vulnerable. This is where we have issues with sexual abuse, personal safety, personal hygiene and a range of other issues.
You spoke about my comments on putting pokies in communities. It is very difficult. When you talk to people who live in communities and then talk to police officers there, they will tell you the card games are big. The people involved get out of control and do not know where they are. My view is to shift people from under the trees and into licensed premises.
As you rightly pointed out, kids get fed there, but then you said we are taking away parental responsibility. You should talk to the Minister for Children and Families, who in the last couple of days has spoken about the issue of parents who do not look after their kids, do not feed them and sexually abuse them. Introducing gaming machines may be a way of getting kids fed. If those parents are not feeding those kids, what are we to do? Are we to say it is not our problem? The fact remains it is our problem and we have to deal with it.
In the process of implementing the licence reforms the Northern Territory government has committed to the balanced approach of regulations of gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine is subjected to comprehensive assessment processes specific to the communities in which the gaming machines will be located. A massive amount of consultation needs to be undertaken. What might the lady under the mango tree want? My understanding is that a grandma is sitting under the mango tree, and she is raising her grandchildren and great-grandchildren because the parents are doing things they should not be doing. As a former police officer I am aware of that and it is sad. One of the things announced in the budget was neighbourhood activity centres. I would love to talk to you about that because it is a fantastic initiative developed over fifteen years of my life. It is the realisation of a dream of preventing that type of stuff, but time does not permit me because once I start on that subject there is no off button. I will not continue in that vein.
You talked about people sitting under trees – Aboriginal grandmothers come to my electoral office. I have had two grandmothers in my office who are of the Stolen Generation. I will not use any names, but they are high-profile Stolen Generation women. I have known one of them for 26 years. As a school-based constable I did a lot of work with her children and she is very grateful for the work I did to pull the kids through. She came to me with her friend, who had trouble with her kids and is now having trouble with her grandkids. They advocated that we take some of these Aboriginal kids away from their families and put them in care, because the drug abuse, lack of education and other problems caused by irresponsible parents is getting beyond a joke.
These two women were part of the Stolen Generation. They came into my office advocating that we do that again and I was pretty stunned. I have known this lady for many years; she is a friend, she rings me from time to time and we talk about a range of issues. She is one of the down-to-earth mothers, now a grandmother struggling with her grandchildren because one of her kids is off the planet. Many of the people she knows are in the same or similar situations.
This is an issue that starts in communities and people then move into town. These are the things the Director-General has experienced and witnessed in his life in Aboriginal communities. We are well aware of those issues and we are earnest in our efforts to change the trends.
The pros and cons of additional gaming machines are examined in the community impact statement and are all part of the application process. The document requires that a community affected by gaming machines is consulted with and examined to identify areas of concern and provide opportunity for industry to address those areas of concern. As a result of these licensing reforms there will be increased funds available to non-government organisations through the Community Benefit Fund. You may have heard in the budget that we are getting another $8m out of the casinos. We are putting the casinos on a level playing field with pubs and clubs and they must contribute to the Community Benefit Fund.
Service providers like Amity, Somerville, Banyan House, as well as any other organisation which works with problem gamblers or is in involved in harm minimisation, will benefit from this. A small percentage of people are problem gamblers; the majority of people are responsible gamblers, be it horse racing, cane toad racing or electronic gaming machines.
As a result, to ensure we have a balanced approach the government is investing over $2m in the gambling amelioration program, which provides funding support for the key people I just mentioned. These services provide vital ongoing harm minimisation and treatment services for people affected by problem gambling.
The government also is reconvening the Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee with a view to developing training materials for venue operators and staff, and developing and coordinating harm minimisation campaigns to enhance the compliance of venues.
The committee will also look at the Responsible Gambling Manual and consider how a multi-venue self-exclusion program may be developed to run in the Northern Territory. A multi-venue self-exclusion program is a harm minimisation measure to ensure problem gamblers can self-nominate to be excluded from multiple venues. We hope that will come to fruition because that will work in favour or people with an addiction.
The Northern Territory Code of Practice for Responsible Gambling is a key harm minimisation measure which requires venues to implement responsible gambling practices. This code is currently being reviewed along with the Responsible Gaming Manual. These measures will assist gaming venues in taking steps to encourage customers to gamble responsibly. It is intended that all of the strategies work together to minimise a potential increase in harm from additional gaming machines.
It may be that in one area there is a saturation of gaming machines; this atlas of venue catchments will demonstrate that. People come from certain areas to go to a venue. If you go to a club and drink hopefully you do not drive, but instead take a cab. If you are living in a new area and have to go all the way up the hill and up to 5 km to get to a venue – people may want to have a venue in their own back yard. Some may not, but the community impact statement will look at that.
In relation to increased density, availability of electronic gaming machines and increased problems associated with gambling, the policy recognises strong links between problem gambling, property crime and social problems, such as poverty, domestic violence, child neglect and alcohol and drug abuse. These are issues the Director-General will take into consideration.
The Northern Territory implements harm minimisation strategies to mitigate the risk associated with increased availability of electronic gaming machines. These include the recently introduced levy on applications. This is an important first step in preventing and limiting the entry of new machines into the market from opportunistic venues seeking to make a quick dollar. There is a fee attached to these machines.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that an extension of time be given to the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: These levy applications were purposely made expensive so people do not say, ‘I will have another dozen, thank you’, like you are buying a bunch of bananas.
The community impact analysis is a robust process, and people complain about it being too hard. We do not apologise for that, but must allow people to submit the application and take it from there. They have to go through some rigorous stuff; they need to think about how much money they want to invest in the process, so they must ensure they do their homework. Again, this is about the atlas of venue catchment areas. The Director-General may say, ‘I will not give you any more machines because it is saturated’.
If you want to build new premises, open a new pub or something similar, you will not be able to if that is what you want in your hotel along with other services which you provide.
If the Litchfield pub wants to do things on its own it is entitled to ask. They can ask now, whereas before they could not. When there is a cap in place there is no level playing field. We opened a level playing field. It is about giving people the opportunity to go through the process, which is fair. If I say you cannot do something because other people are already doing it, you can say, ‘Hang on, that is not fair; that is not a level playing field.’ It does not matter whether it is electronic gaming machines or any other form of business.
Liquor licences and gaming machines are regulated. You must go through a robust process and it is fair for the community to expect governments to do that. It is what we are doing. All of the measures we are taking, including the review of the code, the reestablishment of the committee and the multi-venue self-exclusion programs, will assist gaming venues to take steps to encourage customers to gamble responsibly.
In addition to harm minimisation strategies, revenues from electronic gaming machines are returned to the community through hotel contributions to the Community Benefit Fund and contributions to clubs, the local community and local sporting groups. As a result of these reforms there will be an increase of funds available for non-government organisations through the Community Benefit Fund. To ensure a balanced approach, the Northern Territory government is investing over $2m in gambling amelioration programs through the Community Benefit Fund, which provides funding for key communication providers such as Amity Community Services, Somerville Community Services, Banyan House and a number of yet-to-come small groups providing services to those with gambling addictions.
These services provide vital ongoing harm minimisation and treatment services for people affected by problem gambling. As you mentioned, fortunately it is a minority of people in our community who have a problem.
I remember being a very young detective in this town, prior to the casino being built at Mindil Beach. For the interest of Richard Margetson on ABC, I remember the Mindil Beach caravan park; I went there a few times to lock some troublemakers up.
Before the casino was built, I remember doing raids on gaming houses around the place. If you think people have an issue with money at the casino, you should have seen some of these gaming places. I will not mention the ethnic group that used to run them. During those raids I was stunned at the amount of money lying around. This is going back 30 to 34 years ago. It was amazing.
Gambling has been around for time immemorial and it will not go away. How do we best control it so it does not get out of hand? Some of the wives used to give us information about where those people were and what was going on, because those people were spending all their money on gambling. They had a problem. Sadly, there were no amelioration programs in those days. Amity and Somerville are not like they are today. Those services were virtually non-existent. These people still had a gambling problem with card games.
I am sure some of the people from that area may now have a gambling problem at the casino. But the casino is very careful, and I am sure pubs and clubs are the same. They watch their problem gamblers. Through the revision of the gaming manuals and training packages they identify good staff and train them to identify these problem gamblers and make suggestions to them.
On the issue of increased demand on services, government plans to meet the demand for health, social, legal and broader community sector services. Revenue from electronic gaming machines is returned to the community through hotel contributions to the Community Benefit Fund and the contributions of clubs to the local community. That includes footy jumpers and socks, new goals, hockey sticks, basketballs and netballs.
People who use electronic gaming machines responsibly, as well as other forms of gambling, are contributing to their community. That is the majority of people. We have services available for those who struggle with an addiction. There are also services for people who struggle with addictions to other things. I do not know whether there are services for women who are addicted to shoes. I know a couple of women who are addicted to shoes and fashion. I do not know if there are any counselling services available. They might like to apply through the Community Benefit Fund for a grant for those who are addicted to those types of things.
Some blokes are addicted to fishing and they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on new fishing boats and lures that cost $20. They go through 15 a day because they do not know what they are doing. People are addicted to all sorts of things and we want to help them all through the Community Benefit Fund. I encourage them all to go to www.nt.gov.au/cbf and put in an application for some money from the Community Benefit Fund. As a result of these reforms extra dollars will be going in, especially with the new levy on casinos. The community amelioration programs, through the Community Benefit Fund, will provide help to people who find themselves addicted to all sorts of things.
I will respond to a couple of points made by the member for Nelson. Gambling occurs in so many areas in our community. I wonder which ones people want to stop. If you stop one, do you stop the others? It does not matter what it is; I am sure most people in this House would agree it is about educating people. We need to be in schools as well as clubs educating people on the harms that can come from addiction. It does not matter whether it is gambling, drugs or anything else. It is about education and ensuring through this process of the Community Benefit Fund we can provide training and education.
I hope I have made the point clear that the Director-General has a very important job to do. There are some very robust tools at his or her disposal to ensure it is not a free-for-all, and that the concerns you have raised are dealt with in the deliberations as to whether or not a venue will receive an increase in gaming machines, or if a new venue will get any gaming machines at all. It is something the government has thought long and hard about. It is about giving people a level playing field and the opportunity to apply, as opposed to saying, ‘No, sorry, you cannot have it’.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition thanks the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the Assembly. The opposition supports this motion.
We have been consistent in expressing our concern about the CLP government’s long interest in significantly increasing the number of gaming machines across the Territory, clearly driven by tempting revenue opportunities for government. We have been consistent in expressing our concern and reflecting community concern about the government’s approach to more gambling machines in the Territory from the first hints of the plans exposed in the estimates hearings last year, as we heard today.
Last year our now leader, the member for Fannie Bay, made our position clear by saying Territorians deserve to have a say in important decisions such as the increase in the number of gaming machines. In the absence of any community consultation on CLP plans to lift gaming machine numbers, he said last week that we simply do not believe we need any more.
From day one this government said it would be open, transparent and accountable. It was one of the CLP’s five core promises to Territory electors. Too many times Territorians have heard that slogan and seen actions which reflect the complete opposite.
On this specific issue the CLP has not been open and transparent. As recently as December last year, the then Minister for Business said all applications for gaming machines would be subject to tough community-based assessment processes, but we still do not know how that would work. In line with usual practice, with the sale of TIO and preparation for the sale of Power and Water, as well as through the development of these regulations, the government has quietly gone about paving the way for more gaming machines.
A responsible government would seek broad community comment on the plans for change, be honest and up front with the community about its intentions and invite a debate in this Assembly on this matter. This government has failed the accountability test and the regulations subject of this motion should be disallowed. This is not about denying responsible gamblers access to gaming machines; it is about the way this government does business and the need for consultation before producing regulations increasing gambling machine limits. This is about consultation and proper debate with our community.
Before this change the Territory already had the highest proportion of poker machines in the nation. The numbers were significantly higher at 12.9 machines per thousand people compared to the average of 11. On this side of the House we are aware that many in the community are concerned about increasing the number of gambling machines, and the misery suffered by many families.
When this was first flagged last year I was approached by community members who raised their concerns and wanted to know our point of view. We know from research and evidence that gambling machines are extremely addictive. They put people in a trance-like state. The member for Nelson spoke about research that shows venues hosting more poker machines have people who hear the music and associate it with winning. They are influenced to want to share in that so they keep gambling.
We all have stories about problem gamblers, such as people who get paid and by the evening the pay is gone. We need to take this debate seriously. We need to understand the consequences of introducing more pokies across the Territory and to hold proper debates and consultation. From the many voices across our communities we understand that people are concerned about more poker machines. I want to hear from those members opposite, especially the bush members. Have they spoken to their communities about this increase?
We have heard from far and wide, including Gibson Farmer, Chair of the Tiwi Land Council, who told ABC radio in July last year that he did not think it would be a good idea to introduce poker machines into communities:
The previous Labor government, in 2008, heard the voices of concern and sought to strike a responsible balance, which established a cap of 1190 machines across the Territory. The figures show that Territorians lost $68m on 1181 poker machines in pubs and clubs during 2013-14, an amount equalling around $57 000 per machine. The Territory has the highest proportion of machines per 1000 people, so when we look at the facts and figures we should be alarmed. We are not having proper community consultation before potentially allowing more poker machines across the Territory.
As the member for Nelson said, the last Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey was undertaken in 2006. It found that 90% of respondents believed the number of gaming machines should be reduced or stay the same. That is the only comprehensive report documenting community attitudes towards gambling. If the government was genuine in its belief that we should have more poker machines, why would it not take the time to do a proper consultation report? The evidence from the last report shows that people did not want more poker machines and the community feels we have enough. The member for Nelson articulated all of that, but I am not sure the minister understood. Research shows that problem gamblers are more likely to play poker machines than any other form of gambling, and evidence suggests the electronic form gets you into a trance-like state where you zone out and hear the music in the background.
We have concerns regarding the movement of poker machines and with the sneaky way the government announced these plans. At the beginning of the Christmas holidays last year the government quietly announced its intention to raise the number of poker machines in pubs from 10 to 20 and in clubs from 45 to 55. The regulations before us make that possible.
One of the disappointing parts of this, but an increasingly familiar feature of this government, is what the CLP says and what it does being two completely different things. Territorians were previously told by the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer and then Minister for Business, that one of the recognised principles for a socially responsible gambling policy is community consultation, where affected communities play an important role in contributing to the cost benefit analysis.
It is great for the current Minister for Business to tell us these poker machines will create more revenue, meaning there will be more in the Community Benefit Fund for our sporting clubs, but where does that money come from? It comes from Territory families who are already struggling with an addiction. You are making it easier for them to gamble more of their pay when they should be supported and using those funds to support their families.
In estimates last year the member for Fong Lim, as the minister responsible, said:
It seems there has been consultation with the industry, so where is the community consultation? When he was pressed on the timing of that public consultation, the member for Fong Lim said:
That is a case of the cart before the horse. Come up with figures and then do some pretend consultation, so it looks like a good thing. He went on to say:
No public consultation has taken place outside consultation with the hospitality industry.
We have spoken about support agencies that work with problem gamblers and their families. In my community people involved with the church are involved in programs, and they came to me as soon as they heard about this. They did not hear about it through proper consultation with the government, but because the opposition and the member for Nelson raised concerns in the media about the impacts on our community. People are struggling.
Where is this consultation? The attitude of consulting with industry, checking what they want and then speaking to the community is not the right way to go. There was a balance. We already have an extreme issue in the Territory, the highest proportion of poker machines in Australia, and we have an increase in the revenue on those machines. We have concerns and we need proper research and evaluation.
Anticipating the government to have such plans in mind, Amity Community Services prepared a submission which detailed a range of research. The member for Nelson has spoken about this today. The submission indicates the outcomes of the 2006 survey undertaken on community attitudes to gambling in the Territory – the NT Gambling Prevalence Survey. In that survey over 90% of respondents said gambling machine numbers should either decrease or stay the same. The latest hard data says we do not want more and, if anything, it should go backwards. Where did this sudden change to have more come from?
The report went on to note that, as you would expect, while the community clearly recognises the enjoyment many people derive from gambling, many people remain sceptical about the overall community benefits of the activity. In his response today, instead of the minister listening to the concerns this motion highlighted and the need for genuine proper community consultation, he tried to sweeten it all by talking about the Community Benefit Fund. That is not the right way to look at it. We need to look at the impact of gaming machines in our community.
Quite some time ago, in 2006 – it would be good to see an updated report – 71% of respondents disagreed that electronic gaming machines do better than harm within the community. That is an overwhelming response.
Experts from Amity work on the front line and deal with problem gamblers and their families day-in day-out, trying to support and help them deal with a very addictive habit. Amity’s submission said that before any changes to the 2008 cap of 1190 machines, we should see a community consultation process. We should see a review of the NT Code of Practice, more attendance to compliance, better links with service providers to help problem gamblers, stronger focus and support staff to respond to red flag gambling behaviours in their venue, and independent third parties to conduct social impact studies.
All of those points are valid; we need to see the consultation and a review of the Code of Practice.
Amity feels that some compliance issues should be addressed, linking the service providers to the problem gamblers. Sometimes gamblers realise they have a problem, but they are not sure how to seek help. It is very important. People tend to go to the same venue time and time again so they get to know the staff. Amity believes in a stronger focus for staff in those venues as well as mechanisms where they can try to help people or at least provide options.
Amity has raised some valid points, yet there has been no public response from the government to any of these recommendations. Amity’s submission pointed out that in other jurisdictions proposals to expand access to gaming machines can include a six-week public consultation period; however, the minister today indicated a community risk-based assessment process for new machine applications.
We have not heard the detail; they have been silent on that issue. One must question why that detail is not available. Why was it not developed ahead of the government’s expansion plans on poker machines across the Territory? Today the minister talked about cutting red tape and making things quicker and easier. We must be careful in the rush to cut red tape, and ensure we do not cut community consultation.
In a different realm, with planning issues generally the pink signs only go up for a couple of weeks. People feel that in a two- or three-week time frame they do not get time to be aware of the issue and express their genuine concern. I think Amity’s recommendation of a six-week public consultation period makes sense. It would have been interesting for the minister to address why that detail has not been made available to Territorians.
We feel there should be a minimum independent process for allowing community consultation input in relation to key decisions in this social policy area, not just consultation with the businesses that will benefit. Amity has a great deal of experience in this area and its recommendations were sound. We do not understand why the government would not address those and work with one of the core support agencies for problem gamblers.
Independent research has time and time again detailed the risks. More machines mean more problem gamblers. The effects of gambling are huge; the minister spoke about some of these, such as financial stress, family breakdowns, impacts on employment, increase in risky behaviours, problem gamblers trying to deal with their financial issues. We need to address those and make sure we have proper supports in place if we are to have more machines across the Territory.
I will quote from a recent NT News report stating that Tass Liveris, President of the NT Law Society, was concerned about:
He is in a fairly significant position within our community, highlighting concern about the direct links between problem gambling and huge social problems. We know child protection is a growing issue, as is alcohol and drug abuse. We need to not just listen to those who want more poker machines, but to have this proper consultation so we can hear the expert opinions and the views of people who deal with this on the front line.
Homelessness services in the Territory tell us that gambling is one of the three primary causes of homelessness. There are huge social impacts and we have had no consultation on this change in policy. From all of the evidence and the community voices, it appears we are comfortable with the number of machines we have. If anything, there should be a reduction. But the government has not allowed proper community consultation to take place. We see this repeatedly and Territorians want you to listen.
Across the Territory many Indigenous community members and leaders are concerned about family members being trapped in the cycle of gambling, which affects their capacity to return home. Having gaming machines in communities would in turn provide easier access. There are serious concerns about introducing poker machines into communities. I want to hear from the bush members opposite about what they think. Have they been consulted? Are they aware of this policy shift? They will be aware when these poker machines start turning up in their communities and cause a huge impact. We would like to hear from those members about what consultation has taken place with their communities.
The current Business minister said, ‘There is still a lot of consultation to do with people out in remote areas where you know if they want to introduce gaming machines or gambling out of remote areas that is a whole different discussion’.
How can we believe there will be any consultation and that independent assessments will take place in those remote areas when we have not seen broad consultation across the Territory?
It is clear that the government is not taking the wellbeing of the community into account on this issue. If government genuinely believes the community needs more poker machines and that it is acceptable, we would see an open, transparent and detailed consultation process. Perhaps we would see another Gambling Prevalence Survey, considering it is nearly 10 years since the last survey. We have clear evidence that the government is putting profits before people, which is extremely disappointing. It is putting opportunity for revenue before our community and people …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Nightcliff be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: We on this side strongly feel that these regulations should be disallowed and the CLP government should return to a broad-based consultation plan across the Territory community.
It is important to note that not only are we looking at expanding poker machines across the Territory, we have seen a cut to Amity from the federal government in support services. We do not know the details of other cuts. We are looking at introducing more poker machines without evidence or research to show there is a need for them or that we have the proper supports in place.
It is concerning that we will see an expansion of electronic gaming machines across the Territory. We have not had proper community consultation or debate. We need to have a detailed survey, such as the Gambling Prevalence Survey. We need to engage families and communities which may have never had poker machines before. Have we engaged those communities as a whole? We need to engage the support services and make sure we are making the right decision for Territorians.
We strongly feel that the CLP government is not taking into account the wellbeing of our community; it is focused on the revenue that would be generated. We heard it today when the minister was endlessly listing the things people could receive from the Community Benefit Fund. It was as if he was saying, ‘Here is a big present, but you must get through something else first’. People will focus on that. We need to make sure we get this right. The member for Nelson and I have talked about the figures in detail. Territorians already spend a huge amount on electronic gaming machines, and we have the highest proportion in Australia of poker machines per person. We need to get this right because the effects will be huge across our community.
I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this today. We support his disallowance motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her support, as well as the opposition.
I listened carefully to what the minister had to say and I agree with a lot of it. I thank him for his contribution. I am not here to knock the government, but I need to straighten up a few things.
This debate about whether we should disallow these changes is not about me saying there should not be any changes. The only way to debate the fact there should be consultation around this issue is to put it on hold. I did not say there should not be any increase in the number of poker machines. I said this is a serious social issue and it should have a period of consultation before the changes come into place. That is the crux of my argument.
It is disappointing that the Treasurer, in estimates last year, promised there would be consultation. In the Hansard, Mr Gunner asked:
The Treasurer replied:
There was a promise during estimates that he would consult with the community. That has not occurred. I ask the government to stick by its promise to consult with the community. What annoys me is that these changes were introduced just before Christmas, late on a Friday night. That was done so most people would not know about it. We were promised by the Treasurer that there would be consultation. It was clear in the Estimates Committee; it was a promise made by the government. It did not occur.
Mr Styles: It did. I went out and spoke to people.
Mr WOOD: One of the major institutions dealing with the effects of gambling, especially electronic gambling, Amity, has not said that.
I spoke to them and Banyan. I ask the minister to get hold of Amity’s paper. It was in response to the Treasurer saying he would increase the number of machines in pubs by 30 and double the number of machines in clubs. The title of the document is Availability, density and size of venues matter in the context of increased harm: A response to a possible increase in EGMs in our community. I will quote from the executive summary:
Before I introduced this motion I spoke to Amity. There has been no consultation. I accept that the Director-General has powers to look at individual pubs and see what the effects might be. We have an atlas of venue catchments; terrific. Where was the consultation to say this is government’s intended policy? We could provide input into whether that was all the Director-General should look at. Should the Director-General look at other issues? Where is the community input into the Director-General’s decision-making about a pub? I presume there is some way that people can give their opinions about these things.
Mr Styles: It has to be advertised.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but the consultation I am asking for is to raise those issues and give people the opportunity to talk about the government’s way of dealing with an increase in the number of pokies. What is the government’s program to look at whether electronic gambling would be better than card gambling in communities? What is the potential effect of the increase at my pub from 10 to 20? The evidence is as I stated before. Matt Stevens from Menzies School of Health Research, referring to the increase in the number of poker machines, said:
I do not want the government saying, ‘Gerry Wood said there should not be any more poker machines’. Gerry Wood did not say that; he said, ‘Before you go down this path you need to consider all the implications, and before you do that you should consult, as promised by the then Treasurer’. He promised that there would be consultation. I do not know if the consultation was with two members of the government in a phone box, or whether it was amongst themselves, but it certainly was not broad consultation with the people who needed to be involved. NAAJA sees some of the results from people who have previously had gambling problems.
I need to make it clear that all I was asking was to hold off on this and set up a process which allows the community to discuss the issue. You spoke about my mention of the pub at Litchfield. I did not mean the Litchfield Pub, by the way. I was trying not to name it, but it does not have poker machines so it will not be hard for you to find out which one I meant. To be fair, if that pub wants to be competitive with the other pubs in the area then it should be able to apply for poker machines. I understand why there is a need to lift the aggregate number of poker machines. At the same time, you have changed the rules saying it will go from 10 to 20. However, I have evidence to say if you increase the number of pokies in a pub you will increase the number of problem gamblers.
Whether you agree with me and the experts or not, those are the issues we should talk about. The important and fundamental issue is that you have introduced something which can have a detrimental social impact on the community and you did not give opportunity for community input.
As stated by Amity, the number of people who said they did not want change was approximately 70%. They were happy with the current number of machines and did not want any more; some want to decrease the number of machines. That may not be realistic with new licensed premises, but it annoys me.
I understand what you said about the Director-General; I understand that he will individually assess each application. You have an atlas of venue catchments, which is great. I have faith that the Director-General understands these issues; he would not be in the job if he did not. But we have gone two steps down the road before the community has discussed the bigger picture. That is what I have been trying to say.
You asked if I discussed it with the AHA. The AHA has discussed it with the Treasurer. It is a very powerful lobby group which helps fund the CLP and has helped fund the ALP. The AHA has lobbied the government for more poker machines. I spoke to the owner of one pub which does not have any poker machines, and I explained what I was doing. I explained that the issue was not about whether it should have more pokies or not, but about the community having a chance to discuss that. He did not seem to have any concerns about that.
The government has consulted with the AHA, but has it consulted with the community? No. The relationship between the government and the hotel industry is too comfortable and too close. You as a government have an equal responsibility to make decisions which also protect the weak and vulnerable, not the big business side of town. Not that you should not deal with those people; pubs and clubs are a part of our life. I live 20 m from the pub next door, so I go there a lot. Pubs are a part of our life, but it does not mean they have a biased approach or their views outweigh the rest of society’s views. They have an important role to play in industry, employment, recreation and social life; that is an important part of the Northern Territory. It does not mean the government should do everything they want.
The government should say, ‘Okay, we have heard your suggestions of more pokies and we know it will cause some social impacts, therefore we will take this issue into the community and have a broad discussion about what the Australian Hotels Association wants to introduce’.
In the end you might come back and say that you will allow more poker machines in pubs, to which I would say at least you have consulted and have a process which might cover some of Amity, Banyan, NAAJA and Somerville’s concerns. We do not know that until we have the consultation.
I will get back to the crux of the issue; whether you agree with having more pokies or not, and whether you accept what I have spoken about today regarding this, I believe there are issues because I have been talking to people who deal with this all of the time. It is important that we at least emphasise the fact there are problems.
Regardless of that I ask that before you make these major changes, stick to the promise that the Treasurer made:
Obviously his form of keenness is very small because it has not happened in the community. That is why I want the government to support this motion. Disallowing it does not mean there will not be more pokies, it just says, ‘Stop for a minute and think, and we will consult with the community’. That is all what this is about.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill and related budget documents, and to appoint a Government Owned Corporations Committee for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation, with reference to those corporations’ Statements of Corporate Intent for 2015-16.
I believe this to be utterly uncontroversial. The timing issues will be sorted out in the committee processes. The argy-bargy surrounding the formation of Estimates Committees historically has now dissipated into understood conventions by all members in this House. I expect the motion will pass before lunch.
I could be wrong, but I do not believe there will be much further debate. I place on the record my expectation and hope that we have a good estimates process which provides information to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, yes, the opposition is looking forward to the estimates process again this year. It is an opportunity for us to carefully look at the performance of the government and its agencies, not just the issues to do with funding and the budget, as well as the overall performance of what is happening in those departments.
It is important for Territorians to know there is an opportunity for the opposition and the Independents to scrutinise the budget and the performance of government through the estimates process. It allows for a more open, transparent and accountable process in examining how government is functioning. In some ways it is a health check of the performance of government.
We are looking forward to asking many questions of those ministers through the process. Last year there were some changes to estimates to ensure we had set times for the process; overall that worked out far better for everyone. I hope this year we do not see long opening statements or Dorothy Dixers thrown in by the government to chew up and waste valuable time, therefore taking away the ability for opposition and Independents to ask important questions as we scrutinise the government’s performance.
We will ask questions concerning health, education, child protection, what is happening in the bush, and how the Territory economy is poised to go forward post-INPEX, which is an especially important time. We look forward to scrutinising the new government-owned corporations, Jacana Energy, Territory Generation and the Power and Water Corporation. This will be the first year they can provide full and complete Statements of Corporate Intent.
We look forward to the estimates process and hope it is a good, open and transparent process for the benefit of Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a very sad occasion for me because after 14 years of being a part of estimates this year I may have to excuse myself. I probably will have to receive counselling about this. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in this parliament, I am going to Canada this year and I can only go during that period. One reason is during June it will be about 8 at the highest temperature. Any other time of the year it might be freezing cold, but I explained yesterday what I will be doing there.
Unfortunately this means I will not be at the estimates, but the member for Namatjira will take that role. I will not sit still between now and estimates. The member for Stuart was worried, but we need an Independent in the Estimates Committee to ask questions that the Labor Party does not ask. I will prepare questions in the meantime which will hopefully be answered succinctly.
One process within estimates that could be changed is regarding the many written questions and answers sent and received. The answers should be sent back and the people on the Estimates Committee can then choose which questions they want to deal with in more detail, especially the generic questions. The CLP was good at that, with questions such as, ‘What was the thickness of the carpet on level five, room 61?’ and ‘How much floor space in Highway House was set aside for the board room?’ They were really exciting questions.
Many of these questions were not highly relevant. If people want to ask those questions, it would be better if the answers came back before estimates started. That way, people who want more detailed responses or want to question the government on why they are renting floor space in a building, they can ask a minister with some knowledge behind that. This would circumvent the generic side of estimates, which can be boring. That is a suggestion that might change things.
I am disappointed I will not be at estimates. I am one of those strange people who enjoy estimates, as it gives me the opportunity to question ministers about what has occurred in the previous year. It is the only time we can question ministers about their annual reports, whether those programs have been successful and what the outcomes were. It is an important part of our democratic process. The member for Namatjira can hold up the independent side of estimates well.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we break for lunch I direct your attention to the yellow ribbons on your desk. It is requested that they be worn by members of parliament in support of 2015 National Road Safety Week. This year’s yellow ribbon Drive So Others Survive campaign runs from 1 to 10 May 2015 and invites all road users to participate by sharing road responsibly, protecting vulnerable road users, especially those who work on roads to assist and protect us, and honouring those who have lost their lives or have been injured on our roads. We will wear those this afternoon.
The Assembly suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee report, Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill.
Territorians have been experiencing high fuel prices for a number of years. Whilst fuel prices in the Territory are expected to be above the national average, in 2012 the prices started to rise significantly due to increases in the retail margin. In response to retail prices peaking in late 2014, the government held a fuel summit in October and invited industry stakeholders to explain what factors were driving Territory prices to such extremes.
The fuel summit did not reveal the reasons behind the increased fuel prices; however, it marked a beginning in a correction in prices. Following the fuel summit the government introduced the draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill for comment and the Assembly established a select committee to inquire into the draft bill and determine its effectiveness in informing consumers about fuel prices and promoting price competition.
The committee received five submissions and heard from seven organisations at a public hearing. The committee identified a number of issues for the draft bill, and in its current form the disclosure requirements will add an administrative burden or red tape to retailers in the industry. These costs are likely to be passed on to consumers and there is the potential for commercially sensitive information provided by retailers to be made publically available.
Under the draft bill retailers are not required to be consulted about information that will be published and they have no administrative appeal avenues if they disagree with the commissioner’s publication decisions. There are considerable legislative powers delegated through the draft bill which are not subject to any parliamentary oversight. These rule-making powers have the potential to significantly impact on a person’s rights and are not subject to disallowance by the Assembly. This is a matter of serious concern.
In addition, any fuel price disclosure legislation introduced to the Assembly should be subject to a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to businesses, community and government by the regulation impact unit.
Since the fuel summit, fuel prices in the Territory have dropped significantly. There has been increased scrutiny of the fuel industry, in part through the committee’s inquiry as well as through the ACCC’s investigation into fuel pricing, which is currently under way in Darwin.
The retail fuel market is now responding to upward and downward changes in wholesale prices. Darwin fuel prices are more in line with national averages than they have been for several years. We will have to wait and see whether the reduction in fuel prices in retail margins are sustained once the fuel industry is no longer in the spotlight.
In light of the current ACCC investigation into the Darwin fuel market, along with reductions in fuel prices over the past six months, the committee has recommended that the government should not pursue any fuel price disclosure legislation until the findings of the ACCC investigation are released later this year. This investigation should provide Territorians and the government with a much better understanding of what is happening in the Darwin fuel market. In the event the government decides that legislative intervention is necessary after the ACCC investigation, the committee believes the draft bill should be reviewed in line with recommendations contained in this report.
I thank the committee members who took part in this inquiry, especially the members for Blain, Drysdale, Arafura, Johnston and Nightcliff, as well as the member for Daly who was on the committee for a short period. I also thank the committee secretariat, Russell Keith, Elise Dyer, Lauren Orrock and Kim Cowcher for all the hard work they have done. I hope I have not missed anyone. It might be a small report to some, but it required extensive research and a great deal of understanding of the fuel industry in the Northern Territory with regard to how fuel pricing is determined.
I hope this important report by the committee will be looked at seriously by the government. I again thank the committee and its secretariat for all of their hard work.
MOTION
Print Paper – Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce amendments to the Justices Act and the Sentencing Act which will reform the way that summary criminal matters are progressed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. On 28 August 2013 I made a ministerial statement in this Assembly on the Pillars of Justice framework, and more specifically the part of the Pillars of Justice framework that dealt with the reforms to the summary criminal procedures called Swift Justice. I have pursued this matter since that time and it is close to my heart.
That ministerial statement outlined the key measures in the Swift Justice Reforms, which were:
1. new preliminary briefs of evidence to provide early prosecution disclosure – this has been done
2. summary case conferences between the defence and prosecution to identify the issues in dispute
3. statutory sentence indications.
The statistics we have about court outcomes in the Northern Territory demonstrate a number of key points. Firstly, and not surprisingly, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction determines the vast majority of criminal cases in the Northern Territory. The Supreme Court deals with only a small percentage, being the most serious and heinous of crimes. Secondly, the majority of defendants whose matters are adjudicated by the court and not withdrawn, that is, over 80%, eventually plead guilty to charges in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Thirdly, following from that, only a very small percentage of matters – around 3% to 5% -- are finally determined in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction by way of a contested hearing.
Anecdotally, however, it is understood that a large proportion of the defendants that plead guilty do so at a late point in time, often after a hearing date has been set. This means that there are, in the meanwhile, numerous unnecessary court mentions requiring attendance by defence and prosecution alike.
There is no legislation which comprehensively deals with summary procedure in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There are currently two practice directions which govern case flow management of summary matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, soon to be called the Local Court. The first is the practice direction made by the former Chief Magistrate in 2010, which put in place what is generally known as the contest mention system. This practice direction is still in effect in Alice Springs and in other places where the court sits, other than in Darwin. It was in place in Darwin until approximately March 2014.
The contest mention system requires that where a defendant indicates that he or she will plead not guilty and contest a summary matter a full brief has to be prepared as a matter of course. Once the brief is prepared, the parties are expected to discuss the matter between themselves to identify what evidence is required to be called at a contested hearing. At the contest mention the parties are required to hand up a contest mention form to indicate that the discussion had taken place. It is common practice for parties to hand up separate contest mention forms because they had not discussed the matters set out in the form.
As I outlined in my ministerial statement, the number of contest mentions far exceeds the number of contested hearings listed and the number of hearings that proceed and see the light of day. This means that matters are listed for contest mentions and contested hearings where there is no genuine dispute. Additionally, Northern Territory Police noted a significant increase in its workload following the implementation of that practice direction in preparing full briefs of evidence, even where a narrow range of issues was in dispute.
As I stated in my ministerial statement, following the introduction of the contest mention system the number of contest mentions rose by 38%, but correspondingly the number of hearings listed rose by 6%. In practical terms that meant police had to prepare an extra 700 full briefs of evidence for only 47 extra hearings. This represents a significant amount of wasted resources.
Following my announcement of the Swift Justice Reforms the then newly appointed and current Chief Magistrate, Dr John Lowndes, recognised the shortcomings of the contest mention system, and expressed a desire to put in place a new practice direction to overcome the problems with the contest mention system earlier than legislative reform could be achieved. Therefore, in April 2014 the Chief Magistrate put in place a practice direction which was largely consistent with my original proposal to provide for a system of preliminary briefs, and a summary case conferencing between the defence and the prosecution. This practice direction is only in effect in Darwin on a trial basis.
I understand that with much of the contest mention system, as the summary case conferences are voluntary, the indication is the defence and prosecution are not engaging in those conferences on a routine basis. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. There is also the well-known problem of the defendant who will wait until the day of the hearing to see if the victim will turn up to give evidence. It is sometimes known as the ‘wait and see’ defence. This is a particular problem in domestic violence cases, where often the victim will be intimidated by their family or community and eventually resile from giving evidence.
If the defendant waits until the day of the hearing to plead guilty, the defendant has required the attendance of all witnesses, including the victim who is already traumatised by the entire experience, and other witnesses who are required to be brought to court and even flown in from remote areas at great cost. The defendant has also required the court to allocate its valuable hearing times and resources to a hearing that will not proceed on the day.
The background to this bill that I have just outlined represents a culture of un-cooperation and inefficiency. This bill is intended to encourage a change in culture and in a system which is cooperative, efficient, fair and which upholds the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial, however, does not extend to wasting the resources of police, prosecutions and courts. The change needs to be implemented by prosecution and defence lawyers alike.
The Chief Magistrate is to be commended for bringing about a change in the Darwin Court of Summary Jurisdiction to overcome some of the issues of the contest mention system, and for bringing procedures into line with the procedures I am introducing today.
I am aware that a number of stakeholders would prefer to see that the procedures and practices of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction continue to be regulated by the practice direction. However, not all of the measures proposed to be implemented in the bill can be dealt with by way of a practice direction. For example, there needs to be a statutory basis for the sentence indications and the defence disclosure requirements.
With the greatest respect to the Chief Magistrate, I do not think a practice direction can go as far as the measures can in this bill. Nevertheless, the Chief Magistrate has been extensively consulted in the development of the bill introduced today to ensure its workability, noting that some matters in the bill represent policy decisions of this government rather than approval of the Chief Magistrate.
This bill is the result of a significant amount of work and research. In formulating the initial model for the reforms we looked at other jurisdictions and the legislation they have, over the years, implemented to encourage efficiency and early resolution. The government is not going out on a limb with this bill. Most jurisdictions around Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have put in place legislative procedures in the criminal courts to encourage efficiencies and reduce delay in backlogs, with varying degrees of success.
As I stated in the ministerial statement, the bill is based in part on the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, which has provisions for preliminary briefs of evidence and sentence indications. In 2012-13, following the implementation of its reforms, Victoria saved over 19 000 civilian witnesses, 27 000 police shifts and 45 000 court hours. The number of cases in Victoria is much larger than the Northern Territory, but nevertheless this represents a significant saving.
Recent research suggests an efficient case management system is one where the guilty pleas are entered early, and the earlier the better. For example, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council in its 2007 report entitled Sentence Indications and Specified Sentence Discounts: Final Report noted that efforts to improve efficiencies in criminal procedures have targeted matters that resolved in a guilty plea late in the process.
The Australian Institute of Criminology found that the late guilty pleas were the single most common reason criminal trials do not proceed on the day of their listing. Further, there are efficiencies to be gained where a hearing proceeds. Court dates for hearings should be set on the basis of an issues-focused hearing. What I mean by an issues-focused hearing is one that is focused on only the issues genuinely in dispute, not one where all the issues are said to be in dispute, but then the contested hearing is only about a self-defence or identity issue.
The key aims of the new Division 2A comprising the new procedures are set out in the new section 60AB of the Justices Act and are to:
There has been extensive consultation on the reforms I am introducing today. Throughout the development of the bill the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has been working closely with the Chief Magistrate, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Northern Territory Police. I am grateful for those agencies’ as well as the Chief Magistrate’s cooperation, as well as the constructive advice he has given me in relation to this bill.
In May 2014 the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice released a consultation bill and brief discussion paper to external stakeholders, including the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, the Central Australia Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and the Law Society Northern Territory. Representatives of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also met with stakeholders in Darwin and Alice Springs.
In response to the consultation, a significant number of responses were received expressing a range of views, positive and negative. Overall the consultation was both constructive and instructive. I thank our legal professional stakeholders for their constructive comments on the bill. Not all of their suggestions have been incorporated. However, all comments have been given due and fulsome consideration.
Further, in October 2014 I asked the former Victorian Supreme Court Judge, Professor Hon George Hampel AM QC, to conduct a symposium with stakeholders in Darwin and Alice Springs via video link. Professor Hampel, who is now a Professor of Trial Practice and Advocacy at Monash University, provides advocacy training through the Australian Advocacy Institute and came to the Northern Territory in early 2014 to provide a bar reader’s course, in which I participated. Professor Hampel is not physically a large man; he is now 82 and he has never been a large man in his life, but his presence is wonderful. There are not many people in the world that intimidate me, but Professor Hampel is one of those who do because he is so smart.
Professor Hampel presented a simple proposal for how matters should be managed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction with particular focus on an issues identification and directions hearing, where there would be a frank discussion between the prosecution, defence and magistrate about the issues which were genuinely in dispute, with a view to ascertaining what information the defendant needed to decide whether to plead guilty if appropriate, or to narrow the issues for a future contested hearing.
As a result of the consultation conducted in May 2014 and Professor Hampel’s symposia, the bill was amended including the following key changes.
Firstly, the summary case conferences, which was part of my initial Swift Justice proposal, was replaced with an issue identification and directions hearing to be conducted by the magistrate, who would ensure the parties complied and conducted constructed discussion in order to progress the matter efficiently.
Secondly, the graduated sentence discount scheme which was in the consultation bill was removed. This was a scheme adapted from similar South Australian provisions whereby if a defendant pleaded guilty at various points in time in the progress of a matter, the defendant was entitled to receive a discount up to a specified maximum, with that maximum decreasing closer to the date of the hearing. All stakeholders raised concerns about this scheme, particularly on how it could be practicably implemented in bush courts, and the parity issues relating to matters which mandatory sentencing applied. One aspect of a graduated sentence discount regime was retained, which I will explain in a moment.
The sentence indication scheme was drafted in more detail as to how it is to operate.
I now turn to explain the key elements of the bill. The new section 60AC provides that the new provisions in the Justices Act must apply only to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. During the extensive consultation undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice it became readily apparent that a one-size-fits-all approach would not likely succeed in the Northern Territory and some allowance needed to be made for the bush circuit courts.
Thus, new section 60AC(2) provides that the Chief Magistrate may give a practice direction to provide for procedures in other locations in the Territory where the court sits. If a Chief Magistrate does so, the practice direction must be consistent with the objects of the new Division 2A in section 60AB, and must adopt the procedures of new Division 2A as far as practicable.
The bill provides for a new preliminary brief of evidence which is intended to replace the former prcis of facts. The version of this document has already been implemented by the Northern Territory Police and disclosure by preliminary brief is a requirement under the Chief Magistrate’s practice direction in Darwin.
The preparation and service of the preliminary brief under the new sections 60AD to 60AF of the bill will ensure the prosecution case is disclosed to the defendant within seven days of the first mention of the matter in court.
The preliminary brief must contain a copy of the charges; the alleged facts on which the charges are based; a list of proposed witnesses, including a description of the evidence they are expected to give; a list of potential exhibits; copies of statements; copies of electronic records of interview; and anything else that is relevant, available and required to be disclosed. It is also intended that the preliminary brief must contain not only the facts alleged, but also an indication of what evidence the prosecution has to support those allegations and the offence charged.
This is the statement of facts in clause 60AF(1)(a). This represents the key difference between the former prcis of evidence and the preliminary brief. The former prcis only contained allegations and no outlines of evidence.
It is important to note this is a preliminary brief, that is, it requires disclosure of what the prosecution has or knows about at the time of its service. It is not the only disclosure obligation on the prosecution, and it is not intended to bind the prosecution to evidence in the preliminary brief if further evidence comes to light during the progress of the matter.
My understanding from practitioners in the criminal jurisdictions on both sides of the bar table is that the implementation of a preliminary brief by the Northern Territory Police in the last year has been a very positive move. By disclosing the prosecution case early in the process, the defendant and prosecution will know the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and it provides the basis on which the matter can be finalised as early as possible.
At the first mention, if the defendant does not plead guilty, the matter will be set down for a directions hearing not less than four weeks after the first mention. The purpose of the directions hearing is to set out a new section 60AH, and it is to identify the issues that are and are not in dispute and the steps required to progress the matter. At the directions hearing, the prosecution and defence will be expected to cooperate and discuss the matter frankly with the court. The prosecution will need to identify what further evidence is still outstanding, such as a forensic certificate.
The parties will need to give an estimate of the length of the hearing if the defendant is pleading not guilty and indicate any pre-hearing orders that they will seek from the court. The defence will need to indicate if they intend to rely on an alibi or expert witness. The defence will also need to disclose what issues are in dispute, with a view to narrowing the issues to facilitate the resolution of the matter in a guilty plea, or to narrow the issues for a contested hearing so the time allocated for the contested hearing is shorter and focused only on the issue or issues in dispute.
Under new section 60AD(3), the purpose of the directions hearing will be facilitated by the requirement for the prosecution to file a copy of the statement of facts with the court. It is intended that the magistrate who conducts the directions hearing will read from the statement of facts and be armed to be proactive in ensuring that the parties are cooperating. For example, a magistrate with a statement of facts outlining allegations about an assault could ask questions of the defendant as to whether the identity is in dispute or whether the issue is self-defence.
The new section 60AK states that where a defendant indicates an intention to plead guilty at a directions hearing, the court is able to accept the plea and sentence the defendant or adjourn the matter for sentence hearing on another date. The court may also make orders for the further progress of the matter, such as setting a time frame for further disclosure of information by the prosecution, and further issues to be raised by the defence.
At the completion of the directions hearing, the new section 60AK(4) requires the matter to be listed for a contested hearing or other directions hearing if one is required, or both, as the court sees fit. There should not be a further directions hearing listed as a matter of course, but only if the magistrate considers it a necessity.
The intention of the bill is to reduce the number of unnecessary appearances, reducing delays and costs to all parties involved. Nothing in these procedures prevents the defendant from applying to a court at any time to list the matter for the purpose of pleading guilty. Nor does anything in these procedures prevent the prosecution from applying to the court to list the matter to withdraw the charges should that become necessary.
The new section 60AP requires the prosecution and defence to confirm with the court seven days before the hearing that they are ready to proceed with the hearing on the set date. The expectation is, at that point, all parties are prepared for the hearing, summonses for witnesses have been served and outstanding issues have been ironed out ready for the hearing to proceed reasonably and smoothly.
It will no longer be good enough for a lawyer to look at the brief the night before the hearing and proceed on a completely different basis than as discussed at the directions hearing in front of the magistrate. The point of the directions hearing is for the preparation to be done at the front end of the process, not the back.
The new section 60AS ensures that the prosecutor’s duties of disclosure at common law are not abrogated by any of the new provisions. Those duties are well ensconced in the common law and it is not the intent to interfere with settled law. However, the bill introduces three new defence disclosure obligations.
First, the defendant is required by the new section 60AG to disclose the particulars of any alibi they may have seven days before the directions hearing, if they intend to rely on one. This ensures the police can conduct appropriate investigations on the alibi and obtain any statements before the directions hearing.
Second, the defendant will also be required under the new section 60AM to provide written notice to the prosecution of any expert evidence, or any objections to any document or evidence the prosecution intends to call at the hearing, 21 days before the date of the hearing. For example, if a defendant made admissions in a record of interview, but the defendant argues that the interview was not admissible, the basis for the objection should be discussed and considered by the parties well before the date of the hearing.
Third, under section 60AJ, at the directions hearing, the defendant will be required to disclose what issues are not in dispute and what issues are. The issues not in dispute will often be easiest to identify. The requirement to disclose the issues in dispute requires the defence to take instructions and prepare. It does not require the defence to disclose or jeopardise how they run the defence at a contested hearing, nor does it infringe upon the right to silence or the presumption of innocence.
As Professor Hampel stated at his symposium, a good advocate will be willing and able to comply with this requirement as it limits the scope of issues the defence lawyer has to focus on, and on which to develop a case theory. It allows for a truly adversarial hearing, as the real issues are disputed rather than superfluous and tangential issues. It also encourages early pleas in appropriate cases or the prosecution to withdraw the charges in hopeless cases.
New section 68AQ sets out the consequences for failing to comply with a defence disclosure requirement. On application by the prosecution, a court may order an adjournment for the defendant to comply with a disclosure obligation, the prosecution may make investigations and the court may allow the prosecution to call further evidence as a result of the disclosure. Section 60AQ only applies to defendants and notably it does not apply to the prosecution. This is because the bill provides for new obligations on defendants, whereas section 60AS ensures that the prosecution’s disclosure obligations and consequences of non-disclosure at common law are not abrogated by the bill.
This bill also introduces a system of sentence indications in a new subdivision 3. A sentence indication is defined in the bill as ‘an indication given by the court under section 60AT, of a sentence that the court would likely impose on the defendant’.
The new section 60AT will allow a defendant to apply to the court for an indication at any time during the proceedings, but not within seven days of the contested hearing. The court will be able to indicate whether the court would impose a sentence of imprisonment, another type of sentence, if a mandatory minimum sentence would apply or if exceptional circumstances exist under Part 3, Division 6A of the Sentencing Act, which provides for mandatory minimum sentencing for assaults. This will allow the defendant to consider whether he or she will plead guilty at that point in time. They do not have to plead guilty; however, it may be in their interest to do so, as generally the earlier they plead guilty the more likely the court will see the early plea as a factor in mitigation of their sentence.
To give a sentence indication, the court does not have to conduct a full sentence hearing. But under the new section 60AU the court must consider a statement of agreed facts, the defendant’s criminal record and a victim impact statement or victim report if available. The court may also have regard to any other relevant information available at the time.
The key principles behind the sentence indication scheme are, first, if the court gives a sentence indication and the sentence indication is accepted where the defendant pleads guilty as the result of it, the court cannot impose a more severe sentence than the sentence indicated.
Second, the sentence indication is only binding on the magistrate who gave it and the corollary is that only the magistrate can withdraw it.
Third, only the magistrate who gave the sentence indication can sentence the defendant if the defendant pleads guilty as a result of the indication.
The new section 60AW provides for circumstances where the magistrate may withdraw a sentence indication. The magistrate may withdraw a sentence indication where the defendant has not pleaded guilty as a result of the indication within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will be determined by the magistrate.
The magistrate may also withdraw a sentence indication if information comes to light which would lead a court to impose a more severe sentence than the sentence indication. This is necessary to avoid forcing a court into error where the sentence indication does not reflect the seriousness and circumstances of the offending. If the defendant has pleaded guilty in relation to the sentence indication and the magistrate withdraws the sentence indication, the court must offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea.
The other provisions relating to the sentence indications provide for further detail, including in the new section 60AZB, which states that when a sentence indication has been given the court is able to give a further sentence indication if the court is constituted by the same magistrate and there has been a material change in the circumstances. Also, a new section 60AZC allows another magistrate to step in where the magistrate who gave the sentence indication is unavailable for an unreasonable period of time to sentence the defendant.
Additionally, the sentence indication application and the sentence indication are not admissible in proceedings under section 60AX.
Under section 60AY the ordinary rights of appeal on sentences of both the prosecution and defendant are retained.
Finally, the bill makes an amendment to the Sentencing Act to encourage compliance with the new provisions, even where the matter is contested in a hearing. The new section 5(2)(ha) will allow the court to take into account the extent of the defendant’s compliance with the new procedures in the Justices Act when sentencing the offender. If the defendant complied, even if he or she defended the charges in a contested hearing, the court may look positively on the defendant’s behaviour and factor that into the sentence. The bill also introduces other measures into the Sentencing Act which are intended to encourage early guilty pleas where appropriate.
The new section 108A of the Sentencing Act will require a court to make clear what discount it gave a defendant on account of an early guilty plea for a summary matter. This is to promote transparency and send a message to all defendants that if they plead guilty early they will benefit from a discount.
Further, a new section 123A will preclude the court from giving a sentence discount on account of a plea of guilty if the defendant pleads guilty within seven days of the date of hearing. The exception is where the defendant could not have pleaded guilty earlier, such as where the prosecution changes the charges. As I mentioned earlier, seven days before the hearing the parties are to inform the court that they are ready to proceed with the hearing, so they are expected to have prepared their case and discussed all of the issues prior to that point.
These reforms will go a significant way towards addressing practical and cultural issues of the criminal legal practice in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. I realise most stakeholders have not seen the bill in its current form and the bill looks different to that which was circulated for consultation in May 2014. The bill is, in essence, the same policy apart from removing impractical provisions and replacing summary case conferences with directions hearings.
Nevertheless, in order to offer stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the technical aspects of the bill, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice will circulate the bill to stakeholders for any comments they may have. Any issues that need to be addressed can be dealt with in the committee stage of the bill.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the Northern Territory sentencing provisions are clear, concise and meet the expectations of the community in promoting fair and just sentences for those found guilty of a criminal offence.
The bill includes amendments to both the Sentencing Act and the Youth Justice Act to address an ambiguity identified by His Honour Justice Hiley in the Northern Territory Supreme Court decision of Waters v James [2014] NTSC 37.
In that case His Honour noted that the wording of section 57(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act, when read together with section 53(1), is ambiguous and may lead to inconsistent applications of section 57(1) of the Sentencing Act by the courts.
The ambiguity identified by Justice Hiley concerns the use of the words:
This is in section 57(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act. Those words allow section 57(1)(b), when read in conjunction with section 53, to be interpreted in two different ways.
First, which I will refer to as ‘interpretation one’, section 57(1) applies to the subsequent sentence only. Under this interpretation for section 57(1)(b) to apply, the subsequent sentence must be able to have a non-parole period fixed, that is, it must be a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more, and the sentencing judge or magistrate must propose to set a non-parole period for that subsequent sentence.
Second, which I will refer to as interpretation two, section 57(1) applies where an offender is serving a sentence where a non-parole period has been fixed and is subsequently sentenced on other matters to an additional term of actual imprisonment before the end of the non-parole period. On being sentenced to a further term of imprisonment, the court is then required to fix a new single non-parole period in respect of all the sentences, regardless of the length of the subsequent sentence.
The intent of section 57 is to enable a court to fix a new single non-parole period that takes into account the current and prior offending of an offender and hence enable the court to set an appropriate and just total sentence.
Limiting the operation of section 57(1)(b) to subsequent sentences of 12 months imprisonment or more deprives the court of an opportunity to fix a single non-parole period and, without any apparent reason, differentiates between sentences of less and more than 12 months imprisonment. In Waters v James Justice Hiley found it appropriate, given the current wording of section 57, to follow the 2006 Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Queen v Bortoli which supports the application of interpretation one. However, His Honour recommended that consideration be given to amending section 57(1)(b) by removing the words, ‘in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’ so the second interpretation is applicable.
Unless the Sentencing Act is amended the continued application of interpretation one will impede the ability of a court in ensuring a just and appropriate sentence is handed down. This could lead to manifestly excessive sentences as a person sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, while already serving a non-parole period for other offences, may spend longer in prison than somebody in the same circumstances who has committed a more serious offence and has therefore received a lengthier sentence to which a non-parole period may be fixed. The bill will amend the Sentencing Act and the Youth Justice Act to ensure that interpretation two is applicable in the Northern Territory.
This bill will also address an additional ambiguity concerning the wording of section 53 of the Sentencing Act, and the interpretation of that section by the courts. The courts have interpreted section 53 as precluding the fixing of a non-parole period for sentences of less than 12 months. However, the provision simply states the circumstances where a court must set a non-parole period and does not expressly prohibit the courts from setting a non-parole period for sentences of less than 12 months, or sentences that are suspended in whole or in part. This bill amends the Sentencing Act to expressly prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period in such circumstances.
The bill further amends the Sentencing Act to provide an exemption to that prohibition in circumstances where an offender, who is serving a term of imprisonment for which a non-parole period has been fixed, is sentenced to a further term of imprisonment before the end of the original non-parole period. In such circumstances the court will be required to fix a new single non-parole period for all the sentences the offender is to serve or complete. This will permit the application of the totality principle in sentencing and promote a fair and just total sentence. This is consistent with interpretation two, as I previously mentioned.
The bill also amends the Youth Justice Act to address similar issues to those in the Sentencing Act. The bill will also repeal the definition of ‘non-parole period’ at section 85(3) of the Youth Justice Act and inserts an amended definition of the same term at section 5(1) of the Youth Justice Act.
I will now explain the substantive clauses of the bill in greater detail. Clause 4 amends section 53 of the Sentencing Act by inserting a new subsection (1A). New section 53(1A) will, subject to section 57, prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period where it imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than 12 months or a term that is suspended in whole or in part.
Clause 5 amends section 57 of the Sentencing Act by repealing section 57(1) and inserting a new clause that is consistent with modern drafting practices and terminology, and omits the words ‘in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’.
Clause 5 also inserts a new subsection (1A), which states that the court must fix a new single non-parole period in respect of all the sentences the offender is to serve or complete. Clause 6 amends section 59 of the Sentencing Act by repealing section 59(2). Section 59(2) provides for the suspension of one term of imprisonment so that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment may be served in the order prescribed in section 59(1). The amendments to section 57 prevent the occurrence of circumstances triggering the application of section 59(2) and that subsection is repealed.
Clause 7 amends section 108(4) of the Sentencing Act by substituting the word ‘centre’ and the bracketed words following the word ‘centre’ in the section for the word ‘facility’. This amendment ensures that the wording of the Sentencing Act is consistent with the wording of the Correctional Services Act.
Clause 10 inserts a definition of ‘non-parole period’ in section 5(1) of the Youth Justice Act.
Clause 11 amends section 85 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 85(3) and inserting a new clause that states:
Clause 12 amends section 87 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 87(1) and inserting a new clause that is consistent with modern drafting practices and terminology, and omits the words ‘in respect to which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’.
Clause 12 also inserts a new section 87(1A) which states that:
Clause 13 amends section 130 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 130(2). Section 130(2) provides for the suspension of one term of detention or imprisonment so that a subsequent term of detention or imprisonment may be served in the order prescribed by section 130(1). The amendments to section 87 prevent the occurrence of circumstances that trigger the application of section 130(2), and the subsection should be repealed.
Finally, transitional provisions for this bill in relation to the Sentencing Act and Youth Justice Act are provided for in clauses 8 and 14.
I now commend the bill to the honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the members for Karama and Barkly together be referred to the Committee of Privileges, pursuant to Standing Order 83, for the following reason: upon the recommendation of Mr John Lawler, who conducted the inquiry into Stella Maris, authorised by this House and so empowered to conduct an inquiry into the attempted transfer of the Stella Maris building to Unions NT applying to the members for Karama and Barkly together.
This reference to the Committee of Privileges may also attend to the matter of affidavits that were lodged in support of the statement of issues and contentions, which are currently the subject of criminal investigation.
Further, I move that this motion be held over in its entirety from further debate until the criminal matter is either completed or discharged by way of investigation, or subsequently dealt with by a court.
There are essentially three limbs in the matter before us, and it is important that we step through each one of those limbs independently so we are clear on what is being proposed and argued today.
The first limb I intend to deal with is the matter relating to the Lawler inquiry and is based specifically around five findings in the inquiry. Those findings are numbered one, two, eight, nine and 10.
In finding one, Mr Lawler found that:
Finding two states:
Finding nine states:
And finding 10 states:
Given the limited time I have available to cover what is a substantial motion, I will pause briefly on this part of the reference. It is clear by the language used by Mr Lawler in putting these recommendations together that he had turned his mind to the Code of Conduct, which he referred to in one of the earlier recommendations.
The Code of Conduct essentially has two schedules placed beside it and deals with a number of issues. The principles of ethical conduct fall under four main headings: integrity; accountability; responsibility; and the public interest. It then goes on in Part 2 to describe the nature of what that is. It is clear from the language found in the second schedule of the Code of Conduct that the commissioner was turning his mind to these issues. Section 11 creates a public interest test with two limbs: that the belief was genuine, which is what he ascribed to the member for Karama; and it must be honest and reasonably maintained.
There is nothing we can see in the findings from the Lawler inquiry to show that any reasonable person could honestly and reasonably believe that the conduct of the members for Karama and Barkly, at the time, were in accordance with the expectations of the Code of Conduct, which deals with the four principles I just mentioned. At this point, however, this matter will be held over by virtue of the structure of this motion.
It then steps us through a process where the member for Barkly is no longer a passenger on this vehicle, because the next part of the process takes a moment to explain.
Upon reading the transcripts of the various submissions made to the Supreme Court, one starts to become clear about what transpired and what was planned by Ms Lawrie, the member for Karama, Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr. It was a matter of reliance on a letter I have not seen – for the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to see it – which was written by Mr Lawler to Ms Lawrie on 17 February. That letter was relied upon by Ms Lawrie to begin a process of claiming they had been given procedural unfairness in the matter of the Lawler inquiry. This is very important because this is at the heart of what occurred and what has led to adverse comments in the Supreme Court in relation to the member for Karama.
How the plan would be hatched – and this plan is described in an e-mail which was circulated on 31 March. That e-mail is referred to on page 69 of the decision, where they were going to claim procedural unfairness because of a reliance on a letter by Mr Lawler on 17 February. That reliance was going to be, ‘We thought no adverse findings would be made against us, therefore we also decided to tell Mr Lawler on 14 April that the pro bono work had dried up’. That was the plan which was put in place. It was a deliberate and political plan which was designed and constructed to create an environment where Ms Lawrie could claim that she had been denied procedural fairness. The subsequent filing of the statement of issues and contentions demonstrated that was what they were claiming.
Other aspects support that this plan was deliberately pursued, not least of which was Justice Southwood’s finding that this was the plan. Moreover, it betrays a process, something which has concerned me over a number of years about the operation of the member for Karama. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 141 of the transcript, where Mr McLure submits to the court that there was a belief between Mr Wyvill and Ms Lawrie – in some fashion – that Mr Lawler was in an arrangement with the CLP. This is clearly an allegation of corruption. For the plan to work, the court would have to find that Mr Lawler was in some way compromised and his integrity in question. This process of throwing someone under a bus would not sit comfortably with members of this House.
Moreover, part of her plan – which you can see on page 145 of the transcript, and from submissions by Mr McLure – was to decide not to offer any form of dissenting report to Mr Lawler. In this way they could keep this charade of expecting no negative comment from Mr Lawler based on the letter of 17 February. That would have diminished the quality of their proposed defence. The whole plan had been arranged, even whilst the inquiry was afoot, that they would claim they had been treated unfairly, and tell the Lawler inquiry that the pro bono work had dried up.
It was through the process of discovery that it became clear a plan had been hatched, which was identified in the Supreme Court. On the basis of that plan, affidavits were filed with the Supreme Court and a matter was commenced.
I will not trawl through all of the findings of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, but certain elements must be read into the Hansard record. On page 116, paragraph 222, His Honour confirmed that the statement of facts, issues and contentions was based on certain propositions, which were as follows:
It then goes on to a number of italicised areas. Item number seven says:
From paragraph 11 of the statement of facts, issues and contentions I will highlight this line:
Let us pause and think about what was just said from the statement of facts, issues and contentions filed by Ms Spurr on behalf of Ms Lawrie.
This was, of course, the assertion that the pro bono work had dried up. Subsequent evidence demonstrated there was no such drying up of pro bono work. It was part of the deliberate plan to create an impression of procedural fairness – which is not an equitable principle, but comes out of the administrative law environment and has certain equitable flavours – and to assert something that was not happening.
Paragraph 12 of that statement of facts and issues says:
Mr Lawler was the defendant:
It was not reasonable because evidence has been adduced, and can be found in the transcripts of the trial as well as the decision, that there was an ugly report expected from Mr Lawler.
As a consequence the following decision and observations were made in relation to the application by Ms Lawrie et al – paragraph 223 onwards:
It is a pretty damning indictment for Justice Southwood to say there was a conscious and deliberate strategy, adopted by Ms Lawrie, to abandon her participation in the inquiry to enable her to come to this court and wrongly maintain that she had been denied procedural fairness. What was being attempted was a strategy to get the Supreme Court to come to a conclusion that would not reflect the truth about what was occurring. It was only through the process of discovery that the truth of this matter had become apparent.
I now turn to the third limb of this matter, which is now under the investigation of police. I draw honourable members’ attention to the final paragraph of this motion because it seeks to be suspended, effectively indefinitely, until alleged criminal matters are dealt with. This is because in my opinion it would be unfair to ask Ms Lawrie, or any other member of this House, to discuss a matter which is still under criminal investigation.
It would be unfair to ask Ms Lawrie to respond in this House because it would either deny her right to silence, or if she chose to set aside her right to silence it would then raise more questions. In deference to the criminal justice system and its appropriateness, this motion is designed to be suspended at the completion of my opening comments.
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 76 of the transcript, which includes comments by Mr McLure during the submissions on the unfair procedure matters. On page 76 there is a telling line from Mr McLure in his submissions to the court. In those submissions he says:
That is important because it clearly demonstrates to the court and this House that up until the first day of the trial Mr Lawler’s lawyer, Mr McLure, believed the affidavits in question would be read.
That was the intent, and I draw honourable members’ attention to page 5 of the transcript from the submissions to the court.
Mr Young, representing Ms Lawrie, said:
I get the argument. His Honour replied with:
Clearly His Honour is saying, ‘Really? Do you want to do this? Okay, that is up to you.’ Mr Young then followed with the line:
The conversation goes on and it turns out not only are there new affidavits, there are 120 pages of further material, at which point Mr Lawler’s representative, Mr Maurice, sought an adjournment.
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 8 of the transcript. Mr Young, representing Ms Lawrie, said:
He went on to say:
I wonder what happened in the adjournment break, between his instructions to proceed on the basis of affidavits and the decision not to proceed.
I invite honourable members to read the whole transcript because clearly Mr Young had difficulties with the case going forward and scratched around for some pretty bare evidence to make out the case. Clearly Mr McLure had prepared his whole case on the basis of these affidavits being read out. In fact, Mr Maurice said on page 8 on the transcript:
Clearly the case focused on the statement of facts, issues and contentions, and the affidavits.
It is clear from paragraph 224 of the final decision that His Honour felt it appropriate that those statements were not relied upon. Those affidavits were not relied upon and there was not much evidence beyond what appears to have been presented to the court. As a consequence, the Lawrie v Lawler case was doomed from the outset. That is a matter of history now. His Honour handed down the now much-reported decision, especially regarding the lines I have just read out.
What concerns me, and has now enlivened a criminal investigation, is the operation of sections 109 and 119 of the Criminal Code Act, as well as a number of sections in that part of the act which deal with the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
The questions arising out of these matters invite investigation. I make no assertion of guilt or wrongdoing on Delia Lawrie’s part. I have never seen the affidavits in question. What I suspect, however, is that the contents of those affidavits may have been untrue. I have come to that conclusion following the directions and guidance given by His Honour Justice Southwood in this matter.
I do not propose to move forward with this motion today, beyond introducing it to the House, because a criminal investigation is currently on foot. It is not for me or this House to decide the guilt of innocence of any party under investigation, or to make any assertion of guilt associated with these affidavits. It is sufficient for me to write a letter to the police and ask them to simply look. It would be unfair of this House to ask any member to make comments in relation to the matters pertaining to the third limb of what we are discussing here whilst it is under investigation.
It would be particularly unfair to Ms Lawrie, Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr to play out this debate today. In an effort to be procedurally fair to Ms Lawrie and the other people affected, this matter should therefore lie on the table until such time as the police investigation has been disposed of and, if there are any subsequent criminal matters, that they are disposed of in a court of law. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Continued from 25 March 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to contribute to this important debate regarding the future of the Northern Territory’s electricity sector, which has a huge impact on the cost of living for every Territorian. Today we see another step in the government’s structural separation agenda, moving the economic regulation function of the Territory’s electricity networks from the Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory to the Australian Energy Regulator. This move has been long flagged by the Treasurer as part of his structural separation agenda. The opposition will not oppose this move; however, it raises a raft of questions around the government’s future intentions regarding the Power and Water Corporation and the new government owned corporations Jacana Energy and Territory Generation. This is broadly seen as another step towards privatisation of government owned assets, as you further align the Territory’s unique market to national rules and regulations in order to attract more competitors to the market.
Ultimately, my main concern with this legislation is what it means to Territorians and whether we can avoid further price hike pain and burden on Territory families. Earlier this week the Treasurer spoke about his hopes to see reductions in power prices. The Treasurer and members of the government know too well that a 30% power price increase was too much for many to bear. The latest round of price increases, delivered on 1 January, hit people hard across the Territory. We have heard about local media being bombarded with complaints about the latest round of price-hike shocks just as we have heard, as local members, from our constituents.
If the Treasurer was to manage a price reduction later this year it would be welcomed by Territorians; I have no doubt about that, especially given it is hurting household budgets at the moment. It is not only in urban centres; people in the bush are suffering as well.
I also assure the Treasurer that as much as people will welcome price relief on massive electricity bills, Territorians will not forget that the CLP government delivered the 30% increase in the first place under Chief Minister Adam Giles, who chose to fully implement the 30% increase to all. People will not forget this; you can expect cynicism on the timing of this happening, with less than 12 months until the next Territory election. People know you are trying to gain back favour after burdening households with huge price increases in their power bills over the last three years of your reign. The massive power, water and sewerage price increases will be the key elements your government will be remembered for.
As well as driving massive price increases for essential services, this government has also driven its structural separation agenda. It was pursued with no mandate from Territorians and there was no mention of it in the 2012 election commitments.
Along with having no mandate, the government was unable to produce any real evidence of what the benefits for Territorians would be in doing this. When I asked the Power and Water Corporation, Treasury and Department of the Chief Minister staff last year whether there was any cost benefit analysis or evidence to support the structural separation showing it would provide any gains for Territorians, none could be produced.
Part of the suite of changes under the Treasurer’s reform agenda for Power and Water included the move to the Australian Energy Regulator, or the AER, from the Utilities Commission. With the clear intention to move economic regulation functions from the Utilities Commission, one would think the Utilities Commission would be disbanded in order to avoid duplicated cost burdens on the Territory.
However, in briefings with Treasury we were informed that the Utilities Commission will need to remain and will not be disbanded with the introduction of the AER into the Northern Territory. Given the Territory’s unique conditions, this was not possible and the Utilities Commission will still operate in the Territory to handle functions the AER is unable to, including system planning.
It was also clear that the Territory would need to seek exemptions from the AER’s rules, due to the fact the Territory is not like down south where they are connected to a national grid. It was well known we have island-type networks; one covers Darwin and Katherine, and the other Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Parts of the AER simply do not translate to the Territory’s conditions.
This highlights that the Treasurer’s structural separation agenda was rammed through without the full details being sought.
As we saw this time last year, the Treasurer attempted to ram through the legislation to allow for the structural separation of Power and Water at record pace. A crisis in numbers stopped him from succeeding in the first attempt when we saw three members of his party walk over to the Palmer United Party.
In a huge rush, the Public Accounts Committee managed to get one day to scrutinise the bills. However, before the PAC report was tabled in this parliament the Treasurer rammed through the Power and Water structural separation legislation.
It was a rushed process and we still have questions about what the AER will mean to Territory households wanting their bills reduced. For example, under the AER would there be more capacity to increase tariffs? Will this mean additional regulatory burden, given there will be two bodies in the Territory working in this area? How much will these changes ultimately cost?
The government has still not confirmed the real cost of the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. These figures will be pursued during estimates.
The move to the AER raises similar questions about the costs of bodies of work that have gone into heading in this direction, and the fact we now see two bodies working in this space.
The Treasurer wants to see many private operators in the Territory’s electricity market, as his view is that it is the best way to drive down prices. In other jurisdictions where structural separation has occurred, we have seen that prices go up, reliability goes down and assets are often privatised.
The Treasurer is very clear that he wants more private operators, and in his view the move to the AER would be another step towards encouraging this. In my view, it raises more questions about the government’s intentions for the future of the assets that remain as easy pickings for the private sector if the government decides to go there, for example, Weddell Power Station or the Owen Springs Power Station.
One needs to ask if the move to the AER is a way of the government attracting interstate or international players to buy up our assets. Is this another step in the pathway to privatising important electricity assets?
There are also questions under this package of reforms about the changes seeming to be driven out of Power and Water and Territory Generation. EBAs are currently under negotiation; it will be interesting to see what happens to the pay and conditions for staff. EBAs play a very important role in this industry given the issues that could be negotiated to enhance workplace safety, and given the nature of the work Power and Water and Territory Generation staff do. Safety should never be compromised.
There are some deep concerns within the workforce about increased outsourcing of jobs that were traditionally done by the Power and Water workforce. Feedback on the matter states that there is an increase of outsourced contractors simply based on dollar factors; they are finding it cheaper to get external sources to complete the work. This is despite the fact there is genuine expertise within the Power and Water workforce with years of experience. Power and Water has very high safety standards and work conditions; they take safety within the organisation very seriously. Concerns have been raised with me that there are moves to increase outsourcing, making staff worry about the new rules under the reforms and the new environment Power and Water will operate in, and if they will see further reductions in staff over time. This has always been a huge concern regarding the changes.
Within the generation sector staff are worried about the future of those working at the Ron Goodin Power Station, and what happens to jobs when that eventually ceases operation. As part of these reforms and changes people feel nervous, as Ron Goodin slows down over time, about what will happen to the staff there, and what will happen at the Owen Springs Power Station regarding future operation.
I was fortunate to recently have the opportunity to visit Weddell and Owen Springs Power Stations. I thank the Chief Executive of Territory Generation, Mr Tim Duignan, for allowing me to walk around and look at it. These are impressive government-owned assets and they do not require the manpower that you see at Channel Island or Ron Goodin.
If the government is looking to make a fast move and some quick money by heading down the privatisation path, these are easy pickings for them to sell. Given their agenda through this legislation, moving to the AER will attract more players into the Territory’s electricity market. It can be seen as another step towards privatising the electricity assets currently in the hands of the Territory.
Given this government has shown form in selling Territory-owned assets swiftly and with no consultation with Territorians, it is little wonder that I, like many others, remain sceptical of this government’s motives. As we saw with the sale of TIO, the government acted so swiftly that it passed legislation to sell it on urgency in one day.
It was an unprecedented move purely to minimise the political pain and scrutiny of their decision to sell TIO given it was extremely unpopular, and the government failed to consult with Territorians properly when doing so. It was a disgraceful process, and a dreadful abuse of this parliamentary process and accountability to Territorians in how they went about it.
The government has shown form when selling public assets and through the changes to Power and Water. It is now in a position where if the Giles government was determined to sell some of those assets, it seems they could quickly offload them. I have heard the Treasurer say many times that government will not sell assets, but it is hard to believe any of this government’s promises or commitments when you see its horrendous form on keeping promises.
This government says one thing one day and does the complete opposite the next; you cannot trust it.
Territorians need safe and reliable electricity services; essential services delivery is vital to the future of the Territory. Too many Territorians are struggling under the burden of huge power bills, which are a direct result of the CLP government’s decision to drive them up by 30%. Make no mistake, it was a decision by every member of the Cabinet to break their promise to Territorians to reduce the cost of living. They all sat at the table and signed off on driving power prices up by 30%.
Under this legislation the Territory will move to AER, and only time will tell whether it delivers any real benefits to Territorians on the ground and whether this is part of a bigger agenda to privatise power assets.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for speaking on this bill. I listened closely to her comments and I note that the opposition is not supportive of much to do with the structural separation of Power and Water, but I thank the member for Wanguri for her support.
The member for Wanguri came out with a couple of furphies. One was about privatisation; it is fair to say I am not ideologically opposed to privatisation. I do not think many members on the other side are ideologically opposed to it either if you look at their track record from when they were in government.
This government has no intention of privatising anything to do with the Power and Water Corporation. We are trying to get it and the utilities sector operating efficiently, reliably and at the lowest cost possible to ensure electricity tariffs are as low as they can be. The member for Wanguri seems to have an issue with the Power and Water Corporation outsourcing work, saying, ‘Clearly they only do this because it is cheaper’. That is the way a commercial organisation works; if they find they can get the work done in a cheap and reliable manner then that is what they do. I applaud Power and Water Corporation for looking at things that way because that will make the organisation financially sustainable and competitive in the marketplace.
As for the AER coming here so we can sell Power and Water – I am keen for the AER to come here because it is an internationally recognised organisation. The Australian Energy Regulator is known and respected around the world, and when we are trying to develop a utilities or electricity market in the Northern Territory, a known player doing the regulation is important if we want competitors to come to the Northern Territory.
The member for Wanguri was quite harsh about when I gave the Power and Water Corporation a network price determination which was substantially different from the Utilities Commission. At that time the Utilities Commission was undertaking the network price determination.
Power and Water wanted in excess of a 50% increase. The Utilities Commission released a draft, saying it would be around 45%. Power and Water demanded more and the Utilities Commission finally settled on a 39% increase over five years.
I was not very happy with that, as I explained to the parliament. My view was that the corporation should start operating efficiently and I directed the Power and Water Corporation to implement a 16% price increase over five years. The member for Wanguri was harsh about that decision, saying that I had cut the organisation to the bone.
If the member for Wanguri cared to look at what was happening around the rest of the country at the time, she would see that the Australian Energy Regulator was making price determinations of approximately minus-30%. The member for Wanguri opposed the 16% price increase I allowed the PWC to charge customers across the Territory. She said I was cutting the organisation to the bone, but the Australian Energy Regulator, which is a much bigger organisation that can compare like networks, was proposing price reductions of around minus-30% across the nation. It is difficult to understand what the member for Wanguri is arguing for.
Are we to make life easy for the PWC and allow it to charge customers what it wants for the network charge? Or is the member for Wanguri trying to alleviate costs for consumers, and wanting to see those prices reduced? It seems to me the member for Wanguri is trying to have a bet each way on this, saying I was wrong to reduce the network price determination the way I did, and on the other hand saying we are driving up costs. You cannot have it both ways. You either agree with putting downward pressure on the pricing or you want higher costs; you cannot do both.
In the short-term Territory Generation, or T-Gen, will look at moving from Ron Goodin to Owen Springs. I think in the short-term future Ron Goodin Power Station will be mothballed, and the Central Australian generation will all occur at Owen Springs. I do not know why that concerns the member for Wanguri.
In regard to privatisation, Labor keeps banging on that we want to privatise things, although there is no evidence to suggest we do.
Ms Fyles: What are we doing with the port bill?
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about PWC. This bill is about national electricity reforms and introducing the AER to the Northern Territory; it is not about TIO or the Port. We are talking about PWC, but Labor keeps suggesting we are fattening it up to sell it.
If we were fattening it up to sell it we would have agreed with the Utilities Commission and allowed PWC to implement a 39% increase in charges over the next five years. We would have done all we could to allow the organisation to increase tariffs for Territorians. But we did not. I think that would be the most obvious signal to everybody on the other side that we are not trying to fatten it up to sell it. We are trying to put downward pressure on prices, and increase reliability and efficiencies. It is interesting to listen to Labor members talk about privatisation of PWC assets, but for some reason or another they always focus on generators.
Member for Wanguri, it would not be easy to sell one of our generators. The big glittering prize in the Northern Territory is the network, which can be easily sold. There are a dozen superannuation funds lining up to buy networks all over the country at the blink of an eye. It is a regulated asset with a guaranteed rate of return. It is a very appealing asset for a superannuation fund to buy. We are not talking about a couple of hundred million dollars; we are talking billions of dollars for the network in the Northern Territory.
If there ever was a desire to sell the network, we would allow the Utilities Commission price determination to stand, and we would allow the 39% increase in network charges over the next five years. That is what we would do if you wanted to sell that asset, but we do not. I do not know how often I must say that in this House, but it does not seem to matter. Those guys must be hard of hearing because they keep saying the same thing over and over again. ‘You want to privatise Power and Water.’ That is nonsense.
From the Labor side, this is all about looking after their union mates, especially in the ETU. They have no regard for power prices, reliability of systems or whether it is privatised or not. The overriding interest of members opposite is to support their comrades in the ETU and do what they can to wrap them up in cotton wool, as well as preserve their rights and conditions at that workplace. The sole focus of the members of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory is to protect and stand in solidarity with their union mates. Their union mates are not interested in providing efficiencies, price reductions to Territorians or any of that, and nor is the Labor Party in the Northern Territory.
It has been a long week for everyone. Again, I thank the opposition for its support of this bill …
Ms Walker: Go for another few hours, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: As long as you want to stay, I am here. We will go dancing later, Lynne.
Ms Fyles: Dave, do you not have a plane to catch?
Mr TOLLNER: I will put the plane off if Lynne stays around, without a doubt.
The member for Nhulunbuy is one of my favourite people in this joint. She gets a bit snarly at times, particularly around 2 pm, but 2 pm to 3 pm must be the witching hour for all of us. Outside of that time frame we generally get along all right.
I thank the members for Nhulunbuy, Nightcliff and Wanguri and all other members of the opposition for supporting this bill; it is very worthwhile. It is an important step along the way to utilities market reform, which this government is driving. It will be great to have the Australian Energy Regulator operating in the Northern Territory; it will bring us kudos. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have seen the CLP government sell our TIO, and today we debate legislation that will sell our port. The CLP government does not have a mandate to do this, and it has not taken it to the Territory community, but is determined to ram it through. The members opposite will use their numbers in this House to pass this legislation today, but not before we articulate that we do not support the move to privatise and sell our port.
I will start by commenting on the press release the member for Blain sent out earlier today, claiming unanimous support. The press release says:
The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that leasing the port should not be rushed to suit the CLP’s political agenda at the expense of public interest.
The Chief Minister’s response at the committee’s debate at midnight last night, the tabled government response and amendment schedule to the port bills, and the rammed-through bills on the first sitting day after the committee’s report was tabled – all of these things show that there has not been community consultation.
Under the CLP’s approach there is no guarantee the public interest will be well served by any concessions made, side deals or the quantum of revenue received from the successful bidder. We need to understand how the public interest will be protected.
We were concerned when reading comments from the member for Blain in the NT News business supplement that the highest offer for the port lease probably will not be accepted. I do not take issue with this as a matter of principle, but the comments seem to infer that the decision of the successful bidder is well-advanced even though we have a select committee.
We saw the sale of the port first flagged last year. We had not finished debating the TIO sale, which was rammed through this parliament on urgency without any consultation with our community, before the Chief Minister flagged the sale of the port.
We saw arrogance and contempt for Territorians who do not want public assets sold. Take public asset sales to the next election, and take it to the community. We saw that in Queensland and look at what happened there.
People do not want their public assets sold and they are frustrated. We heard this mentioned before the finalised TIO legislation was brought to the February sittings, and it has been referred to a committee, but you are selling a public asset without a mandate.
We are frustrated that the government continues to not listen to the views of Territorians. We have concerns and questions around when this was first flagged, and you had not spoken about the sale, lease or whatever you call it. How far did negotiations get? Has a deal been done? If not, when will it be done?
We have overriding concern that the CLP, driven by concerns for its own political survival, will rush to get its hands on another pot of taxpayers’ money to fund election promises and attempt to pork barrel its way to the election.
We saw a budget delivered off the back of the sale of TIO, which you are hoping we will all forget about amongst the cash splash since you sold our public asset. This feels like a rerun of the TIO saga: CLP first, community second.
In the emerging community debate about the future operating arrangements, investment and strategic direction of the port of Darwin and other Territory ports, the Productivity Commission has made an important point. Its recent infrastructure inquiry report to the commission says:
The Productivity Commission does not say that cost-benefit studies for major projects are a good mid-point or end-point. The commission unequivocally states that cost-benefit studies for major projects, like the future development of Darwin port, are an essential starting point in the public interest.
Our Chief Minister is widely perceived in the community as arrogant and out of touch. That may explain his initial inclination to rush these bills through parliament. He then allowed it to go to a committee stage. If he was genuine and took note of the committee’s reports, he would have noted recommendation number eight.
Last year, during the sale of TIO, he flagged the possibility of leasing or privatising the port. In the wake of the TIO sale, he used smoke and mirrors to make it look like community consultation. The select committee’s recommendation number eight states:
The first hurdle has been missed because the Chief Minister ignored the recommendations of the committee. He used smoke and mirrors to pretend he consulted with the community. One of the recommendations from the committee’s report was to have further consultation, but that has been ignored.
With pressure from the opposition and the member for Nelson, the Chief Minister agreed to the select committee inquiry. If he had his way, the select committee reviewing the bills and related matters would not have been established. He was reluctant to allow the committee a reasonable amount of time to do its job.
Chief Minister, if there is a cost-benefit study on a leasing model for the Darwin port, why will you not release it today in the interests of the public? Or, like the sale of TIO, is this already a done deal from behind closed doors?
How can Territorians have the confidence that concessions you provide to future lessees will not be overly generous? How can the community be sure the return on leased and sold assets will be fair and reasonable for Territory taxpayers? Your government’s agenda and focus is based around yourselves; the community comes second.
The ACCC and other business groups have recently expressed concern about asset sales and recycling programs, as they are trendily called these days. An article in the Australian Financial Review from earlier this year highlighted the ACCC’s concerns, saying:
Serious issues have been raised by the ACCC. We have seen the sale of our assets, and there are concerns about the measures in place. The same article went on to talk about business groups and their concerns. The Australian Financial Review earlier this year wrote:
Page 46 of the select committee’s report referred to port pricing and the concerns around the issue of setting the marketplace, trying to get the maximum price for the asset, and ensuring measures are in place for long-term competitiveness.
If the government proceeds with long-term leasing and privatisation of the port, there must be ongoing consultation with port operators and stakeholders on pricing related issues. Our port is at a good point. Labor has significantly invested in the port and it is giving back to the community. We have a profitable port. The oil and gas boom is only now delivering results and is becoming an income stream for the Territory. We can keep it in public ownership, but it is worth much more to us if we keep it as a public asset and have the income stream, rather than selling it in a one-off sale.
There are concerns around the sale of the public asset, the lack of consultation, the port being sold off and how it will affect Territorians. There is also concern around the workforce at the port. The Maritime Union of Australia is very concerned about the casualization of the stevedoring workforce under the government’s leasing and privatisation proposals. It is genuinely concerned about job losses under any new leasing arrangements. With the sale of TIO, we heard there would be no job losses as that would be a breach of faith – I think that is what the Chief Minister said. What did we see yesterday? There are 43 positions flagged to go.
Despite assurances from the Chief Minister, we have seen TIO staff lose their jobs following the sale of that asset by the CLP. There are now 43 Territorians who no longer have a job. The Chief Minister consistently promised that TIO jobs would be safe, but he knew that was not true and he could not hold that to account. The Treasurer gave the game away yesterday when he said that he always knew there would be a restructure within TIO once it was sold.
We strongly feel that this is a significantly bad omen for port jobs. I understand today the CLP is using numbers to ram it through. Where does the lease of the port and the disposal of its assets leave port workers? In a management and union joint consultative meeting yesterday, the Darwin Port Corporation alarmed employees with advice about job transfer arrangements under a new operator.
Under the current EBA, employee entitlements are tied to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, but we understand that employees were told yesterday they will lose these entitlements when their jobs are transferred to the new port operator. We have seen that before, with the privatisation of the Darwin Bus Service; workers were assured one thing, but it was not delivered. I am not sure how far the negotiations got, but workers that had been with the public sector for an extremely long time, and wanted to stay there to preserve their benefit entitlements, were not offered a transfer to other government agencies; they were essentially sold off when the bus service was privatised. We have to listen to the concerns of employees.
Workers have been advised that if they reject a new employment agreement they will be considered to have resigned. I noted the Chief Ministers response about guaranteeing no material disadvantage for workers approaching retirement. I ask the Chief Minister if he can clarify in his response speech the arrangements for achieving those promised outcomes, ensuring there is no disadvantage for workers approaching retirement.
I also ask the Chief Minister to clarify the important matters of job security and entitlements in this debate today. It needs to be put on the public record so we can hold him to account. We know this asset will be leased, which is privatisation in another form.
The Chief Minister said last night that the transfer of business provisions in Commonwealth legislation would protect port workers’ job security. What will happen when a new EBA is negotiated? If the TIO job security arrangements are replicated at the Darwin port, workers will not be guaranteed future job security. We have seen that in the last 24 hours with the TIO workers who were assured there was an agreement of faith and their jobs would not go, but they have gone.
In its submissions to the select port committee, the MUA raised and prosecuted a range of significant issues in relation to the proposed long-term lease of the port. These included pricings, safety, sale of port assets, the transparency of the tender processes, port planning and governance, and many other matters salient to the CLP’s plans for our port. The MUA has a very proud record of protecting job security for employees in stevedoring industries, as well as their fundamental right to work in a safe and healthy environment.
We cannot forget that safety issue. Ports by their nature can be a dangerous place, but they can be run properly with the right support, practices and procedures in place. We have to ensure that occurs. I am not saying privatisation would impact on that directly, but we need to be assured that long-term issues are not neglected and end up being unsafe. The MUA has a proud record of safety and it will continue. The privatisation of our port is not right.
In its report the select committee accepted the MUA’s recommendations to incorporate port safety plans and related matters in the bill to improve worker safety at our port. The Chief Minister rejected the relevant recommendations. Will he guarantee that adapting these measures in regional harbour master guidelines will provide better protection for workers, as opposed to incorporating the provisions in the port bills?
There are a number of questions. The Port of Darwin Bill provides the Chief Minister with sweeping powers to lease or dispose of port assets. This is where it starts to get interesting for Territorians. We have been told it is a lease, not privatisation, but this change will allow the Chief Minister to lease or dispose of our port as he sees fit. He has repeatedly proven that he is not trustworthy.
A number of provisions in the Port of Darwin Bill, when considered together, will concern the community, especially when the Chief Minister is relentlessly driven to maximise the political interests of the CLP instead of considering community concerns and interests.
Clause 4 of the bill states that port assets include:
Clause 13 of the bill provides that:
The public sector entity must comply with a direction from the Chief Minister, even if the direction is unlawful.
Taken together these provisions create an unfettered power for the Chief Minister to lease, privatise or dispose of the port’s assets, and they raise serious concerns. Considering this government’s record on disposing public assets – water resources and TIO, for instance – the public is genuinely concerned. You have made it clear that you want to sell public assets no matter what the opinion of the community is.
Why does the Chief Minister require statutory power to give unlawful directions to a public sector entity in relation to the disposal of the port assets? The Ports Management Bill also gives sweeping powers to the Chief Minister in matters relating to the Port of Darwin and other Territory ports.
If passed, the bill will give overriding control to the Chief Minister across a range of operational and port management issues. Why does the Chief Minister need this level of control? It is a strong power, so we need answers to these questions.
There is apprehension among the operators of Port Melville and the stevedoring company about the implications of the bill on investor confidence and existing commercial arrangements. Why does the Chief Minister require these unfettered powers?
The Opposition Leader made a significant contribution to yesterday’s debate on the select committee’s report, but those remarks should be considered in the context of the parliament’s consideration of these bills. We supported the amendments from the select committee because they enhanced the bills which are being rammed through the House today. In no way should it be taken that we support this bill; we have made that clear from the outset.
The government has no mandate to implement a lease model, privatisation sale, whatever you call it. If the Chief Minister genuinely believes this is the best thing for the Territory, why will he not take it to the next election? What is he afraid of? He has rushed it from the start; he flagged it during the TIO debate, tried to push it through the February sittings, rushed through the committee stage, and last night he came in here at almost midnight and presented an amendment schedule which has not been discussed with stakeholders.
Is this the consultation that the committee recommended? We have serious concerns for Territorians regarding job security. You have promised job security to port workers, but you made the same promise to TIO and look where 43 of those workers are right now. Why will you not consult with stakeholders? Serious safety concerns have been raised by the MUA. This is not a play thing for you to get another cash grab. This is our port; it has been built up over many years and it is now profitable. With the oil and gas boom we are experiencing it is delivering results; it is an income stream.
The port is worth more to us over the long-term than a one-off sale. You will argue that this is not a sale, it is a lease. A sale or a sneaky 99-year lease is the same thing by another name.
There is a real issue with the cost of living for Territorians. Will we see commercial rates for freight drive up the cost of living for consumers and businesses? When this asset is leased it will not be in the Territory government’s hands. We have just seen this repeatedly with this government. Should Territorians nail things down so you mob cannot sell them?
Territorians are sick and tired of fighting to keep their assets public. You did not have a mandate to sell TIO and you do not have one to sell our port. I want to see you raise issues regarding worker safety and protecting job security for employees at the port.
I look forward to the Chief Minister answering these questions for Territorians. The opposition does not support the sale of our port in any way.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Ports Management Bill and thank the Chief Minister for bringing it to the table. I am a little concerned about the issues raised by the member for Nightcliff. Had she carefully gone through the recommendations she would find almost everything she mentioned as a reason not to accept this bill has been answered in a lot of detail.
I do not have an issue with members of the opposition not supporting the bill, it is their hope and intent that a lease does not happen, but trying to pin it on what has been spoken about today is a bit trite.
We have been accused of failing in consultation because one of the recommendations said we needed to consult. Call me crazy, but the recommendation was only handed in the day before yesterday, and we are two days into it. The Chief Minister said last night that he will accept and implement all of the recommendations. Give us a fair crack; that is not long enough to claim we have failed at this recommendation; we have only had two days to implement it. That is poor; if that is a measure of what we are supposed to achieve then everyone will fail at everything.
The member for Nightcliff spoke to my comment that the lease will not necessarily go to the highest bidder. We were trying to say it is important to get an outcome that matches the Northern Territory’s vision and what the people here need, as well as a vision of where northern Australia is headed. That is more important than getting the highest amount of money.
This was a pitfall in other places where governments were just after a cheque. In one case they put out bids and someone came back with a huge number which they took. They said, ‘Thank you very much’, and all it ended up with was higher third-party prices on the port. That is not what we are doing.
It is quite shallow, and it shows a lack of understanding of the recommendations. One of the recommendations says that we go for the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory over price any day. I take the member for Nightcliff to task over that comment, saying it is a poor thing. It is in the interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
An accusation was levelled that all we do is focus on what we want politically and that the Territory comes second. I find that offensive. That allegation does not need to be made. If we look at everybody’s work on any side of this House, all people in here care deeply about the people in their electorate and what happens in the Northern Territory. We wake up in the morning hoping to do something good for the people of the Northern Territory. We do not wake up in the morning thinking, ‘How can we screw up the lives of the people of the Northern Territory just so we can somehow weirdly benefit ourselves?’ That is not how it happens. I completely refute the member for Nightcliff’s comments in that regard.
The member for Nightcliff raised concern about the ACCC, where the states are receiving funds by selling assets to the detriment of the people. I have spoken about that already. On one side we are being killed for not taking the highest amount of money – she said we would not take the highest bid – and three points later she talks about the ACCC’s concern about states being funded by selling assets to the detriment of the people. This is precisely why we are not going for the highest bidder. That is another inconsistent comment from the member for Nightcliff.
The next question was why do we not take time to protect against unfair price rises? It is clearly laid out in the recommendations, and last night the Chief Minister accepted the recommendations and committed to implement them. Central to what we are doing is protection against monopolistic pricing and uncompetitive behaviour as it relates to access.
I do not know whether it is an inability or the time taken to understand these recommendations, but it is an inconsistent and poor comment in context of what is being put forward in the bill, as it will accept all of the recommendations of the report. We talked about appropriate market safeguards, which are a very clear set of recommendations relating to safeguarding various things in the bill.
The member for Nightcliff spoke about an oil and gas boom, but clearly she has not spent much time on the East Arm Wharf because the number of boats has diminished significantly due to oil prices falling. The number of rig tenders coming in and supplying oil rigs has dropped drastically because they are not currently exploring. She talks about an oil and gas boom, saying there are so many boats there and it is doing well. She says it is a great asset and we should not sell it, but the information the member for Nightcliff uses to back her comments is ill-advised and without base.
She says it is worth more as a consistent income stream if we hold on to it, purely because of the income it generates. That is a huge call. It is great that the member for Nightcliff can come in here and say that, but she presents no modelling, data or numbers to state that being the case. It is very naive to think that if we got the funds through this lease we would do nothing, and that benefits would not be generated to the people of the Northern Territory to outweigh possible benefits from a recurring income stream. It is trite for someone to make that allegation when they have no data to support it.
She spoke about the workforce at the port and casualization. She is correct; if a group of stevedoring companies suddenly turned up to work at the wharf, the amount of work there at the moment means the two companies there would have very little work as it dilutes between multiple players, and everybody would end up on casual contracts. There would be no permanent work. That is why we have a recommendation stating that if somebody leases the port they cannot hand out stevedoring licences to whomever they want. They must show they will in some way improve competition at the wharf. If it detrimentally affects what happens for firms operating there, the minister must consider that. We left this power in the government’s hands for a reason.
We do not want to see people’s lives turned upside down by what happens at the wharf, which is why we have these things in place. We have a clear recommendation which goes to the heart of what she is talking about. That recommendation was made in conjunction with the MUA. If the MUA looks at this it would see its fingerprints all over it. This relates to protecting businesses which employ many of its members. I do not know where the member for Nightcliff is coming from with this, because we see very clear recommendations being accepted in this bill, or outside it, depending on which recommendation, to correct this.
Regarding the 43 TIO positions, I would like to turn this conversation around. The opposition says 43 people have been fired and lost their jobs. As I understand, at TIO restructuring is occurring and 43 people will be redeployed to another place.
Mr Giles: Over 14 months.
Mr BARRETT: That is right, over 14 months. Failing that, the Northern Territory government will step in and bring these people back under the Northern Territory government’s banner. What does that say to me fundamentally? It says we care about these 43 people, their jobs, their families, and things like mortgages and the other commitments in their life. We want to see these people succeed and prosper. We care about people in the Northern Territory. As an opposition you cannot say 43 people are in this situation, meaning the Country Liberal Party does not care about people’s jobs. We have shown through our actions, not just our words, that we care about Territorians’ jobs and futures. That was a very poor comment against this bill.
She spoke about ramming this through. It would not matter if we did this in one, two or 10 months, or five years; we would still be ramming it through with the numbers. When you have the numbers in parliament you can pass legislation. If the member for Nightcliff does not like it, bad luck. Part of being in government is making decisions, and a part of making decisions is passing bills. That is what we are here to do today; saying we are rushing or ramming this through is poor.
The committee process we went through to make these recommendations was solid. I believe all parties here have accepted the recommendations, and if the bill incorporates the recommendations then it is solid. In light of that, it is a hard task when none of what has been laid against this bill stands or carries any weight.
The member for Nightcliff spoke about employees who met with the Darwin Port Corporation yesterday; I am aware of that meeting. The MUA shared these concerns with me already. There are recommendations relating to this which have been conveyed to the MUA, which has conveyed them to its members. She said this has raised serious concerns and this is a bad thing. We are already working with the MUA to ensure no scare tactics are used. There will be no putting the fear of God into people working at the port.
The member for Nightcliff said safety needs to be the most important issue. I draw her attention to the first recommendation on the bill, which relates to safety. It puts safety in paramount place because everyone here believes individuals should have a safe workplace. These recommendations, along with the bill, provide for a safe workplace. The member for Nightcliff said the opposition does not support this bill because it does not do enough for safety, yet it supports the recommendations which provide the robustness around safety in this bill.
It is funny when people use big economic words without using them in the right context. The member for Nightcliff said it is a lease, not privatisation. Privatisation means the operation of the port will be in private hands. That is what privatisation means, not necessarily that it is a lease or a sale. Privatisation is about management. If we try to have mature discussions about what is occurring, it is important to get the words right. Yes, this is privatisation, but privatisation does not mean sale. It can mean any number of things. In this instance it means a lease, not a sale.
Members of the opposition have every right to oppose this bill on the grounds that they do not want the port to be privatised. I respect that. It is within their ethos, ideology, understanding and belief of what they think best for the Northern Territory – that it stays in the hands of the government. That is fine, but so far nobody has spoken of that. Nobody has said, ‘The bill is great, but we are fundamentally opposed to this being privatised and think it should remain in government hands’.
The points made by the member for Nightcliff against this were shallow and poor. They do not show a good understanding of the recommendations made or acknowledgment that the Chief Minister has said he will accept and implement these recommendations. I want to hear some more factual, honest reasoning. It is okay if members opposite do not want to sell the port; I respect that. They need to be straightforward and say it is not in the interests of Territorians to lose this asset, rather than talking about safety and oil and gas booms, saying we are not doing enough around pricing and access.
I thank the Chief Minister for introducing this bill and I am very proud to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk in a broader sense. After all, this is not just about the Port of Darwin; this bill is meant to go further than that and give government the ability to apply regulations over other ports if it wishes.
I have read the second reading speech again. One area that comes up is the government not being interested in how much money it gets as long as a company runs the port in an efficient way, which will drive the economy of the Northern Territory.
Government will want some money. An area that has not had much airing is in the second reading speech; when referring to investment in the port, the minister said:
Further on he said:
That is fine; this issue was raised in the sale of TIO, which has helped the budget. Certain amounts of money and projects have been delivered in the budget and this is not much different. The government says it will direct this money towards key new infrastructure development. What will that key new infrastructure development be?
Whether you agree or disagree with the member for Nightcliff, some could say this money helps the government look good. In the next budget it can build a swimming pool in the rural area because it has money from …
Mr Giles: It is already in the budget.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not.
Mr Giles: It is in the forward estimates.
Mr WOOD: The definition of ‘forward’ is from here to eternity, but hopefully that will come.
Mr Giles: It is already allocated.
Mr WOOD: I am asking the question seriously because the minister said in his second reading speech that this money will be used for key new infrastructure projects.
I hope government will explain this. My support of this bill follows that the government will explain to the public the benefits of privatising the port. I said this last night; if the port makes $15m a year over the next 20 years that is $300m to the Territory’s coffers. In the same time, if we privatised the port and the amount was $200m, over 20 years we would lose $100m.
The government needs to explain how we will be better off. If I do simple numbers, in 20 years we will have foregone $150m because we would not have the revenue from the port each year that we have now.
There is an onus on government to show that by privatising the port there will be a financial gain for the Northern Territory, which needs explaining.
In the second reading the issue of the changes to the regulatory regime is raised, and the minister talks about the effect of the proposed regulatory framework to provide and improve an overarching regulatory framework for all designated ports in the Northern Territory. I understand there is only one port that is designated. I am interested in whether the government has intentions for other ports because the second reading speech states:
That it will:
And also:
Further on it says:
If we bring in this new bill, why are we not bringing this legislative change to other ports? My understanding is there is a port on Melville Island. I gather some issues were recently raised, and it was put to the government to not regulate the port. If we bring in port regulations to make them safer, why are we not regulating all the ports? I had a feeling that is what this bill was about.
Other things would obviously be included in the Ports Management Bill, but I want the minister to explain why Darwin port is the only one for the time being which will be covered by this new management process.
I am also interested to know whether it would cover barge landings. My understanding is it will not, but I am interested to know why. Our barge landings can be busy, depending on which community you live in. Do they need some controls?
I lived on Bathurst Island for a long time and the barge comes onto the beach. You might not regard it as a port; I regard it as a beach. Other places have boat ramps built for barges to dock. The Chief Minister spoke to me about this bill soon after I got back from my first trip to Portland. He said, ‘We are introducing this bill which will introduce a regulatory regime for all the ports in the Northern Territory’. I thought it made sense, but it turns out we are only doing one port. I was interested in how far this bill transposes over all other possible ports in the Northern Territory.
It raises another issue about Port Melville. I understand it is there primarily for timber. You are asking someone new to come to Darwin Harbour and run a port. Is it likely that Port Melville will compete with Darwin port? If so, do the people who are looking at possibly leasing the port know that? In other words, are they aware another port could be competing with them? I raised the issue yesterday about the future of the proposed ports at Glyde Point and Taranaki.
The other issue towards the end of the second reading speech is about workers. It says:
The recommendation …
Mr Giles: Which number, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, the section I was referring to was in the eighth-last paragraph in the second reading; now I am referring to recommendation 13, which says:
The government’s response to that was:
I am putting all those things together. Will the EBA go for another three years? For instance, if someone has five years until they retire, what process will be in place at the end of the EBA in relation to superannuation? If they only have two years before they retire, they may want to hang around until they are 65 so they have access to their super. They do not want to lose two years of super. There is grey area from when the EBA stops and the private owner is in control, and that needs to be looked at.
After talking to port management, my understanding is many people do not fall into this bracket, but if there are only a few it is important they receive some recognition. When talking to any new lease owner the government must cover that area.
As you said in the second reading:
That does not put a limitation on how long those conditions apply.
I am fully aware of the history of TIO. Driving around Parliament House was not so much about whether TIO should be sold, but more about us knowing what is going on; we needed to have a say.
This arrangement, or any agreement, does not have to be in place until approximately September. Unfortunately when this started it seemed like it needed to be finished quickly because you asked the committee to have a report ready within five weeks. That gives the impression that the government is in a hurry. That was a failing in the government wanting to sell TIO. It rushed it and had something in mind, and when it realised there had been no consultation with the people there was a big effort at the last minute to consult with people. That is where it failed.
You have an opportunity for some good consultation. A program has been mentioned here, but I would not stick entirely to that. I have not received a huge amount of feedback from people saying this is a bad deal; maybe it does not affect them. There are only a limited number of people living in the Northern Territory who use the port – the cattleman, livestock workers, exporters and importers. When you look at the population of the Territory, not a huge number of people are directly affected, but they are indirectly affected if the price goes up.
Recommendation 8 says:
I raised some of those issues yesterday, because I looked at the Port of Portland and I do not think it is a great model. It is not advantageous to the people using it. We saw the hybrid model in Western Australia. I did not get to Brisbane, but that is a very big model and it probably does not suit us in many ways, because it is a container terminal.
My support of this bill is predicated on the government promising to do its best to tell people in plain English why this is good, and explain the disadvantages and advantages of the system.
I said this some time ago, with the proviso of the consultation being good, I do not think it is necessary to go to an election. This is because we are a long way from an election, with a year-and-a-half to go. That would make it difficult for the government to operate in that time, having to deal with a range of companies interested in the port which may not want to wait that long.
I imagine this might sound a bit silly. Annual reports will be issued, as with any company, but it would be good if the government could report on how these changes are affecting the Territory, negative or positive. In the first couple of years we will see whether there are any changes from the old system to the new one. Will the port attract more trade? I always think that is very difficult; you cannot pull trade out of the sky. If there is no trade, that is a matter of fact more than anything. If there are no moo cows to bring to the port then we cannot bring them.
The government is putting its beliefs behind the idea of privatisation. The onus is on the government as time goes on to show privatising, which is their argument, is a good thing for the Northern Territory.
I have mentioned foreign ownership before, which the minister has heard. The government’s recommendation is quite broad, but I would still prefer foreign ownership to have a minority holding.
Recommendation 15 says:
I still think we should be looking at the Department of Defence. We are in a sensitive part of the world and there is a large US presence in the Northern Territory. Whoever is decided will require Commonwealth scrutiny because we do not want to be in a position of political embarrassment, if I can say that. That is something we need to be wary of. If you stick with 49% foreign ownership you cannot get into much trouble.
In these sorts of big issues there will be many people with different opinions. I know where the Labor Party is coming from and they have been consistent; that is one thing I will give them. The Leader of the Opposition wanted this to go to an election, which is fair enough. I do not think he is against what we have done, but that is the party’s policy and its members are entitled to have that opinion. I do not believe you should criticise that opinion because it is part of democracy; you can make a choice regarding whether decisions should be tested at an election or whether government has the right to make these major decisions during its term. That can be argued either way.
In the end, I think it has the potential to be a good change for the Northern Territory. I will watch it very carefully to see what improvements occur. I am concerned that we are selling the port when it is not necessarily at its lowest, but it has very little being exported except for cows and manganese.
I noticed the iron ore price has risen a little, so I hope things will change. It is fair to ask the government if this is the right time to sell. Do potential purchasers or lessees of the port see through this quiet period? Will they say, even though it is a quiet period at the moment, they see the potential for it in the next few years when things pick up? I presume they look at things aside from how they are at the moment. There is no doubt things will change, but nobody knows how long it will take before it changes.
I am interested in the minister’s feelings about whether this is a good time to sell or whether we should hold off until our exports improve. They are not that great at present. We are still sending plenty of cows, which is fantastic, and we need to make sure that keeps going.
I thank the committee members. I do not know if I thanked them last night, but it was a team effort. I support the bill with those provisos. The key for me is that we ensure proper consultation occurs with the community. If you reckon you have done a proper job by bringing them along and people feel satisfied that this is a good policy, let us go with it.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for their contribution. I will address the points you raised; if I miss anything, shout them across and I will come back to them.
At the commencement of the first speech in the debate today I had a frown on my face. I was going to stand up and apologise to Territorians for the lack of democratic debate in this Chamber. I found the first contribution lacked intelligence. It displayed a high level of ignorance and showcased a significant degree of immaturity on a populist agenda that sought to mislead the debate.
The member for Blain, who was also the chairman of the parliamentary committee on the port, provided a fair degree of balance in his response, and the member for Nelson followed that up with a good degree of questions about moving forward.
It is not surprising the first speaker took the approach she did, following the last debate about the national energy market and the staunch defence for the ETU, and then for Labor to take the MUA position.
I have to clarify and overcome the misleading statements that this has been rushed through in the dead of night, meaning midnight last night. This was first raised about two years ago. This is in complete reversal of the approach with TIO.
TIO went to market and then came to parliament. This is coming to parliament and then going to market. This discussion was raised two years ago. I cannot tell you the exact date I first raised it, but I have been putting out press releases and talking to the media for a long time about this. The bill was introduced to parliament in November 2014.
The member for Nelson and many of my colleagues know that I am a staunch advocate of good democratic processes within parliament, and a big supporter of the committee system. I am trying to drive the reform of the committee system in this Chamber and I know they support that approach.
It was always my intention for this to go to a committee. At first we suggested a six-week committee and you suggested you wanted longer. We looked at the calendar and it was about 10 weeks until this sittings period, which is why it is being debated on the last day. We allowed time for the port committee to undertake its visits and travel – without needing to go to a committee to approve the travel – to look at ports around the country and investigate all the things the members for Blain, Drysdale and Nelson have discussed.
I note the member for Nightcliff, and Labor, were taking the populist agenda. Michael Gunner was following Delia Lawrie in her personal attacks and populist agenda. I thought a new leader would bring a new direction, but clearly that has not been the case. Perhaps Nicole Manison was the right choice after all because …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister knows very well that he is to refer to members of this House by their electorate title.
Mr GILES: I am sorry; I forget when they are not in the Chamber, particularly for important bills such as this.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to withdraw the reference to absence also, please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw that they are absent from this Chamber.
Perhaps a different leader would not have followed in the member for Karama’s leadership style, but I will not go into that in detail.
I want to clarify a misleading statement made in Question Time today and in the debate from the member for Nightcliff. The port is not for sale. It never has been and it will not be. It is following a similar model to the railway in the Northern Territory, especially between the border and Darwin where the land underneath the railway is owned by the Northern Territory government.
The railway was built partly with Territory money; it is on a long-term lease. Interestingly, Labor sold its share in the railway to the private sector without going to election, without a mandate and without consulting this people; they sold it and the railway has thrived. Genesee and Wyoming has completely turned the railway around in its performance, scheduling, customer satisfaction and a range of other areas. That will continue to improve and I encourage Genesee and Wyoming to continue with that improvement agenda.
If that same model proceeds it will form the model of a long-term lease. Initially our discussion was about a 99-year lease. I was very keen to hear, through the proper parliamentary process with the committee report, the committee’s views in regard to 99 years. I know this has been done in the past where 99 years has been accepted, but I was very keen to see what the committee came back with because I was flexible with that approach.
The committee report came back, chaired by the Country Liberals, with another Country Liberal member, the Independent member for Nelson, and a Labor member – being the Leader of the Opposition, who follows in the footsteps of the member for Karama. This was without a dissenting report, I might add, and completely supportive of a lease of up to 99 years. I was supportive of a lease for less than 99 years, but I was interested to see those findings. As I say, we will be looking at a lease, not a sale, and 99 years might not be the recommended model to go forward. We will wait and see what comes out through the process.
The member for Nightcliff said there was no consultation and the member for Blain said, ‘Hang on a minute, we only received the report two days ago’. The member for Nelson asked about the type of consultation. I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson yesterday, as I have with all members on my side. Labor has not asked me for a briefing, so I have not spoken to those members about the consultation process to date.
Approximately 12 months ago I started planning what I thought was a good consultation process. This included visiting and advertising the port, and virtual tours, as the member for Nelson mentioned. I imagine a virtual tour as some sort of computer imagery where you can visit a website and see what it looks like without going there. As everybody can imagine, ours is a trading port with trucks and people everywhere; safety is of paramount importance, as is national security. We have to be mindful of those aspects. I thought all of that would be a good way forward, but we will continue to model a consultation process.
This is not an issue of concern, but I do not think many people have ever been to or seen the port, or know how it operates. When you talk about our port, and what some refer to as privatisation through a long leasing structure, it is not only a government owned asset. However, some people may see it as that. There are a range of private sector models on our port. The Marine Supply Base is a model which Labor set up, with a long-term lease over one-third of the port. We have Qube and Patrick, which are private companies, operating on the port. The security is not private sector, but the electrical trade workers who come to the port are from the private sector. We have Baker Hughes at the port with its mud model. A range of private sector models are already there as well as the privatisation of the Marine Supply Base, which Labor did without consultation in a financially lucrative model to the people who came in.
I will not play politics and talk about how Labor sold the railway and the pipeline, and set up a private leasing model with Shaw’s through a long lease without consultation with Territorians, but I will talk about TIO. There has been a great deal of slander from Labor, and there was a question from the member for Nelson about the budget being backed by TIO resources. I want to clarify something; the TIO sale price after all the asset valuations and the actuaries came in was around $410m. About $210m, or $209m, will go into the infrastructure fund. We are working on that legislation, so it will come before the House within the next two months, but it has not been finalised yet. About $201m, according to the budget books, went towards infrastructure. I always said it would go towards economic enabling infrastructure.
A total of $50m has gone towards flood mitigation in Darwin and Katherine, for want of better geographical terminology. It is designed to support those communities and will have the added benefit of reducing risk factors, because they are in high-risk areas. From an insurance actuary model, this was causing problems with averaging out insurance premiums in the Territory. This is why TIO was, in large part, losing market share for housing insurance, because they could be picked off in parts of the model. That is why the business was in so much trouble.
That is $50m out of the $200m spent, and $7.5m has gone towards the Sadadeen bypass in Alice Springs, which will take a year or two to be built. There needs to be a better level of access from the eastern side of Alice Springs in times of flood, which is why that road has been picked. We have invested in other road infrastructure in the Territory, especially Litchfield and Mereenie, because that area has the ability to open up the economy further.
The money has gone into infrastructure. Roughly $500m has gone into the complete rebuilding of the main arterial roads in the Northern Territory because we are opening up the economy. That is part of our north Australian plan, and the port is part of that. I would love to spend more money on roads to open the Territory.
I plead with the federal government to hurry up and give us a decision about the allocation of resources for the Tanami Road, because we believe that road is of national significance from a Defence and supply chain point of view. It provides the opportunity to service communities and open up our economy further. I would like to see more money go towards it.
The correction in the budget has not been just about $200m. We have now more than halved the projected debt of $5.5bn and removed the deficit with an operational surplus of around $250m. Things have improved rapidly, but not only with the TIO money. We are now in a position to contribute about $100m towards rebuilding following Cyclones Lam and Nathan as a result of good performance. If you add all those figures together it is much more than the TIO money, which was to provide assistance with flood mitigation and opening up some major roads. The performance of government has contributed a great deal.
The government has not put its mind to specific infrastructure regarding any return or investment of funds from potential long-term leasing of the port. I have a thought, not a direction, about a possible rail between Mount Isa and Tennant Creek, but that is a long way away. It will take us many years to model that rail line. I anticipate a large component of the funds will go into the infrastructure fund straight up, but it would be good to improve many other major pieces of infrastructure in the Territory.
I would love to see some more sealing on the top road of the Central Arnhem Highway to help open up that part of the country and provide assistance to those Aboriginal communities so they get a higher level of access. It would present opportunities around other emerging barge or port facilities in the Territory. You are right about infrastructure. The exact infrastructure is not determined, but a large part is going to the infrastructure fund.
From now on I will not talk about the value of the port, perceived or otherwise. It will be a market testing arrangement, so I cannot provide any commentary on that. I assume you have had conversations about the earlier estimate of the value of the port, but I will not talk about that, nor will anyone else who has commercial-in-confidence ideas. It is fair to say that government has an indicative value and we will not seek to go below that.
While I am talking about finances, I have refreshed myself on some of the performance matters with the port financially. This is not a financial discussion, but you raised a couple of financial questions. Last year the port had its best financial performance. In the last year of the Labor government, when it had its best financial performance, it produced a $1m profit. Your argument was that it makes $15m over ten years, totalling $150m; if those numbers were right the argument might pose a question, but the numbers are not right in that hypothetical arrangement.
This year we have had a downturn from last year with iron ore, which is the issue that Western Australia faces. The new Leader of the Opposition, who runs on the same mantra as the old leader, raised the issue of Western Australian ports last night. He said they are not proceeding with an outsourcing management model. That is not true; they are, in their two port models. They have had a downturn in iron ore and it has reduced the value, but they are going back to it when there is a return. That will definitely happen, but it is a timing matter.
We had a downturn this year. If we look at the last year of Labor – $1m multiplied by 100 years is $100m. The investment on a long lease now would far outweigh the investment that would come from that type of model. If you worked it on $5m the same scenario would apply. You would be looking at a 50-year term, and you would not come anywhere near that investment. On top of that, you need to look at the amount of debt in the port.
The port owes the government $60m which it cannot pay back. That is money we have put into major upgrades at the port over many years, including under the former government. That cannot be paid back because it is not earning enough. These are some of the financial challenges it has.
While I am talking about finance, the member for Nelson said it would be good in the future to look at past performance. I think that is a good opportunity. I wrote some notes while you were talking, and I wrote down four years. Initially I said about 10 years. But 10 years is too long, people will have forgotten about it. Five years is probably about right, but that would put us in the middle of the electoral cycle and then it becomes political, so I wrote down four years.
Whether or not a new operator can bed down a model in four years, I am not sure. In four years we will revisit this and look at how the changes in port operations have occurred. We will make a note of that. I do not know about four years. Twelve months is too quick. It is like TIO; it is rapidly changing and delivering more products across borders. A range of services are provided. I am surprised it has so many new products on the market. I thought it would take longer to get new products. You need to look at that in two years, but in five years TIO may be one of the major insurance companies in northern Australia.
One of the positive things coming out of long leasing the port, and we have to get the equity model right, is investment in the port to grow its infrastructure. That will be one of the testing mechanisms in assessment on value for money. The member for Blain was right when he talked about the price; it is about assessment on value for money and infrastructure development. The model of infrastructure development and capacity, combined with potential additional investment in other parts of the Territory, whether that is agriculture or horticulture, is where you hit the multiply effect. That is where you will be able to see the difference in four years.
The supply chain for infrastructure and strategic investment will start to make a change. A range of other things are going on around the world, especially on an economic front, such as free trade agreements and potential negotiations of TPP, which can open up more markets and investment. We all want to see investment from southern Australia into the Territory, taking Territorians along with it. Some of the international agreements have the potential to make a difference.
In regard to your questions about Defence and FIRB, these things are not new. The four-year thing is new, but most of these things have already been dealt with or worked on.
Defence and the Foreign Investment Review Board, or FIRB, is something we have long considered. We have not commenced a discussion with FIRB in detail. I have directed the head of the major projects section, the Coordinator-General, to start those conversations with FIRB officers. We have held conversations in Canberra about the periphery of these matters, but not yet directly with FIRB.
Conversations with Defence have been going on for about 18 months, and the day before COAG – I think it was 16 April 2015 – I met with the Defence minister and spoke about this issue. These things have been discussed with Defence personnel; they have been discussed with members of different embassies and consuls, including the US and other nations. I will not go into detail about that, but I can assure you the matters of Defence have been well canvassed.
We are now in partnership with the Land Development Corporation and Defence, working on an $18m roll-on roll-off barge facility. It needs to go through decision-making processes in Canberra, but we are working on it from Australia’s point of view and it has international connotations. These are well progressed and we are sensitive to the diplomatic requirements on an international level.
I have some notes here which I will read out in a moment, but I will get back to the ignorance of the member for Nightcliff about these bills. She mentioned the second bill, which is more about a management model that sets up the regulatory environment. She was right; there is only one classified port in the Northern Territory, which is Darwin port. This sets up the umbrella of the regulatory environment for the whole Territory coastline, including its islands.
When you talk about the time frame – I was working on it. I am not sure whether the former Minister for Transport in the Labor government ever worked on it, but I was working on it when I first became Transport minister, before becoming Chief Minister. It is about how we ensure a regulatory regime which provides a safe and healthy framework for employees, as well as environmental safety onshore and offshore for some of those locations, such as barge landings and ports around the Territory, without setting up too much red tape and green tape. I looked at this from a transport point of view and we had the opportunity of combining it here.
The Port of Darwin is the only prescribed port. It will be the government’s decision whether we prescribe another port and that regulatory environment will sit there. This would be a significant change for many vessel operators and landing spots around the Territory, and those decisions will not be made flippantly; they would be made after consultation.
At this stage, we are not looking at Port Melville being registered as a port under that regulatory model. It has been discussed, but we need to work out what that means. A lot of work will be done on this in the future. We are not looking at having a kneejerk reaction and signing everyone up because that will provide change, but we need the right safety and environmental positions in place.
In regard to competition from Port Melville with Ezion, there will undoubtedly be competition; it is not just for timber. Government and the Tiwi Land Council have done a fantastic deal with Mitsui. The member for Arafura and I worked diligently to get the timber deal over the port, but the port will have a much larger role than timber. Bulk storage is being built for diesel. I have been over there and inspected it. A range of things will occur on a supply basis, and as more transactions occur in that environment, government must step up and ensure we have a safe regulatory environment operating. We have that environment here, but how we apply that with consultation within the time frame will be very important.
The private sector is interested in long leasing the port and is well aware of those machinations. If investment is not made in the Darwin port going ahead, but private sector investment is provided into other areas – either the marine industry park or Port Melville – not today but in the future, the Port of Darwin becomes a sitting duck because we do not have the best facilities with a new, emerging and growing port.
Part of the model is freeing up Darwin port so it can compete. It has a massive advantage at the moment as we are in front, as opposed to TIO, which in the last four years had a 37% drop in market share on workers compensation insurance. It is a Territory-owned company with only 17% of the market in the Territory. It is the same with motor vehicle insurance, and it was getting picked off everywhere with housing insurance because it was further down the track. These decisions should have been made a long time ago for TIO, but we are in front of the game with the Port of Darwin.
If there is anything I have missed, scream out. I have tried to be pretty free. I will read a few of my notes in a moment. A lot has happened since the Port of Darwin and port management bills were introduced into the Legislative Assembly in the November 2014 sittings. I find it appropriate to remind the Assembly of the purpose of the three bills being debated today.
The Port of Darwin Bill is transaction enabling legislation aimed at assisting government to secure private investment in the Port of Darwin, should it make a decision to proceed down this path. As I explained in the second reading speech, the bill:
As I explained in the second reading speech, which the member for Nelson referred to, the Ports Management Bill will for the first time provide a regulatory framework for the management and control of all designated ports within the Northern Territory. It amalgamates the relevant provisions of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act to form a cohesive, improved, streamlined, regulatory regime for designated ports in one single piece of overarching legislation.
Given the strategic nature of the ports, especially the Port of Darwin, it is proposed that the Northern Territory retain a number of regulatory functions to safeguard public interest, including:
(a) maximising safety in designated ports through a government regional harbour master who sets safety standards, issues guidelines and approves port safety plans …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I seek an extension of time for the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: It must be getting late in the day.
(b) ensuring appropriate prices are maintained and access retained through the Utilities Commission undertaking a monitoring and regulatory role
(c) continuing to regulate environmental, dangerous goods, worker safety, recreational vessel safety and planning issues at the port.
My government has listened to the concerns about the proposal to seek private investment in the Port of Darwin. In February we established the Port of Darwin Select Committee. On Tuesday its report was tabled and yesterday it was debated in this House. We will continue to listen. We provided a substantial response to the report yesterday addressing and supporting each recommendation and going further in some ways. Some were accepted in principle because grammatically they needed a slight change in the way they would be implemented.
The select committee was established to inquire into and report on the Port of Darwin lease model to ensure we get it right. As I explained yesterday, the select committee has made a number of recommendations which government supports. The majority can be implemented in a manner which achieves its intended objectives and concerns without affecting the integrity and efficacies of current and proposed legislative policies and structures. However, committee stage amendments to the Port of Darwin Bill will be required to facilitate a small number of the recommendations. I will move each of the proposed committee stage amendments at the appropriate time.
The legislative package being debated today creates, for the first time, a comprehensive regulatory regime for designated ports in the Northern Territory; this is market-leading. The new regulatory regime achieves the balance required to allow port operators to go about their business to safely and efficiently run and grow ports. It also ensures the Northern Territory government retains key roles, including the setting of safety standards, being able to direct and then step in to manage emergency situations, license pilots, and most importantly monitor and regulate access and prices.
It should be noted that the port steering committee is currently tasked with determining the critical threshold measures, including volume and nature of port operations which will be used as a trigger destination of a port under the Ports Management Act.
For the foreseeable future there will one designated port. The legislation brings the Northern Territory into line with other jurisdictions in having the ability to designate a port at the appropriate time.
Going back to the question from the member for Nelson, where he asked why Darwin port is the only designated port; it is history. We are now changing this and have an opportunity to make changes in the future.
One area I would like members to prick their ears up at is the third bill, which is the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill. This bill was sought not to be taken in cognate, but I seek the support of the Assembly to hear this in cognate. I will explain what the bill is about, but it is similar.
This bill has been drafted to deal with a number of minor related and consequential amendments which were not incorporated into the Ports Management Bill due to time constraints. The consequential bill amends a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill.
Those who have read the second reading speech for what we term as a consequential amendment bill will note that it seeks to amend things such as the Litter Act, as well as minor things which consequently need to be amended to follow through with legislation.
I am happy to accept criticism about TIO in the process. It was started by the former Treasurer, the member for Araluen, in January 2013. It was not until the back end of 2014, when I became Treasurer, it got to the end. We had not held any consultation and I admit it was done quite quickly. I also admit some concern in regard to how quickly things change, and how much of an influence TIO was in the community regarding brand knowledge.
In regard to the port, it is not high brand knowledge, but we have been talking about this process for two years. Anticipated passage of these bills today to form an act does not mean the lease is done. This sets the regulatory environment for how the port operates into the future and allows the transaction to go ahead. We initially went for expressions of interests to see who was interested in the port. Using rough numbers, about 30 expressions were identified, which far exceeds what most analysts thought we would get. Since that point we have had about 10 additional expressions of interests, which should get us to around 40.
Following passage of this legislation, should it be supported by the Assembly, we will seek to go to the next stage. As I said yesterday, I am not being prescriptive about time frames, but we should have a potential lease on the port delivered by September. I say potential because we may go through this process and find that we have not achieved value for money, or that we do not have the right mix. We are still open-minded about that. We want someone who will invest in it. I say that categorically, but if we do not get the right model we will not progress it.
I think this has been a very good process. It is my intention to consult as much as possible. I am very disappointed that Labor has taken the position it has. I understand politics; I am not naive in that frame, but for them it is all politics around an asset sale and is not about the future of the Territory and strategic infrastructure.
One thing I have enjoyed about this process is working with my colleagues and the member for Nelson, and forming a consensus view in moving forward. Politics is about the art of compromise, and getting the model right is important. This is not political, it is personal, but I am pretty sad that the new Leader of the Opposition has chosen the political route rather than the best interests of the Territory route.
A simple slogan saying, ‘We do not support asset sales’, is not in the best interests of the Territory. How we support job growth in the port and in the Territory, and getting the best outcomes is what it is about.
The negative approach run by the former Leader of the Opposition, whether it was personal attacks or negative comments, has not produced results to date. I am not politically commentating, but what we have done in regard to fuel is a long-term game, but it is delivering results. What we have done with land release is reducing the cost of housing in the Northern Territory.
There is a lot more work to do. What we have done with the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment means people are now being treated for their alcohol abuse and misuse. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. But we have the lowest level of alcohol consumption since the 1990s. There are now more police and different policing strategies. We are making improvements across all portfolio areas. We heard the politics about education today. We have the biggest budget, the best school attendance and the best NAPLAN results, yet it is still sour, bottom lip dragging.
I encourage the Leader of the Opposition, inside or outside the Chamber, to by all means have a debate and complain about policy differences, but do not be negative. I encourage him not to engage in the political name calling slurs on people, otherwise I will have to remove my support for the Leader of the Opposition and go back to supporting the member for Wanguri. It was a bet each way; I am surprised she is not the deputy leader. I thought she would make a good deputy, but if the member for Fannie Bay keeps going in the same way as Delia Lawrie did, it will be bad for policy, debate and democracy in the Territory.
I commend this bill to the House. As I said, a range of amendments have been put forward. I hope Labor has an epiphany and changes its opposition because we have accepted all of the principles and recommendations from the report. Many of those things came from the MUA, as I am guided by the chair of the committee, as part of their ideology to improve port management. Many came from Labor and the member for Nelson. Consensus and compromise are what politics is about. It is about the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister spoke about making those consequential bills cognate. I do not know how that works in practice. I do not have a problem, but it needs to be done correctly.
Mr GILES: I asked the Clerk about thirty minutes before I spoke if I could do that and he said, ‘Yes, if it is the will of the Assembly’. I do not want to breach process. If I cannot do it, we will go back and do another bill in a minute. I thought it might be easier for the Assembly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The issue is that members have not spoken on the third bill. They have only spoken on the first two bills. If it is the will of the Assembly, the clocks will reset and members then will have an opportunity to speak on the third bill. That is the only way it can be done. If you want to proceed with that and members want to speak on the third bill, so be it.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 113) be taken in cognate with the Port Management Bill (Serial 110) and Port of Darwin Bill (Serial 111).
Motion agreed to; bills taken together.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Ports Management Bill (Serial 110) together with Schedule of Amendments No 34, circulated by the Chief Minister.
Clauses 1 to 40, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 41:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.1 to Clause 41, which amends the heading of clause 41 of the Ports Management Bill to more clearly reflect the content of the section. This amendment was recommended by the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, that being recommendation 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.2, which amends the heading of clause 42 of the Ports Management Bill to more clearly reflect the content of the section. This amendment was recommended by the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, that being recommendation 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 53, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.3, which inserts new clause 54(5)(ca) into the Ports Management Bill. This new clause requires that when the minister considers a stevedores licence application he must give consideration as to whether grant or renewal of the licence would lessen effective competition in upstream or downstream markets, either within or outside the designated port. This amendment gives effect to a recommendation of the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, being recommendation number 7A.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 120, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 120A:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.4, which inserts a new clause 120A to the Ports Management Bill. The effect of this new section is to require the regulator to make an annual report to the minister by 1 December each year on any material instances of non-compliance, which has occurred during the immediately preceding financial year with either the operator’s access policy, or with a price determination of the regulator that applied to the operator. The minister must table a copy of the report in the Legislative Assembly within seven sitting days after receiving it. This amendment gives effect to the principal of the Port of Darwin Select Committee recommendation that access and pricing breaches be reported and tabled for parliament’s consideration, that being recommendation 4(b).
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 120A inserted.
Clauses 121 to 125, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 126:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.5 which replaces clauses 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Ports Management Bill. The amendment implements a proposal for access policy requirements to be outlined in regulations rather than in guidelines issued by the utilities commission. This amendment will create the framework to more ably give effect to the intent of the Port of Darwin Select Committee recommendation to provide an alternate mechanism for resolving access and pricing disputes, that being recommendation 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.6, which removes clause 126(2)(a) of the Ports Management Bill. The amendment confirms that the access policy will now be a matter covered in regulations and not the guidelines.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.7, which replaces clauses 126(3) and (4) of the Ports Management Bill. The new clause establishes a more robust and transparent framework for dealing with a situation where the regulator does not approve a draft access policy. These clauses support the Port of Darwin Select Committee report recommendation in relation to alternative mechanisms to resolve access and pricing disputes, that being recommendation 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.8, which amends the wording of clause 126(6) of the Ports Management Bill to acknowledge the insertion of the new section 126(4A).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.9, which inserts new clauses 126(8A) and (8B) in the Ports Management Bill. The new clauses provide a framework for amendments to be made to a private port operator’s access policy at any time after it has been approved by the regulator. Clause 126(8A) requires a port operator to engage in consultations to ensure that port users are informed of the proposal. Clause 126(8B) requires the port operator to provide written reasons for the proposed amendments and a summary of the comments received during consultations in deciding whether to approve a new draft access policy. The regulator must consider whether it is necessary for the operator to make the proposed changes.
These committee stage amendments give greater transparency and clarity around access policy approval processes.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.10, which inserts new clause 126(10) in the Ports Management Bill. The new clause ensures that when an operator submits a new draft access policy for the regulator’s approval, there remains an ongoing requirement for the operator to comply with the existing access policy until it is amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.11, which amends the wording in clause 127(1) to reflect that access policies will no longer be covered in guidelines, but reports in relation to the access policies will continue to be covered in guidelines.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.12, which replaces clause 129(1) with new clauses 129(1) and (1A). The new clauses support the reporting requirements in the new section 120A by requiring a private port operator to report material instances of non-compliance with the access policy. These amendments give effect to the principle of the Port of Darwin Select Committee’s recommendation that annual reports on compliance with access in pricing principles be tabled in parliament, that being recommendation 4(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.13, which amends clause 129(2) to recognise new clause 129(1A), outlined in amendment 34.12.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 130:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.14, which amends clause 130(1)(a), which recognises new clause 129(1A), outlined in amendment 34.12. The new section now provides that the regulator may require a private port operator to provide information on any matter arising out of a report on failure to comply with the access policy under sections 129(1) or (1A).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the three bills be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 7
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 89, the Assembly meets on the 4 June 2015 at 2 pm. The order of business will be as follows:
Prayers
Notices
Government Business.
The reason for this motion to reorder business is that when we come back after the estimates process we begin at 2 pm.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the monthly fuel reports from honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now – sorry, I just had the fun of pausing there – adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record the following report prepared by Mr Jeremy Robinson – who is a school sports coordinator for Arnhem and does a wonderful job – about the recent trip made by the Arnhem Region 12 Years and Under AFL championship team. When I was flying back home to Nhulunbuy last Friday morning Jeremy was sitting a few seats in front of me. He came and sat in the vacant seat next to me and regaled me with tales of the successes those boys and the adults accompanying them had enjoyed during this trip. I will place on the record details of the report that Jeremy prepared.
Last week the Arnhem region 12 and Under AFL championship team made the long journey to Darwin to compete in the NT School Sport 12 and Under AFL Championships at Northline Oval in Palmerston. The team travelled to Darwin from as far afield as Umbakumba in Groote Eylandt and Milingimbi in the Crocodile Islands. However, the most committed of the team were players from the Nhulunbuy/Gove area who, for the first time ever, braved the 15-hour straight forward journey through to Darwin and the 18-hour return journey on the Lirrwi Tourism’s specially designed four-wheel drive buses across Arnhem Land. On the way the group encountered water buffalo, wild horses, wild cattle and kangaroos. Anthony Brereton, a teacher at Yirrkala School and manager of the football team, travelled both legs of the journey and said that although sometimes bumpy, the journey was a very unique and safe experience.
The team, travelling from different parts of Arnhem Land, met in Darwin and proceeded to bond together instantly as a team at their group accommodation at Kormilda College in Berrimah. Three days of rigorous Australian Rules football games and activities followed. The Arnhem region team played a total of 10 games with a win/loss ratio of 4:6. This placed the Arnhem region team at the top of Pool B going into the finals on day three. Although the boys did not win their pool, they played aggressively and slogged it out until the last siren of the final 10th game. As Jeremy said, he could not have been more proud of them.
The group also experienced the joys of the Palmerston Water Park, shopping at the Casuarina Shopping Centre and a special movie treat at the cinema. I was surprised and delighted that one boy thanked me for taking him to the movie because he told me, ‘This is the first time I have ever been in a cinema’.
Due to the exceptional talent we have in Arnhem Land, two boys were selected for the Northern Territory team to play interstate football in Geelong, Victoria in July 2015. Congratulations to Gungdjarra ‘Wamut’ Mununggurr from Yirrkala and Jaedon Djerrkura from the Nhulunbuy Christian College. A big thank you to the Rirratjingu Aboriginal Corporation for sponsoring both boys to attend the interstate program in July.
This trip could not have been possible without the support of the Yirrkala Clontarf Academy, Hamish Simpson and Rob Clements – the directors of Clontarf – the Department of Education, Lirrwi Tourism and their staff, Anthony Brereton, Dale Dhamarrandji, our assistants Lazarus Mamarika and Dharridharri Mununggurr, Emily Perry, and parents and friends who travelled to Darwin at their own cost to support the Arnhem team.
The children who participated in the competition from the Arnhem Region were: Hudson Dungey from Alyangula; Ivan Larlara and Isaac Kerindun from Angurugu; Thomas Stelfox, Anthony Thompson, Dylan James, Joshua Gurruwiwi, David Bromot, Shacarl Gumbula and Koby Douglas from Nhulunbuy Primary School; Joshua Mayawalpalngawuy and Andrew Garirriwirra from Milingimbi; Jaedon Djerrkura from Nhulunbuy Christian College; Kelvin Wurramara and Edward Lalara from Umbakumba; Baltjawuma Maymuru, Yinitjpi Mununggurr, Djamadjama Wunungmurra, Birayyu Marawili, Gungdjarra Mununggurr from Yirrkala; and Caleb Wungumarra from Gapuwiyak.
Congratulations to all of those people involved. Well done to you, Jeremy Robinson. I know how hard you work as the coordinator for School Sport NT in the Arnhem region. I know you work miracles in trying to help these kids overcome the logistics and challenges of getting out to these competitions, not the least of which is trying to find football boots for all of these kids. I wish you all the very best, Jeremy, with the next competition you have. I think you told me it was a 12 and Under soccer competition in Darwin for girls. It sounds as if you have plenty to keep you busy.
I will also talk briefly about the NT Young Achiever Awards. Marathindi Wunungmurra from Yirrkala was shortlisted as a finalist in the recent Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards for the category of Young Indigenous Educator. Marathindi has been employed as a family liaison officer with Yirrkala School’s Families as First Teachers since 2008. Marathindi runs playgroups independently with great dedication to her work. These playgroups are important for the Yirrkala community and Marathindi uses them to mentor parents with learning games, conversational reading, financial management, healthcare, nutrition and care for young infants. Marathindi is a great asset to the Families as First Teachers program and I congratulate her once again on her outstanding efforts and achievement.
I offer congratulations as well to Ishmael Marika from Yirrkala. Ishmael won the Arts Category in the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards for his work as a film director producing three significant features films and his work on numerous Yolngu cultural productions. I think at Garma last year he launched the short film he had made called Galka, which attracted considerable acclaim. The judges commented that Ishmael was an inspiring young director, filmmaker and digital artist. Ishmael has exhibited in the 2014 Primavera exhibition, the Garma Festival and the Darwin International Film Festival. At only 23 years old I am sure there are many more great achievements still to come for Ishamel. Congratulations to him. It was terrific that Ishmael managed to find the support to travel to Darwin to attend the awards as a finalist, and then was announced a winner.
It was disappointing for Marathindi Wunungmurra that she did not have the funds to travel to attend the awards. I know it would have been a big trip for her on her own. She would have needed somebody to accompany her. Sadly there were no funds for her. I was happy as local member to make a contribution towards her airfare.
Minister, it could be a consideration for future awards. I know they are already costly, but could we endeavour to try to find funds for these young people who have been nominated and, more importantly, made it through to the final section? It would be something quite special for our young people from these very remote parts of the Northern Territory to participate in the gala event for the awards. Perhaps that is something the organisers will take on board in future. We will see.
I also place on the public record this evening the wonderful event – a youth talent show called Gove’s Got Talent – that was staged in Nhulunbuy a couple of Saturdays ago as part of Youth Week celebrations. I offer congratulations to Anglicare for organising this very successful contest. It was held at Nhulunbuy Town Hall showcasing the many musical and dancing talents of our young people in the region. It was great to see a mixture of our Yolngu and Ngapaki kids participating.
Well done to our youth workers from Anglicare: Kiri Deegan, who had a big part to play in organising this event; Leicolhn McKellar; and Eddie Sennie. Karen Ella-Bird was there as well with the youth programs manager, Karen’s husband, Kevin Bird. They are fantastic support for the youth of Nhulunbuy and surrounding communities.
Judging was no easy task, I can tell you. I was one of four on a panel. With our scoring system we arrived at the delightful young Serina O’Connor as winner, with runners-up being the A+ Band from Nhulunbuy High School and the Sapphires – yes, an all-girl group from Yirrkala – in third place.
Accolades to other participants and performers: Mali Fraser; Whitney Yunupingu; Lincoln Teagle; and the all-boy Yambirrpa Band from Yirrkala School. They all shone like stars with their performances.
It is worth noting the delightful Siena Stubbs from Yirrkala, who featured in two of the bands that performed. There is certainly talent to watch in young Siena. She is going places; mark my words.
Special thanks go to Stewie Calloway, who does a great deal to nurture student talent amongst our kids with musical talents such as the Yambirrpa Band from Yirrkala. Well done to all of those involved.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I remember a significant and much loved member of the Katherine Community. Ruth Murphy, who was a Lansdowne before she married Brian Murphy, sadly passed away on 6 April this year.
This 79-year-old lady was active and feisty, letting nothing slow her down. Ruth will best be remembered for her pottery, for always being physically active, and as I have heard from many people, for being an absolutely amazing mother. She was a member of the community everyone looked up to, admired and most people aspired to be like.
Ruth was born in 1935 in Quirindi in the New South Wales Hunter Valley. On leaving school she headed north and trained as a nurse in Rockhampton in Queensland. Ruth’s parents had moved to Katherine in the Northern Territory in the early 1950s. During a visit with her parents, Ruth fell in love with the Territory and later moved there. She initially worked at Newry Station in the west of the Northern Territory where her brother, Keith Lansdowne, was the manager. Ruth met her husband, Brian Patrick Murphy, at Newry when he was working as head stockman and they were later married in Darwin. Ruth and Brian had four sons: Chris, Steven, Danny and Joe.
Earlier I mentioned Ruth’s amazing pottery. It is safe to say that almost every home in Katherine has, or at some point had, some of Ruth’s pottery. Her coffee mugs, wine goblets and soup bowls in particular were stunning to look at and terrific to use. I am very proud to say that I have a couple of Ruth Murphy’s pieces of pottery.
Most years Ruth, in conjunction with her son, Danny, would hold a pottery exhibition in an old shed on their block on the banks of the Katherine River, just past the hospital. So popular was her pottery that many Katherine residents would try to queue jump, sneaking in before the official opening times or trying to place early orders to ensure they did not miss out on her latest pottery pieces.
Ruth made everyone feel special and, thankfully, there was always enough pottery to fill every order. As I said, Ruth was an avid potter. This hobby started about 45 years ago, and right up until about two weeks before she died Ruth was still involved in every process of the pottery stage, from the beginning to the glazed pieces taken from the kiln at the end.
Ruth was also well known for being physically active. Tennis was another of her passions. She played doubles for many years on Monday nights in Katherine.
In his eulogy at his mother’s service, Danny said that his mother was the ‘consummate Pollyanna’. She was tough, simple, basic, caring, feisty, energetic, generous, loving, a doer and a free thinker. Hers was a free spirit, strong and solid.
Sadly, she and her husband Brian were not together at the time of her death. Brian passed away about a week before Ruth, on 29 March this year. Together they leave behind four sons. I send my condolences to Chris, Steven, Danny and Joe.
The Katherine community will dearly miss this beloved lady. Our lives will be a lot less rich because of the passing of Ruth Murphy. May she rest in peace. I know her memory will be forever enshrined in the many pottery pieces around the homes of Katherine. Whenever I look at Ruth Murphy’s pieces I will remember a very caring, kind and generous person, one I had the pleasure of knowing quite well over the last six or seven years since I have been the member for Katherine.
To her family once again, deepest condolences on the passing of a great lady of Katherine.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will reflect on the comments of the member for Nhulunbuy because I am going to be talking tonight about National Youth Week. It was great to see some young people from Nhulunbuy represented in the Young Achiever Awards, which I will talk about shortly.
National Youth Week turned 15 years old this year and attracts a growing number of young Australians in alcohol-and-drug-free recreation and leadership activities every year. In the Territory there is a very passionate team in government which works hard to coordinate activities across the Territory in collaboration with young people, including the Northern Territory Young Members, who meet with their interstate counterparts regularly to feed into the important national planning of this week. This year it ran from 10 to 19 April.
Our Young Members in the Northern Territory are two inspiring young women I have had the pleasure of getting to know over a period of time. One of those young women is Chantal Ober, a young youth worker based in Katherine who has been part of the youth advisory group and is a strong voice for local young people. She now has taken her experiences to her job as a youth worker at the YMCA there.
The other is Sharnie Roberts, who is an Indigenous youth engagement officer at headspace in Palmerston during the day and has been working incredibly hard as the National Youth Week Young Member for the NT.
Both have been active in their roles, promoting National Youth Week events to young Territorians and the broader youth community in Australia. I congratulate them on their time spent in these roles and their commitment to their peers. The theme for this year’s National Youth Week was ‘It starts with us’. I was fortunate throughout the week leading up to National Youth Week to hear the reflections of many young Territorians on what this meant to them.
This included participating as a guest speaker of the youth empowerment cruise which was hosted by the YMCA of Katherine. I was one of the older people on the cruise. I am continually impressed by organisations who practise what they preach with young people the drivers of the activities they want to see and participate in. The cruise allowed us to have conversations about facing your fears, having strength and backing yourself, and the importance of recognising the value of young Territorians’ perspectives. It was an honour to share my experiences with them and to hear them share their experiences with each other, as opportunities and mentors as a young person in the Territory are what led me here today.
As has become tradition, National Youth Week in the Northern Territory opened with the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards on Saturday. I know the member for Wanguri would agree because she was there, that this is always an incredibly inspiring evening and a timely reminder of the spirit of the celebration, which is to celebrate and recognise the contributions that young Territorians make, in a whole manner of industries and areas of the Territory, to the communities and to their families.
The incredible young people could each warrant their own adjournment speech; however, I will at this point say a hearty congratulations to all nominees, finalists and the winners, who are: Jessica Sullivan, who won the Excellence in Youth Leadership Award and is a former Youth Round Table member; Rhiannon Moore, the Career Kick Start Award; Cherisse Buzzacott, the Health and Wellbeing Award; Tenneil Ross, Community Services Award; Jackson Thomas, the Young Carers Award – that one brought tears to the eyes of pretty much everybody in the room; Clayton Namatjira, the Environment Award; Matt King, Small Business Achievement Award; Ishmael Marika, the Arts Award; Haydon Staines, the Young Indigenous Educator Award; Tom O’Neill-Thorne, the Sports Award; Tara Liddy, the Indigenous Achievement Award; and Pritika Desai, who won both the Regional and Rural Initiative Award and the overall Young Achiever of the Year Award.
Pritika runs an initiative called Shout Out, a program focusing on youth mental health. Her aim through that is to break down the stigma that still exists for many young people seeking help when it comes to mental health. She is an incredibly impressive young woman and it was very inspiring to see her win that night. She is also very active as a committee member on the Indian Cultural Society’s youth advisory group.
It was a pleasure that evening to hear reflections from Territorian, Miranda Tapsell, a Darwin High School alumni like me. I am sure those reflections will no doubt stay with the many young and the young at heart who attended on that night.
On the Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the couch surfing event – which took place outside Parliament House – as an ambassador for Youth Homelessness Matters Day. As fun and high energy as the event always is – I know the member for Blain was also there pushing a couch down the road in front of Parliament House – the day has a sobering message. The Territory’s youth makes up about 1% of the national youth population. However, it represents 15% of the national youth homelessness population. Homelessness in this sense includes couch surfing and those who live in overcrowded housing.
We need to continue to focus on connecting young people to the services that can assist them. I am pleased to say there were many of these services present on the day; it is a growing number every year. There were many teams, including local schools, a group of young men from Gunbalanya who took out the title last year and the Red Cross youth advisory group to name a few. It is nice to see so many come together to raise awareness of such an important issue. There was a fabulous youth cultural showcase organised by the Indian Cultural Society. It was an honour to be part of the judging panel for the talent quest. The people were so impressive that we picked them all; I do not know if that is cheating. They were all very talented and made up the entertainment on the evening. The Leader of the Opposition and I learnt some new dance moves that night thanks to Fantastic Bollywood Dance Group. Please do not ask us to show you as that would be a bit embarrassing.
It has been an incredibly busy month and there has been so much that I could speak of. There have obviously been New Year’s celebrations across our community. However, I will mention two events that had a huge impact on our community.
Earlier this month we saw the devastating massacre at Garissa University in Kenya which saw the loss of almost 150 lives, mostly young students. The East African Community Association of the NT organised a beautiful vigil in Malak for the lives lost and to gather the NT Kenyan community and broader community together in unity and strength. A number of local leaders, including from our multi-faith community, came together and gave the same message: we stand alongside the community and our thoughts are with them during this time.
We have also this week seen the impacts of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal and the massive loss of life through that devastating natural disaster. Our thoughts are with Nepal and the Nepalese community in the Northern Territory. I wish them swift news of their loved ones overseas because I know that news is still trickling through for many. I will not be alone in this House seeing people I know searching for news of people who are in Nepal at the moment. We have not heard anything yet. These events hit home. We have a beautiful multicultural community and many have family in countries across the world, so it is hard to hear news like this.
This Friday, the Nepalese Association is hosting the Unite for Nepal event from 5 pm at the Filipino community hall in Marrara. It will raise much-needed funds for the victims of the earthquake. I know members of this House are already doing all they can to promote the event and donate what they can. I encourage the community to come together.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I once again put on the record our condolences and support for the Nepalese community during this time; particularly our Nepalese community in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, on 24 March 2015. Unfortunately I still have not had a reply. On behalf of my constituents, I once again ask the Chief Minister for his attention.
The letter sought advice on the Giles government’s local youth program funding announced in a media release on 4 February 2015 from Chief Minister Hon Adam Giles and Minister for Young Territorians, Hon Peter Styles.
It was acknowledging and valuing early intervention into youth support and development, and the fact that the Giles government promised $4.2m over four years for local youth programs, comprising Alice Springs $1.225m, Tennant Creek $525 000, Katherine $525 000, Nhulunbuy $175 000, Darwin and Palmerston $1.4m and Red Dust Alice Springs $350 000.
I advise the Chief Minister that he stated in the media release that the Regional Coordination Committees will receive and allocate the funding maintaining a focus on early intervention and prevention initiatives.
Tennant Creek stakeholders and constituents are still asking what happened to this initiative and when an announcement will be made on successful program submissions. Tennant Creek stakeholders and constituents are also asking the status of the Giles government’s promised $475 000 from 2014 for new youth services in the Barkly, as program development and delivery is not easily identifiable.
As usual, I thanked the Chief Minister for his consideration of my correspondence on behalf of our constituents. I look forward to the reply so I can inform stakeholders and constituents.
Unfortunately there has been no response from the Chief Minister, but I am sure the ministerial office upstairs will be listening. It would be great to have a reply because we all agree youth services is a very important area. At the end of budget week, we have not heard the necessary announcements about youth services or the Giles government addressing this important area, the foundation stones of building our community with our youth and young people.
This is about existing money. It is money from the current financial year which has been promised and we have not seen it on the ground. I am sure you would welcome, as I would, a visit to Tennant Creek for some big announcements about how this money will flow into the community to support our youth.
I tie youth to tourism. I acknowledge a media release from you, Chief Minister Adam Giles, on 11 April 2015 titled ‘Territorian tourism operators win big at national awards’. I quote from the media release:
I acknowledge that Voyages Ayres Rock Resort struck gold in the Best Indigenous Tourism Experience category. I congratulate Voyages on that win. I respectfully advise them that I plan a trip through Central Australia this year as part of the entitlement for local members to travel. It will be a road trip, as that seems to be the best I get. But that is okay because it delivers a lot of benefits.
I planned a trip to Voyages because I am interested in their training programs for Indigenous employees. However, in discussions and setting up this research trip, it has come to my attention that the award Voyages won was based on cultural exhibitions, and apparently the Indigenous people who are performing many of the cultural exhibitions come from New South Wales.
The link between youth programs and the opportunities for training to employment would directly relate to the Mutitjulu community. It is very difficult to understand that there is not much energy going into the Mutitjulu community from government in partnership with royalty programs to build what could be a youth performance program.
Chief Minister, if you are interested, I have a lot of experience in youth performance programs and was honoured to be part of our Tennant Creek and Barkly youth performance program over about eight years. We delivered some outstanding results and most of the expos work was done at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek.
There is obviously some strong synergy that could be done in Mutitjulu, which could relate to training to employment which could enhance what Voyagers is obviously interested in doing, with the support of youth and a focus on the arts.
There is another interesting link in regard to budget week this week. I thank the Minister for Arts and Museums who was not dismissive of my suggestions about more creative appropriations of considerable budget resources within the Arts and Museums sector – $18.3m to basically renovate an old existing building in Darwin, with major constraints around development, especially when I compared it to what Labor did with the Defence of Darwin experience for a new modern high-tech building for around $15m.
Let us jump to the next opportunity, where the Chief Minister has announced, through Budget 2015-16, $20m appropriated for an Indigenous cultural institution. That $20m is appropriated for an idea at this stage.
As a previous Minister for Arts and Museums I facilitated a conversation with the executive of Arts and Museums and then took it on the road. I discussed it with a number of Territorians, high-level stakeholders in the sector and with Territorians at a grassroots level in the arts community. It was about the Territory focusing on two cultural institutions. One would be the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, a new build, and another was an Indigenous art gallery of the Northern Territory representing a national focus.
When I started to research those ideas it was apparent that having a national focus and being recognised nationally for the Indigenous cultural and artistic component, you would be looking at in the vicinity of $100m to $200m. I then did some research in the National Gallery of Australia to look at the logistics. So $20m for an idea is very interesting. However, with areas such as the youth, arts and communities sectors – which are seriously under pressure with major cuts and changes in ideology at a federal level and the Northern Territory announcement that it will cut funding to 2010 levels – $20m seems to be a lot of cash to park up Chief Minister. Other than the dot point on a media release and a line item in a budget paper, I have not heard where the land is, or about the infrastructure or the design and construct.
I am interested in the consultation with Territorians. If we are embarking on this journey I can imagine the in-depth and intensive work that will need be done to consult with Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory. That will be an enormous effort not only logistically, but around sensitive cultural negotiations. It needs to be done properly. With $20m parked up, I will throw a political cynicism out that this relates to a number of other big ticket items in Budget 2015-16. Cynically it could be simply to make big numbers on a page in black and white print.
However, if there is serious cash available, I draw your attention to making it work with Territory young people and Arts and Museums, preparing the grassroots, the foundation stones of our society and our Northern Territory community. Let us get the young people in a movement forward to be the grassroots development of any nationally recognised Indigenous cultural institution in the Northern Territory. Once again, it is an idea, Chief Minister, a clear alternative presented by a member of the opposition. On a micro level I am looking forward to you replying to my letter.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to clear up a bit of scuttlebutt and rumour, or put to bed a couple of rumours. I have caught the attention of the member for Barkly, who was just packing up his desk, but he wants to stay and hear this and I am happy for him to do so.
The scuttlebutt and the rumour surrounds me and the issues relating to a personal expense incurred by me that, due to particular circumstances, was settled by the CEO of Tourism NT. The amount in question is some $5119.54. That amount has since been repaid by me from my salary.
The scuttlebutt surrounding it relates to some rumour and innuendo that I was, believe it or not, arrested while on an overseas trip and released on bail. The suggestion was that I was bailed out at taxpayers’ expense. I know a number of scandalous stories and juicy tales emerge from this parliament at times but I cannot think of a more salacious one than an MP being bailed from a foreign gaol at taxpayers’ expense. It would make a great story. It is a story though that is too good to be true.
There were three allegations. There may be more but I have heard three. First it was alleged that I had a serious run-in with the Triads while I was in China and was bailed or some taxpayers’ money was used to free me from the grips of the Triads. I would think if I had a run-in with the Triads and am still here to tell the tale, I should probably be congratulated.
The other was an alleged altercation in Japan where I was subsequently thrown into prison and bailed out on taxpayers’ money.
The third one though is probably the best. It was alleged an incident took place while I was in Singapore. I had an altercation with the Singaporean police, was subsequently locked up and bailed out by none other than Hon Shane Stone QC.
I can confidently and categorically refute and dismiss these allegations. At no stage in my life have I ever been held in any form of foreign gaol or ever had any encounter with foreign police. To suggest otherwise is completely untrue and without a skerrick of substantiation.
The matter of the $5119.54 that I requested the CEO of Tourism to settle on my behalf was, to put simply, a bar tab gone wrong in Tokyo. Anyone who has been to Japan will know it is not difficult to rack up large hospitality bills. Nevertheless it became clear on receiving the account at the end of the evening that my generosity had been severely taken advantage of. As a result I found myself in a situation where my own credit card could not cover the expense. Consequently the only option to me at the time was to phone my CEO, who was not with me at the time, and ask if he could please settle the account for me and I would make arrangements to resettle it from my salary.
I seek leave to table these documents that have been requested under FOI. There were two FOI requests, one from the Leader of the Opposition’s office and one from the NT News. I have these documents with me. I seek leave to table these documents.
Leave granted.
Mr CONLAN: The documents relate to the credit card transactions from the CEO of Tourism. You will see there are three transactions. They had to be paid in three lots because the establishment, for some reason, would not take one large sum.
The other is a copy of a handwritten letter from me, in November 2013, to the CEO of Tourism, outlining what had taken place and that I would be making arrangements to repay that money. This is a formal letter outlining the repayments and how they would take place.
There is another document between Tourism NT and, I assume, the Department of Business or someone in Finance somewhere, to say that it has been fully repaid. I say ‘fully repaid’ because 4c was still remaining but they dismissed the 4c. I am happy to repay the 4c if required but I was informed that it is not.
They are the documents that have been obtained under FOI. They are available and will be formally presented to the Australian Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition and the NT News. Now it is on the public record so everyone can see it.
In hindsight I can say it was clearly a mistake to trust relative strangers in a foreign land. It is not appropriate for taxpayers to cover off on MP’s personal hospitality expenses. If asked if it is appropriate, the answer of course is no, regardless of whether it has been repaid or not. The situation was, to me, regretful.
While there was no lasting damage, I do not think there was any inconvenience to the Northern Territory public. It could have possibly been a lot worse. For this reason I apologise to the Northern Territory government, the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory for a situation that could have been a lot worse.
At no stage have I ever claimed, reclaimed or sought reimbursement for that $5000.
At first I was not keen for the FOI documents to be forthcoming; I thought it might be a breach of privacy. But at the end of the day it was a simple mistake, a rookie error by a new, inexperienced minister. I allowed my judgment to be clouded. I thought the best course of action was to simply fess up.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, hopefully this will be a lesson for current and future ministers of the Northern Territory parliament. While the episode is somewhat embarrassing, it was a simple mistake that deserves an explanation. The best place for the explanation is the gravitas of this parliament.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Darwin High School accompanied by Peter Stretton and Jen Harker. A very good morning to you, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly disallows:
1. Subordinate Legislation No 41 of 2014, Gaming Machine Amendment (Aggregate Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014; and
The government has repealed Regulation 3 of the Gaming Machine Amendment (Aggregate Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014, meaning there is no upper limit on the number of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory. The government has amended Regulation 3 of the Gaming Machine Amendment (Maximum Number of Gaming Machines) Regulations 2014, which increased the maximum number of electronic gambling machines from 10 to 20 in hotels and from 45 to 55 in clubs. The reason for this motion is simple: these changes should not have occurred until there had been proper consultation with the community, NGOs and industry, if at all, on what effects this change would have.
Unfortunately the minister for Licensing decided to announce on Friday 12 December at 5.45 pm, two weeks after the last day of parliamentary sittings was held on 27 November 2014, that he would introduce the changes through a media released headed, ‘Electronic gaming machine reforms’. There was no discussion. I believe the government tried to hide these changes and deliberately announced them hoping everyone would be asleep that night. Thankfully, someone from the media was on the ball and the issue received some attention, but unfortunately parliament had closed down so the matter could not be properly debated. The only way to now stop these regulations from being approved is by a motion of disallowance.
This motion says we know electronic gambling is the cause of social problems in some of the population, so before the government decides to add more pokies to more than 2000 pokies we already have in the NT, proper consultation is needed. Other people agree with this. I received a letter from NAAJA which says:
- NAAJA is concerned about the impact of the decision to increase poker machine caps on Aboriginal people in the Top End, especially in remote communities. We are particularly concerned that this decision will see more Aboriginal people addicted to gambling, and less money being spent on families and children.
We are concerned that the government did not undertake a formal study of the potential impacts these changes might bring.
We are aware of the disallowance motion being brought by the Independent member for Nelson, Gerry Wood and agree with his view that an issue that has this level of public importance should have been properly debated in parliament before any decision was made, and that a public inquiry should have been set up so that all sectors of the community could have been able to have their voice as to the likely impacts.
Banyan House wrote:
- … Banyan House offers medium- to long-term rehabilitation services for people struggling with addiction – including gambling addiction, and deals with the devastation of the adverse effects poker and other gambling facilities have on individuals, families, children of addict/ people who misuse the facilities and the community at large.
The Forster Foundation (Banyan House) supports the Independent member for Nelson’s disallowance motion around the changed legislation regarding ‘caps on poker machines’ as there has been no public consultation on the increase of electronic gaming machines (EGMs), in the Northern Territory.
In 2010 the Productivity Commission (PC) reported EGMs are the dominant source of gambling revenue in Australia. In the same report the PC estimated the social costs of problem gambling, including suicide, depression, relationship breakdown, lowered work productivity, job loss, bankruptcy and crime to be over $4.7bn per year in Australia. This by 2015 would have escalated significantly.
There is a great deal of research that demonstrates the negative consequences of problem gambling which include: physical and mental health and wellbeing; financial hardship/devastation; relationship breakdowns; employment and legal issues. More recently problem gambling has been shown to be a specific risk factor for family and domestic violence. Research also shows that people negatively impacted by problem gambling extends far wider than just the individual, with about five to 10 other people affected due to one person’s problem gambling.
Aside from the identified harms to individuals and the broader community regarding gambling, evidence states a clear, albeit complex, relationship existing between increasing availability and/or density of gambling opportunities and increased levels of problems associated with gambling.
It is unclear if there will be an increased demand on services and what the government’s plans are to meet that demand for the health, social, legal and broader community sector.
The Forster Foundation acknowledges the complexity of problematic gambling and recommends a public health framework to be implemented and maintained from policy to community level. We recommend and support an open and transparent community consultation process on this very important topic.
The Northern Territory Council of Social Service also wrote a letter saying it supports consultation in relation to this issue. It recommends an open and transparent community consultation process as well.
People would be quite aware of Nick Xenophon, who also wrote to me. He said:
- I write following the loosening of the rules from 1 January in relation to poker machines in the Territory. I am deeply concerned the Northern Territory government has allowed increases in the number of poker machines above the former cap of 1190 machines, allowing new venues to obtain the machines and permitting the use of bank note acceptors on machines.
I would love to know how that occurred.
- From 1 July pubs will be able to double the maximum number of machines from 10 to 20, while clubs will be able to boost theirs from 45 to 55.
He also said:
- Since entering politics in 1997 at the state and federal levels, I have fought the expansion of these electronic locusts that destroy lives and families, and depress local economies. At last count Australia had over 200 000 poker machines spread across pubs, clubs and casinos. A Productivity Commission report in 2010 estimated more than 300 000 Australians at risk of problem gambling and that problem gambling took $4.7bn out of the hands of Australians and their communities each year. The NT government’s decision will mean more problem gambling in the Northern Territory.
There were other comments; for example, a senior research fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research, Matt Stevens, made this comment:
- … research on the social impacts of poker machines was clear.
‘There definitely will be an increase in problem gambling rates as a result.
‘You find with poker machines, the more machines you have in a venue, the more money per machine they make.
‘With pubs going from 10 to 20 machines, that will lead to much bigger losses from players.
‘It's to do with psychology and marketing principles. People are hearing machines winning, so that encourages people to keep gambling and betting, thinking they're going to win as well.’
I will quote my statement from the Hansard, when we debated this in the previous sittings:
- Matt Stevens is no dropkick; I will give you an idea of his background. He is a multidisciplinary researcher specialising in public health and statistics and has worked as a consultant statistician across a range of disciplines, from environmental science to epidemiology. After moving to the Northern Territory in 2000, he began working for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Statistics before joining Menzies School of Health Research in 2002 in the area of Indigenous housing and social determinants of health.
He received a Doctorate of Philosophy in 2013 for his research into gambling problems amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.
The Northern Territory Law Society has also attacked the move.
The Society's president Tass Liveris said increasing the number of poker machines was counterintuitive to the strong links between problem gambling and crime.
And he said he had little faith the Government's plan to use money from poker machines to deal with problem gambling would work.
‘There is a real risk that the one-off fee payable per new machine and the new assessment process will provide inadequate protection against the wide community-based problems that are linked to problem gambling,’ he said.
- The social and broader health costs of gambling are enormous and there is seemingly a relationship between the supply, demand and the increased levels of problem gambling. This can be with people who can least afford it and compete with food and other essential life needs. This is a public health issue. I therefore disagree with the lifting of the cap on the number of poker machines in the NT. Thank you for listening.
There are concerns out there. It is obvious to any clear-thinking person that consultation should have occurred, but it has not. The government had no intention to consult and hoped it would not happen. It has been lobbied by one of the biggest financial supporters, the AHA (NT), and the government has given it what it wants. The AHA saw a chance to make more money with the influx of FIFOs into the Territory. It knew it had friends in the government; you can see that by what has happened.
The member for Fong Lim said pubs will become more family friendly. Not everyone wants to go to a pub and listen to pokies. I do not think the government should be promoting pubs for families. Families should be out in the open playing sport. If his comment has some element of truth, it is not a reason for raising the number of poker machines.
The minister for Gaming and Licensing was reported on the ABC on 15 December as saying:
- Mr Styles also rejected suggestions the increase in the number of poker machines would cause social problems in the Territory.
‘The great majority of people use gaming machines responsibly, as other people in the community use whatever hobby they have responsibly,’ he said.
When asked how he could claim an increase would not cause problems for problem gamblers despite extensive research suggesting it would, Mr Styles said he rejected the premise of the question.
The Minister said remote Indigenous communities would be able to apply for poker machine licences.
‘Even though people apply they might not get their pokies,’ he said.
One of the strongest cases for consultation has come from Amity. Last year when the Treasurer hinted he was proposing major increases in the number of machines, Amity, which is one of our most-respected NGOs, became aware of these changes. Here is a little about Amity for if you do not know about it:
- Amity Community Services Inc. (Amity) is a non-government, not-for-profit, non-religious agency that has been providing intervention, information, education and training services to the Darwin and broader Northern Territory community in relation to behaviours of habit since 1976. Amity believes in helping people help themselves. Amity supports the view that health is more than the absence of disease, and sees health as a complete state of physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being.
…
Amity aspires to be a leading community based organisation that values and actively promotes the adoption of healthy habits and lifestyles. Amity has been involved in the field of harm minimisation and community education and development for almost four decades. Amity is the primary deliverer of a range of prevention and intervention services in the area of gambling throughout the Northern Territory and has been working in the area of problem gambling for over twenty years.
I quoted that so you can hear the words of a body of people who have many years of experience working in the Northern Territory. I am not giving my opinion, although I will put my two bob worth in; I am basing much of my argument on what Amity has said.
Amity responded to the possible increase in pokies as hinted at by the Treasurer. The opening lines of the executive summary said:
- Before reviewing, updating or introducing new legislation, consultative government is best placed to assess current evidence behind the legislation and the potential effects on the community.
- According to the Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey conducted in 2005 …
That is ten years ago; I will get on to that later.
- … 73% of adult residents of the Northern Territory … participated in a gambling activity in the past year …
That is according to Young et al, 2006.
- It has been reported that 27% of the adult population in the NT participates in playing electronic gaming machines (EGMs), it is believed that problem gamblers are more likely to play EGMs over any other form of gambling activity …
…
The NT Gambling Prevalence Survey conservatively estimated that problem gamblers in the NT each spend, on average, over $30,000 per annum on gambling with the true figure likely to be anywhere up to $60,000 per annum. Problem gamblers (SOGS5+), who comprise an estimated 1.1% of the adult population, were responsible for an estimated 31.3% of total gambling expenditure. During 2012-2013 the average net loss by players in community venues in the NT was $141 per machine per day. This figure equates to an overall net loss by players of approximately $61,135,000 …
Amity goes on to say:
- People from indigenous communities, where it has been identified there are issues around structural determinants to health outcomes e.g. poor housing, high unemployment, lower attainment of education, tend to experience higher levels of problem gambling with research indicating that gambling causes significantly more problems within this population compared with non-Indigenous populations
- In this report respondents were asked if they though EGM numbers in the local community should increase, decrease or remain as they are, 90.2% of respondents believed that they should decrease or stay the same.
That is community consultation.
- While the public clearly recognises the enjoyment various members of the community derive from gambling, it appears people may remain sceptical about the overall community benefits of this activity. When asked ‘do EGMs do more good than harm within the community context’, 71.7% of respondents disagreed.
Out of that executive summary there were three recommendations: a community consultation process; a review of the Northern Territory Code of Practice; and an independent third party to conduct social impact studies.
Amity is saying that before you increase the number of pokies in clubs you need to consult. We had a matter of public importance in the last sittings in parliament where this issue received some attention.
The minister said consultation would be done through the Director-General, who is responsible for any increase in the number or introduction of electronic gaming machines.
He also went on to talk about people who spend their money on boats and other hobbies, but I am not sure what that has to do with the social impacts which occur from the misuse of and addiction to poker machines.
He mentioned the advantage of gaming machines in communities over card games. He referred to other forms of gambling, such as betting on cane toads, and said it was all about the game of your choice. If we start making it too hard, he claimed, people will find some other form of gambling. He went on to say that people have higher disposable incomes, that they live in units and are looking for somewhere to go. He also mentioned the benefits that come through the Community Benefit Fund.
Those comments show the government has little understanding of the problem. They believe there is no need for consultation. No one is saying we should not have pokies, although in our consultation process it should still be a question. After all, Western Australia only has pokies at the casino. We already have over 2000 pokies. Must we increase the number of machines in those pubs and clubs that already have them? That is what we need to be discussing.
No pubs or clubs in Western Australia have poker machines. They are only at the Burswood casino. Perhaps the minister should note what Amity says about the Western Australian experience.
- Data on counselling services across Australia indicates that in 2010, 22% of clients in WA were experiencing problems with EGMs compared with 74-79% in the ACT, NSW, VIC, and the NT (PC, 2010) jurisdictions where EGMs were accessible throughout community venues. A joint study by the Dept. of Justice and ANU (2005) established that in WA only 18% of gambling related financial problems seen by financial counsellors were linked to EGMs, whereas the figure was 86% in Victoria. Williams and colleagues (2012) reported that the lowest standardized rates of problem gambling occur in Western Australia.
Pokies are different from other forms of gambling. I also use the pokies every now and then, so I am not someone who does not know what they look like or how to use them. You do not do anything except sit, put your money in and hope money comes out. They have bright, colourful screens, lots of pretty pictures, plenty of cold drinks close by and catchy music that sticks in your brain the next time you go into a pub. That has all been deliberately and cleverly designed to attract you to play them next time you hear your favourite tune on the pokies. Pokies are designed to attract. Betting on cane toads does not have the attraction of ten or twenty pokies.
Mr Barrett: Of course it does.
Mr WOOD: I hope the member for Blain can find someone with a cane toad gambling addiction. The minister did not mention the downsides of gambling. He did not mention possible health concerns or the effect on work productivity. Amity quotes from a range of sources:
- Public health is concerned with broad population issues regarding mental, physical and social health and wellbeing. Raeburn (2001) indicated that problem gambling and its widespread impacts should be recognised as a public health issue. The Australian Network of Academic Public Health Institutions’ public health model (ANAPHI) (2009) has five core public health functions as follows: health monitoring 9 and surveillance; disease prevention and control; health protection; health promotion; and health, policy, planning and management. A comprehensive public health framework for gambling policy can be viewed in the three broad dimensions of prevention, intervention and protection. Similar to the National Drug Strategy framework that has the three pillars of harm minimisation: demand reduction, harm reduction and supply reduction. Harm minimisation moves top-down from policy to community, using evidence-based strategies and policy to identify harms around gambling and proactively offer solutions (Adams et al., 2009).
There are also political concerns, especially where community bodies are reliant on funds from poker machines. Government would not want to reduce revenue from poker machines as those groups reliant on that revenue could be upset, especially if those funds dried up.
You only had to listen to the minister’s answer in Question Time, when he praised the extra money he would get from taxing the casino poker machines. Raising taxes this way saves the government raising money from other normal sources. One way to increase the amount of tax raised is to have more pokies so the government has to support the AHA when asking for more poker machines. My understanding is this did not come from the clubs. I do not want to put the clubs in the same basket as the pubs. This appears to have been pressure from the AHA not the clubs. These issues should be part of the consultation process and are a community debate we need to have.
One of the serious issues the minister raised is the possibility of electronic gaming machines in communities. He compares playing cards with playing the pokies. A study has been done on that, but I will not go into that yet. Communities with clubs have the right to have pokies, subject to the decision of the Director-General, but the matter is bigger than him; he is limited in what he can do. We need a broad approach, not to pick on pubs one by one. We need a broader approach to look at the overall effect of these changes.
Introducing pokies into remote communities of the Territory could have a huge social impact, far wider than playing cards. The minister is saying the money will still be in the community and kids will still be fed. That is nice, but the member for Port Darwin might agree when I say it is taking the responsibility of parenting away. They can play the pokies, which will take their money, and still provide meals for their children while they play.
There are larger social effects. Having a problem with cards does not mean we introduce some other major gambling option. We need to be very careful that we do not hide the fact gambling is a major problem, especially in Indigenous communities. We wonder why kids do not turn up for school or are malnourished. You might point the finger at gambling, especially when it goes on for the whole weekend.
The minister raised a fair point about whether pokies should be in communities, but that is where the consultation should be. We should be discussing this with Aboriginal communities. If we are to discuss it with Aboriginal communities we should be talking to the little lady under the mango tree. For too long we have talked to people who turn up in a nice shirt and say, ‘I am the boss’, but these issues go further than who is the boss. They go to the heart of some of these communities. They affect mums and dads. If we talk about introducing poker machines, especially into remote communities, we want to make sure that people who make that decision are representatives from the community and are educated about the downsides of introducing this type of gambling into those communities.
That is why you want consultation. We have a moment, if the government thinks about this, to say, ‘Stop, we are thinking about this; we will now move into consultation and discuss it.’ We have not done that.
Introducing pokies into remote areas of the Territory could have a huge social impact, far wider than playing cards. Look at the number of Indigenous people at Lasseters. In winter it is nice and warm and there are meals; you can meet other people and there are pokies. They attract the lower economic groups who can least afford to be there. The consultation process would look at these and other issues, which is why there was a cap in the first place.
I quote from the former Leader of the Opposition during that debate:
- A decision was made to cap poker machines for valid reasons. There was concern around the harm of problem gambling in our society. We felt, with the casinos having existing agreements first put in place under the CLP, there was no ability for the government of the day to limit the number of pokies increased in our casinos.
She then went on to mention the roles of casinos:
- Pubs and clubs are social venues, pubs especially. That is why they have a small number of allowable poker machines in there. Clubs are larger social venues, which is why they have a larger number of poker machines in there. The cap was not put in place because it was too hard, but because it was the right thing to do.
The member for Karama raised some good points about the role of Director-General and the limitations on the assessment process. She also raised some interesting quotes from the estimates, which I also heard. I was there asking some of the questions. I will quote from her Hansard comments:
- The member for Fong Lim, as the former minister responsible, told the estimates hearing in June last year:
- … once we have consulted with industry we will be very keen to consult with the community.
When pressed on the timing of public consultation, the member for Fong Lim said:
- The public will have an opportunity to commence once we have settled on numbers, about what we think might be possible into the future.
And:
- We will consult widely with the community.
Where is this consultation? Consultation means we could look at online gambling, which industry is using as an argument against this motion. They say they are losing money because of online gambling. That can be part of the discussion, but we should not kid ourselves. The pubs want more pokies because they want to make more money. Just because online gambling may or may not reduce their profits, it does not make an argument to give them more pokies.
Consultation could let us establish a proper review of gambling in the Northern Territory. The last one was done in 2006. It was called the Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey. Consultation could see whether the Northern Territory Code of Practice, which was launched in 2003, is working and having an effect. Have all the codes been put into practice? As Amity said:
- Much new research has been conducted since the Code was launched suggesting practices may be outdated or in need of strengthening based on current research. Foggarty and Young (2008) suggest that a comprehensive review of Australia wide industry codes would assist in determining which practices would be most suitable to the NT. Other jurisdictions have recognised the importance of regular code reviews with SA only allowing a maximum of five years between reviews of its Code.
I received a note today that the department started a review two weeks ago. The minister might be able to give us news on that if possible.
I have tried to highlight in this debate the many reasons we need consultation. It was promised by the member for Fong Lim in the estimates. If he goes back on his promise the government needs to step up to the plate. This world is not about money, big business, big developers, and everything being about the economy – a lot of that runs on booze and gambling. It is about …
Mr Tollner: Here we go again.
Mr WOOD: The poor old member for Fong Lim.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim is interrupting. I like to gamble. I might not drink, but I do not mind other people drinking and gambling. However, this is not the issue.
Mr Tollner: Your issue is with big business and development.
Mr WOOD: No, I have not finished my sentence. It also has responsibilities to deal with the weak and vulnerable. That is what I think is missing. Sometimes the emphasis is on that side of the economy, and there is nothing wrong with that side. There is also a downside to the economy with these changes, which means there are issues with the weak and the vulnerable.
It is fine; we need big business.
Mr Tollner: Because we believe the only way we can help them is through having a strong economy.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I believe that if the government does not support this motion, we will know what kind of government we have. This is important.
I will read out Amity’s conclusion:
- Amity acknowledges the complexity of problematic gambling and recommends a public health framework to be implemented and maintained from policy to community level.
It also recommends community consultation prior to decisions on an increase in community gaming machines, and a review of the Northern Territory Code of Practice.
This is an important debate. After listening to the member for Fong Lim, you realise that when having an important debate he does not have a varying view; his view is fixed. If I raise concerns about gambling and alcohol, he says I am anti-gambling and anti-alcohol. I understand why some pubs would like to have poker machines. That is an issue we need to discuss. There is a new pub in the Litchfield area which does not have pokies. To some extent it is running unfairly when compared to all the pubs nearby. Perhaps it should get 10 pokies; I am not saying it should not. Entwined in this issue is the fact you have now changed it to 20. If we only allow pubs to have 10, should we also consider whether new or existing facilities without poker machines are allowed to have some.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Those need to be discussed. Should new pubs or clubs which do not have a licence for pokies be allowed to have them? On top of that, should the already allowed 10 poker machines become 20 poker machines? It is complex and there are arguments for and against it.
I have given you strong arguments for why we need to consult. We need to be careful because we know there are issues with increasing the number of poker machines. The evidence is there from the Menzies School of Health Research. The government should put this on hold for the time being and consult, as the member for Fong Lim promised. Let us do the right thing by the community.
The industry can be involved, but it should not be a one-sided debate where the industry discusses it with the member for Fong Lim, who said in the previous estimates that we would increase the pokies by a lot more than we are talking about today. That is too cosy a relationship when you are dealing with something that has social impact. It is bigger than the industry. The industry has every right to ask for more poker machines; I did not say they should not. That does not mean the government does what the industry asks. When making a decision the government has to look far wider than just that.
I also do not think it is right to simply say we will get more money from the Community Benefit Fund and that it will be of benefit to the community through improved sporting facilities. The end does not always justify the means. Sometimes the government has to look at where it gets its money and question where we are obtaining our taxes. Do we want to increase poker machines so we get more money through taxation? What is the downside of that decision?
I place on the record that the discussion is not about whether we have more or fewer pokies. If we are going down that path, before we make any decision – and it could be that we do not have any more pokies – we must consult. We need to talk to the community, the non-government organisations and the industry because they are just as important, and have a mature and reasonable debate over this issue, which is important. It should not go through a regulatory process. We should be required to bring this to parliament before there are any major changes.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the many points the member for Nelson made to this House. First, he suggested that we are lifting the cap on pokies in hotels, which he said is not needed as we have enough in the Northern Territory.
I will give you a little background, member for Nelson. The current gaming machine cap is 10 for pubs and 45 for clubs. You acknowledge that is the current stage. Currently, only pubs and clubs which have not reached their caps are eligible to apply for new gaming machines.
You mentioned the Litchfield pub and asked if they should have 10 machines. There is a document called Gambling Harm in the Northern Territory: An Atlas of Venue Catchments, which covers your question. When you referred to the Director-General, I believe you said he is limited in what he can do. I do not agree with that. The Director-General has an enormous amount of power in relation to venues. Venues must have a liquor licence and the only way you can get gaming machines is to have that licence. The Litchfield pub, for instance, had to put in a community impact statement. I have had feedback from the industry saying this is a bit harsh. I said, ‘No, the community impact statement is what gets you the machine. You have to do a lot of work.’ It costs them a bit of money to do that.
This atlas of the catchment areas is what the Director-General will be looking at. The Litchfield pub may say, ‘We want 10 machines’. It will go through the Director-General and provide him with a community impact statement. The Director-General will look at this atlas and say, ‘There are machines just down the road. You can have four machines and that is it.’ They will use a formula to determine the oversupply of machines in a specific area. As the population grows, other venues pop up. Those businesses want to be on a level playing field and offer amenities. The great majority of the population gambles responsibly. Sure, there are a few problems; we have problems in many areas of our community with minority groups.
You said there are various forms of gaming. Electronic gaming machines are a form of gaming, as is horse racing, betting on the football, and even betting on elections; there are all sorts of things. Where do we go with gaming? You quoted a number of people, saying we should do this and that, and that we should not allow any of this. Are those people also suggesting that we shut down all forms of gaming? If there are problem gamblers in the community, the way to deal with that is through education and helping those people to not get addicted.
Whether it is horse racing, betting on elections or betting on cane toads at the Humpty Doo pub, people will find some way of gambling. It has been around for time immemorial. Responsible governments need to ensure there are education programs in place. With so many social issues, be it the Internet, domestic violence, gaming, alcohol or drug abuse, the remedy is through education. As a responsible government it behoves us to make sure we all work towards getting those education programs in place, especially for young people so addiction does not manifest when they become adults.
The reforms we have made will introduce an increase in the venue cap from 45 to 55 for clubs and 10 to 20 for hotels and taverns, effective as of 1 July 2015. The cap of 1190 machines has been in place since 2008 and is outdated. The 1190 machine figure was an arbitrary figure determined on the basis that it was the total number of electronic gaming machines in community venues at the time the cap was put in place.
Since 2008 the Territory’s population has increased significantly. Many new licensed venues have opened which may wish to pursue the option of offering gaming machines as a legitimate form of entertainment. The member for Nelson mentioned the Litchfield Tavern, but there are other licensed premises that would like to avail themselves so they operate on a level playing field and offer the same amenities as the places up the road.
Again, that is all subject to community impact statements and the atlas of venue catchments. If someone wants to build a hotel somewhere and does not have any gaming machines, but wants them, they would be strongly advised to look at this atlas and figure out whether or not it is worth building there. If they do not want gaming machines then they may have something different. The Director-General of Licensing will be using the atlas as a reference, along with many others, to determine whether or not a venue can have electronic gaming machines.
You mentioned that you have consulted with Amity, Somerville, Banyan House and a number of others you received letters from. Member for Nelson, have you consulted the industry to see what its view is? Have you consulted the AHA or pubs and clubs? What are their views? I did not hear anything in your speech about consulting the other side.
From what you have said we have a simple one-sided argument from those opposed to gambling and gaming machines. I accept it if that is what you want to do; it is fine, but there is another side to this story. People want a level playing field.
With the cap in place these people are being prevented from having that. We are restoring an even playing field so new entrants are not competing at a disadvantage. There are accepted norms in the community that people should be able to play on a level playing field, provided they fit within things such as the atlas of venue catchments.
The Giles government is committed to a balanced regulation approach to gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine will be subject to a comprehensive assessment process, some of which I have already mentioned. I mention it again because it is very relevant. With regard to community impact statements, I have had feedback from the business community and those who want to build new pubs saying it is a little harsh and rigorous.
I make no apologies to them. It is there so we have community consultation through the community impact statement process.
Perhaps we are shifting that consultation with the local community to others who may be totally opposed. Through the community impact statement in their area, some people in the community want that amenity.
It is a comprehensive process which will include community consultation, periods of public objection, examination of socio-demographic factors, density of machines and a community impact analysis. Safeguards are built into this process. Some of your points are valid, but we have addressed those through a very rigorous community impact statement process.
The Territory government has proposed amending regulations under the Gaming Machine Act as part of important licensing reforms. These changes will enable the transfer and substitution of a gaming machine licence between premises when sought in conjunction with a similar application under the Liquor Act. For example, if I was a licensee and owned a pub with gaming machines and I wanted to sell my business, I would have to make sure that when I sell the licence I am able to transfer the gaming machines. That does not happen automatically. There is a rigorous process to obtain a gaming licence and if you are not up to speed with financial management and criminal record checks you will not get the gaming machine licence. If you pass all those tests it is a simple transfer of the liquor licence and the gaming licence at the same time.
That is creating a level playing field and ensuring that if you are a business person who builds up great clientele, and you are a responsible provider of entertainment and services in the community, you can simply transfer that to another business operator.
We have ensured that if you transfer these machines from one building to another you are able to do that if the location change is as a result of landlords not renewing a lease, a building being demolished, cyclone damage and needing to rebuild, or simply move to another premises. You can transfer those licences.
The transfer of gaming machines applies when a licensed venue changes ownership but remains in the same location allowing licences to transfer to the new owner without a new application or the fees for machines being sought. That allows gaming machine licences to be transferred from one corporate entity to another in the same way the liquor licence is being transferred.
This does not mean there will be an increase in the number of gaming machines in the community. You suggested that it will go from 45 to 55 and that pubs will double the number of machines, but there is no guarantee that anyone will get extra machines. I tried to make that very clear in the previous presentation. In my discussions with people in the community I make it very clear by saying that does not mean anyone will get more machines.
You must go through a community impact statement to get one extra machine. The atlas of venue catchments is the type of document the Director-General will look at. The community impact statement, the public consultation and whatever is going on in relation to the local area where this happens all feed back into the decision-making process. A recommendation will then come through regarding what will happen with increases.
If a purchaser wants to increase gaming machine numbers, they need to apply for an increase in accordance with the requirements of the Gaming Machine Act. All of these matters relating to probity will continue to apply to the transfer application process to ensure the integrity of the industry is maintained. We want to make sure we get the right people and, for want of a better word, there are no crooks in the business.
Under these proposed amendments new owners can trade sooner, which is improving industry, government revenue and employment opportunities. We want to make sure businesses can provide legitimate entertainment services with the least amount of red tape. However, with the greatest amount of respect to our community, we want to make sure those community impact statements are maintained as robust exercises.
The substitution of gaming machine licences applies to licensees who are relocating to the new venues and want to take their gaming machines with them. That allows businesses to move. Substitution of a licence for machines to be moved to a different venue will still undergo thorough examination with regard to business acumen and financial security for the licensee, as would be required for a new machine application, including the public consultation process.
You can move machines from one venue to another but you must go through a process to determine whether it is a suitable venue. You do not want to put machines in the spare classroom at one of the schools or something like that. It must be a suitable premises, and the impact on the community must be taken into account. That is a job for the Director-General, using robust procedures.
Given that gaming machines will be put into a different venue and potentially a new suburb, the critical part of the decision-making process for a substitution application will include a community impact statement for the relative local community area. I hope that allays some of your fears; we will not allow people to put machines wherever they like and automatically go up to the recommended increased numbers.
Community impact analysis requires that the local community affected by gaming machines is examined to identify areas of concern and provide opportunity for industry to address areas of concern. Community consultation is also undertaken as part of preparing a community impact analysis.
Consideration will also be given to the density of gaming machines and the socio-demographic risk within the geographic area, in addition to other considerations required by the Gaming Machine Act. These licensing reforms will create an improved and faster approach to dealing with gaming machine licences when ownership of a venue changes hands or a corporate restructure is undertaken, and allows licences to move to alternative premises. This is about reducing red tape, making it easier to do business and cutting down the time and expense of doing business while maintaining the integrity of the industry and entertainment venues.
The proposed changes will not waive normal assessment requirements but will substantially improve processing times, allowing businesses to become operational much sooner.
I will deal with some of the issues the member for Nelson raised in relation to community consultation. In the process of implementing these licence reforms the Northern Territory government is committed to a balanced and regulated approach to gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine is subjected to a comprehensive assessment process.
It is important to ensure that everyone listening and reading understands this is not a lay-down misere or that there will necessarily be an increase in machines. The requirement of this process is community consultation, including a period of public objection prior to approval of any application for a new machine. The organisations you mentioned and people living in the area have an opportunity to raise their concerns. They can also choose to support the application. We look at the arguments for and against it. When it is all weighed up, the Director-General will make recommendations and decisions on what will happen in relation to the number of machines, if any machines go into that location.
As a component of the community impact analysis the applicant must consult with local community, including amelioration organisations such as Amity, Somerville, Banyan House and any other groups which help not only gamblers experiencing problems with electronic gaming machines, but those experiencing problems with horse racing, cane toad racing, or whatever their gambling of choice is. It is an important part of these amendments. In addition to the community impact analysis requirements each application will also need to be advertised, providing another avenue for community input into the process.
A number of issues were raised by the member for Nelson, including NAAJA’s concerns about Aboriginal communities. He also spoke about some of the things I have previously said in the House about this matter. Those are real issues. I do not know who the member for Nelson has spoken to in relation to this, but I have spoken to people who live in or have spent many years in communities. I am sure the member for Nelson, who has lived in communities, is aware of the gambling problem that has existed for many years in Aboriginal communities, not just in the last year or two.
I told a story about something that happened three or four years ago in a community. I will not mention the community because it might focus on the person. A 12-year-old girl was involved in a card game and won $22 000, and within an hour the drug dealers had that money. She was running around with a big bag of dope, giving it to her girlfriends who were between 10 and 14 years of age, and who were smoking the dope. Those who have worked in communities understand the problems there. Young girls intoxicated through drugs are very vulnerable. This is where we have issues with sexual abuse, personal safety, personal hygiene and a range of other issues.
You spoke about my comments on putting pokies in communities. It is very difficult. When you talk to people who live in communities and then talk to police officers there, they will tell you the card games are big. The people involved get out of control and do not know where they are. My view is to shift people from under the trees and into licensed premises.
As you rightly pointed out, kids get fed there, but then you said we are taking away parental responsibility. You should talk to the Minister for Children and Families, who in the last couple of days has spoken about the issue of parents who do not look after their kids, do not feed them and sexually abuse them. Introducing gaming machines may be a way of getting kids fed. If those parents are not feeding those kids, what are we to do? Are we to say it is not our problem? The fact remains it is our problem and we have to deal with it.
In the process of implementing the licence reforms the Northern Territory government has committed to the balanced approach of regulations of gaming machines, which will require that each application for a new gaming machine is subjected to comprehensive assessment processes specific to the communities in which the gaming machines will be located. A massive amount of consultation needs to be undertaken. What might the lady under the mango tree want? My understanding is that a grandma is sitting under the mango tree, and she is raising her grandchildren and great-grandchildren because the parents are doing things they should not be doing. As a former police officer I am aware of that and it is sad. One of the things announced in the budget was neighbourhood activity centres. I would love to talk to you about that because it is a fantastic initiative developed over fifteen years of my life. It is the realisation of a dream of preventing that type of stuff, but time does not permit me because once I start on that subject there is no off button. I will not continue in that vein.
You talked about people sitting under trees – Aboriginal grandmothers come to my electoral office. I have had two grandmothers in my office who are of the Stolen Generation. I will not use any names, but they are high-profile Stolen Generation women. I have known one of them for 26 years. As a school-based constable I did a lot of work with her children and she is very grateful for the work I did to pull the kids through. She came to me with her friend, who had trouble with her kids and is now having trouble with her grandkids. They advocated that we take some of these Aboriginal kids away from their families and put them in care, because the drug abuse, lack of education and other problems caused by irresponsible parents is getting beyond a joke.
These two women were part of the Stolen Generation. They came into my office advocating that we do that again and I was pretty stunned. I have known this lady for many years; she is a friend, she rings me from time to time and we talk about a range of issues. She is one of the down-to-earth mothers, now a grandmother struggling with her grandchildren because one of her kids is off the planet. Many of the people she knows are in the same or similar situations.
This is an issue that starts in communities and people then move into town. These are the things the Director-General has experienced and witnessed in his life in Aboriginal communities. We are well aware of those issues and we are earnest in our efforts to change the trends.
The pros and cons of additional gaming machines are examined in the community impact statement and are all part of the application process. The document requires that a community affected by gaming machines is consulted with and examined to identify areas of concern and provide opportunity for industry to address those areas of concern. As a result of these licensing reforms there will be increased funds available to non-government organisations through the Community Benefit Fund. You may have heard in the budget that we are getting another $8m out of the casinos. We are putting the casinos on a level playing field with pubs and clubs and they must contribute to the Community Benefit Fund.
Service providers like Amity, Somerville, Banyan House, as well as any other organisation which works with problem gamblers or is in involved in harm minimisation, will benefit from this. A small percentage of people are problem gamblers; the majority of people are responsible gamblers, be it horse racing, cane toad racing or electronic gaming machines.
As a result, to ensure we have a balanced approach the government is investing over $2m in the gambling amelioration program, which provides funding support for the key people I just mentioned. These services provide vital ongoing harm minimisation and treatment services for people affected by problem gambling.
The government also is reconvening the Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee with a view to developing training materials for venue operators and staff, and developing and coordinating harm minimisation campaigns to enhance the compliance of venues.
The committee will also look at the Responsible Gambling Manual and consider how a multi-venue self-exclusion program may be developed to run in the Northern Territory. A multi-venue self-exclusion program is a harm minimisation measure to ensure problem gamblers can self-nominate to be excluded from multiple venues. We hope that will come to fruition because that will work in favour or people with an addiction.
The Northern Territory Code of Practice for Responsible Gambling is a key harm minimisation measure which requires venues to implement responsible gambling practices. This code is currently being reviewed along with the Responsible Gaming Manual. These measures will assist gaming venues in taking steps to encourage customers to gamble responsibly. It is intended that all of the strategies work together to minimise a potential increase in harm from additional gaming machines.
It may be that in one area there is a saturation of gaming machines; this atlas of venue catchments will demonstrate that. People come from certain areas to go to a venue. If you go to a club and drink hopefully you do not drive, but instead take a cab. If you are living in a new area and have to go all the way up the hill and up to 5 km to get to a venue – people may want to have a venue in their own back yard. Some may not, but the community impact statement will look at that.
In relation to increased density, availability of electronic gaming machines and increased problems associated with gambling, the policy recognises strong links between problem gambling, property crime and social problems, such as poverty, domestic violence, child neglect and alcohol and drug abuse. These are issues the Director-General will take into consideration.
The Northern Territory implements harm minimisation strategies to mitigate the risk associated with increased availability of electronic gaming machines. These include the recently introduced levy on applications. This is an important first step in preventing and limiting the entry of new machines into the market from opportunistic venues seeking to make a quick dollar. There is a fee attached to these machines.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that an extension of time be given to the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: These levy applications were purposely made expensive so people do not say, ‘I will have another dozen, thank you’, like you are buying a bunch of bananas.
The community impact analysis is a robust process, and people complain about it being too hard. We do not apologise for that, but must allow people to submit the application and take it from there. They have to go through some rigorous stuff; they need to think about how much money they want to invest in the process, so they must ensure they do their homework. Again, this is about the atlas of venue catchment areas. The Director-General may say, ‘I will not give you any more machines because it is saturated’.
If you want to build new premises, open a new pub or something similar, you will not be able to if that is what you want in your hotel along with other services which you provide.
If the Litchfield pub wants to do things on its own it is entitled to ask. They can ask now, whereas before they could not. When there is a cap in place there is no level playing field. We opened a level playing field. It is about giving people the opportunity to go through the process, which is fair. If I say you cannot do something because other people are already doing it, you can say, ‘Hang on, that is not fair; that is not a level playing field.’ It does not matter whether it is electronic gaming machines or any other form of business.
Liquor licences and gaming machines are regulated. You must go through a robust process and it is fair for the community to expect governments to do that. It is what we are doing. All of the measures we are taking, including the review of the code, the reestablishment of the committee and the multi-venue self-exclusion programs, will assist gaming venues to take steps to encourage customers to gamble responsibly.
In addition to harm minimisation strategies, revenues from electronic gaming machines are returned to the community through hotel contributions to the Community Benefit Fund and contributions to clubs, the local community and local sporting groups. As a result of these reforms there will be an increase of funds available for non-government organisations through the Community Benefit Fund. To ensure a balanced approach, the Northern Territory government is investing over $2m in gambling amelioration programs through the Community Benefit Fund, which provides funding for key communication providers such as Amity Community Services, Somerville Community Services, Banyan House and a number of yet-to-come small groups providing services to those with gambling addictions.
These services provide vital ongoing harm minimisation and treatment services for people affected by problem gambling. As you mentioned, fortunately it is a minority of people in our community who have a problem.
I remember being a very young detective in this town, prior to the casino being built at Mindil Beach. For the interest of Richard Margetson on ABC, I remember the Mindil Beach caravan park; I went there a few times to lock some troublemakers up.
Before the casino was built, I remember doing raids on gaming houses around the place. If you think people have an issue with money at the casino, you should have seen some of these gaming places. I will not mention the ethnic group that used to run them. During those raids I was stunned at the amount of money lying around. This is going back 30 to 34 years ago. It was amazing.
Gambling has been around for time immemorial and it will not go away. How do we best control it so it does not get out of hand? Some of the wives used to give us information about where those people were and what was going on, because those people were spending all their money on gambling. They had a problem. Sadly, there were no amelioration programs in those days. Amity and Somerville are not like they are today. Those services were virtually non-existent. These people still had a gambling problem with card games.
I am sure some of the people from that area may now have a gambling problem at the casino. But the casino is very careful, and I am sure pubs and clubs are the same. They watch their problem gamblers. Through the revision of the gaming manuals and training packages they identify good staff and train them to identify these problem gamblers and make suggestions to them.
On the issue of increased demand on services, government plans to meet the demand for health, social, legal and broader community sector services. Revenue from electronic gaming machines is returned to the community through hotel contributions to the Community Benefit Fund and the contributions of clubs to the local community. That includes footy jumpers and socks, new goals, hockey sticks, basketballs and netballs.
People who use electronic gaming machines responsibly, as well as other forms of gambling, are contributing to their community. That is the majority of people. We have services available for those who struggle with an addiction. There are also services for people who struggle with addictions to other things. I do not know whether there are services for women who are addicted to shoes. I know a couple of women who are addicted to shoes and fashion. I do not know if there are any counselling services available. They might like to apply through the Community Benefit Fund for a grant for those who are addicted to those types of things.
Some blokes are addicted to fishing and they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on new fishing boats and lures that cost $20. They go through 15 a day because they do not know what they are doing. People are addicted to all sorts of things and we want to help them all through the Community Benefit Fund. I encourage them all to go to www.nt.gov.au/cbf and put in an application for some money from the Community Benefit Fund. As a result of these reforms extra dollars will be going in, especially with the new levy on casinos. The community amelioration programs, through the Community Benefit Fund, will provide help to people who find themselves addicted to all sorts of things.
I will respond to a couple of points made by the member for Nelson. Gambling occurs in so many areas in our community. I wonder which ones people want to stop. If you stop one, do you stop the others? It does not matter what it is; I am sure most people in this House would agree it is about educating people. We need to be in schools as well as clubs educating people on the harms that can come from addiction. It does not matter whether it is gambling, drugs or anything else. It is about education and ensuring through this process of the Community Benefit Fund we can provide training and education.
I hope I have made the point clear that the Director-General has a very important job to do. There are some very robust tools at his or her disposal to ensure it is not a free-for-all, and that the concerns you have raised are dealt with in the deliberations as to whether or not a venue will receive an increase in gaming machines, or if a new venue will get any gaming machines at all. It is something the government has thought long and hard about. It is about giving people a level playing field and the opportunity to apply, as opposed to saying, ‘No, sorry, you cannot have it’.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition thanks the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the Assembly. The opposition supports this motion.
We have been consistent in expressing our concern about the CLP government’s long interest in significantly increasing the number of gaming machines across the Territory, clearly driven by tempting revenue opportunities for government. We have been consistent in expressing our concern and reflecting community concern about the government’s approach to more gambling machines in the Territory from the first hints of the plans exposed in the estimates hearings last year, as we heard today.
Last year our now leader, the member for Fannie Bay, made our position clear by saying Territorians deserve to have a say in important decisions such as the increase in the number of gaming machines. In the absence of any community consultation on CLP plans to lift gaming machine numbers, he said last week that we simply do not believe we need any more.
From day one this government said it would be open, transparent and accountable. It was one of the CLP’s five core promises to Territory electors. Too many times Territorians have heard that slogan and seen actions which reflect the complete opposite.
On this specific issue the CLP has not been open and transparent. As recently as December last year, the then Minister for Business said all applications for gaming machines would be subject to tough community-based assessment processes, but we still do not know how that would work. In line with usual practice, with the sale of TIO and preparation for the sale of Power and Water, as well as through the development of these regulations, the government has quietly gone about paving the way for more gaming machines.
A responsible government would seek broad community comment on the plans for change, be honest and up front with the community about its intentions and invite a debate in this Assembly on this matter. This government has failed the accountability test and the regulations subject of this motion should be disallowed. This is not about denying responsible gamblers access to gaming machines; it is about the way this government does business and the need for consultation before producing regulations increasing gambling machine limits. This is about consultation and proper debate with our community.
Before this change the Territory already had the highest proportion of poker machines in the nation. The numbers were significantly higher at 12.9 machines per thousand people compared to the average of 11. On this side of the House we are aware that many in the community are concerned about increasing the number of gambling machines, and the misery suffered by many families.
When this was first flagged last year I was approached by community members who raised their concerns and wanted to know our point of view. We know from research and evidence that gambling machines are extremely addictive. They put people in a trance-like state. The member for Nelson spoke about research that shows venues hosting more poker machines have people who hear the music and associate it with winning. They are influenced to want to share in that so they keep gambling.
We all have stories about problem gamblers, such as people who get paid and by the evening the pay is gone. We need to take this debate seriously. We need to understand the consequences of introducing more pokies across the Territory and to hold proper debates and consultation. From the many voices across our communities we understand that people are concerned about more poker machines. I want to hear from those members opposite, especially the bush members. Have they spoken to their communities about this increase?
We have heard from far and wide, including Gibson Farmer, Chair of the Tiwi Land Council, who told ABC radio in July last year that he did not think it would be a good idea to introduce poker machines into communities:
- … because kids will starve. The children will starve... Parents will be spending money on poker machines.
The previous Labor government, in 2008, heard the voices of concern and sought to strike a responsible balance, which established a cap of 1190 machines across the Territory. The figures show that Territorians lost $68m on 1181 poker machines in pubs and clubs during 2013-14, an amount equalling around $57 000 per machine. The Territory has the highest proportion of machines per 1000 people, so when we look at the facts and figures we should be alarmed. We are not having proper community consultation before potentially allowing more poker machines across the Territory.
As the member for Nelson said, the last Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey was undertaken in 2006. It found that 90% of respondents believed the number of gaming machines should be reduced or stay the same. That is the only comprehensive report documenting community attitudes towards gambling. If the government was genuine in its belief that we should have more poker machines, why would it not take the time to do a proper consultation report? The evidence from the last report shows that people did not want more poker machines and the community feels we have enough. The member for Nelson articulated all of that, but I am not sure the minister understood. Research shows that problem gamblers are more likely to play poker machines than any other form of gambling, and evidence suggests the electronic form gets you into a trance-like state where you zone out and hear the music in the background.
We have concerns regarding the movement of poker machines and with the sneaky way the government announced these plans. At the beginning of the Christmas holidays last year the government quietly announced its intention to raise the number of poker machines in pubs from 10 to 20 and in clubs from 45 to 55. The regulations before us make that possible.
One of the disappointing parts of this, but an increasingly familiar feature of this government, is what the CLP says and what it does being two completely different things. Territorians were previously told by the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer and then Minister for Business, that one of the recognised principles for a socially responsible gambling policy is community consultation, where affected communities play an important role in contributing to the cost benefit analysis.
It is great for the current Minister for Business to tell us these poker machines will create more revenue, meaning there will be more in the Community Benefit Fund for our sporting clubs, but where does that money come from? It comes from Territory families who are already struggling with an addiction. You are making it easier for them to gamble more of their pay when they should be supported and using those funds to support their families.
In estimates last year the member for Fong Lim, as the minister responsible, said:
- … once we have consulted with industry we will be very keen to consult with the community.
It seems there has been consultation with the industry, so where is the community consultation? When he was pressed on the timing of that public consultation, the member for Fong Lim said:
- The public will have an opportunity to comment once we have settled on numbers about what we think might be possible into the future.
That is a case of the cart before the horse. Come up with figures and then do some pretend consultation, so it looks like a good thing. He went on to say:
- We will consult widely with the community.
No public consultation has taken place outside consultation with the hospitality industry.
We have spoken about support agencies that work with problem gamblers and their families. In my community people involved with the church are involved in programs, and they came to me as soon as they heard about this. They did not hear about it through proper consultation with the government, but because the opposition and the member for Nelson raised concerns in the media about the impacts on our community. People are struggling.
Where is this consultation? The attitude of consulting with industry, checking what they want and then speaking to the community is not the right way to go. There was a balance. We already have an extreme issue in the Territory, the highest proportion of poker machines in Australia, and we have an increase in the revenue on those machines. We have concerns and we need proper research and evaluation.
Anticipating the government to have such plans in mind, Amity Community Services prepared a submission which detailed a range of research. The member for Nelson has spoken about this today. The submission indicates the outcomes of the 2006 survey undertaken on community attitudes to gambling in the Territory – the NT Gambling Prevalence Survey. In that survey over 90% of respondents said gambling machine numbers should either decrease or stay the same. The latest hard data says we do not want more and, if anything, it should go backwards. Where did this sudden change to have more come from?
The report went on to note that, as you would expect, while the community clearly recognises the enjoyment many people derive from gambling, many people remain sceptical about the overall community benefits of the activity. In his response today, instead of the minister listening to the concerns this motion highlighted and the need for genuine proper community consultation, he tried to sweeten it all by talking about the Community Benefit Fund. That is not the right way to look at it. We need to look at the impact of gaming machines in our community.
Quite some time ago, in 2006 – it would be good to see an updated report – 71% of respondents disagreed that electronic gaming machines do better than harm within the community. That is an overwhelming response.
Experts from Amity work on the front line and deal with problem gamblers and their families day-in day-out, trying to support and help them deal with a very addictive habit. Amity’s submission said that before any changes to the 2008 cap of 1190 machines, we should see a community consultation process. We should see a review of the NT Code of Practice, more attendance to compliance, better links with service providers to help problem gamblers, stronger focus and support staff to respond to red flag gambling behaviours in their venue, and independent third parties to conduct social impact studies.
All of those points are valid; we need to see the consultation and a review of the Code of Practice.
Amity feels that some compliance issues should be addressed, linking the service providers to the problem gamblers. Sometimes gamblers realise they have a problem, but they are not sure how to seek help. It is very important. People tend to go to the same venue time and time again so they get to know the staff. Amity believes in a stronger focus for staff in those venues as well as mechanisms where they can try to help people or at least provide options.
Amity has raised some valid points, yet there has been no public response from the government to any of these recommendations. Amity’s submission pointed out that in other jurisdictions proposals to expand access to gaming machines can include a six-week public consultation period; however, the minister today indicated a community risk-based assessment process for new machine applications.
We have not heard the detail; they have been silent on that issue. One must question why that detail is not available. Why was it not developed ahead of the government’s expansion plans on poker machines across the Territory? Today the minister talked about cutting red tape and making things quicker and easier. We must be careful in the rush to cut red tape, and ensure we do not cut community consultation.
In a different realm, with planning issues generally the pink signs only go up for a couple of weeks. People feel that in a two- or three-week time frame they do not get time to be aware of the issue and express their genuine concern. I think Amity’s recommendation of a six-week public consultation period makes sense. It would have been interesting for the minister to address why that detail has not been made available to Territorians.
We feel there should be a minimum independent process for allowing community consultation input in relation to key decisions in this social policy area, not just consultation with the businesses that will benefit. Amity has a great deal of experience in this area and its recommendations were sound. We do not understand why the government would not address those and work with one of the core support agencies for problem gamblers.
Independent research has time and time again detailed the risks. More machines mean more problem gamblers. The effects of gambling are huge; the minister spoke about some of these, such as financial stress, family breakdowns, impacts on employment, increase in risky behaviours, problem gamblers trying to deal with their financial issues. We need to address those and make sure we have proper supports in place if we are to have more machines across the Territory.
I will quote from a recent NT News report stating that Tass Liveris, President of the NT Law Society, was concerned about:
- … the strong links between problem gambling, property crime and other social problems such as poverty, domestic violence, child neglect, alcohol and drug abuse.
He is in a fairly significant position within our community, highlighting concern about the direct links between problem gambling and huge social problems. We know child protection is a growing issue, as is alcohol and drug abuse. We need to not just listen to those who want more poker machines, but to have this proper consultation so we can hear the expert opinions and the views of people who deal with this on the front line.
Homelessness services in the Territory tell us that gambling is one of the three primary causes of homelessness. There are huge social impacts and we have had no consultation on this change in policy. From all of the evidence and the community voices, it appears we are comfortable with the number of machines we have. If anything, there should be a reduction. But the government has not allowed proper community consultation to take place. We see this repeatedly and Territorians want you to listen.
Across the Territory many Indigenous community members and leaders are concerned about family members being trapped in the cycle of gambling, which affects their capacity to return home. Having gaming machines in communities would in turn provide easier access. There are serious concerns about introducing poker machines into communities. I want to hear from the bush members opposite about what they think. Have they been consulted? Are they aware of this policy shift? They will be aware when these poker machines start turning up in their communities and cause a huge impact. We would like to hear from those members about what consultation has taken place with their communities.
The current Business minister said, ‘There is still a lot of consultation to do with people out in remote areas where you know if they want to introduce gaming machines or gambling out of remote areas that is a whole different discussion’.
How can we believe there will be any consultation and that independent assessments will take place in those remote areas when we have not seen broad consultation across the Territory?
It is clear that the government is not taking the wellbeing of the community into account on this issue. If government genuinely believes the community needs more poker machines and that it is acceptable, we would see an open, transparent and detailed consultation process. Perhaps we would see another Gambling Prevalence Survey, considering it is nearly 10 years since the last survey. We have clear evidence that the government is putting profits before people, which is extremely disappointing. It is putting opportunity for revenue before our community and people …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Nightcliff be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: We on this side strongly feel that these regulations should be disallowed and the CLP government should return to a broad-based consultation plan across the Territory community.
It is important to note that not only are we looking at expanding poker machines across the Territory, we have seen a cut to Amity from the federal government in support services. We do not know the details of other cuts. We are looking at introducing more poker machines without evidence or research to show there is a need for them or that we have the proper supports in place.
It is concerning that we will see an expansion of electronic gaming machines across the Territory. We have not had proper community consultation or debate. We need to have a detailed survey, such as the Gambling Prevalence Survey. We need to engage families and communities which may have never had poker machines before. Have we engaged those communities as a whole? We need to engage the support services and make sure we are making the right decision for Territorians.
We strongly feel that the CLP government is not taking into account the wellbeing of our community; it is focused on the revenue that would be generated. We heard it today when the minister was endlessly listing the things people could receive from the Community Benefit Fund. It was as if he was saying, ‘Here is a big present, but you must get through something else first’. People will focus on that. We need to make sure we get this right. The member for Nelson and I have talked about the figures in detail. Territorians already spend a huge amount on electronic gaming machines, and we have the highest proportion in Australia of poker machines per person. We need to get this right because the effects will be huge across our community.
I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this today. We support his disallowance motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her support, as well as the opposition.
I listened carefully to what the minister had to say and I agree with a lot of it. I thank him for his contribution. I am not here to knock the government, but I need to straighten up a few things.
This debate about whether we should disallow these changes is not about me saying there should not be any changes. The only way to debate the fact there should be consultation around this issue is to put it on hold. I did not say there should not be any increase in the number of poker machines. I said this is a serious social issue and it should have a period of consultation before the changes come into place. That is the crux of my argument.
It is disappointing that the Treasurer, in estimates last year, promised there would be consultation. In the Hansard, Mr Gunner asked:
- Will you consult beyond pubs and clubs?
The Treasurer replied:
- Absolutely. Obviously, once we have consulted with industry we will be very keen to consult with the community.
There was a promise during estimates that he would consult with the community. That has not occurred. I ask the government to stick by its promise to consult with the community. What annoys me is that these changes were introduced just before Christmas, late on a Friday night. That was done so most people would not know about it. We were promised by the Treasurer that there would be consultation. It was clear in the Estimates Committee; it was a promise made by the government. It did not occur.
Mr Styles: It did. I went out and spoke to people.
Mr WOOD: One of the major institutions dealing with the effects of gambling, especially electronic gambling, Amity, has not said that.
I spoke to them and Banyan. I ask the minister to get hold of Amity’s paper. It was in response to the Treasurer saying he would increase the number of machines in pubs by 30 and double the number of machines in clubs. The title of the document is Availability, density and size of venues matter in the context of increased harm: A response to a possible increase in EGMs in our community. I will quote from the executive summary:
- With speculation around an increase in community gaming, electronic gaming machines in hotels and clubs, Amity takes this opportunity to present evidence in the field. Before reviewing, updating or introducing new legislation, consultative government is best placed to assess current evidence behind the legislation and the potential effects on the community.
Before I introduced this motion I spoke to Amity. There has been no consultation. I accept that the Director-General has powers to look at individual pubs and see what the effects might be. We have an atlas of venue catchments; terrific. Where was the consultation to say this is government’s intended policy? We could provide input into whether that was all the Director-General should look at. Should the Director-General look at other issues? Where is the community input into the Director-General’s decision-making about a pub? I presume there is some way that people can give their opinions about these things.
Mr Styles: It has to be advertised.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but the consultation I am asking for is to raise those issues and give people the opportunity to talk about the government’s way of dealing with an increase in the number of pokies. What is the government’s program to look at whether electronic gambling would be better than card gambling in communities? What is the potential effect of the increase at my pub from 10 to 20? The evidence is as I stated before. Matt Stevens from Menzies School of Health Research, referring to the increase in the number of poker machines, said:
There definitely will be an increase in problem gambling rates as a result.
You find with poker machines, the more machines you have in a venue, the more money per machine they make.
I do not want the government saying, ‘Gerry Wood said there should not be any more poker machines’. Gerry Wood did not say that; he said, ‘Before you go down this path you need to consider all the implications, and before you do that you should consult, as promised by the then Treasurer’. He promised that there would be consultation. I do not know if the consultation was with two members of the government in a phone box, or whether it was amongst themselves, but it certainly was not broad consultation with the people who needed to be involved. NAAJA sees some of the results from people who have previously had gambling problems.
I need to make it clear that all I was asking was to hold off on this and set up a process which allows the community to discuss the issue. You spoke about my mention of the pub at Litchfield. I did not mean the Litchfield Pub, by the way. I was trying not to name it, but it does not have poker machines so it will not be hard for you to find out which one I meant. To be fair, if that pub wants to be competitive with the other pubs in the area then it should be able to apply for poker machines. I understand why there is a need to lift the aggregate number of poker machines. At the same time, you have changed the rules saying it will go from 10 to 20. However, I have evidence to say if you increase the number of pokies in a pub you will increase the number of problem gamblers.
Whether you agree with me and the experts or not, those are the issues we should talk about. The important and fundamental issue is that you have introduced something which can have a detrimental social impact on the community and you did not give opportunity for community input.
As stated by Amity, the number of people who said they did not want change was approximately 70%. They were happy with the current number of machines and did not want any more; some want to decrease the number of machines. That may not be realistic with new licensed premises, but it annoys me.
I understand what you said about the Director-General; I understand that he will individually assess each application. You have an atlas of venue catchments, which is great. I have faith that the Director-General understands these issues; he would not be in the job if he did not. But we have gone two steps down the road before the community has discussed the bigger picture. That is what I have been trying to say.
You asked if I discussed it with the AHA. The AHA has discussed it with the Treasurer. It is a very powerful lobby group which helps fund the CLP and has helped fund the ALP. The AHA has lobbied the government for more poker machines. I spoke to the owner of one pub which does not have any poker machines, and I explained what I was doing. I explained that the issue was not about whether it should have more pokies or not, but about the community having a chance to discuss that. He did not seem to have any concerns about that.
The government has consulted with the AHA, but has it consulted with the community? No. The relationship between the government and the hotel industry is too comfortable and too close. You as a government have an equal responsibility to make decisions which also protect the weak and vulnerable, not the big business side of town. Not that you should not deal with those people; pubs and clubs are a part of our life. I live 20 m from the pub next door, so I go there a lot. Pubs are a part of our life, but it does not mean they have a biased approach or their views outweigh the rest of society’s views. They have an important role to play in industry, employment, recreation and social life; that is an important part of the Northern Territory. It does not mean the government should do everything they want.
The government should say, ‘Okay, we have heard your suggestions of more pokies and we know it will cause some social impacts, therefore we will take this issue into the community and have a broad discussion about what the Australian Hotels Association wants to introduce’.
In the end you might come back and say that you will allow more poker machines in pubs, to which I would say at least you have consulted and have a process which might cover some of Amity, Banyan, NAAJA and Somerville’s concerns. We do not know that until we have the consultation.
I will get back to the crux of the issue; whether you agree with having more pokies or not, and whether you accept what I have spoken about today regarding this, I believe there are issues because I have been talking to people who deal with this all of the time. It is important that we at least emphasise the fact there are problems.
Regardless of that I ask that before you make these major changes, stick to the promise that the Treasurer made:
- Obviously, once we have consulted with industry we will be very keen to consult with the community.
Obviously his form of keenness is very small because it has not happened in the community. That is why I want the government to support this motion. Disallowing it does not mean there will not be more pokies, it just says, ‘Stop for a minute and think, and we will consult with the community’. That is all what this is about.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
- Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr McCarthy Mr Conlan
Ms Manison Mr Elferink
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mr Wood Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of an Estimates Committee and
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Establishment of an Estimates Committee and
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill and related budget documents, and to appoint a Government Owned Corporations Committee for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation, with reference to those corporations’ Statements of Corporate Intent for 2015-16.
I believe this to be utterly uncontroversial. The timing issues will be sorted out in the committee processes. The argy-bargy surrounding the formation of Estimates Committees historically has now dissipated into understood conventions by all members in this House. I expect the motion will pass before lunch.
I could be wrong, but I do not believe there will be much further debate. I place on the record my expectation and hope that we have a good estimates process which provides information to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, yes, the opposition is looking forward to the estimates process again this year. It is an opportunity for us to carefully look at the performance of the government and its agencies, not just the issues to do with funding and the budget, as well as the overall performance of what is happening in those departments.
It is important for Territorians to know there is an opportunity for the opposition and the Independents to scrutinise the budget and the performance of government through the estimates process. It allows for a more open, transparent and accountable process in examining how government is functioning. In some ways it is a health check of the performance of government.
We are looking forward to asking many questions of those ministers through the process. Last year there were some changes to estimates to ensure we had set times for the process; overall that worked out far better for everyone. I hope this year we do not see long opening statements or Dorothy Dixers thrown in by the government to chew up and waste valuable time, therefore taking away the ability for opposition and Independents to ask important questions as we scrutinise the government’s performance.
We will ask questions concerning health, education, child protection, what is happening in the bush, and how the Territory economy is poised to go forward post-INPEX, which is an especially important time. We look forward to scrutinising the new government-owned corporations, Jacana Energy, Territory Generation and the Power and Water Corporation. This will be the first year they can provide full and complete Statements of Corporate Intent.
We look forward to the estimates process and hope it is a good, open and transparent process for the benefit of Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a very sad occasion for me because after 14 years of being a part of estimates this year I may have to excuse myself. I probably will have to receive counselling about this. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in this parliament, I am going to Canada this year and I can only go during that period. One reason is during June it will be about 8 at the highest temperature. Any other time of the year it might be freezing cold, but I explained yesterday what I will be doing there.
Unfortunately this means I will not be at the estimates, but the member for Namatjira will take that role. I will not sit still between now and estimates. The member for Stuart was worried, but we need an Independent in the Estimates Committee to ask questions that the Labor Party does not ask. I will prepare questions in the meantime which will hopefully be answered succinctly.
One process within estimates that could be changed is regarding the many written questions and answers sent and received. The answers should be sent back and the people on the Estimates Committee can then choose which questions they want to deal with in more detail, especially the generic questions. The CLP was good at that, with questions such as, ‘What was the thickness of the carpet on level five, room 61?’ and ‘How much floor space in Highway House was set aside for the board room?’ They were really exciting questions.
Many of these questions were not highly relevant. If people want to ask those questions, it would be better if the answers came back before estimates started. That way, people who want more detailed responses or want to question the government on why they are renting floor space in a building, they can ask a minister with some knowledge behind that. This would circumvent the generic side of estimates, which can be boring. That is a suggestion that might change things.
I am disappointed I will not be at estimates. I am one of those strange people who enjoy estimates, as it gives me the opportunity to question ministers about what has occurred in the previous year. It is the only time we can question ministers about their annual reports, whether those programs have been successful and what the outcomes were. It is an important part of our democratic process. The member for Namatjira can hold up the independent side of estimates well.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Road Safety Week
Road Safety Week
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we break for lunch I direct your attention to the yellow ribbons on your desk. It is requested that they be worn by members of parliament in support of 2015 National Road Safety Week. This year’s yellow ribbon Drive So Others Survive campaign runs from 1 to 10 May 2015 and invites all road users to participate by sharing road responsibly, protecting vulnerable road users, especially those who work on roads to assist and protect us, and honouring those who have lost their lives or have been injured on our roads. We will wear those this afternoon.
The Assembly suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee report, Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill.
Territorians have been experiencing high fuel prices for a number of years. Whilst fuel prices in the Territory are expected to be above the national average, in 2012 the prices started to rise significantly due to increases in the retail margin. In response to retail prices peaking in late 2014, the government held a fuel summit in October and invited industry stakeholders to explain what factors were driving Territory prices to such extremes.
The fuel summit did not reveal the reasons behind the increased fuel prices; however, it marked a beginning in a correction in prices. Following the fuel summit the government introduced the draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill for comment and the Assembly established a select committee to inquire into the draft bill and determine its effectiveness in informing consumers about fuel prices and promoting price competition.
The committee received five submissions and heard from seven organisations at a public hearing. The committee identified a number of issues for the draft bill, and in its current form the disclosure requirements will add an administrative burden or red tape to retailers in the industry. These costs are likely to be passed on to consumers and there is the potential for commercially sensitive information provided by retailers to be made publically available.
Under the draft bill retailers are not required to be consulted about information that will be published and they have no administrative appeal avenues if they disagree with the commissioner’s publication decisions. There are considerable legislative powers delegated through the draft bill which are not subject to any parliamentary oversight. These rule-making powers have the potential to significantly impact on a person’s rights and are not subject to disallowance by the Assembly. This is a matter of serious concern.
In addition, any fuel price disclosure legislation introduced to the Assembly should be subject to a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to businesses, community and government by the regulation impact unit.
Since the fuel summit, fuel prices in the Territory have dropped significantly. There has been increased scrutiny of the fuel industry, in part through the committee’s inquiry as well as through the ACCC’s investigation into fuel pricing, which is currently under way in Darwin.
The retail fuel market is now responding to upward and downward changes in wholesale prices. Darwin fuel prices are more in line with national averages than they have been for several years. We will have to wait and see whether the reduction in fuel prices in retail margins are sustained once the fuel industry is no longer in the spotlight.
In light of the current ACCC investigation into the Darwin fuel market, along with reductions in fuel prices over the past six months, the committee has recommended that the government should not pursue any fuel price disclosure legislation until the findings of the ACCC investigation are released later this year. This investigation should provide Territorians and the government with a much better understanding of what is happening in the Darwin fuel market. In the event the government decides that legislative intervention is necessary after the ACCC investigation, the committee believes the draft bill should be reviewed in line with recommendations contained in this report.
I thank the committee members who took part in this inquiry, especially the members for Blain, Drysdale, Arafura, Johnston and Nightcliff, as well as the member for Daly who was on the committee for a short period. I also thank the committee secretariat, Russell Keith, Elise Dyer, Lauren Orrock and Kim Cowcher for all the hard work they have done. I hope I have not missed anyone. It might be a small report to some, but it required extensive research and a great deal of understanding of the fuel industry in the Northern Territory with regard to how fuel pricing is determined.
I hope this important report by the committee will be looked at seriously by the government. I again thank the committee and its secretariat for all of their hard work.
MOTION
Print Paper – Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Note Paper – Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee Report – Inquiry into the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUMMARY PROCEDURE) BILL
(Serial 122)
(Serial 122)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce amendments to the Justices Act and the Sentencing Act which will reform the way that summary criminal matters are progressed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. On 28 August 2013 I made a ministerial statement in this Assembly on the Pillars of Justice framework, and more specifically the part of the Pillars of Justice framework that dealt with the reforms to the summary criminal procedures called Swift Justice. I have pursued this matter since that time and it is close to my heart.
That ministerial statement outlined the key measures in the Swift Justice Reforms, which were:
1. new preliminary briefs of evidence to provide early prosecution disclosure – this has been done
2. summary case conferences between the defence and prosecution to identify the issues in dispute
3. statutory sentence indications.
The statistics we have about court outcomes in the Northern Territory demonstrate a number of key points. Firstly, and not surprisingly, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction determines the vast majority of criminal cases in the Northern Territory. The Supreme Court deals with only a small percentage, being the most serious and heinous of crimes. Secondly, the majority of defendants whose matters are adjudicated by the court and not withdrawn, that is, over 80%, eventually plead guilty to charges in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Thirdly, following from that, only a very small percentage of matters – around 3% to 5% -- are finally determined in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction by way of a contested hearing.
Anecdotally, however, it is understood that a large proportion of the defendants that plead guilty do so at a late point in time, often after a hearing date has been set. This means that there are, in the meanwhile, numerous unnecessary court mentions requiring attendance by defence and prosecution alike.
There is no legislation which comprehensively deals with summary procedure in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There are currently two practice directions which govern case flow management of summary matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, soon to be called the Local Court. The first is the practice direction made by the former Chief Magistrate in 2010, which put in place what is generally known as the contest mention system. This practice direction is still in effect in Alice Springs and in other places where the court sits, other than in Darwin. It was in place in Darwin until approximately March 2014.
The contest mention system requires that where a defendant indicates that he or she will plead not guilty and contest a summary matter a full brief has to be prepared as a matter of course. Once the brief is prepared, the parties are expected to discuss the matter between themselves to identify what evidence is required to be called at a contested hearing. At the contest mention the parties are required to hand up a contest mention form to indicate that the discussion had taken place. It is common practice for parties to hand up separate contest mention forms because they had not discussed the matters set out in the form.
As I outlined in my ministerial statement, the number of contest mentions far exceeds the number of contested hearings listed and the number of hearings that proceed and see the light of day. This means that matters are listed for contest mentions and contested hearings where there is no genuine dispute. Additionally, Northern Territory Police noted a significant increase in its workload following the implementation of that practice direction in preparing full briefs of evidence, even where a narrow range of issues was in dispute.
As I stated in my ministerial statement, following the introduction of the contest mention system the number of contest mentions rose by 38%, but correspondingly the number of hearings listed rose by 6%. In practical terms that meant police had to prepare an extra 700 full briefs of evidence for only 47 extra hearings. This represents a significant amount of wasted resources.
Following my announcement of the Swift Justice Reforms the then newly appointed and current Chief Magistrate, Dr John Lowndes, recognised the shortcomings of the contest mention system, and expressed a desire to put in place a new practice direction to overcome the problems with the contest mention system earlier than legislative reform could be achieved. Therefore, in April 2014 the Chief Magistrate put in place a practice direction which was largely consistent with my original proposal to provide for a system of preliminary briefs, and a summary case conferencing between the defence and the prosecution. This practice direction is only in effect in Darwin on a trial basis.
I understand that with much of the contest mention system, as the summary case conferences are voluntary, the indication is the defence and prosecution are not engaging in those conferences on a routine basis. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. There is also the well-known problem of the defendant who will wait until the day of the hearing to see if the victim will turn up to give evidence. It is sometimes known as the ‘wait and see’ defence. This is a particular problem in domestic violence cases, where often the victim will be intimidated by their family or community and eventually resile from giving evidence.
If the defendant waits until the day of the hearing to plead guilty, the defendant has required the attendance of all witnesses, including the victim who is already traumatised by the entire experience, and other witnesses who are required to be brought to court and even flown in from remote areas at great cost. The defendant has also required the court to allocate its valuable hearing times and resources to a hearing that will not proceed on the day.
The background to this bill that I have just outlined represents a culture of un-cooperation and inefficiency. This bill is intended to encourage a change in culture and in a system which is cooperative, efficient, fair and which upholds the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial, however, does not extend to wasting the resources of police, prosecutions and courts. The change needs to be implemented by prosecution and defence lawyers alike.
The Chief Magistrate is to be commended for bringing about a change in the Darwin Court of Summary Jurisdiction to overcome some of the issues of the contest mention system, and for bringing procedures into line with the procedures I am introducing today.
I am aware that a number of stakeholders would prefer to see that the procedures and practices of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction continue to be regulated by the practice direction. However, not all of the measures proposed to be implemented in the bill can be dealt with by way of a practice direction. For example, there needs to be a statutory basis for the sentence indications and the defence disclosure requirements.
With the greatest respect to the Chief Magistrate, I do not think a practice direction can go as far as the measures can in this bill. Nevertheless, the Chief Magistrate has been extensively consulted in the development of the bill introduced today to ensure its workability, noting that some matters in the bill represent policy decisions of this government rather than approval of the Chief Magistrate.
This bill is the result of a significant amount of work and research. In formulating the initial model for the reforms we looked at other jurisdictions and the legislation they have, over the years, implemented to encourage efficiency and early resolution. The government is not going out on a limb with this bill. Most jurisdictions around Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have put in place legislative procedures in the criminal courts to encourage efficiencies and reduce delay in backlogs, with varying degrees of success.
As I stated in the ministerial statement, the bill is based in part on the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act of 2009, which has provisions for preliminary briefs of evidence and sentence indications. In 2012-13, following the implementation of its reforms, Victoria saved over 19 000 civilian witnesses, 27 000 police shifts and 45 000 court hours. The number of cases in Victoria is much larger than the Northern Territory, but nevertheless this represents a significant saving.
Recent research suggests an efficient case management system is one where the guilty pleas are entered early, and the earlier the better. For example, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council in its 2007 report entitled Sentence Indications and Specified Sentence Discounts: Final Report noted that efforts to improve efficiencies in criminal procedures have targeted matters that resolved in a guilty plea late in the process.
The Australian Institute of Criminology found that the late guilty pleas were the single most common reason criminal trials do not proceed on the day of their listing. Further, there are efficiencies to be gained where a hearing proceeds. Court dates for hearings should be set on the basis of an issues-focused hearing. What I mean by an issues-focused hearing is one that is focused on only the issues genuinely in dispute, not one where all the issues are said to be in dispute, but then the contested hearing is only about a self-defence or identity issue.
The key aims of the new Division 2A comprising the new procedures are set out in the new section 60AB of the Justices Act and are to:
- (a) provide for fair, efficient, expeditious and economical case management procedures in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction including by:
- (i) facilitating, if appropriate, a defendant’s guilty plea to an offence at an early stage of the proceeding in relation to a complaint or information before the Court; and
(ii) ensuring that, if a complaint or information proceeds to a hearing of a charge, the hearing is focused on the issues that are in dispute; and
(iii) minimising the time between the making of a complaint or the laying of an information and the hearing of the charge; and
- (b) minimise the trauma that might be experienced by victims of crime.
There has been extensive consultation on the reforms I am introducing today. Throughout the development of the bill the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has been working closely with the Chief Magistrate, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Northern Territory Police. I am grateful for those agencies’ as well as the Chief Magistrate’s cooperation, as well as the constructive advice he has given me in relation to this bill.
In May 2014 the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice released a consultation bill and brief discussion paper to external stakeholders, including the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, the Central Australia Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and the Law Society Northern Territory. Representatives of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also met with stakeholders in Darwin and Alice Springs.
In response to the consultation, a significant number of responses were received expressing a range of views, positive and negative. Overall the consultation was both constructive and instructive. I thank our legal professional stakeholders for their constructive comments on the bill. Not all of their suggestions have been incorporated. However, all comments have been given due and fulsome consideration.
Further, in October 2014 I asked the former Victorian Supreme Court Judge, Professor Hon George Hampel AM QC, to conduct a symposium with stakeholders in Darwin and Alice Springs via video link. Professor Hampel, who is now a Professor of Trial Practice and Advocacy at Monash University, provides advocacy training through the Australian Advocacy Institute and came to the Northern Territory in early 2014 to provide a bar reader’s course, in which I participated. Professor Hampel is not physically a large man; he is now 82 and he has never been a large man in his life, but his presence is wonderful. There are not many people in the world that intimidate me, but Professor Hampel is one of those who do because he is so smart.
Professor Hampel presented a simple proposal for how matters should be managed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction with particular focus on an issues identification and directions hearing, where there would be a frank discussion between the prosecution, defence and magistrate about the issues which were genuinely in dispute, with a view to ascertaining what information the defendant needed to decide whether to plead guilty if appropriate, or to narrow the issues for a future contested hearing.
As a result of the consultation conducted in May 2014 and Professor Hampel’s symposia, the bill was amended including the following key changes.
Firstly, the summary case conferences, which was part of my initial Swift Justice proposal, was replaced with an issue identification and directions hearing to be conducted by the magistrate, who would ensure the parties complied and conducted constructed discussion in order to progress the matter efficiently.
Secondly, the graduated sentence discount scheme which was in the consultation bill was removed. This was a scheme adapted from similar South Australian provisions whereby if a defendant pleaded guilty at various points in time in the progress of a matter, the defendant was entitled to receive a discount up to a specified maximum, with that maximum decreasing closer to the date of the hearing. All stakeholders raised concerns about this scheme, particularly on how it could be practicably implemented in bush courts, and the parity issues relating to matters which mandatory sentencing applied. One aspect of a graduated sentence discount regime was retained, which I will explain in a moment.
The sentence indication scheme was drafted in more detail as to how it is to operate.
I now turn to explain the key elements of the bill. The new section 60AC provides that the new provisions in the Justices Act must apply only to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. During the extensive consultation undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice it became readily apparent that a one-size-fits-all approach would not likely succeed in the Northern Territory and some allowance needed to be made for the bush circuit courts.
Thus, new section 60AC(2) provides that the Chief Magistrate may give a practice direction to provide for procedures in other locations in the Territory where the court sits. If a Chief Magistrate does so, the practice direction must be consistent with the objects of the new Division 2A in section 60AB, and must adopt the procedures of new Division 2A as far as practicable.
The bill provides for a new preliminary brief of evidence which is intended to replace the former prcis of facts. The version of this document has already been implemented by the Northern Territory Police and disclosure by preliminary brief is a requirement under the Chief Magistrate’s practice direction in Darwin.
The preparation and service of the preliminary brief under the new sections 60AD to 60AF of the bill will ensure the prosecution case is disclosed to the defendant within seven days of the first mention of the matter in court.
The preliminary brief must contain a copy of the charges; the alleged facts on which the charges are based; a list of proposed witnesses, including a description of the evidence they are expected to give; a list of potential exhibits; copies of statements; copies of electronic records of interview; and anything else that is relevant, available and required to be disclosed. It is also intended that the preliminary brief must contain not only the facts alleged, but also an indication of what evidence the prosecution has to support those allegations and the offence charged.
This is the statement of facts in clause 60AF(1)(a). This represents the key difference between the former prcis of evidence and the preliminary brief. The former prcis only contained allegations and no outlines of evidence.
It is important to note this is a preliminary brief, that is, it requires disclosure of what the prosecution has or knows about at the time of its service. It is not the only disclosure obligation on the prosecution, and it is not intended to bind the prosecution to evidence in the preliminary brief if further evidence comes to light during the progress of the matter.
My understanding from practitioners in the criminal jurisdictions on both sides of the bar table is that the implementation of a preliminary brief by the Northern Territory Police in the last year has been a very positive move. By disclosing the prosecution case early in the process, the defendant and prosecution will know the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and it provides the basis on which the matter can be finalised as early as possible.
At the first mention, if the defendant does not plead guilty, the matter will be set down for a directions hearing not less than four weeks after the first mention. The purpose of the directions hearing is to set out a new section 60AH, and it is to identify the issues that are and are not in dispute and the steps required to progress the matter. At the directions hearing, the prosecution and defence will be expected to cooperate and discuss the matter frankly with the court. The prosecution will need to identify what further evidence is still outstanding, such as a forensic certificate.
The parties will need to give an estimate of the length of the hearing if the defendant is pleading not guilty and indicate any pre-hearing orders that they will seek from the court. The defence will need to indicate if they intend to rely on an alibi or expert witness. The defence will also need to disclose what issues are in dispute, with a view to narrowing the issues to facilitate the resolution of the matter in a guilty plea, or to narrow the issues for a contested hearing so the time allocated for the contested hearing is shorter and focused only on the issue or issues in dispute.
Under new section 60AD(3), the purpose of the directions hearing will be facilitated by the requirement for the prosecution to file a copy of the statement of facts with the court. It is intended that the magistrate who conducts the directions hearing will read from the statement of facts and be armed to be proactive in ensuring that the parties are cooperating. For example, a magistrate with a statement of facts outlining allegations about an assault could ask questions of the defendant as to whether the identity is in dispute or whether the issue is self-defence.
The new section 60AK states that where a defendant indicates an intention to plead guilty at a directions hearing, the court is able to accept the plea and sentence the defendant or adjourn the matter for sentence hearing on another date. The court may also make orders for the further progress of the matter, such as setting a time frame for further disclosure of information by the prosecution, and further issues to be raised by the defence.
At the completion of the directions hearing, the new section 60AK(4) requires the matter to be listed for a contested hearing or other directions hearing if one is required, or both, as the court sees fit. There should not be a further directions hearing listed as a matter of course, but only if the magistrate considers it a necessity.
The intention of the bill is to reduce the number of unnecessary appearances, reducing delays and costs to all parties involved. Nothing in these procedures prevents the defendant from applying to a court at any time to list the matter for the purpose of pleading guilty. Nor does anything in these procedures prevent the prosecution from applying to the court to list the matter to withdraw the charges should that become necessary.
The new section 60AP requires the prosecution and defence to confirm with the court seven days before the hearing that they are ready to proceed with the hearing on the set date. The expectation is, at that point, all parties are prepared for the hearing, summonses for witnesses have been served and outstanding issues have been ironed out ready for the hearing to proceed reasonably and smoothly.
It will no longer be good enough for a lawyer to look at the brief the night before the hearing and proceed on a completely different basis than as discussed at the directions hearing in front of the magistrate. The point of the directions hearing is for the preparation to be done at the front end of the process, not the back.
The new section 60AS ensures that the prosecutor’s duties of disclosure at common law are not abrogated by any of the new provisions. Those duties are well ensconced in the common law and it is not the intent to interfere with settled law. However, the bill introduces three new defence disclosure obligations.
First, the defendant is required by the new section 60AG to disclose the particulars of any alibi they may have seven days before the directions hearing, if they intend to rely on one. This ensures the police can conduct appropriate investigations on the alibi and obtain any statements before the directions hearing.
Second, the defendant will also be required under the new section 60AM to provide written notice to the prosecution of any expert evidence, or any objections to any document or evidence the prosecution intends to call at the hearing, 21 days before the date of the hearing. For example, if a defendant made admissions in a record of interview, but the defendant argues that the interview was not admissible, the basis for the objection should be discussed and considered by the parties well before the date of the hearing.
Third, under section 60AJ, at the directions hearing, the defendant will be required to disclose what issues are not in dispute and what issues are. The issues not in dispute will often be easiest to identify. The requirement to disclose the issues in dispute requires the defence to take instructions and prepare. It does not require the defence to disclose or jeopardise how they run the defence at a contested hearing, nor does it infringe upon the right to silence or the presumption of innocence.
As Professor Hampel stated at his symposium, a good advocate will be willing and able to comply with this requirement as it limits the scope of issues the defence lawyer has to focus on, and on which to develop a case theory. It allows for a truly adversarial hearing, as the real issues are disputed rather than superfluous and tangential issues. It also encourages early pleas in appropriate cases or the prosecution to withdraw the charges in hopeless cases.
New section 68AQ sets out the consequences for failing to comply with a defence disclosure requirement. On application by the prosecution, a court may order an adjournment for the defendant to comply with a disclosure obligation, the prosecution may make investigations and the court may allow the prosecution to call further evidence as a result of the disclosure. Section 60AQ only applies to defendants and notably it does not apply to the prosecution. This is because the bill provides for new obligations on defendants, whereas section 60AS ensures that the prosecution’s disclosure obligations and consequences of non-disclosure at common law are not abrogated by the bill.
This bill also introduces a system of sentence indications in a new subdivision 3. A sentence indication is defined in the bill as ‘an indication given by the court under section 60AT, of a sentence that the court would likely impose on the defendant’.
The new section 60AT will allow a defendant to apply to the court for an indication at any time during the proceedings, but not within seven days of the contested hearing. The court will be able to indicate whether the court would impose a sentence of imprisonment, another type of sentence, if a mandatory minimum sentence would apply or if exceptional circumstances exist under Part 3, Division 6A of the Sentencing Act, which provides for mandatory minimum sentencing for assaults. This will allow the defendant to consider whether he or she will plead guilty at that point in time. They do not have to plead guilty; however, it may be in their interest to do so, as generally the earlier they plead guilty the more likely the court will see the early plea as a factor in mitigation of their sentence.
To give a sentence indication, the court does not have to conduct a full sentence hearing. But under the new section 60AU the court must consider a statement of agreed facts, the defendant’s criminal record and a victim impact statement or victim report if available. The court may also have regard to any other relevant information available at the time.
The key principles behind the sentence indication scheme are, first, if the court gives a sentence indication and the sentence indication is accepted where the defendant pleads guilty as the result of it, the court cannot impose a more severe sentence than the sentence indicated.
Second, the sentence indication is only binding on the magistrate who gave it and the corollary is that only the magistrate can withdraw it.
Third, only the magistrate who gave the sentence indication can sentence the defendant if the defendant pleads guilty as a result of the indication.
The new section 60AW provides for circumstances where the magistrate may withdraw a sentence indication. The magistrate may withdraw a sentence indication where the defendant has not pleaded guilty as a result of the indication within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will be determined by the magistrate.
The magistrate may also withdraw a sentence indication if information comes to light which would lead a court to impose a more severe sentence than the sentence indication. This is necessary to avoid forcing a court into error where the sentence indication does not reflect the seriousness and circumstances of the offending. If the defendant has pleaded guilty in relation to the sentence indication and the magistrate withdraws the sentence indication, the court must offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea.
The other provisions relating to the sentence indications provide for further detail, including in the new section 60AZB, which states that when a sentence indication has been given the court is able to give a further sentence indication if the court is constituted by the same magistrate and there has been a material change in the circumstances. Also, a new section 60AZC allows another magistrate to step in where the magistrate who gave the sentence indication is unavailable for an unreasonable period of time to sentence the defendant.
Additionally, the sentence indication application and the sentence indication are not admissible in proceedings under section 60AX.
Under section 60AY the ordinary rights of appeal on sentences of both the prosecution and defendant are retained.
Finally, the bill makes an amendment to the Sentencing Act to encourage compliance with the new provisions, even where the matter is contested in a hearing. The new section 5(2)(ha) will allow the court to take into account the extent of the defendant’s compliance with the new procedures in the Justices Act when sentencing the offender. If the defendant complied, even if he or she defended the charges in a contested hearing, the court may look positively on the defendant’s behaviour and factor that into the sentence. The bill also introduces other measures into the Sentencing Act which are intended to encourage early guilty pleas where appropriate.
The new section 108A of the Sentencing Act will require a court to make clear what discount it gave a defendant on account of an early guilty plea for a summary matter. This is to promote transparency and send a message to all defendants that if they plead guilty early they will benefit from a discount.
Further, a new section 123A will preclude the court from giving a sentence discount on account of a plea of guilty if the defendant pleads guilty within seven days of the date of hearing. The exception is where the defendant could not have pleaded guilty earlier, such as where the prosecution changes the charges. As I mentioned earlier, seven days before the hearing the parties are to inform the court that they are ready to proceed with the hearing, so they are expected to have prepared their case and discussed all of the issues prior to that point.
These reforms will go a significant way towards addressing practical and cultural issues of the criminal legal practice in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. I realise most stakeholders have not seen the bill in its current form and the bill looks different to that which was circulated for consultation in May 2014. The bill is, in essence, the same policy apart from removing impractical provisions and replacing summary case conferences with directions hearings.
Nevertheless, in order to offer stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the technical aspects of the bill, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice will circulate the bill to stakeholders for any comments they may have. Any issues that need to be addressed can be dealt with in the committee stage of the bill.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the Northern Territory sentencing provisions are clear, concise and meet the expectations of the community in promoting fair and just sentences for those found guilty of a criminal offence.
The bill includes amendments to both the Sentencing Act and the Youth Justice Act to address an ambiguity identified by His Honour Justice Hiley in the Northern Territory Supreme Court decision of Waters v James [2014] NTSC 37.
In that case His Honour noted that the wording of section 57(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act, when read together with section 53(1), is ambiguous and may lead to inconsistent applications of section 57(1) of the Sentencing Act by the courts.
The ambiguity identified by Justice Hiley concerns the use of the words:
- … in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period …
This is in section 57(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act. Those words allow section 57(1)(b), when read in conjunction with section 53, to be interpreted in two different ways.
First, which I will refer to as ‘interpretation one’, section 57(1) applies to the subsequent sentence only. Under this interpretation for section 57(1)(b) to apply, the subsequent sentence must be able to have a non-parole period fixed, that is, it must be a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more, and the sentencing judge or magistrate must propose to set a non-parole period for that subsequent sentence.
Second, which I will refer to as interpretation two, section 57(1) applies where an offender is serving a sentence where a non-parole period has been fixed and is subsequently sentenced on other matters to an additional term of actual imprisonment before the end of the non-parole period. On being sentenced to a further term of imprisonment, the court is then required to fix a new single non-parole period in respect of all the sentences, regardless of the length of the subsequent sentence.
The intent of section 57 is to enable a court to fix a new single non-parole period that takes into account the current and prior offending of an offender and hence enable the court to set an appropriate and just total sentence.
Limiting the operation of section 57(1)(b) to subsequent sentences of 12 months imprisonment or more deprives the court of an opportunity to fix a single non-parole period and, without any apparent reason, differentiates between sentences of less and more than 12 months imprisonment. In Waters v James Justice Hiley found it appropriate, given the current wording of section 57, to follow the 2006 Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Queen v Bortoli which supports the application of interpretation one. However, His Honour recommended that consideration be given to amending section 57(1)(b) by removing the words, ‘in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’ so the second interpretation is applicable.
Unless the Sentencing Act is amended the continued application of interpretation one will impede the ability of a court in ensuring a just and appropriate sentence is handed down. This could lead to manifestly excessive sentences as a person sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, while already serving a non-parole period for other offences, may spend longer in prison than somebody in the same circumstances who has committed a more serious offence and has therefore received a lengthier sentence to which a non-parole period may be fixed. The bill will amend the Sentencing Act and the Youth Justice Act to ensure that interpretation two is applicable in the Northern Territory.
This bill will also address an additional ambiguity concerning the wording of section 53 of the Sentencing Act, and the interpretation of that section by the courts. The courts have interpreted section 53 as precluding the fixing of a non-parole period for sentences of less than 12 months. However, the provision simply states the circumstances where a court must set a non-parole period and does not expressly prohibit the courts from setting a non-parole period for sentences of less than 12 months, or sentences that are suspended in whole or in part. This bill amends the Sentencing Act to expressly prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period in such circumstances.
The bill further amends the Sentencing Act to provide an exemption to that prohibition in circumstances where an offender, who is serving a term of imprisonment for which a non-parole period has been fixed, is sentenced to a further term of imprisonment before the end of the original non-parole period. In such circumstances the court will be required to fix a new single non-parole period for all the sentences the offender is to serve or complete. This will permit the application of the totality principle in sentencing and promote a fair and just total sentence. This is consistent with interpretation two, as I previously mentioned.
The bill also amends the Youth Justice Act to address similar issues to those in the Sentencing Act. The bill will also repeal the definition of ‘non-parole period’ at section 85(3) of the Youth Justice Act and inserts an amended definition of the same term at section 5(1) of the Youth Justice Act.
I will now explain the substantive clauses of the bill in greater detail. Clause 4 amends section 53 of the Sentencing Act by inserting a new subsection (1A). New section 53(1A) will, subject to section 57, prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period where it imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than 12 months or a term that is suspended in whole or in part.
Clause 5 amends section 57 of the Sentencing Act by repealing section 57(1) and inserting a new clause that is consistent with modern drafting practices and terminology, and omits the words ‘in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’.
Clause 5 also inserts a new subsection (1A), which states that the court must fix a new single non-parole period in respect of all the sentences the offender is to serve or complete. Clause 6 amends section 59 of the Sentencing Act by repealing section 59(2). Section 59(2) provides for the suspension of one term of imprisonment so that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment may be served in the order prescribed in section 59(1). The amendments to section 57 prevent the occurrence of circumstances triggering the application of section 59(2) and that subsection is repealed.
Clause 7 amends section 108(4) of the Sentencing Act by substituting the word ‘centre’ and the bracketed words following the word ‘centre’ in the section for the word ‘facility’. This amendment ensures that the wording of the Sentencing Act is consistent with the wording of the Correctional Services Act.
Clause 10 inserts a definition of ‘non-parole period’ in section 5(1) of the Youth Justice Act.
Clause 11 amends section 85 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 85(3) and inserting a new clause that states:
- Subject to section 87, if the Court sentences a youth to a term of detention or imprisonment of 12 months or less, or a term that is suspended in whole or part, the Court may not fix a non-parole period.
Clause 12 amends section 87 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 87(1) and inserting a new clause that is consistent with modern drafting practices and terminology, and omits the words ‘in respect to which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’.
Clause 12 also inserts a new section 87(1A) which states that:
- The Court must fix a new single non-parole period in respect of all the sentences the youth is to serve or complete.
Clause 13 amends section 130 of the Youth Justice Act by repealing section 130(2). Section 130(2) provides for the suspension of one term of detention or imprisonment so that a subsequent term of detention or imprisonment may be served in the order prescribed by section 130(1). The amendments to section 87 prevent the occurrence of circumstances that trigger the application of section 130(2), and the subsection should be repealed.
Finally, transitional provisions for this bill in relation to the Sentencing Act and Youth Justice Act are provided for in clauses 8 and 14.
I now commend the bill to the honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Privileges Committee – Referral of the Members for Karama and Barkly
Privileges Committee – Referral of the Members for Karama and Barkly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the members for Karama and Barkly together be referred to the Committee of Privileges, pursuant to Standing Order 83, for the following reason: upon the recommendation of Mr John Lawler, who conducted the inquiry into Stella Maris, authorised by this House and so empowered to conduct an inquiry into the attempted transfer of the Stella Maris building to Unions NT applying to the members for Karama and Barkly together.
This reference to the Committee of Privileges may also attend to the matter of affidavits that were lodged in support of the statement of issues and contentions, which are currently the subject of criminal investigation.
Further, I move that this motion be held over in its entirety from further debate until the criminal matter is either completed or discharged by way of investigation, or subsequently dealt with by a court.
There are essentially three limbs in the matter before us, and it is important that we step through each one of those limbs independently so we are clear on what is being proposed and argued today.
The first limb I intend to deal with is the matter relating to the Lawler inquiry and is based specifically around five findings in the inquiry. Those findings are numbered one, two, eight, nine and 10.
In finding one, Mr Lawler found that:
- … all the circumstances and particularly given there is no statutory definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in the Northern Territory, it would be inappropriate for me to make a finding of corrupt conduct against any person as a result of the Inquiry’s work.
Finding two states:
- … the public disquiet – as highlighted by the media, along with the decision to conduct this Inquiry – could have been avoided if the then Cabinet followed the recommended option in ‘The future of Stella Maris site’ Cabinet Submission and if the then Minister for Lands and Planning and his office followed transparent, due and proper process when offering the community land grant for the site to Unions NT.
- … however, that Minister G McCarthy’s offer of a community land grant to Unions NT on 3 August 2012, for a Crown lease on the site, was arguably unreasonable in the Administrative law sense and would be susceptible to challenge before the Supreme Court on that basis.
Finding nine states:
- … that having considered all the factors in relation to the decision to offer a Crown lease to Unions NT for the site, Minister G McCarthy’s conduct was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
And finding 10 states:
- … that, notwithstanding Minister Lawrie may have genuinely believed that granting the site exclusively to Unions NT was in the public interest, the way she involved herself in the process was not proper and was unfair to the public and other community groups.
Given the limited time I have available to cover what is a substantial motion, I will pause briefly on this part of the reference. It is clear by the language used by Mr Lawler in putting these recommendations together that he had turned his mind to the Code of Conduct, which he referred to in one of the earlier recommendations.
The Code of Conduct essentially has two schedules placed beside it and deals with a number of issues. The principles of ethical conduct fall under four main headings: integrity; accountability; responsibility; and the public interest. It then goes on in Part 2 to describe the nature of what that is. It is clear from the language found in the second schedule of the Code of Conduct that the commissioner was turning his mind to these issues. Section 11 creates a public interest test with two limbs: that the belief was genuine, which is what he ascribed to the member for Karama; and it must be honest and reasonably maintained.
There is nothing we can see in the findings from the Lawler inquiry to show that any reasonable person could honestly and reasonably believe that the conduct of the members for Karama and Barkly, at the time, were in accordance with the expectations of the Code of Conduct, which deals with the four principles I just mentioned. At this point, however, this matter will be held over by virtue of the structure of this motion.
It then steps us through a process where the member for Barkly is no longer a passenger on this vehicle, because the next part of the process takes a moment to explain.
Upon reading the transcripts of the various submissions made to the Supreme Court, one starts to become clear about what transpired and what was planned by Ms Lawrie, the member for Karama, Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr. It was a matter of reliance on a letter I have not seen – for the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to see it – which was written by Mr Lawler to Ms Lawrie on 17 February. That letter was relied upon by Ms Lawrie to begin a process of claiming they had been given procedural unfairness in the matter of the Lawler inquiry. This is very important because this is at the heart of what occurred and what has led to adverse comments in the Supreme Court in relation to the member for Karama.
How the plan would be hatched – and this plan is described in an e-mail which was circulated on 31 March. That e-mail is referred to on page 69 of the decision, where they were going to claim procedural unfairness because of a reliance on a letter by Mr Lawler on 17 February. That reliance was going to be, ‘We thought no adverse findings would be made against us, therefore we also decided to tell Mr Lawler on 14 April that the pro bono work had dried up’. That was the plan which was put in place. It was a deliberate and political plan which was designed and constructed to create an environment where Ms Lawrie could claim that she had been denied procedural fairness. The subsequent filing of the statement of issues and contentions demonstrated that was what they were claiming.
Other aspects support that this plan was deliberately pursued, not least of which was Justice Southwood’s finding that this was the plan. Moreover, it betrays a process, something which has concerned me over a number of years about the operation of the member for Karama. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 141 of the transcript, where Mr McLure submits to the court that there was a belief between Mr Wyvill and Ms Lawrie – in some fashion – that Mr Lawler was in an arrangement with the CLP. This is clearly an allegation of corruption. For the plan to work, the court would have to find that Mr Lawler was in some way compromised and his integrity in question. This process of throwing someone under a bus would not sit comfortably with members of this House.
Moreover, part of her plan – which you can see on page 145 of the transcript, and from submissions by Mr McLure – was to decide not to offer any form of dissenting report to Mr Lawler. In this way they could keep this charade of expecting no negative comment from Mr Lawler based on the letter of 17 February. That would have diminished the quality of their proposed defence. The whole plan had been arranged, even whilst the inquiry was afoot, that they would claim they had been treated unfairly, and tell the Lawler inquiry that the pro bono work had dried up.
It was through the process of discovery that it became clear a plan had been hatched, which was identified in the Supreme Court. On the basis of that plan, affidavits were filed with the Supreme Court and a matter was commenced.
I will not trawl through all of the findings of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, but certain elements must be read into the Hansard record. On page 116, paragraph 222, His Honour confirmed that the statement of facts, issues and contentions was based on certain propositions, which were as follows:
- Ms Spurr filed the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions which contained the following pleading.
It then goes on to a number of italicised areas. Item number seven says:
The plaintiff and her legal representatives relied on the defendant’s statements in this letter in determining how the plaintiff ought to participate in and contribute to the Inquiry …
From paragraph 11 of the statement of facts, issues and contentions I will highlight this line:
- On 14 April, the plaintiff’s solicitors ceased representing the plaintiff in the Inquiry …
Let us pause and think about what was just said from the statement of facts, issues and contentions filed by Ms Spurr on behalf of Ms Lawrie.
This was, of course, the assertion that the pro bono work had dried up. Subsequent evidence demonstrated there was no such drying up of pro bono work. It was part of the deliberate plan to create an impression of procedural fairness – which is not an equitable principle, but comes out of the administrative law environment and has certain equitable flavours – and to assert something that was not happening.
Paragraph 12 of that statement of facts and issues says:
- The plaintiff and legal representatives acted as set out in paragraph 11 above in the belief that, by reason of the defendant’s conduct …
Mr Lawler was the defendant:
- … (most particularly as set out in paragraphs 6 and 9 above), he was not considering making any findings which were adverse to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, this belief was reasonable …
It was not reasonable because evidence has been adduced, and can be found in the transcripts of the trial as well as the decision, that there was an ugly report expected from Mr Lawler.
As a consequence the following decision and observations were made in relation to the application by Ms Lawrie et al – paragraph 223 onwards:
Apart from the partial admission pleaded in par 11 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, the allegations pleaded in the document are untrue, as Ms Lawrie must know. It is a fair inference that Ms Lawrie would have seen the document before it was filed in Court because it was Ms Spurr’s invariable practice to obtain instructions from Ms Lawrie before taking a step on her behalf. The filing of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions appears to be the culmination of the Mr Wyvill’s strategy to discredit Mr Lawler which has been approved and adopted by Ms Lawrie.
In support of the pleading contained in par 6 to par 12 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, affidavits of Ms Lawrie, Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr were filed in Court but not read.
During the course of this proceeding, the pleading in par 6 to par 12 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions were abandoned by Ms Lawrie, as they properly should have been. However, I am satisfied that, until the allegations pleaded in par 6 to par 12 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions were abandoned, there was a conscious and deliberate strategy adopted by Ms Lawrie to abandon her participation in the Inquiry to enable her to come to this Court and wrongly maintain that she had been denied procedural fairness on the basis of Mr Lawler’s letter of 17 February 2014.
It is a pretty damning indictment for Justice Southwood to say there was a conscious and deliberate strategy, adopted by Ms Lawrie, to abandon her participation in the inquiry to enable her to come to this court and wrongly maintain that she had been denied procedural fairness. What was being attempted was a strategy to get the Supreme Court to come to a conclusion that would not reflect the truth about what was occurring. It was only through the process of discovery that the truth of this matter had become apparent.
I now turn to the third limb of this matter, which is now under the investigation of police. I draw honourable members’ attention to the final paragraph of this motion because it seeks to be suspended, effectively indefinitely, until alleged criminal matters are dealt with. This is because in my opinion it would be unfair to ask Ms Lawrie, or any other member of this House, to discuss a matter which is still under criminal investigation.
It would be unfair to ask Ms Lawrie to respond in this House because it would either deny her right to silence, or if she chose to set aside her right to silence it would then raise more questions. In deference to the criminal justice system and its appropriateness, this motion is designed to be suspended at the completion of my opening comments.
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 76 of the transcript, which includes comments by Mr McLure during the submissions on the unfair procedure matters. On page 76 there is a telling line from Mr McLure in his submissions to the court. In those submissions he says:
- The court is entitled to take into account its own record, which is that the court knows that affidavits of those people were filed and up until 10.30 am yesterday were going to be read.
That is important because it clearly demonstrates to the court and this House that up until the first day of the trial Mr Lawler’s lawyer, Mr McLure, believed the affidavits in question would be read.
That was the intent, and I draw honourable members’ attention to page 5 of the transcript from the submissions to the court.
Mr Young, representing Ms Lawrie, said:
- Because if, your Honour, procedural fairness – if for example your Honour found that the minimum standard of procedural fairness had been satisfied by the defendant’s conduct, regardless of the letter, no problem … if your Honour found that and there was nevertheless a representation that some additional opportunity would be given to make submissions that was relied on and that reliance deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to make submissions then that’s a separate ground of procedural fairness.
I get the argument. His Honour replied with:
- Well, it doesn’t matter if it hasn’t occurred, does it?
Mr Young: If what hasn’t occurred, your Honour?
His Honour: If natural justice hasn’t been accorded then the letter’s irrelevant, isn’t it?
Mr Young: It is, your Honour.
His Honour: Well, it also has the effect of extending these proceedings and exposing a number of the witnesses to quite serious cross-examination.
Mr Young: It does, your Honour.
His Honour: Mr Young, with potentially quite serious factual findings open at the end of the day.
Mr Young: Yes, your Honour.
His Honour: But nonetheless you’re proceeding.
Mr Young: They’re my instructions, your Honour.
His Honour: Okay, well, over to you.
Clearly His Honour is saying, ‘Really? Do you want to do this? Okay, that is up to you.’ Mr Young then followed with the line:
- Your Honour, there has been a late flurry of affidavits …
… there have been a further affidavit from Mr Wyvill and a further affidavit from Ms Spurr … a draft of each has been provided to my learned friends, your Honour, and I seek leave to file those in court.
The conversation goes on and it turns out not only are there new affidavits, there are 120 pages of further material, at which point Mr Lawler’s representative, Mr Maurice, sought an adjournment.
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 8 of the transcript. Mr Young, representing Ms Lawrie, said:
- Your Honour, during the adjournment I sought further instructions about the conduct of this case of the plaintiff.
Our position, your Honour, is that largely in accord with the position that your Honour and I discussed before the break, that is we will not rely on the letter, will not assert that we relied on it as to our detriment.
He went on to say:
- I don’t propose to rely on the affidavits of Ms Spurr, Ms Lawrie and Mr Wyvill.
I wonder what happened in the adjournment break, between his instructions to proceed on the basis of affidavits and the decision not to proceed.
I invite honourable members to read the whole transcript because clearly Mr Young had difficulties with the case going forward and scratched around for some pretty bare evidence to make out the case. Clearly Mr McLure had prepared his whole case on the basis of these affidavits being read out. In fact, Mr Maurice said on page 8 on the transcript:
- Yes, your Honour, this changes things dramatically from our point of view because we prepared on the footing that the letter would be relied on and that the affidavits would be read, and we prepared accordingly.
Clearly the case focused on the statement of facts, issues and contentions, and the affidavits.
It is clear from paragraph 224 of the final decision that His Honour felt it appropriate that those statements were not relied upon. Those affidavits were not relied upon and there was not much evidence beyond what appears to have been presented to the court. As a consequence, the Lawrie v Lawler case was doomed from the outset. That is a matter of history now. His Honour handed down the now much-reported decision, especially regarding the lines I have just read out.
What concerns me, and has now enlivened a criminal investigation, is the operation of sections 109 and 119 of the Criminal Code Act, as well as a number of sections in that part of the act which deal with the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
The questions arising out of these matters invite investigation. I make no assertion of guilt or wrongdoing on Delia Lawrie’s part. I have never seen the affidavits in question. What I suspect, however, is that the contents of those affidavits may have been untrue. I have come to that conclusion following the directions and guidance given by His Honour Justice Southwood in this matter.
I do not propose to move forward with this motion today, beyond introducing it to the House, because a criminal investigation is currently on foot. It is not for me or this House to decide the guilt of innocence of any party under investigation, or to make any assertion of guilt associated with these affidavits. It is sufficient for me to write a letter to the police and ask them to simply look. It would be unfair of this House to ask any member to make comments in relation to the matters pertaining to the third limb of what we are discussing here whilst it is under investigation.
It would be particularly unfair to Ms Lawrie, Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr to play out this debate today. In an effort to be procedurally fair to Ms Lawrie and the other people affected, this matter should therefore lie on the table until such time as the police investigation has been disposed of and, if there are any subsequent criminal matters, that they are disposed of in a court of law. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY (NORTHERN TERRITORY) (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 118)
(Serial 118)
Continued from 25 March 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to contribute to this important debate regarding the future of the Northern Territory’s electricity sector, which has a huge impact on the cost of living for every Territorian. Today we see another step in the government’s structural separation agenda, moving the economic regulation function of the Territory’s electricity networks from the Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory to the Australian Energy Regulator. This move has been long flagged by the Treasurer as part of his structural separation agenda. The opposition will not oppose this move; however, it raises a raft of questions around the government’s future intentions regarding the Power and Water Corporation and the new government owned corporations Jacana Energy and Territory Generation. This is broadly seen as another step towards privatisation of government owned assets, as you further align the Territory’s unique market to national rules and regulations in order to attract more competitors to the market.
Ultimately, my main concern with this legislation is what it means to Territorians and whether we can avoid further price hike pain and burden on Territory families. Earlier this week the Treasurer spoke about his hopes to see reductions in power prices. The Treasurer and members of the government know too well that a 30% power price increase was too much for many to bear. The latest round of price increases, delivered on 1 January, hit people hard across the Territory. We have heard about local media being bombarded with complaints about the latest round of price-hike shocks just as we have heard, as local members, from our constituents.
If the Treasurer was to manage a price reduction later this year it would be welcomed by Territorians; I have no doubt about that, especially given it is hurting household budgets at the moment. It is not only in urban centres; people in the bush are suffering as well.
I also assure the Treasurer that as much as people will welcome price relief on massive electricity bills, Territorians will not forget that the CLP government delivered the 30% increase in the first place under Chief Minister Adam Giles, who chose to fully implement the 30% increase to all. People will not forget this; you can expect cynicism on the timing of this happening, with less than 12 months until the next Territory election. People know you are trying to gain back favour after burdening households with huge price increases in their power bills over the last three years of your reign. The massive power, water and sewerage price increases will be the key elements your government will be remembered for.
As well as driving massive price increases for essential services, this government has also driven its structural separation agenda. It was pursued with no mandate from Territorians and there was no mention of it in the 2012 election commitments.
Along with having no mandate, the government was unable to produce any real evidence of what the benefits for Territorians would be in doing this. When I asked the Power and Water Corporation, Treasury and Department of the Chief Minister staff last year whether there was any cost benefit analysis or evidence to support the structural separation showing it would provide any gains for Territorians, none could be produced.
Part of the suite of changes under the Treasurer’s reform agenda for Power and Water included the move to the Australian Energy Regulator, or the AER, from the Utilities Commission. With the clear intention to move economic regulation functions from the Utilities Commission, one would think the Utilities Commission would be disbanded in order to avoid duplicated cost burdens on the Territory.
However, in briefings with Treasury we were informed that the Utilities Commission will need to remain and will not be disbanded with the introduction of the AER into the Northern Territory. Given the Territory’s unique conditions, this was not possible and the Utilities Commission will still operate in the Territory to handle functions the AER is unable to, including system planning.
It was also clear that the Territory would need to seek exemptions from the AER’s rules, due to the fact the Territory is not like down south where they are connected to a national grid. It was well known we have island-type networks; one covers Darwin and Katherine, and the other Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Parts of the AER simply do not translate to the Territory’s conditions.
This highlights that the Treasurer’s structural separation agenda was rammed through without the full details being sought.
As we saw this time last year, the Treasurer attempted to ram through the legislation to allow for the structural separation of Power and Water at record pace. A crisis in numbers stopped him from succeeding in the first attempt when we saw three members of his party walk over to the Palmer United Party.
In a huge rush, the Public Accounts Committee managed to get one day to scrutinise the bills. However, before the PAC report was tabled in this parliament the Treasurer rammed through the Power and Water structural separation legislation.
It was a rushed process and we still have questions about what the AER will mean to Territory households wanting their bills reduced. For example, under the AER would there be more capacity to increase tariffs? Will this mean additional regulatory burden, given there will be two bodies in the Territory working in this area? How much will these changes ultimately cost?
The government has still not confirmed the real cost of the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. These figures will be pursued during estimates.
The move to the AER raises similar questions about the costs of bodies of work that have gone into heading in this direction, and the fact we now see two bodies working in this space.
The Treasurer wants to see many private operators in the Territory’s electricity market, as his view is that it is the best way to drive down prices. In other jurisdictions where structural separation has occurred, we have seen that prices go up, reliability goes down and assets are often privatised.
The Treasurer is very clear that he wants more private operators, and in his view the move to the AER would be another step towards encouraging this. In my view, it raises more questions about the government’s intentions for the future of the assets that remain as easy pickings for the private sector if the government decides to go there, for example, Weddell Power Station or the Owen Springs Power Station.
One needs to ask if the move to the AER is a way of the government attracting interstate or international players to buy up our assets. Is this another step in the pathway to privatising important electricity assets?
There are also questions under this package of reforms about the changes seeming to be driven out of Power and Water and Territory Generation. EBAs are currently under negotiation; it will be interesting to see what happens to the pay and conditions for staff. EBAs play a very important role in this industry given the issues that could be negotiated to enhance workplace safety, and given the nature of the work Power and Water and Territory Generation staff do. Safety should never be compromised.
There are some deep concerns within the workforce about increased outsourcing of jobs that were traditionally done by the Power and Water workforce. Feedback on the matter states that there is an increase of outsourced contractors simply based on dollar factors; they are finding it cheaper to get external sources to complete the work. This is despite the fact there is genuine expertise within the Power and Water workforce with years of experience. Power and Water has very high safety standards and work conditions; they take safety within the organisation very seriously. Concerns have been raised with me that there are moves to increase outsourcing, making staff worry about the new rules under the reforms and the new environment Power and Water will operate in, and if they will see further reductions in staff over time. This has always been a huge concern regarding the changes.
Within the generation sector staff are worried about the future of those working at the Ron Goodin Power Station, and what happens to jobs when that eventually ceases operation. As part of these reforms and changes people feel nervous, as Ron Goodin slows down over time, about what will happen to the staff there, and what will happen at the Owen Springs Power Station regarding future operation.
I was fortunate to recently have the opportunity to visit Weddell and Owen Springs Power Stations. I thank the Chief Executive of Territory Generation, Mr Tim Duignan, for allowing me to walk around and look at it. These are impressive government-owned assets and they do not require the manpower that you see at Channel Island or Ron Goodin.
If the government is looking to make a fast move and some quick money by heading down the privatisation path, these are easy pickings for them to sell. Given their agenda through this legislation, moving to the AER will attract more players into the Territory’s electricity market. It can be seen as another step towards privatising the electricity assets currently in the hands of the Territory.
Given this government has shown form in selling Territory-owned assets swiftly and with no consultation with Territorians, it is little wonder that I, like many others, remain sceptical of this government’s motives. As we saw with the sale of TIO, the government acted so swiftly that it passed legislation to sell it on urgency in one day.
It was an unprecedented move purely to minimise the political pain and scrutiny of their decision to sell TIO given it was extremely unpopular, and the government failed to consult with Territorians properly when doing so. It was a disgraceful process, and a dreadful abuse of this parliamentary process and accountability to Territorians in how they went about it.
The government has shown form when selling public assets and through the changes to Power and Water. It is now in a position where if the Giles government was determined to sell some of those assets, it seems they could quickly offload them. I have heard the Treasurer say many times that government will not sell assets, but it is hard to believe any of this government’s promises or commitments when you see its horrendous form on keeping promises.
This government says one thing one day and does the complete opposite the next; you cannot trust it.
Territorians need safe and reliable electricity services; essential services delivery is vital to the future of the Territory. Too many Territorians are struggling under the burden of huge power bills, which are a direct result of the CLP government’s decision to drive them up by 30%. Make no mistake, it was a decision by every member of the Cabinet to break their promise to Territorians to reduce the cost of living. They all sat at the table and signed off on driving power prices up by 30%.
Under this legislation the Territory will move to AER, and only time will tell whether it delivers any real benefits to Territorians on the ground and whether this is part of a bigger agenda to privatise power assets.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for speaking on this bill. I listened closely to her comments and I note that the opposition is not supportive of much to do with the structural separation of Power and Water, but I thank the member for Wanguri for her support.
The member for Wanguri came out with a couple of furphies. One was about privatisation; it is fair to say I am not ideologically opposed to privatisation. I do not think many members on the other side are ideologically opposed to it either if you look at their track record from when they were in government.
This government has no intention of privatising anything to do with the Power and Water Corporation. We are trying to get it and the utilities sector operating efficiently, reliably and at the lowest cost possible to ensure electricity tariffs are as low as they can be. The member for Wanguri seems to have an issue with the Power and Water Corporation outsourcing work, saying, ‘Clearly they only do this because it is cheaper’. That is the way a commercial organisation works; if they find they can get the work done in a cheap and reliable manner then that is what they do. I applaud Power and Water Corporation for looking at things that way because that will make the organisation financially sustainable and competitive in the marketplace.
As for the AER coming here so we can sell Power and Water – I am keen for the AER to come here because it is an internationally recognised organisation. The Australian Energy Regulator is known and respected around the world, and when we are trying to develop a utilities or electricity market in the Northern Territory, a known player doing the regulation is important if we want competitors to come to the Northern Territory.
The member for Wanguri was quite harsh about when I gave the Power and Water Corporation a network price determination which was substantially different from the Utilities Commission. At that time the Utilities Commission was undertaking the network price determination.
Power and Water wanted in excess of a 50% increase. The Utilities Commission released a draft, saying it would be around 45%. Power and Water demanded more and the Utilities Commission finally settled on a 39% increase over five years.
I was not very happy with that, as I explained to the parliament. My view was that the corporation should start operating efficiently and I directed the Power and Water Corporation to implement a 16% price increase over five years. The member for Wanguri was harsh about that decision, saying that I had cut the organisation to the bone.
If the member for Wanguri cared to look at what was happening around the rest of the country at the time, she would see that the Australian Energy Regulator was making price determinations of approximately minus-30%. The member for Wanguri opposed the 16% price increase I allowed the PWC to charge customers across the Territory. She said I was cutting the organisation to the bone, but the Australian Energy Regulator, which is a much bigger organisation that can compare like networks, was proposing price reductions of around minus-30% across the nation. It is difficult to understand what the member for Wanguri is arguing for.
Are we to make life easy for the PWC and allow it to charge customers what it wants for the network charge? Or is the member for Wanguri trying to alleviate costs for consumers, and wanting to see those prices reduced? It seems to me the member for Wanguri is trying to have a bet each way on this, saying I was wrong to reduce the network price determination the way I did, and on the other hand saying we are driving up costs. You cannot have it both ways. You either agree with putting downward pressure on the pricing or you want higher costs; you cannot do both.
In the short-term Territory Generation, or T-Gen, will look at moving from Ron Goodin to Owen Springs. I think in the short-term future Ron Goodin Power Station will be mothballed, and the Central Australian generation will all occur at Owen Springs. I do not know why that concerns the member for Wanguri.
In regard to privatisation, Labor keeps banging on that we want to privatise things, although there is no evidence to suggest we do.
Ms Fyles: What are we doing with the port bill?
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about PWC. This bill is about national electricity reforms and introducing the AER to the Northern Territory; it is not about TIO or the Port. We are talking about PWC, but Labor keeps suggesting we are fattening it up to sell it.
If we were fattening it up to sell it we would have agreed with the Utilities Commission and allowed PWC to implement a 39% increase in charges over the next five years. We would have done all we could to allow the organisation to increase tariffs for Territorians. But we did not. I think that would be the most obvious signal to everybody on the other side that we are not trying to fatten it up to sell it. We are trying to put downward pressure on prices, and increase reliability and efficiencies. It is interesting to listen to Labor members talk about privatisation of PWC assets, but for some reason or another they always focus on generators.
Member for Wanguri, it would not be easy to sell one of our generators. The big glittering prize in the Northern Territory is the network, which can be easily sold. There are a dozen superannuation funds lining up to buy networks all over the country at the blink of an eye. It is a regulated asset with a guaranteed rate of return. It is a very appealing asset for a superannuation fund to buy. We are not talking about a couple of hundred million dollars; we are talking billions of dollars for the network in the Northern Territory.
If there ever was a desire to sell the network, we would allow the Utilities Commission price determination to stand, and we would allow the 39% increase in network charges over the next five years. That is what we would do if you wanted to sell that asset, but we do not. I do not know how often I must say that in this House, but it does not seem to matter. Those guys must be hard of hearing because they keep saying the same thing over and over again. ‘You want to privatise Power and Water.’ That is nonsense.
From the Labor side, this is all about looking after their union mates, especially in the ETU. They have no regard for power prices, reliability of systems or whether it is privatised or not. The overriding interest of members opposite is to support their comrades in the ETU and do what they can to wrap them up in cotton wool, as well as preserve their rights and conditions at that workplace. The sole focus of the members of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory is to protect and stand in solidarity with their union mates. Their union mates are not interested in providing efficiencies, price reductions to Territorians or any of that, and nor is the Labor Party in the Northern Territory.
It has been a long week for everyone. Again, I thank the opposition for its support of this bill …
Ms Walker: Go for another few hours, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: As long as you want to stay, I am here. We will go dancing later, Lynne.
Ms Fyles: Dave, do you not have a plane to catch?
Mr TOLLNER: I will put the plane off if Lynne stays around, without a doubt.
The member for Nhulunbuy is one of my favourite people in this joint. She gets a bit snarly at times, particularly around 2 pm, but 2 pm to 3 pm must be the witching hour for all of us. Outside of that time frame we generally get along all right.
I thank the members for Nhulunbuy, Nightcliff and Wanguri and all other members of the opposition for supporting this bill; it is very worthwhile. It is an important step along the way to utilities market reform, which this government is driving. It will be great to have the Australian Energy Regulator operating in the Northern Territory; it will bring us kudos. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PORTS MANAGEMENT BILL
(Serial 110)
PORT OF DARWIN BILL
(Serial 111)
PORTS MANAGEMENT (REPEALS AND RELATED CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 113)
(Serial 110)
PORT OF DARWIN BILL
(Serial 111)
PORTS MANAGEMENT (REPEALS AND RELATED CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 113)
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have seen the CLP government sell our TIO, and today we debate legislation that will sell our port. The CLP government does not have a mandate to do this, and it has not taken it to the Territory community, but is determined to ram it through. The members opposite will use their numbers in this House to pass this legislation today, but not before we articulate that we do not support the move to privatise and sell our port.
I will start by commenting on the press release the member for Blain sent out earlier today, claiming unanimous support. The press release says:
- In unanimously accepting the report and its recommendations it follows that the bill should pass unimpeded on the basis that Opposition and Independent members have agreed that it encapsulates the best regulatory framework for a lease.
- … it is important to say up front that our consistent position on the port has been that port assets should not be leased or privatised without a mandate from the people at the next Territory election. I make it very clear that although we support the amendments to the bills recommended in the select committee’s report, it should not be inferred that we support passage of the bills before the next election, because we do not.
The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that leasing the port should not be rushed to suit the CLP’s political agenda at the expense of public interest.
The Chief Minister’s response at the committee’s debate at midnight last night, the tabled government response and amendment schedule to the port bills, and the rammed-through bills on the first sitting day after the committee’s report was tabled – all of these things show that there has not been community consultation.
Under the CLP’s approach there is no guarantee the public interest will be well served by any concessions made, side deals or the quantum of revenue received from the successful bidder. We need to understand how the public interest will be protected.
We were concerned when reading comments from the member for Blain in the NT News business supplement that the highest offer for the port lease probably will not be accepted. I do not take issue with this as a matter of principle, but the comments seem to infer that the decision of the successful bidder is well-advanced even though we have a select committee.
We saw the sale of the port first flagged last year. We had not finished debating the TIO sale, which was rammed through this parliament on urgency without any consultation with our community, before the Chief Minister flagged the sale of the port.
We saw arrogance and contempt for Territorians who do not want public assets sold. Take public asset sales to the next election, and take it to the community. We saw that in Queensland and look at what happened there.
People do not want their public assets sold and they are frustrated. We heard this mentioned before the finalised TIO legislation was brought to the February sittings, and it has been referred to a committee, but you are selling a public asset without a mandate.
We are frustrated that the government continues to not listen to the views of Territorians. We have concerns and questions around when this was first flagged, and you had not spoken about the sale, lease or whatever you call it. How far did negotiations get? Has a deal been done? If not, when will it be done?
We have overriding concern that the CLP, driven by concerns for its own political survival, will rush to get its hands on another pot of taxpayers’ money to fund election promises and attempt to pork barrel its way to the election.
We saw a budget delivered off the back of the sale of TIO, which you are hoping we will all forget about amongst the cash splash since you sold our public asset. This feels like a rerun of the TIO saga: CLP first, community second.
In the emerging community debate about the future operating arrangements, investment and strategic direction of the port of Darwin and other Territory ports, the Productivity Commission has made an important point. Its recent infrastructure inquiry report to the commission says:
- Properly conducted cost–benefit studies of large projects, and their disclosure to the public, is an important starting point for … improving the transparency of decision making.
The Productivity Commission does not say that cost-benefit studies for major projects are a good mid-point or end-point. The commission unequivocally states that cost-benefit studies for major projects, like the future development of Darwin port, are an essential starting point in the public interest.
Our Chief Minister is widely perceived in the community as arrogant and out of touch. That may explain his initial inclination to rush these bills through parliament. He then allowed it to go to a committee stage. If he was genuine and took note of the committee’s reports, he would have noted recommendation number eight.
Last year, during the sale of TIO, he flagged the possibility of leasing or privatising the port. In the wake of the TIO sale, he used smoke and mirrors to make it look like community consultation. The select committee’s recommendation number eight states:
- The Committee recommends that, prior to entering any lease arrangements, the Government implement a community information and stakeholder consultation strategy.
The first hurdle has been missed because the Chief Minister ignored the recommendations of the committee. He used smoke and mirrors to pretend he consulted with the community. One of the recommendations from the committee’s report was to have further consultation, but that has been ignored.
With pressure from the opposition and the member for Nelson, the Chief Minister agreed to the select committee inquiry. If he had his way, the select committee reviewing the bills and related matters would not have been established. He was reluctant to allow the committee a reasonable amount of time to do its job.
Chief Minister, if there is a cost-benefit study on a leasing model for the Darwin port, why will you not release it today in the interests of the public? Or, like the sale of TIO, is this already a done deal from behind closed doors?
How can Territorians have the confidence that concessions you provide to future lessees will not be overly generous? How can the community be sure the return on leased and sold assets will be fair and reasonable for Territory taxpayers? Your government’s agenda and focus is based around yourselves; the community comes second.
The ACCC and other business groups have recently expressed concern about asset sales and recycling programs, as they are trendily called these days. An article in the Australian Financial Review from earlier this year highlighted the ACCC’s concerns, saying:
The national competition watchdog is concerned the government's asset recycling program will encourage the swift sell-off of public assets to maximise budget proceeds at the expense of good outcomes for consumers, and is urging tougher regulation to make sure that does not happen.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says it is worried that incentive payments designed to speed up the sell-off process will skew the privatisation programs toward unhealthy competitive outcomes.
- ACCC chairman Rod Sims said governments were losing the argument in favour of privatisations because they had been poorly handled in the past.
‘It's one of those tricky areas where privatisations always resolve to get money to do other things, therefore success is getting as much money as we can. But that tempts governments to put in anti-competitive arrangements or inadequate regulation,’ Mr Sims told The Australian Financial Review.
‘[Consumers] should like privatisation but the way we're doing it means they don't. So what we're saying is if you're going to have an asset recycling initiative, that's great –why not put in a mechanism to check that regulation is appropriate and there are no anti-competitive arrangements in place.’
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry into the program, the ACCC said the government needed to make sure there were appropriate trade-offs between short-term and long-term interests of governments, end users and the Australian public in the privatisation process.
‘The ACCC is concerned that … continuing benefits of privatisation can be put at risk when governments aim to maximise sale proceeds by taking action that limits competition or minimises or avoids appropriate regulation,’ the submission reads.
‘These concerns are increased where, in the case of the Asset Recycling Initiative, the Commonwealth Government proposes to provide incentive payments of 15 per cent of the sale proceeds.’
The ACCC recommends that stronger conditions be put on the payments, so that states and territories are required to show they have put appropriate market structures and access or pricing arrangements in place as safeguards against private sector monopolies being created.
Serious issues have been raised by the ACCC. We have seen the sale of our assets, and there are concerns about the measures in place. The same article went on to talk about business groups and their concerns. The Australian Financial Review earlier this year wrote:
The ACCC's concerns about potential anti-competitive outcomes from the asset recycling process are reflected in submissions from key business groups, despite their emphatic support for the program.
The Business Council of Australia calls for an assessment of all asset sales prior to their commencement ‘to promote pro-competitive outcomes where possible’.
‘This should include putting in place appropriate pricing and access arrangements, even where this has the effect of reducing the sale price of the asset,’ the submission reads.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says governments must ensure competition to the maximum extent possible, and establish ‘sound regulatory pricing regimes’ where there are not existing competitive forces.
Page 46 of the select committee’s report referred to port pricing and the concerns around the issue of setting the marketplace, trying to get the maximum price for the asset, and ensuring measures are in place for long-term competitiveness.
If the government proceeds with long-term leasing and privatisation of the port, there must be ongoing consultation with port operators and stakeholders on pricing related issues. Our port is at a good point. Labor has significantly invested in the port and it is giving back to the community. We have a profitable port. The oil and gas boom is only now delivering results and is becoming an income stream for the Territory. We can keep it in public ownership, but it is worth much more to us if we keep it as a public asset and have the income stream, rather than selling it in a one-off sale.
There are concerns around the sale of the public asset, the lack of consultation, the port being sold off and how it will affect Territorians. There is also concern around the workforce at the port. The Maritime Union of Australia is very concerned about the casualization of the stevedoring workforce under the government’s leasing and privatisation proposals. It is genuinely concerned about job losses under any new leasing arrangements. With the sale of TIO, we heard there would be no job losses as that would be a breach of faith – I think that is what the Chief Minister said. What did we see yesterday? There are 43 positions flagged to go.
Despite assurances from the Chief Minister, we have seen TIO staff lose their jobs following the sale of that asset by the CLP. There are now 43 Territorians who no longer have a job. The Chief Minister consistently promised that TIO jobs would be safe, but he knew that was not true and he could not hold that to account. The Treasurer gave the game away yesterday when he said that he always knew there would be a restructure within TIO once it was sold.
We strongly feel that this is a significantly bad omen for port jobs. I understand today the CLP is using numbers to ram it through. Where does the lease of the port and the disposal of its assets leave port workers? In a management and union joint consultative meeting yesterday, the Darwin Port Corporation alarmed employees with advice about job transfer arrangements under a new operator.
Under the current EBA, employee entitlements are tied to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, but we understand that employees were told yesterday they will lose these entitlements when their jobs are transferred to the new port operator. We have seen that before, with the privatisation of the Darwin Bus Service; workers were assured one thing, but it was not delivered. I am not sure how far the negotiations got, but workers that had been with the public sector for an extremely long time, and wanted to stay there to preserve their benefit entitlements, were not offered a transfer to other government agencies; they were essentially sold off when the bus service was privatised. We have to listen to the concerns of employees.
Workers have been advised that if they reject a new employment agreement they will be considered to have resigned. I noted the Chief Ministers response about guaranteeing no material disadvantage for workers approaching retirement. I ask the Chief Minister if he can clarify in his response speech the arrangements for achieving those promised outcomes, ensuring there is no disadvantage for workers approaching retirement.
I also ask the Chief Minister to clarify the important matters of job security and entitlements in this debate today. It needs to be put on the public record so we can hold him to account. We know this asset will be leased, which is privatisation in another form.
The Chief Minister said last night that the transfer of business provisions in Commonwealth legislation would protect port workers’ job security. What will happen when a new EBA is negotiated? If the TIO job security arrangements are replicated at the Darwin port, workers will not be guaranteed future job security. We have seen that in the last 24 hours with the TIO workers who were assured there was an agreement of faith and their jobs would not go, but they have gone.
In its submissions to the select port committee, the MUA raised and prosecuted a range of significant issues in relation to the proposed long-term lease of the port. These included pricings, safety, sale of port assets, the transparency of the tender processes, port planning and governance, and many other matters salient to the CLP’s plans for our port. The MUA has a very proud record of protecting job security for employees in stevedoring industries, as well as their fundamental right to work in a safe and healthy environment.
We cannot forget that safety issue. Ports by their nature can be a dangerous place, but they can be run properly with the right support, practices and procedures in place. We have to ensure that occurs. I am not saying privatisation would impact on that directly, but we need to be assured that long-term issues are not neglected and end up being unsafe. The MUA has a proud record of safety and it will continue. The privatisation of our port is not right.
In its report the select committee accepted the MUA’s recommendations to incorporate port safety plans and related matters in the bill to improve worker safety at our port. The Chief Minister rejected the relevant recommendations. Will he guarantee that adapting these measures in regional harbour master guidelines will provide better protection for workers, as opposed to incorporating the provisions in the port bills?
There are a number of questions. The Port of Darwin Bill provides the Chief Minister with sweeping powers to lease or dispose of port assets. This is where it starts to get interesting for Territorians. We have been told it is a lease, not privatisation, but this change will allow the Chief Minister to lease or dispose of our port as he sees fit. He has repeatedly proven that he is not trustworthy.
A number of provisions in the Port of Darwin Bill, when considered together, will concern the community, especially when the Chief Minister is relentlessly driven to maximise the political interests of the CLP instead of considering community concerns and interests.
Clause 4 of the bill states that port assets include:
- (a) the assets, rights and liabilities of the Darwin Port Corporation;
- (b) any assets, rights and liabilities of any other public sector entity that:
- (i) relate to, or are connected with, the Port of Darwin …
Clause 13 of the bill provides that:
- (1) A public sector entity is subject to the direction and control of the Chief Minister in the exercise of any of its functions for the purposes of an authorised transaction.
…
- (c) require the public sector entity to do something that it could not otherwise lawfully do …
The public sector entity must comply with a direction from the Chief Minister, even if the direction is unlawful.
Taken together these provisions create an unfettered power for the Chief Minister to lease, privatise or dispose of the port’s assets, and they raise serious concerns. Considering this government’s record on disposing public assets – water resources and TIO, for instance – the public is genuinely concerned. You have made it clear that you want to sell public assets no matter what the opinion of the community is.
Why does the Chief Minister require statutory power to give unlawful directions to a public sector entity in relation to the disposal of the port assets? The Ports Management Bill also gives sweeping powers to the Chief Minister in matters relating to the Port of Darwin and other Territory ports.
If passed, the bill will give overriding control to the Chief Minister across a range of operational and port management issues. Why does the Chief Minister need this level of control? It is a strong power, so we need answers to these questions.
There is apprehension among the operators of Port Melville and the stevedoring company about the implications of the bill on investor confidence and existing commercial arrangements. Why does the Chief Minister require these unfettered powers?
The Opposition Leader made a significant contribution to yesterday’s debate on the select committee’s report, but those remarks should be considered in the context of the parliament’s consideration of these bills. We supported the amendments from the select committee because they enhanced the bills which are being rammed through the House today. In no way should it be taken that we support this bill; we have made that clear from the outset.
The government has no mandate to implement a lease model, privatisation sale, whatever you call it. If the Chief Minister genuinely believes this is the best thing for the Territory, why will he not take it to the next election? What is he afraid of? He has rushed it from the start; he flagged it during the TIO debate, tried to push it through the February sittings, rushed through the committee stage, and last night he came in here at almost midnight and presented an amendment schedule which has not been discussed with stakeholders.
Is this the consultation that the committee recommended? We have serious concerns for Territorians regarding job security. You have promised job security to port workers, but you made the same promise to TIO and look where 43 of those workers are right now. Why will you not consult with stakeholders? Serious safety concerns have been raised by the MUA. This is not a play thing for you to get another cash grab. This is our port; it has been built up over many years and it is now profitable. With the oil and gas boom we are experiencing it is delivering results; it is an income stream.
The port is worth more to us over the long-term than a one-off sale. You will argue that this is not a sale, it is a lease. A sale or a sneaky 99-year lease is the same thing by another name.
There is a real issue with the cost of living for Territorians. Will we see commercial rates for freight drive up the cost of living for consumers and businesses? When this asset is leased it will not be in the Territory government’s hands. We have just seen this repeatedly with this government. Should Territorians nail things down so you mob cannot sell them?
Territorians are sick and tired of fighting to keep their assets public. You did not have a mandate to sell TIO and you do not have one to sell our port. I want to see you raise issues regarding worker safety and protecting job security for employees at the port.
I look forward to the Chief Minister answering these questions for Territorians. The opposition does not support the sale of our port in any way.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Ports Management Bill and thank the Chief Minister for bringing it to the table. I am a little concerned about the issues raised by the member for Nightcliff. Had she carefully gone through the recommendations she would find almost everything she mentioned as a reason not to accept this bill has been answered in a lot of detail.
I do not have an issue with members of the opposition not supporting the bill, it is their hope and intent that a lease does not happen, but trying to pin it on what has been spoken about today is a bit trite.
We have been accused of failing in consultation because one of the recommendations said we needed to consult. Call me crazy, but the recommendation was only handed in the day before yesterday, and we are two days into it. The Chief Minister said last night that he will accept and implement all of the recommendations. Give us a fair crack; that is not long enough to claim we have failed at this recommendation; we have only had two days to implement it. That is poor; if that is a measure of what we are supposed to achieve then everyone will fail at everything.
The member for Nightcliff spoke to my comment that the lease will not necessarily go to the highest bidder. We were trying to say it is important to get an outcome that matches the Northern Territory’s vision and what the people here need, as well as a vision of where northern Australia is headed. That is more important than getting the highest amount of money.
This was a pitfall in other places where governments were just after a cheque. In one case they put out bids and someone came back with a huge number which they took. They said, ‘Thank you very much’, and all it ended up with was higher third-party prices on the port. That is not what we are doing.
It is quite shallow, and it shows a lack of understanding of the recommendations. One of the recommendations says that we go for the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory over price any day. I take the member for Nightcliff to task over that comment, saying it is a poor thing. It is in the interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
An accusation was levelled that all we do is focus on what we want politically and that the Territory comes second. I find that offensive. That allegation does not need to be made. If we look at everybody’s work on any side of this House, all people in here care deeply about the people in their electorate and what happens in the Northern Territory. We wake up in the morning hoping to do something good for the people of the Northern Territory. We do not wake up in the morning thinking, ‘How can we screw up the lives of the people of the Northern Territory just so we can somehow weirdly benefit ourselves?’ That is not how it happens. I completely refute the member for Nightcliff’s comments in that regard.
The member for Nightcliff raised concern about the ACCC, where the states are receiving funds by selling assets to the detriment of the people. I have spoken about that already. On one side we are being killed for not taking the highest amount of money – she said we would not take the highest bid – and three points later she talks about the ACCC’s concern about states being funded by selling assets to the detriment of the people. This is precisely why we are not going for the highest bidder. That is another inconsistent comment from the member for Nightcliff.
The next question was why do we not take time to protect against unfair price rises? It is clearly laid out in the recommendations, and last night the Chief Minister accepted the recommendations and committed to implement them. Central to what we are doing is protection against monopolistic pricing and uncompetitive behaviour as it relates to access.
I do not know whether it is an inability or the time taken to understand these recommendations, but it is an inconsistent and poor comment in context of what is being put forward in the bill, as it will accept all of the recommendations of the report. We talked about appropriate market safeguards, which are a very clear set of recommendations relating to safeguarding various things in the bill.
The member for Nightcliff spoke about an oil and gas boom, but clearly she has not spent much time on the East Arm Wharf because the number of boats has diminished significantly due to oil prices falling. The number of rig tenders coming in and supplying oil rigs has dropped drastically because they are not currently exploring. She talks about an oil and gas boom, saying there are so many boats there and it is doing well. She says it is a great asset and we should not sell it, but the information the member for Nightcliff uses to back her comments is ill-advised and without base.
She says it is worth more as a consistent income stream if we hold on to it, purely because of the income it generates. That is a huge call. It is great that the member for Nightcliff can come in here and say that, but she presents no modelling, data or numbers to state that being the case. It is very naive to think that if we got the funds through this lease we would do nothing, and that benefits would not be generated to the people of the Northern Territory to outweigh possible benefits from a recurring income stream. It is trite for someone to make that allegation when they have no data to support it.
She spoke about the workforce at the port and casualization. She is correct; if a group of stevedoring companies suddenly turned up to work at the wharf, the amount of work there at the moment means the two companies there would have very little work as it dilutes between multiple players, and everybody would end up on casual contracts. There would be no permanent work. That is why we have a recommendation stating that if somebody leases the port they cannot hand out stevedoring licences to whomever they want. They must show they will in some way improve competition at the wharf. If it detrimentally affects what happens for firms operating there, the minister must consider that. We left this power in the government’s hands for a reason.
We do not want to see people’s lives turned upside down by what happens at the wharf, which is why we have these things in place. We have a clear recommendation which goes to the heart of what she is talking about. That recommendation was made in conjunction with the MUA. If the MUA looks at this it would see its fingerprints all over it. This relates to protecting businesses which employ many of its members. I do not know where the member for Nightcliff is coming from with this, because we see very clear recommendations being accepted in this bill, or outside it, depending on which recommendation, to correct this.
Regarding the 43 TIO positions, I would like to turn this conversation around. The opposition says 43 people have been fired and lost their jobs. As I understand, at TIO restructuring is occurring and 43 people will be redeployed to another place.
Mr Giles: Over 14 months.
Mr BARRETT: That is right, over 14 months. Failing that, the Northern Territory government will step in and bring these people back under the Northern Territory government’s banner. What does that say to me fundamentally? It says we care about these 43 people, their jobs, their families, and things like mortgages and the other commitments in their life. We want to see these people succeed and prosper. We care about people in the Northern Territory. As an opposition you cannot say 43 people are in this situation, meaning the Country Liberal Party does not care about people’s jobs. We have shown through our actions, not just our words, that we care about Territorians’ jobs and futures. That was a very poor comment against this bill.
She spoke about ramming this through. It would not matter if we did this in one, two or 10 months, or five years; we would still be ramming it through with the numbers. When you have the numbers in parliament you can pass legislation. If the member for Nightcliff does not like it, bad luck. Part of being in government is making decisions, and a part of making decisions is passing bills. That is what we are here to do today; saying we are rushing or ramming this through is poor.
The committee process we went through to make these recommendations was solid. I believe all parties here have accepted the recommendations, and if the bill incorporates the recommendations then it is solid. In light of that, it is a hard task when none of what has been laid against this bill stands or carries any weight.
The member for Nightcliff spoke about employees who met with the Darwin Port Corporation yesterday; I am aware of that meeting. The MUA shared these concerns with me already. There are recommendations relating to this which have been conveyed to the MUA, which has conveyed them to its members. She said this has raised serious concerns and this is a bad thing. We are already working with the MUA to ensure no scare tactics are used. There will be no putting the fear of God into people working at the port.
The member for Nightcliff said safety needs to be the most important issue. I draw her attention to the first recommendation on the bill, which relates to safety. It puts safety in paramount place because everyone here believes individuals should have a safe workplace. These recommendations, along with the bill, provide for a safe workplace. The member for Nightcliff said the opposition does not support this bill because it does not do enough for safety, yet it supports the recommendations which provide the robustness around safety in this bill.
It is funny when people use big economic words without using them in the right context. The member for Nightcliff said it is a lease, not privatisation. Privatisation means the operation of the port will be in private hands. That is what privatisation means, not necessarily that it is a lease or a sale. Privatisation is about management. If we try to have mature discussions about what is occurring, it is important to get the words right. Yes, this is privatisation, but privatisation does not mean sale. It can mean any number of things. In this instance it means a lease, not a sale.
Members of the opposition have every right to oppose this bill on the grounds that they do not want the port to be privatised. I respect that. It is within their ethos, ideology, understanding and belief of what they think best for the Northern Territory – that it stays in the hands of the government. That is fine, but so far nobody has spoken of that. Nobody has said, ‘The bill is great, but we are fundamentally opposed to this being privatised and think it should remain in government hands’.
The points made by the member for Nightcliff against this were shallow and poor. They do not show a good understanding of the recommendations made or acknowledgment that the Chief Minister has said he will accept and implement these recommendations. I want to hear some more factual, honest reasoning. It is okay if members opposite do not want to sell the port; I respect that. They need to be straightforward and say it is not in the interests of Territorians to lose this asset, rather than talking about safety and oil and gas booms, saying we are not doing enough around pricing and access.
I thank the Chief Minister for introducing this bill and I am very proud to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk in a broader sense. After all, this is not just about the Port of Darwin; this bill is meant to go further than that and give government the ability to apply regulations over other ports if it wishes.
I have read the second reading speech again. One area that comes up is the government not being interested in how much money it gets as long as a company runs the port in an efficient way, which will drive the economy of the Northern Territory.
Government will want some money. An area that has not had much airing is in the second reading speech; when referring to investment in the port, the minister said:
- At the same time it will free up the value in this government asset to enable public monies to be directed towards other key new infrastructure development needs within the Northern Territory in support of growing northern Australia.
Further on he said:
- Now more than ever we need to consider partnership opportunities with the private sector to develop and grow our key assets and unlock revenue to invest in infrastructure which will unlock economic and social potential in the Northern Territory.
That is fine; this issue was raised in the sale of TIO, which has helped the budget. Certain amounts of money and projects have been delivered in the budget and this is not much different. The government says it will direct this money towards key new infrastructure development. What will that key new infrastructure development be?
Whether you agree or disagree with the member for Nightcliff, some could say this money helps the government look good. In the next budget it can build a swimming pool in the rural area because it has money from …
Mr Giles: It is already in the budget.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not.
Mr Giles: It is in the forward estimates.
Mr WOOD: The definition of ‘forward’ is from here to eternity, but hopefully that will come.
Mr Giles: It is already allocated.
Mr WOOD: I am asking the question seriously because the minister said in his second reading speech that this money will be used for key new infrastructure projects.
I hope government will explain this. My support of this bill follows that the government will explain to the public the benefits of privatising the port. I said this last night; if the port makes $15m a year over the next 20 years that is $300m to the Territory’s coffers. In the same time, if we privatised the port and the amount was $200m, over 20 years we would lose $100m.
The government needs to explain how we will be better off. If I do simple numbers, in 20 years we will have foregone $150m because we would not have the revenue from the port each year that we have now.
There is an onus on government to show that by privatising the port there will be a financial gain for the Northern Territory, which needs explaining.
In the second reading the issue of the changes to the regulatory regime is raised, and the minister talks about the effect of the proposed regulatory framework to provide and improve an overarching regulatory framework for all designated ports in the Northern Territory. I understand there is only one port that is designated. I am interested in whether the government has intentions for other ports because the second reading speech states:
- … It is worth noting that currently there is no specific port regulatory regime for ports in the Northern Territory. The proposed ports management bill will bring together the regulatory regime for all designated ports in the Northern Territory.
That it will:
- improve efficiency of port operations and, in turn, increase revenue generated from the port …
And also:
- … allow for private investment in and operation of the port while ensuring adequate control is maintained by the Northern Territory to ensure the good, proper and safe operation of the port.
Further on it says:
The Northern Territory government is also pleased to introduce the Ports Management Bill. Ports in the Northern Territory are currently regulated through a number of different legislative regimes. The only declared port in the Northern Territory is the Port of Darwin. It is regulated through a combination of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and elements of the Marine Act. Ports in the Northern Territory which are associated with mining activity – Gove, Groote Eylandt, and Bing Bong – are regulated through the Mine Management Act.
- Other ports are currently not regulated to any great extent, nor are barge landings.
If we bring in this new bill, why are we not bringing this legislative change to other ports? My understanding is there is a port on Melville Island. I gather some issues were recently raised, and it was put to the government to not regulate the port. If we bring in port regulations to make them safer, why are we not regulating all the ports? I had a feeling that is what this bill was about.
Other things would obviously be included in the Ports Management Bill, but I want the minister to explain why Darwin port is the only one for the time being which will be covered by this new management process.
I am also interested to know whether it would cover barge landings. My understanding is it will not, but I am interested to know why. Our barge landings can be busy, depending on which community you live in. Do they need some controls?
I lived on Bathurst Island for a long time and the barge comes onto the beach. You might not regard it as a port; I regard it as a beach. Other places have boat ramps built for barges to dock. The Chief Minister spoke to me about this bill soon after I got back from my first trip to Portland. He said, ‘We are introducing this bill which will introduce a regulatory regime for all the ports in the Northern Territory’. I thought it made sense, but it turns out we are only doing one port. I was interested in how far this bill transposes over all other possible ports in the Northern Territory.
It raises another issue about Port Melville. I understand it is there primarily for timber. You are asking someone new to come to Darwin Harbour and run a port. Is it likely that Port Melville will compete with Darwin port? If so, do the people who are looking at possibly leasing the port know that? In other words, are they aware another port could be competing with them? I raised the issue yesterday about the future of the proposed ports at Glyde Point and Taranaki.
The other issue towards the end of the second reading speech is about workers. It says:
- Creation of a new port operator entity would also necessitate the transfer of DPC employees to the new entity. I reassure employees of DPC that where they are to transfer to a new employer, they would do so on terms and conditions no less favourable overall, with federal legislation ensuring that existing enterprise agreements will continue to apply in their new employment.
The recommendation …
Mr Giles: Which number, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, the section I was referring to was in the eighth-last paragraph in the second reading; now I am referring to recommendation 13, which says:
- The Committee recommends that port workers approaching retirement be given options other than continuing under their enterprise agreement with any new port operator in the case where circumstances would create a material disadvantage to their retirement planning.
The government’s response to that was:
- I can confirm that all transfers will be on the basis of existing entitlements and EBA. A no-worse-off test will be used to ensure there are no adverse impacts for employees, including in terms of retirement planning.
I am putting all those things together. Will the EBA go for another three years? For instance, if someone has five years until they retire, what process will be in place at the end of the EBA in relation to superannuation? If they only have two years before they retire, they may want to hang around until they are 65 so they have access to their super. They do not want to lose two years of super. There is grey area from when the EBA stops and the private owner is in control, and that needs to be looked at.
After talking to port management, my understanding is many people do not fall into this bracket, but if there are only a few it is important they receive some recognition. When talking to any new lease owner the government must cover that area.
As you said in the second reading:
- … they would do so on terms and conditions no less favourable overall …
That does not put a limitation on how long those conditions apply.
I am fully aware of the history of TIO. Driving around Parliament House was not so much about whether TIO should be sold, but more about us knowing what is going on; we needed to have a say.
This arrangement, or any agreement, does not have to be in place until approximately September. Unfortunately when this started it seemed like it needed to be finished quickly because you asked the committee to have a report ready within five weeks. That gives the impression that the government is in a hurry. That was a failing in the government wanting to sell TIO. It rushed it and had something in mind, and when it realised there had been no consultation with the people there was a big effort at the last minute to consult with people. That is where it failed.
You have an opportunity for some good consultation. A program has been mentioned here, but I would not stick entirely to that. I have not received a huge amount of feedback from people saying this is a bad deal; maybe it does not affect them. There are only a limited number of people living in the Northern Territory who use the port – the cattleman, livestock workers, exporters and importers. When you look at the population of the Territory, not a huge number of people are directly affected, but they are indirectly affected if the price goes up.
Recommendation 8 says:
- The Committee recommends that, prior to entering any lease arrangements, the Government implement a community information and stakeholder consultation strategy to:
- a) identify further improvements to the leasing proposal, including:
- (i) what parts of the harbour should be included or excluded from the lease; and
- (ii) how competition could be improved; and
- b) communicate what is being proposed so affected businesses can plan accordingly
I raised some of those issues yesterday, because I looked at the Port of Portland and I do not think it is a great model. It is not advantageous to the people using it. We saw the hybrid model in Western Australia. I did not get to Brisbane, but that is a very big model and it probably does not suit us in many ways, because it is a container terminal.
My support of this bill is predicated on the government promising to do its best to tell people in plain English why this is good, and explain the disadvantages and advantages of the system.
I said this some time ago, with the proviso of the consultation being good, I do not think it is necessary to go to an election. This is because we are a long way from an election, with a year-and-a-half to go. That would make it difficult for the government to operate in that time, having to deal with a range of companies interested in the port which may not want to wait that long.
I imagine this might sound a bit silly. Annual reports will be issued, as with any company, but it would be good if the government could report on how these changes are affecting the Territory, negative or positive. In the first couple of years we will see whether there are any changes from the old system to the new one. Will the port attract more trade? I always think that is very difficult; you cannot pull trade out of the sky. If there is no trade, that is a matter of fact more than anything. If there are no moo cows to bring to the port then we cannot bring them.
The government is putting its beliefs behind the idea of privatisation. The onus is on the government as time goes on to show privatising, which is their argument, is a good thing for the Northern Territory.
I have mentioned foreign ownership before, which the minister has heard. The government’s recommendation is quite broad, but I would still prefer foreign ownership to have a minority holding.
Recommendation 15 says:
- The Committee recommends that in the case of foreign investment in a lease over the Port of Darwin:
a) a component of the lease be kept in the control of an Australian entity; and
I still think we should be looking at the Department of Defence. We are in a sensitive part of the world and there is a large US presence in the Northern Territory. Whoever is decided will require Commonwealth scrutiny because we do not want to be in a position of political embarrassment, if I can say that. That is something we need to be wary of. If you stick with 49% foreign ownership you cannot get into much trouble.
In these sorts of big issues there will be many people with different opinions. I know where the Labor Party is coming from and they have been consistent; that is one thing I will give them. The Leader of the Opposition wanted this to go to an election, which is fair enough. I do not think he is against what we have done, but that is the party’s policy and its members are entitled to have that opinion. I do not believe you should criticise that opinion because it is part of democracy; you can make a choice regarding whether decisions should be tested at an election or whether government has the right to make these major decisions during its term. That can be argued either way.
In the end, I think it has the potential to be a good change for the Northern Territory. I will watch it very carefully to see what improvements occur. I am concerned that we are selling the port when it is not necessarily at its lowest, but it has very little being exported except for cows and manganese.
I noticed the iron ore price has risen a little, so I hope things will change. It is fair to ask the government if this is the right time to sell. Do potential purchasers or lessees of the port see through this quiet period? Will they say, even though it is a quiet period at the moment, they see the potential for it in the next few years when things pick up? I presume they look at things aside from how they are at the moment. There is no doubt things will change, but nobody knows how long it will take before it changes.
I am interested in the minister’s feelings about whether this is a good time to sell or whether we should hold off until our exports improve. They are not that great at present. We are still sending plenty of cows, which is fantastic, and we need to make sure that keeps going.
I thank the committee members. I do not know if I thanked them last night, but it was a team effort. I support the bill with those provisos. The key for me is that we ensure proper consultation occurs with the community. If you reckon you have done a proper job by bringing them along and people feel satisfied that this is a good policy, let us go with it.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for their contribution. I will address the points you raised; if I miss anything, shout them across and I will come back to them.
At the commencement of the first speech in the debate today I had a frown on my face. I was going to stand up and apologise to Territorians for the lack of democratic debate in this Chamber. I found the first contribution lacked intelligence. It displayed a high level of ignorance and showcased a significant degree of immaturity on a populist agenda that sought to mislead the debate.
The member for Blain, who was also the chairman of the parliamentary committee on the port, provided a fair degree of balance in his response, and the member for Nelson followed that up with a good degree of questions about moving forward.
It is not surprising the first speaker took the approach she did, following the last debate about the national energy market and the staunch defence for the ETU, and then for Labor to take the MUA position.
I have to clarify and overcome the misleading statements that this has been rushed through in the dead of night, meaning midnight last night. This was first raised about two years ago. This is in complete reversal of the approach with TIO.
TIO went to market and then came to parliament. This is coming to parliament and then going to market. This discussion was raised two years ago. I cannot tell you the exact date I first raised it, but I have been putting out press releases and talking to the media for a long time about this. The bill was introduced to parliament in November 2014.
The member for Nelson and many of my colleagues know that I am a staunch advocate of good democratic processes within parliament, and a big supporter of the committee system. I am trying to drive the reform of the committee system in this Chamber and I know they support that approach.
It was always my intention for this to go to a committee. At first we suggested a six-week committee and you suggested you wanted longer. We looked at the calendar and it was about 10 weeks until this sittings period, which is why it is being debated on the last day. We allowed time for the port committee to undertake its visits and travel – without needing to go to a committee to approve the travel – to look at ports around the country and investigate all the things the members for Blain, Drysdale and Nelson have discussed.
I note the member for Nightcliff, and Labor, were taking the populist agenda. Michael Gunner was following Delia Lawrie in her personal attacks and populist agenda. I thought a new leader would bring a new direction, but clearly that has not been the case. Perhaps Nicole Manison was the right choice after all because …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister knows very well that he is to refer to members of this House by their electorate title.
Mr GILES: I am sorry; I forget when they are not in the Chamber, particularly for important bills such as this.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to withdraw the reference to absence also, please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw that they are absent from this Chamber.
Perhaps a different leader would not have followed in the member for Karama’s leadership style, but I will not go into that in detail.
I want to clarify a misleading statement made in Question Time today and in the debate from the member for Nightcliff. The port is not for sale. It never has been and it will not be. It is following a similar model to the railway in the Northern Territory, especially between the border and Darwin where the land underneath the railway is owned by the Northern Territory government.
The railway was built partly with Territory money; it is on a long-term lease. Interestingly, Labor sold its share in the railway to the private sector without going to election, without a mandate and without consulting this people; they sold it and the railway has thrived. Genesee and Wyoming has completely turned the railway around in its performance, scheduling, customer satisfaction and a range of other areas. That will continue to improve and I encourage Genesee and Wyoming to continue with that improvement agenda.
If that same model proceeds it will form the model of a long-term lease. Initially our discussion was about a 99-year lease. I was very keen to hear, through the proper parliamentary process with the committee report, the committee’s views in regard to 99 years. I know this has been done in the past where 99 years has been accepted, but I was very keen to see what the committee came back with because I was flexible with that approach.
The committee report came back, chaired by the Country Liberals, with another Country Liberal member, the Independent member for Nelson, and a Labor member – being the Leader of the Opposition, who follows in the footsteps of the member for Karama. This was without a dissenting report, I might add, and completely supportive of a lease of up to 99 years. I was supportive of a lease for less than 99 years, but I was interested to see those findings. As I say, we will be looking at a lease, not a sale, and 99 years might not be the recommended model to go forward. We will wait and see what comes out through the process.
The member for Nightcliff said there was no consultation and the member for Blain said, ‘Hang on a minute, we only received the report two days ago’. The member for Nelson asked about the type of consultation. I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson yesterday, as I have with all members on my side. Labor has not asked me for a briefing, so I have not spoken to those members about the consultation process to date.
Approximately 12 months ago I started planning what I thought was a good consultation process. This included visiting and advertising the port, and virtual tours, as the member for Nelson mentioned. I imagine a virtual tour as some sort of computer imagery where you can visit a website and see what it looks like without going there. As everybody can imagine, ours is a trading port with trucks and people everywhere; safety is of paramount importance, as is national security. We have to be mindful of those aspects. I thought all of that would be a good way forward, but we will continue to model a consultation process.
This is not an issue of concern, but I do not think many people have ever been to or seen the port, or know how it operates. When you talk about our port, and what some refer to as privatisation through a long leasing structure, it is not only a government owned asset. However, some people may see it as that. There are a range of private sector models on our port. The Marine Supply Base is a model which Labor set up, with a long-term lease over one-third of the port. We have Qube and Patrick, which are private companies, operating on the port. The security is not private sector, but the electrical trade workers who come to the port are from the private sector. We have Baker Hughes at the port with its mud model. A range of private sector models are already there as well as the privatisation of the Marine Supply Base, which Labor did without consultation in a financially lucrative model to the people who came in.
I will not play politics and talk about how Labor sold the railway and the pipeline, and set up a private leasing model with Shaw’s through a long lease without consultation with Territorians, but I will talk about TIO. There has been a great deal of slander from Labor, and there was a question from the member for Nelson about the budget being backed by TIO resources. I want to clarify something; the TIO sale price after all the asset valuations and the actuaries came in was around $410m. About $210m, or $209m, will go into the infrastructure fund. We are working on that legislation, so it will come before the House within the next two months, but it has not been finalised yet. About $201m, according to the budget books, went towards infrastructure. I always said it would go towards economic enabling infrastructure.
A total of $50m has gone towards flood mitigation in Darwin and Katherine, for want of better geographical terminology. It is designed to support those communities and will have the added benefit of reducing risk factors, because they are in high-risk areas. From an insurance actuary model, this was causing problems with averaging out insurance premiums in the Territory. This is why TIO was, in large part, losing market share for housing insurance, because they could be picked off in parts of the model. That is why the business was in so much trouble.
That is $50m out of the $200m spent, and $7.5m has gone towards the Sadadeen bypass in Alice Springs, which will take a year or two to be built. There needs to be a better level of access from the eastern side of Alice Springs in times of flood, which is why that road has been picked. We have invested in other road infrastructure in the Territory, especially Litchfield and Mereenie, because that area has the ability to open up the economy further.
The money has gone into infrastructure. Roughly $500m has gone into the complete rebuilding of the main arterial roads in the Northern Territory because we are opening up the economy. That is part of our north Australian plan, and the port is part of that. I would love to spend more money on roads to open the Territory.
I plead with the federal government to hurry up and give us a decision about the allocation of resources for the Tanami Road, because we believe that road is of national significance from a Defence and supply chain point of view. It provides the opportunity to service communities and open up our economy further. I would like to see more money go towards it.
The correction in the budget has not been just about $200m. We have now more than halved the projected debt of $5.5bn and removed the deficit with an operational surplus of around $250m. Things have improved rapidly, but not only with the TIO money. We are now in a position to contribute about $100m towards rebuilding following Cyclones Lam and Nathan as a result of good performance. If you add all those figures together it is much more than the TIO money, which was to provide assistance with flood mitigation and opening up some major roads. The performance of government has contributed a great deal.
The government has not put its mind to specific infrastructure regarding any return or investment of funds from potential long-term leasing of the port. I have a thought, not a direction, about a possible rail between Mount Isa and Tennant Creek, but that is a long way away. It will take us many years to model that rail line. I anticipate a large component of the funds will go into the infrastructure fund straight up, but it would be good to improve many other major pieces of infrastructure in the Territory.
I would love to see some more sealing on the top road of the Central Arnhem Highway to help open up that part of the country and provide assistance to those Aboriginal communities so they get a higher level of access. It would present opportunities around other emerging barge or port facilities in the Territory. You are right about infrastructure. The exact infrastructure is not determined, but a large part is going to the infrastructure fund.
From now on I will not talk about the value of the port, perceived or otherwise. It will be a market testing arrangement, so I cannot provide any commentary on that. I assume you have had conversations about the earlier estimate of the value of the port, but I will not talk about that, nor will anyone else who has commercial-in-confidence ideas. It is fair to say that government has an indicative value and we will not seek to go below that.
While I am talking about finances, I have refreshed myself on some of the performance matters with the port financially. This is not a financial discussion, but you raised a couple of financial questions. Last year the port had its best financial performance. In the last year of the Labor government, when it had its best financial performance, it produced a $1m profit. Your argument was that it makes $15m over ten years, totalling $150m; if those numbers were right the argument might pose a question, but the numbers are not right in that hypothetical arrangement.
This year we have had a downturn from last year with iron ore, which is the issue that Western Australia faces. The new Leader of the Opposition, who runs on the same mantra as the old leader, raised the issue of Western Australian ports last night. He said they are not proceeding with an outsourcing management model. That is not true; they are, in their two port models. They have had a downturn in iron ore and it has reduced the value, but they are going back to it when there is a return. That will definitely happen, but it is a timing matter.
We had a downturn this year. If we look at the last year of Labor – $1m multiplied by 100 years is $100m. The investment on a long lease now would far outweigh the investment that would come from that type of model. If you worked it on $5m the same scenario would apply. You would be looking at a 50-year term, and you would not come anywhere near that investment. On top of that, you need to look at the amount of debt in the port.
The port owes the government $60m which it cannot pay back. That is money we have put into major upgrades at the port over many years, including under the former government. That cannot be paid back because it is not earning enough. These are some of the financial challenges it has.
While I am talking about finance, the member for Nelson said it would be good in the future to look at past performance. I think that is a good opportunity. I wrote some notes while you were talking, and I wrote down four years. Initially I said about 10 years. But 10 years is too long, people will have forgotten about it. Five years is probably about right, but that would put us in the middle of the electoral cycle and then it becomes political, so I wrote down four years.
Whether or not a new operator can bed down a model in four years, I am not sure. In four years we will revisit this and look at how the changes in port operations have occurred. We will make a note of that. I do not know about four years. Twelve months is too quick. It is like TIO; it is rapidly changing and delivering more products across borders. A range of services are provided. I am surprised it has so many new products on the market. I thought it would take longer to get new products. You need to look at that in two years, but in five years TIO may be one of the major insurance companies in northern Australia.
One of the positive things coming out of long leasing the port, and we have to get the equity model right, is investment in the port to grow its infrastructure. That will be one of the testing mechanisms in assessment on value for money. The member for Blain was right when he talked about the price; it is about assessment on value for money and infrastructure development. The model of infrastructure development and capacity, combined with potential additional investment in other parts of the Territory, whether that is agriculture or horticulture, is where you hit the multiply effect. That is where you will be able to see the difference in four years.
The supply chain for infrastructure and strategic investment will start to make a change. A range of other things are going on around the world, especially on an economic front, such as free trade agreements and potential negotiations of TPP, which can open up more markets and investment. We all want to see investment from southern Australia into the Territory, taking Territorians along with it. Some of the international agreements have the potential to make a difference.
In regard to your questions about Defence and FIRB, these things are not new. The four-year thing is new, but most of these things have already been dealt with or worked on.
Defence and the Foreign Investment Review Board, or FIRB, is something we have long considered. We have not commenced a discussion with FIRB in detail. I have directed the head of the major projects section, the Coordinator-General, to start those conversations with FIRB officers. We have held conversations in Canberra about the periphery of these matters, but not yet directly with FIRB.
Conversations with Defence have been going on for about 18 months, and the day before COAG – I think it was 16 April 2015 – I met with the Defence minister and spoke about this issue. These things have been discussed with Defence personnel; they have been discussed with members of different embassies and consuls, including the US and other nations. I will not go into detail about that, but I can assure you the matters of Defence have been well canvassed.
We are now in partnership with the Land Development Corporation and Defence, working on an $18m roll-on roll-off barge facility. It needs to go through decision-making processes in Canberra, but we are working on it from Australia’s point of view and it has international connotations. These are well progressed and we are sensitive to the diplomatic requirements on an international level.
I have some notes here which I will read out in a moment, but I will get back to the ignorance of the member for Nightcliff about these bills. She mentioned the second bill, which is more about a management model that sets up the regulatory environment. She was right; there is only one classified port in the Northern Territory, which is Darwin port. This sets up the umbrella of the regulatory environment for the whole Territory coastline, including its islands.
When you talk about the time frame – I was working on it. I am not sure whether the former Minister for Transport in the Labor government ever worked on it, but I was working on it when I first became Transport minister, before becoming Chief Minister. It is about how we ensure a regulatory regime which provides a safe and healthy framework for employees, as well as environmental safety onshore and offshore for some of those locations, such as barge landings and ports around the Territory, without setting up too much red tape and green tape. I looked at this from a transport point of view and we had the opportunity of combining it here.
The Port of Darwin is the only prescribed port. It will be the government’s decision whether we prescribe another port and that regulatory environment will sit there. This would be a significant change for many vessel operators and landing spots around the Territory, and those decisions will not be made flippantly; they would be made after consultation.
At this stage, we are not looking at Port Melville being registered as a port under that regulatory model. It has been discussed, but we need to work out what that means. A lot of work will be done on this in the future. We are not looking at having a kneejerk reaction and signing everyone up because that will provide change, but we need the right safety and environmental positions in place.
In regard to competition from Port Melville with Ezion, there will undoubtedly be competition; it is not just for timber. Government and the Tiwi Land Council have done a fantastic deal with Mitsui. The member for Arafura and I worked diligently to get the timber deal over the port, but the port will have a much larger role than timber. Bulk storage is being built for diesel. I have been over there and inspected it. A range of things will occur on a supply basis, and as more transactions occur in that environment, government must step up and ensure we have a safe regulatory environment operating. We have that environment here, but how we apply that with consultation within the time frame will be very important.
The private sector is interested in long leasing the port and is well aware of those machinations. If investment is not made in the Darwin port going ahead, but private sector investment is provided into other areas – either the marine industry park or Port Melville – not today but in the future, the Port of Darwin becomes a sitting duck because we do not have the best facilities with a new, emerging and growing port.
Part of the model is freeing up Darwin port so it can compete. It has a massive advantage at the moment as we are in front, as opposed to TIO, which in the last four years had a 37% drop in market share on workers compensation insurance. It is a Territory-owned company with only 17% of the market in the Territory. It is the same with motor vehicle insurance, and it was getting picked off everywhere with housing insurance because it was further down the track. These decisions should have been made a long time ago for TIO, but we are in front of the game with the Port of Darwin.
If there is anything I have missed, scream out. I have tried to be pretty free. I will read a few of my notes in a moment. A lot has happened since the Port of Darwin and port management bills were introduced into the Legislative Assembly in the November 2014 sittings. I find it appropriate to remind the Assembly of the purpose of the three bills being debated today.
The Port of Darwin Bill is transaction enabling legislation aimed at assisting government to secure private investment in the Port of Darwin, should it make a decision to proceed down this path. As I explained in the second reading speech, the bill:
- (a) authorises the transfer of the business of the Darwin Port Corporation (DPC) to a private sector entity
(b) limits the ability to transfer land to the issuing of either a lease or licence for a term not exceeding 99 years
(c) authorises the establishment and operation of companies and corporate structures to facilitate the transaction
(d) enables necessary directions to be made to give effect to the transaction
(e) allows for the vesting of relevant Northern Territory government contracts.
As I explained in the second reading speech, which the member for Nelson referred to, the Ports Management Bill will for the first time provide a regulatory framework for the management and control of all designated ports within the Northern Territory. It amalgamates the relevant provisions of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act to form a cohesive, improved, streamlined, regulatory regime for designated ports in one single piece of overarching legislation.
Given the strategic nature of the ports, especially the Port of Darwin, it is proposed that the Northern Territory retain a number of regulatory functions to safeguard public interest, including:
(a) maximising safety in designated ports through a government regional harbour master who sets safety standards, issues guidelines and approves port safety plans …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I seek an extension of time for the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: It must be getting late in the day.
- … acts as the pilotage authority and licences pilots, approves the placement of navigational aids and has direction and step-in rights in times of emergencies
(b) ensuring appropriate prices are maintained and access retained through the Utilities Commission undertaking a monitoring and regulatory role
(c) continuing to regulate environmental, dangerous goods, worker safety, recreational vessel safety and planning issues at the port.
My government has listened to the concerns about the proposal to seek private investment in the Port of Darwin. In February we established the Port of Darwin Select Committee. On Tuesday its report was tabled and yesterday it was debated in this House. We will continue to listen. We provided a substantial response to the report yesterday addressing and supporting each recommendation and going further in some ways. Some were accepted in principle because grammatically they needed a slight change in the way they would be implemented.
The select committee was established to inquire into and report on the Port of Darwin lease model to ensure we get it right. As I explained yesterday, the select committee has made a number of recommendations which government supports. The majority can be implemented in a manner which achieves its intended objectives and concerns without affecting the integrity and efficacies of current and proposed legislative policies and structures. However, committee stage amendments to the Port of Darwin Bill will be required to facilitate a small number of the recommendations. I will move each of the proposed committee stage amendments at the appropriate time.
The legislative package being debated today creates, for the first time, a comprehensive regulatory regime for designated ports in the Northern Territory; this is market-leading. The new regulatory regime achieves the balance required to allow port operators to go about their business to safely and efficiently run and grow ports. It also ensures the Northern Territory government retains key roles, including the setting of safety standards, being able to direct and then step in to manage emergency situations, license pilots, and most importantly monitor and regulate access and prices.
It should be noted that the port steering committee is currently tasked with determining the critical threshold measures, including volume and nature of port operations which will be used as a trigger destination of a port under the Ports Management Act.
For the foreseeable future there will one designated port. The legislation brings the Northern Territory into line with other jurisdictions in having the ability to designate a port at the appropriate time.
Going back to the question from the member for Nelson, where he asked why Darwin port is the only designated port; it is history. We are now changing this and have an opportunity to make changes in the future.
One area I would like members to prick their ears up at is the third bill, which is the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill. This bill was sought not to be taken in cognate, but I seek the support of the Assembly to hear this in cognate. I will explain what the bill is about, but it is similar.
This bill has been drafted to deal with a number of minor related and consequential amendments which were not incorporated into the Ports Management Bill due to time constraints. The consequential bill amends a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill.
Those who have read the second reading speech for what we term as a consequential amendment bill will note that it seeks to amend things such as the Litter Act, as well as minor things which consequently need to be amended to follow through with legislation.
I am happy to accept criticism about TIO in the process. It was started by the former Treasurer, the member for Araluen, in January 2013. It was not until the back end of 2014, when I became Treasurer, it got to the end. We had not held any consultation and I admit it was done quite quickly. I also admit some concern in regard to how quickly things change, and how much of an influence TIO was in the community regarding brand knowledge.
In regard to the port, it is not high brand knowledge, but we have been talking about this process for two years. Anticipated passage of these bills today to form an act does not mean the lease is done. This sets the regulatory environment for how the port operates into the future and allows the transaction to go ahead. We initially went for expressions of interests to see who was interested in the port. Using rough numbers, about 30 expressions were identified, which far exceeds what most analysts thought we would get. Since that point we have had about 10 additional expressions of interests, which should get us to around 40.
Following passage of this legislation, should it be supported by the Assembly, we will seek to go to the next stage. As I said yesterday, I am not being prescriptive about time frames, but we should have a potential lease on the port delivered by September. I say potential because we may go through this process and find that we have not achieved value for money, or that we do not have the right mix. We are still open-minded about that. We want someone who will invest in it. I say that categorically, but if we do not get the right model we will not progress it.
I think this has been a very good process. It is my intention to consult as much as possible. I am very disappointed that Labor has taken the position it has. I understand politics; I am not naive in that frame, but for them it is all politics around an asset sale and is not about the future of the Territory and strategic infrastructure.
One thing I have enjoyed about this process is working with my colleagues and the member for Nelson, and forming a consensus view in moving forward. Politics is about the art of compromise, and getting the model right is important. This is not political, it is personal, but I am pretty sad that the new Leader of the Opposition has chosen the political route rather than the best interests of the Territory route.
A simple slogan saying, ‘We do not support asset sales’, is not in the best interests of the Territory. How we support job growth in the port and in the Territory, and getting the best outcomes is what it is about.
The negative approach run by the former Leader of the Opposition, whether it was personal attacks or negative comments, has not produced results to date. I am not politically commentating, but what we have done in regard to fuel is a long-term game, but it is delivering results. What we have done with land release is reducing the cost of housing in the Northern Territory.
There is a lot more work to do. What we have done with the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment means people are now being treated for their alcohol abuse and misuse. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. But we have the lowest level of alcohol consumption since the 1990s. There are now more police and different policing strategies. We are making improvements across all portfolio areas. We heard the politics about education today. We have the biggest budget, the best school attendance and the best NAPLAN results, yet it is still sour, bottom lip dragging.
I encourage the Leader of the Opposition, inside or outside the Chamber, to by all means have a debate and complain about policy differences, but do not be negative. I encourage him not to engage in the political name calling slurs on people, otherwise I will have to remove my support for the Leader of the Opposition and go back to supporting the member for Wanguri. It was a bet each way; I am surprised she is not the deputy leader. I thought she would make a good deputy, but if the member for Fannie Bay keeps going in the same way as Delia Lawrie did, it will be bad for policy, debate and democracy in the Territory.
I commend this bill to the House. As I said, a range of amendments have been put forward. I hope Labor has an epiphany and changes its opposition because we have accepted all of the principles and recommendations from the report. Many of those things came from the MUA, as I am guided by the chair of the committee, as part of their ideology to improve port management. Many came from Labor and the member for Nelson. Consensus and compromise are what politics is about. It is about the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister spoke about making those consequential bills cognate. I do not know how that works in practice. I do not have a problem, but it needs to be done correctly.
Mr GILES: I asked the Clerk about thirty minutes before I spoke if I could do that and he said, ‘Yes, if it is the will of the Assembly’. I do not want to breach process. If I cannot do it, we will go back and do another bill in a minute. I thought it might be easier for the Assembly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The issue is that members have not spoken on the third bill. They have only spoken on the first two bills. If it is the will of the Assembly, the clocks will reset and members then will have an opportunity to speak on the third bill. That is the only way it can be done. If you want to proceed with that and members want to speak on the third bill, so be it.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 113) be taken in cognate with the Port Management Bill (Serial 110) and Port of Darwin Bill (Serial 111).
Motion agreed to; bills taken together.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Ports Management Bill (Serial 110) together with Schedule of Amendments No 34, circulated by the Chief Minister.
Clauses 1 to 40, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 41:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.1 to Clause 41, which amends the heading of clause 41 of the Ports Management Bill to more clearly reflect the content of the section. This amendment was recommended by the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, that being recommendation 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.2, which amends the heading of clause 42 of the Ports Management Bill to more clearly reflect the content of the section. This amendment was recommended by the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, that being recommendation 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 53, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.3, which inserts new clause 54(5)(ca) into the Ports Management Bill. This new clause requires that when the minister considers a stevedores licence application he must give consideration as to whether grant or renewal of the licence would lessen effective competition in upstream or downstream markets, either within or outside the designated port. This amendment gives effect to a recommendation of the Port of Darwin Select Committee in its Port of Darwin lease model, being recommendation number 7A.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 120, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 120A:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.4, which inserts a new clause 120A to the Ports Management Bill. The effect of this new section is to require the regulator to make an annual report to the minister by 1 December each year on any material instances of non-compliance, which has occurred during the immediately preceding financial year with either the operator’s access policy, or with a price determination of the regulator that applied to the operator. The minister must table a copy of the report in the Legislative Assembly within seven sitting days after receiving it. This amendment gives effect to the principal of the Port of Darwin Select Committee recommendation that access and pricing breaches be reported and tabled for parliament’s consideration, that being recommendation 4(b).
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 120A inserted.
Clauses 121 to 125, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 126:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.5 which replaces clauses 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Ports Management Bill. The amendment implements a proposal for access policy requirements to be outlined in regulations rather than in guidelines issued by the utilities commission. This amendment will create the framework to more ably give effect to the intent of the Port of Darwin Select Committee recommendation to provide an alternate mechanism for resolving access and pricing disputes, that being recommendation 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.6, which removes clause 126(2)(a) of the Ports Management Bill. The amendment confirms that the access policy will now be a matter covered in regulations and not the guidelines.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.7, which replaces clauses 126(3) and (4) of the Ports Management Bill. The new clause establishes a more robust and transparent framework for dealing with a situation where the regulator does not approve a draft access policy. These clauses support the Port of Darwin Select Committee report recommendation in relation to alternative mechanisms to resolve access and pricing disputes, that being recommendation 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.8, which amends the wording of clause 126(6) of the Ports Management Bill to acknowledge the insertion of the new section 126(4A).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.9, which inserts new clauses 126(8A) and (8B) in the Ports Management Bill. The new clauses provide a framework for amendments to be made to a private port operator’s access policy at any time after it has been approved by the regulator. Clause 126(8A) requires a port operator to engage in consultations to ensure that port users are informed of the proposal. Clause 126(8B) requires the port operator to provide written reasons for the proposed amendments and a summary of the comments received during consultations in deciding whether to approve a new draft access policy. The regulator must consider whether it is necessary for the operator to make the proposed changes.
These committee stage amendments give greater transparency and clarity around access policy approval processes.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.10, which inserts new clause 126(10) in the Ports Management Bill. The new clause ensures that when an operator submits a new draft access policy for the regulator’s approval, there remains an ongoing requirement for the operator to comply with the existing access policy until it is amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.11, which amends the wording in clause 127(1) to reflect that access policies will no longer be covered in guidelines, but reports in relation to the access policies will continue to be covered in guidelines.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.12, which replaces clause 129(1) with new clauses 129(1) and (1A). The new clauses support the reporting requirements in the new section 120A by requiring a private port operator to report material instances of non-compliance with the access policy. These amendments give effect to the principle of the Port of Darwin Select Committee’s recommendation that annual reports on compliance with access in pricing principles be tabled in parliament, that being recommendation 4(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.13, which amends clause 129(2) to recognise new clause 129(1A), outlined in amendment 34.12.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 130:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 34.14, which amends clause 130(1)(a), which recognises new clause 129(1A), outlined in amendment 34.12. The new section now provides that the regulator may require a private port operator to provide information on any matter arising out of a report on failure to comply with the access policy under sections 129(1) or (1A).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the three bills be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 7
- Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr McCarthy
Mr Elferink Ms Manison
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Moss
Mr Giles Mr Vowles
Mr Higgins Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MOTION
Reorder of Business
Reorder of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 89, the Assembly meets on the 4 June 2015 at 2 pm. The order of business will be as follows:
Prayers
Notices
Government Business.
The reason for this motion to reorder business is that when we come back after the estimates process we begin at 2 pm.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Members’ Monthly Fuel Reports
Members’ Monthly Fuel Reports
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the monthly fuel reports from honourable members.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now – sorry, I just had the fun of pausing there – adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record the following report prepared by Mr Jeremy Robinson – who is a school sports coordinator for Arnhem and does a wonderful job – about the recent trip made by the Arnhem Region 12 Years and Under AFL championship team. When I was flying back home to Nhulunbuy last Friday morning Jeremy was sitting a few seats in front of me. He came and sat in the vacant seat next to me and regaled me with tales of the successes those boys and the adults accompanying them had enjoyed during this trip. I will place on the record details of the report that Jeremy prepared.
Last week the Arnhem region 12 and Under AFL championship team made the long journey to Darwin to compete in the NT School Sport 12 and Under AFL Championships at Northline Oval in Palmerston. The team travelled to Darwin from as far afield as Umbakumba in Groote Eylandt and Milingimbi in the Crocodile Islands. However, the most committed of the team were players from the Nhulunbuy/Gove area who, for the first time ever, braved the 15-hour straight forward journey through to Darwin and the 18-hour return journey on the Lirrwi Tourism’s specially designed four-wheel drive buses across Arnhem Land. On the way the group encountered water buffalo, wild horses, wild cattle and kangaroos. Anthony Brereton, a teacher at Yirrkala School and manager of the football team, travelled both legs of the journey and said that although sometimes bumpy, the journey was a very unique and safe experience.
The team, travelling from different parts of Arnhem Land, met in Darwin and proceeded to bond together instantly as a team at their group accommodation at Kormilda College in Berrimah. Three days of rigorous Australian Rules football games and activities followed. The Arnhem region team played a total of 10 games with a win/loss ratio of 4:6. This placed the Arnhem region team at the top of Pool B going into the finals on day three. Although the boys did not win their pool, they played aggressively and slogged it out until the last siren of the final 10th game. As Jeremy said, he could not have been more proud of them.
The group also experienced the joys of the Palmerston Water Park, shopping at the Casuarina Shopping Centre and a special movie treat at the cinema. I was surprised and delighted that one boy thanked me for taking him to the movie because he told me, ‘This is the first time I have ever been in a cinema’.
Due to the exceptional talent we have in Arnhem Land, two boys were selected for the Northern Territory team to play interstate football in Geelong, Victoria in July 2015. Congratulations to Gungdjarra ‘Wamut’ Mununggurr from Yirrkala and Jaedon Djerrkura from the Nhulunbuy Christian College. A big thank you to the Rirratjingu Aboriginal Corporation for sponsoring both boys to attend the interstate program in July.
This trip could not have been possible without the support of the Yirrkala Clontarf Academy, Hamish Simpson and Rob Clements – the directors of Clontarf – the Department of Education, Lirrwi Tourism and their staff, Anthony Brereton, Dale Dhamarrandji, our assistants Lazarus Mamarika and Dharridharri Mununggurr, Emily Perry, and parents and friends who travelled to Darwin at their own cost to support the Arnhem team.
The children who participated in the competition from the Arnhem Region were: Hudson Dungey from Alyangula; Ivan Larlara and Isaac Kerindun from Angurugu; Thomas Stelfox, Anthony Thompson, Dylan James, Joshua Gurruwiwi, David Bromot, Shacarl Gumbula and Koby Douglas from Nhulunbuy Primary School; Joshua Mayawalpalngawuy and Andrew Garirriwirra from Milingimbi; Jaedon Djerrkura from Nhulunbuy Christian College; Kelvin Wurramara and Edward Lalara from Umbakumba; Baltjawuma Maymuru, Yinitjpi Mununggurr, Djamadjama Wunungmurra, Birayyu Marawili, Gungdjarra Mununggurr from Yirrkala; and Caleb Wungumarra from Gapuwiyak.
Congratulations to all of those people involved. Well done to you, Jeremy Robinson. I know how hard you work as the coordinator for School Sport NT in the Arnhem region. I know you work miracles in trying to help these kids overcome the logistics and challenges of getting out to these competitions, not the least of which is trying to find football boots for all of these kids. I wish you all the very best, Jeremy, with the next competition you have. I think you told me it was a 12 and Under soccer competition in Darwin for girls. It sounds as if you have plenty to keep you busy.
I will also talk briefly about the NT Young Achiever Awards. Marathindi Wunungmurra from Yirrkala was shortlisted as a finalist in the recent Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards for the category of Young Indigenous Educator. Marathindi has been employed as a family liaison officer with Yirrkala School’s Families as First Teachers since 2008. Marathindi runs playgroups independently with great dedication to her work. These playgroups are important for the Yirrkala community and Marathindi uses them to mentor parents with learning games, conversational reading, financial management, healthcare, nutrition and care for young infants. Marathindi is a great asset to the Families as First Teachers program and I congratulate her once again on her outstanding efforts and achievement.
I offer congratulations as well to Ishmael Marika from Yirrkala. Ishmael won the Arts Category in the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards for his work as a film director producing three significant features films and his work on numerous Yolngu cultural productions. I think at Garma last year he launched the short film he had made called Galka, which attracted considerable acclaim. The judges commented that Ishmael was an inspiring young director, filmmaker and digital artist. Ishmael has exhibited in the 2014 Primavera exhibition, the Garma Festival and the Darwin International Film Festival. At only 23 years old I am sure there are many more great achievements still to come for Ishamel. Congratulations to him. It was terrific that Ishmael managed to find the support to travel to Darwin to attend the awards as a finalist, and then was announced a winner.
It was disappointing for Marathindi Wunungmurra that she did not have the funds to travel to attend the awards. I know it would have been a big trip for her on her own. She would have needed somebody to accompany her. Sadly there were no funds for her. I was happy as local member to make a contribution towards her airfare.
Minister, it could be a consideration for future awards. I know they are already costly, but could we endeavour to try to find funds for these young people who have been nominated and, more importantly, made it through to the final section? It would be something quite special for our young people from these very remote parts of the Northern Territory to participate in the gala event for the awards. Perhaps that is something the organisers will take on board in future. We will see.
I also place on the public record this evening the wonderful event – a youth talent show called Gove’s Got Talent – that was staged in Nhulunbuy a couple of Saturdays ago as part of Youth Week celebrations. I offer congratulations to Anglicare for organising this very successful contest. It was held at Nhulunbuy Town Hall showcasing the many musical and dancing talents of our young people in the region. It was great to see a mixture of our Yolngu and Ngapaki kids participating.
Well done to our youth workers from Anglicare: Kiri Deegan, who had a big part to play in organising this event; Leicolhn McKellar; and Eddie Sennie. Karen Ella-Bird was there as well with the youth programs manager, Karen’s husband, Kevin Bird. They are fantastic support for the youth of Nhulunbuy and surrounding communities.
Judging was no easy task, I can tell you. I was one of four on a panel. With our scoring system we arrived at the delightful young Serina O’Connor as winner, with runners-up being the A+ Band from Nhulunbuy High School and the Sapphires – yes, an all-girl group from Yirrkala – in third place.
Accolades to other participants and performers: Mali Fraser; Whitney Yunupingu; Lincoln Teagle; and the all-boy Yambirrpa Band from Yirrkala School. They all shone like stars with their performances.
It is worth noting the delightful Siena Stubbs from Yirrkala, who featured in two of the bands that performed. There is certainly talent to watch in young Siena. She is going places; mark my words.
Special thanks go to Stewie Calloway, who does a great deal to nurture student talent amongst our kids with musical talents such as the Yambirrpa Band from Yirrkala. Well done to all of those involved.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I remember a significant and much loved member of the Katherine Community. Ruth Murphy, who was a Lansdowne before she married Brian Murphy, sadly passed away on 6 April this year.
This 79-year-old lady was active and feisty, letting nothing slow her down. Ruth will best be remembered for her pottery, for always being physically active, and as I have heard from many people, for being an absolutely amazing mother. She was a member of the community everyone looked up to, admired and most people aspired to be like.
Ruth was born in 1935 in Quirindi in the New South Wales Hunter Valley. On leaving school she headed north and trained as a nurse in Rockhampton in Queensland. Ruth’s parents had moved to Katherine in the Northern Territory in the early 1950s. During a visit with her parents, Ruth fell in love with the Territory and later moved there. She initially worked at Newry Station in the west of the Northern Territory where her brother, Keith Lansdowne, was the manager. Ruth met her husband, Brian Patrick Murphy, at Newry when he was working as head stockman and they were later married in Darwin. Ruth and Brian had four sons: Chris, Steven, Danny and Joe.
Earlier I mentioned Ruth’s amazing pottery. It is safe to say that almost every home in Katherine has, or at some point had, some of Ruth’s pottery. Her coffee mugs, wine goblets and soup bowls in particular were stunning to look at and terrific to use. I am very proud to say that I have a couple of Ruth Murphy’s pieces of pottery.
Most years Ruth, in conjunction with her son, Danny, would hold a pottery exhibition in an old shed on their block on the banks of the Katherine River, just past the hospital. So popular was her pottery that many Katherine residents would try to queue jump, sneaking in before the official opening times or trying to place early orders to ensure they did not miss out on her latest pottery pieces.
Ruth made everyone feel special and, thankfully, there was always enough pottery to fill every order. As I said, Ruth was an avid potter. This hobby started about 45 years ago, and right up until about two weeks before she died Ruth was still involved in every process of the pottery stage, from the beginning to the glazed pieces taken from the kiln at the end.
Ruth was also well known for being physically active. Tennis was another of her passions. She played doubles for many years on Monday nights in Katherine.
In his eulogy at his mother’s service, Danny said that his mother was the ‘consummate Pollyanna’. She was tough, simple, basic, caring, feisty, energetic, generous, loving, a doer and a free thinker. Hers was a free spirit, strong and solid.
Sadly, she and her husband Brian were not together at the time of her death. Brian passed away about a week before Ruth, on 29 March this year. Together they leave behind four sons. I send my condolences to Chris, Steven, Danny and Joe.
The Katherine community will dearly miss this beloved lady. Our lives will be a lot less rich because of the passing of Ruth Murphy. May she rest in peace. I know her memory will be forever enshrined in the many pottery pieces around the homes of Katherine. Whenever I look at Ruth Murphy’s pieces I will remember a very caring, kind and generous person, one I had the pleasure of knowing quite well over the last six or seven years since I have been the member for Katherine.
To her family once again, deepest condolences on the passing of a great lady of Katherine.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will reflect on the comments of the member for Nhulunbuy because I am going to be talking tonight about National Youth Week. It was great to see some young people from Nhulunbuy represented in the Young Achiever Awards, which I will talk about shortly.
National Youth Week turned 15 years old this year and attracts a growing number of young Australians in alcohol-and-drug-free recreation and leadership activities every year. In the Territory there is a very passionate team in government which works hard to coordinate activities across the Territory in collaboration with young people, including the Northern Territory Young Members, who meet with their interstate counterparts regularly to feed into the important national planning of this week. This year it ran from 10 to 19 April.
Our Young Members in the Northern Territory are two inspiring young women I have had the pleasure of getting to know over a period of time. One of those young women is Chantal Ober, a young youth worker based in Katherine who has been part of the youth advisory group and is a strong voice for local young people. She now has taken her experiences to her job as a youth worker at the YMCA there.
The other is Sharnie Roberts, who is an Indigenous youth engagement officer at headspace in Palmerston during the day and has been working incredibly hard as the National Youth Week Young Member for the NT.
Both have been active in their roles, promoting National Youth Week events to young Territorians and the broader youth community in Australia. I congratulate them on their time spent in these roles and their commitment to their peers. The theme for this year’s National Youth Week was ‘It starts with us’. I was fortunate throughout the week leading up to National Youth Week to hear the reflections of many young Territorians on what this meant to them.
This included participating as a guest speaker of the youth empowerment cruise which was hosted by the YMCA of Katherine. I was one of the older people on the cruise. I am continually impressed by organisations who practise what they preach with young people the drivers of the activities they want to see and participate in. The cruise allowed us to have conversations about facing your fears, having strength and backing yourself, and the importance of recognising the value of young Territorians’ perspectives. It was an honour to share my experiences with them and to hear them share their experiences with each other, as opportunities and mentors as a young person in the Territory are what led me here today.
As has become tradition, National Youth Week in the Northern Territory opened with the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards on Saturday. I know the member for Wanguri would agree because she was there, that this is always an incredibly inspiring evening and a timely reminder of the spirit of the celebration, which is to celebrate and recognise the contributions that young Territorians make, in a whole manner of industries and areas of the Territory, to the communities and to their families.
The incredible young people could each warrant their own adjournment speech; however, I will at this point say a hearty congratulations to all nominees, finalists and the winners, who are: Jessica Sullivan, who won the Excellence in Youth Leadership Award and is a former Youth Round Table member; Rhiannon Moore, the Career Kick Start Award; Cherisse Buzzacott, the Health and Wellbeing Award; Tenneil Ross, Community Services Award; Jackson Thomas, the Young Carers Award – that one brought tears to the eyes of pretty much everybody in the room; Clayton Namatjira, the Environment Award; Matt King, Small Business Achievement Award; Ishmael Marika, the Arts Award; Haydon Staines, the Young Indigenous Educator Award; Tom O’Neill-Thorne, the Sports Award; Tara Liddy, the Indigenous Achievement Award; and Pritika Desai, who won both the Regional and Rural Initiative Award and the overall Young Achiever of the Year Award.
Pritika runs an initiative called Shout Out, a program focusing on youth mental health. Her aim through that is to break down the stigma that still exists for many young people seeking help when it comes to mental health. She is an incredibly impressive young woman and it was very inspiring to see her win that night. She is also very active as a committee member on the Indian Cultural Society’s youth advisory group.
It was a pleasure that evening to hear reflections from Territorian, Miranda Tapsell, a Darwin High School alumni like me. I am sure those reflections will no doubt stay with the many young and the young at heart who attended on that night.
On the Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the couch surfing event – which took place outside Parliament House – as an ambassador for Youth Homelessness Matters Day. As fun and high energy as the event always is – I know the member for Blain was also there pushing a couch down the road in front of Parliament House – the day has a sobering message. The Territory’s youth makes up about 1% of the national youth population. However, it represents 15% of the national youth homelessness population. Homelessness in this sense includes couch surfing and those who live in overcrowded housing.
We need to continue to focus on connecting young people to the services that can assist them. I am pleased to say there were many of these services present on the day; it is a growing number every year. There were many teams, including local schools, a group of young men from Gunbalanya who took out the title last year and the Red Cross youth advisory group to name a few. It is nice to see so many come together to raise awareness of such an important issue. There was a fabulous youth cultural showcase organised by the Indian Cultural Society. It was an honour to be part of the judging panel for the talent quest. The people were so impressive that we picked them all; I do not know if that is cheating. They were all very talented and made up the entertainment on the evening. The Leader of the Opposition and I learnt some new dance moves that night thanks to Fantastic Bollywood Dance Group. Please do not ask us to show you as that would be a bit embarrassing.
It has been an incredibly busy month and there has been so much that I could speak of. There have obviously been New Year’s celebrations across our community. However, I will mention two events that had a huge impact on our community.
Earlier this month we saw the devastating massacre at Garissa University in Kenya which saw the loss of almost 150 lives, mostly young students. The East African Community Association of the NT organised a beautiful vigil in Malak for the lives lost and to gather the NT Kenyan community and broader community together in unity and strength. A number of local leaders, including from our multi-faith community, came together and gave the same message: we stand alongside the community and our thoughts are with them during this time.
We have also this week seen the impacts of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal and the massive loss of life through that devastating natural disaster. Our thoughts are with Nepal and the Nepalese community in the Northern Territory. I wish them swift news of their loved ones overseas because I know that news is still trickling through for many. I will not be alone in this House seeing people I know searching for news of people who are in Nepal at the moment. We have not heard anything yet. These events hit home. We have a beautiful multicultural community and many have family in countries across the world, so it is hard to hear news like this.
This Friday, the Nepalese Association is hosting the Unite for Nepal event from 5 pm at the Filipino community hall in Marrara. It will raise much-needed funds for the victims of the earthquake. I know members of this House are already doing all they can to promote the event and donate what they can. I encourage the community to come together.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I once again put on the record our condolences and support for the Nepalese community during this time; particularly our Nepalese community in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, on 24 March 2015. Unfortunately I still have not had a reply. On behalf of my constituents, I once again ask the Chief Minister for his attention.
The letter sought advice on the Giles government’s local youth program funding announced in a media release on 4 February 2015 from Chief Minister Hon Adam Giles and Minister for Young Territorians, Hon Peter Styles.
It was acknowledging and valuing early intervention into youth support and development, and the fact that the Giles government promised $4.2m over four years for local youth programs, comprising Alice Springs $1.225m, Tennant Creek $525 000, Katherine $525 000, Nhulunbuy $175 000, Darwin and Palmerston $1.4m and Red Dust Alice Springs $350 000.
I advise the Chief Minister that he stated in the media release that the Regional Coordination Committees will receive and allocate the funding maintaining a focus on early intervention and prevention initiatives.
Tennant Creek stakeholders and constituents are still asking what happened to this initiative and when an announcement will be made on successful program submissions. Tennant Creek stakeholders and constituents are also asking the status of the Giles government’s promised $475 000 from 2014 for new youth services in the Barkly, as program development and delivery is not easily identifiable.
As usual, I thanked the Chief Minister for his consideration of my correspondence on behalf of our constituents. I look forward to the reply so I can inform stakeholders and constituents.
Unfortunately there has been no response from the Chief Minister, but I am sure the ministerial office upstairs will be listening. It would be great to have a reply because we all agree youth services is a very important area. At the end of budget week, we have not heard the necessary announcements about youth services or the Giles government addressing this important area, the foundation stones of building our community with our youth and young people.
This is about existing money. It is money from the current financial year which has been promised and we have not seen it on the ground. I am sure you would welcome, as I would, a visit to Tennant Creek for some big announcements about how this money will flow into the community to support our youth.
I tie youth to tourism. I acknowledge a media release from you, Chief Minister Adam Giles, on 11 April 2015 titled ‘Territorian tourism operators win big at national awards’. I quote from the media release:
- Northern Territory tourism operators have taken the prestigious Qantas Australian Tourism Awards by storm, winning two gold and two silver medals in Adelaide last night.
I acknowledge that Voyages Ayres Rock Resort struck gold in the Best Indigenous Tourism Experience category. I congratulate Voyages on that win. I respectfully advise them that I plan a trip through Central Australia this year as part of the entitlement for local members to travel. It will be a road trip, as that seems to be the best I get. But that is okay because it delivers a lot of benefits.
I planned a trip to Voyages because I am interested in their training programs for Indigenous employees. However, in discussions and setting up this research trip, it has come to my attention that the award Voyages won was based on cultural exhibitions, and apparently the Indigenous people who are performing many of the cultural exhibitions come from New South Wales.
The link between youth programs and the opportunities for training to employment would directly relate to the Mutitjulu community. It is very difficult to understand that there is not much energy going into the Mutitjulu community from government in partnership with royalty programs to build what could be a youth performance program.
Chief Minister, if you are interested, I have a lot of experience in youth performance programs and was honoured to be part of our Tennant Creek and Barkly youth performance program over about eight years. We delivered some outstanding results and most of the expos work was done at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek.
There is obviously some strong synergy that could be done in Mutitjulu, which could relate to training to employment which could enhance what Voyagers is obviously interested in doing, with the support of youth and a focus on the arts.
There is another interesting link in regard to budget week this week. I thank the Minister for Arts and Museums who was not dismissive of my suggestions about more creative appropriations of considerable budget resources within the Arts and Museums sector – $18.3m to basically renovate an old existing building in Darwin, with major constraints around development, especially when I compared it to what Labor did with the Defence of Darwin experience for a new modern high-tech building for around $15m.
Let us jump to the next opportunity, where the Chief Minister has announced, through Budget 2015-16, $20m appropriated for an Indigenous cultural institution. That $20m is appropriated for an idea at this stage.
As a previous Minister for Arts and Museums I facilitated a conversation with the executive of Arts and Museums and then took it on the road. I discussed it with a number of Territorians, high-level stakeholders in the sector and with Territorians at a grassroots level in the arts community. It was about the Territory focusing on two cultural institutions. One would be the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, a new build, and another was an Indigenous art gallery of the Northern Territory representing a national focus.
When I started to research those ideas it was apparent that having a national focus and being recognised nationally for the Indigenous cultural and artistic component, you would be looking at in the vicinity of $100m to $200m. I then did some research in the National Gallery of Australia to look at the logistics. So $20m for an idea is very interesting. However, with areas such as the youth, arts and communities sectors – which are seriously under pressure with major cuts and changes in ideology at a federal level and the Northern Territory announcement that it will cut funding to 2010 levels – $20m seems to be a lot of cash to park up Chief Minister. Other than the dot point on a media release and a line item in a budget paper, I have not heard where the land is, or about the infrastructure or the design and construct.
I am interested in the consultation with Territorians. If we are embarking on this journey I can imagine the in-depth and intensive work that will need be done to consult with Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory. That will be an enormous effort not only logistically, but around sensitive cultural negotiations. It needs to be done properly. With $20m parked up, I will throw a political cynicism out that this relates to a number of other big ticket items in Budget 2015-16. Cynically it could be simply to make big numbers on a page in black and white print.
However, if there is serious cash available, I draw your attention to making it work with Territory young people and Arts and Museums, preparing the grassroots, the foundation stones of our society and our Northern Territory community. Let us get the young people in a movement forward to be the grassroots development of any nationally recognised Indigenous cultural institution in the Northern Territory. Once again, it is an idea, Chief Minister, a clear alternative presented by a member of the opposition. On a micro level I am looking forward to you replying to my letter.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to clear up a bit of scuttlebutt and rumour, or put to bed a couple of rumours. I have caught the attention of the member for Barkly, who was just packing up his desk, but he wants to stay and hear this and I am happy for him to do so.
The scuttlebutt and the rumour surrounds me and the issues relating to a personal expense incurred by me that, due to particular circumstances, was settled by the CEO of Tourism NT. The amount in question is some $5119.54. That amount has since been repaid by me from my salary.
The scuttlebutt surrounding it relates to some rumour and innuendo that I was, believe it or not, arrested while on an overseas trip and released on bail. The suggestion was that I was bailed out at taxpayers’ expense. I know a number of scandalous stories and juicy tales emerge from this parliament at times but I cannot think of a more salacious one than an MP being bailed from a foreign gaol at taxpayers’ expense. It would make a great story. It is a story though that is too good to be true.
There were three allegations. There may be more but I have heard three. First it was alleged that I had a serious run-in with the Triads while I was in China and was bailed or some taxpayers’ money was used to free me from the grips of the Triads. I would think if I had a run-in with the Triads and am still here to tell the tale, I should probably be congratulated.
The other was an alleged altercation in Japan where I was subsequently thrown into prison and bailed out on taxpayers’ money.
The third one though is probably the best. It was alleged an incident took place while I was in Singapore. I had an altercation with the Singaporean police, was subsequently locked up and bailed out by none other than Hon Shane Stone QC.
I can confidently and categorically refute and dismiss these allegations. At no stage in my life have I ever been held in any form of foreign gaol or ever had any encounter with foreign police. To suggest otherwise is completely untrue and without a skerrick of substantiation.
The matter of the $5119.54 that I requested the CEO of Tourism to settle on my behalf was, to put simply, a bar tab gone wrong in Tokyo. Anyone who has been to Japan will know it is not difficult to rack up large hospitality bills. Nevertheless it became clear on receiving the account at the end of the evening that my generosity had been severely taken advantage of. As a result I found myself in a situation where my own credit card could not cover the expense. Consequently the only option to me at the time was to phone my CEO, who was not with me at the time, and ask if he could please settle the account for me and I would make arrangements to resettle it from my salary.
I seek leave to table these documents that have been requested under FOI. There were two FOI requests, one from the Leader of the Opposition’s office and one from the NT News. I have these documents with me. I seek leave to table these documents.
Leave granted.
Mr CONLAN: The documents relate to the credit card transactions from the CEO of Tourism. You will see there are three transactions. They had to be paid in three lots because the establishment, for some reason, would not take one large sum.
The other is a copy of a handwritten letter from me, in November 2013, to the CEO of Tourism, outlining what had taken place and that I would be making arrangements to repay that money. This is a formal letter outlining the repayments and how they would take place.
There is another document between Tourism NT and, I assume, the Department of Business or someone in Finance somewhere, to say that it has been fully repaid. I say ‘fully repaid’ because 4c was still remaining but they dismissed the 4c. I am happy to repay the 4c if required but I was informed that it is not.
They are the documents that have been obtained under FOI. They are available and will be formally presented to the Australian Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition and the NT News. Now it is on the public record so everyone can see it.
In hindsight I can say it was clearly a mistake to trust relative strangers in a foreign land. It is not appropriate for taxpayers to cover off on MP’s personal hospitality expenses. If asked if it is appropriate, the answer of course is no, regardless of whether it has been repaid or not. The situation was, to me, regretful.
While there was no lasting damage, I do not think there was any inconvenience to the Northern Territory public. It could have possibly been a lot worse. For this reason I apologise to the Northern Territory government, the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory for a situation that could have been a lot worse.
At no stage have I ever claimed, reclaimed or sought reimbursement for that $5000.
At first I was not keen for the FOI documents to be forthcoming; I thought it might be a breach of privacy. But at the end of the day it was a simple mistake, a rookie error by a new, inexperienced minister. I allowed my judgment to be clouded. I thought the best course of action was to simply fess up.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, hopefully this will be a lesson for current and future ministers of the Northern Territory parliament. While the episode is somewhat embarrassing, it was a simple mistake that deserves an explanation. The best place for the explanation is the gravitas of this parliament.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016